Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[baron]

They usually do count those under their running total. This is disputable and can reduce the average number of deaths by ~10% or so.

McHrozni

Fair enough then, because anybody who believes those figures aren't quite horrendous enough will not be swayed by any level of evidence.

 

[quadraginta]

The KKK killed about 26 people since 1945. That's a grand total, not per anything basis.

How did you arrive at that number?

Islamic terrorists have averaged about 5 deadly attacks per day for the past 17 years. An average attack was around 10 killed, or about 50 dead per day, every day, for almost two decades straight.

In the U.S.? When you are talking about the KKK you are talking about the U.S.

And then there's that niggling little detail that the KKK isn't the only Christian terrorist group in the U.S.

Some perspective, please. Ignore the fact you're comparing 70 years to just 17, add a zero to the KKK and subtract a zero from Islamists and they're still worse by more than an order of magnitude.

McHrozni

For some perspective, how about not trying to compare only one of the many Christian extremists groups in the U.S. to all of the Muslim extremist groups in the entire world?

That would be a good starting point. For perspective, that is.

 

[baron]

How did you arrive at that number?




In the U.S.? When you are talking about the KKK you are talking about the U.S.

And then there's that niggling little detail that the KKK isn't the only Christian terrorist group in the U.S.




For some perspective, how about not trying to compare only one of the many Christian extremists groups in the U.S. to all of the Muslim extremist groups in the entire world?

That would be a good starting point. For perspective, that is.

This thread is not about the US.

 

[McHrozni]

In the U.S.? When you are talking about the KKK you are talking about the U.S.

And then there's that niggling little detail that the KKK isn't the only Christian terrorist group in the U.S.

All of this is true and while you can move the numbers around at will and you won't come close to altering the numbers by an order of magnitude. You'd need to do three to say Islamism is comparably bad to KKK ... which is not an impressive bar to set to begin with.

For some perspective, how about not trying to compare only one of the many Christian extremists groups in the U.S. to all of the Muslim extremist groups in the entire world?

That would be a good starting point. For perspective, that is.

Sure, we can do that. But then we also need to compare how many Muslims there are in US (~1%) to Christians (~70%), giving you an extra order of magnitude to climb through. With tricks such as these you can accomplish one order of magnitude at best (and I'm not sure you can get anywhere near that). You need about three to be in line with non-Islamic terrorists.

McHrozni

 

[David RP]

It seems that the police response was exceptional. Taking out the murdering terrorists within 8 minutes of the attacks starting. Good show.

I now await vehement criticism of Met cops......

Now just imagine if Labour had been in term with Corbyn and Abbott at the helm. It's genuinely shocking to contemplate. No MI5, no security services, no armed police, no terrorist database, no Prevent strategy, no control orders, no TPIM restrictions. We would literally be at war and these incidents would be a weekly occurrence.

Less of this crap please

 

[applecorped]

Less protection?

 

[baron]

Less of this crap please

Don't look to me to justify your bad choices.

 

[lionking]

For what?

It's a prediction. I'm sure people will find fault.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Once again it appears that the culprits were already known to police and had been reported by the public including other Muslims. WTF is that about?

Personally I think that unless there is concrete evidence of someone about to commit a crime, the police haven't the resources to investigate. Tie that in with a fear of being accused of harassment of Muslims or being racist/bigoted/Draconian, and I think that's why nothing was done prior. I think that's all about to change though.

 

[The Don]

Personally I think that unless there is concrete evidence of someone about to commit a crime, the police haven't the resources to investigate.

To keep tabs on on 10,000 suspected terrorists 24/7 would require more than a quarter of a million police and/or security services personnel (plus tens of thousands of management and support personnel).

Even if money was to made available to pay for these resources (a few billion pounds a year), how would candidates of an acceptable standard be recruited and trained in time ? Do we even have enough people of the right calibre, willing to do that kind of job, in the country ?

Tie that in with a fear of being accused of harassment of Muslims or being racist/bigoted/Draconian, and I think that's why nothing was done prior. I think that's all about to change though.

I fear that it will too. Whatever will be done will be under-resourced and will likely be counter-productive as hundreds or thousands of people even suspected of having terrorist sympathies are snatched off the street.

 

[baron]

It's a prediction. I'm sure people will find fault.

They already have. People asking why 'they' didn't act sooner. Apparently a report was made and video taken of this freak waving an ISIS flag in a park. Sure, in an ideal world he'd get the full complement of 27 (36 from some sources) dedicated officers needed for 24/7 surveillance but this is real life. Not only is there not the resource to monitor all these wannabee terrorists, there cannot be the resource as the job is too large. What's more, if any pro-active or remotely intrusive methods are employed we have the Socialist -
sorry, Labour - party jumping up and down whining about persecution and civil liberties.

 

[Vixen]

The simple fact that you can say that is all the evidence anyone needs that you are woefully ignorant of both facts and history.

Simply Googling "Christian terrorism" should get you started on what is obviously a much needed education. It's as easy as that.

From the inception of the KKK to a shooting at a Planned Parenthood less than two years ago that left three dead and nine wounded the history of overt Christian terrorism is filled with examples. And that's just in the U.S., where it is arguably a far more immediate danger to innocent average citizens than Islamic terrorism has been in the last century and a half or so.

And then there's the foundation of state sponsored terrorism this country was built on. Massachusetts hung a man for the crime of being a Quaker. That was less than 500 years ago. It was events like that which persuaded extremely devout Christians of the time that a clear separation of church and state was a vital part of our Constitution. It wasn't just or even mostly atheists and deists who were responsible for that. It was devout believers trying to forestall the wholesale persecution of Christian religious groups by other Christians, because of the persecution they were experiencing,

You should try and educate yourself before you make too many blanket statements like that one.

The KKK was more to do with white supremacy and freemasonry than Christianity. They used a burning cross because someone thought it made a fantastic symbol.

Well done in managing to find the example of one Quaker and half a dozen abortion clinic vandals.

Neither one of these is a recruiting body for 'Christian terrorism', so thank you for illustrating that Christianity is a poor analogy to the so-called ISIS jihadists.

One really is grasping at straws to make such an atrocious comparison.

 

[Vixen]

Which is why I added the part: "orders of magnitude more energetically than they already do". The current effort is welcome, but insufficient. It will be sufficient when those attacks will not be instantly connected to Muslims and Islam as they are now, with good reason.



In 2015 there were 452 recorded terrorist suicide attacks. 450 were Islamic terrorists. The other two were Kurdish nationalists and left-wing extremists in Turkey - both of Muslim faith, but not Islamists.

If we take your word literately you'd be wrong for the year when we have a study done. If you say Islamist instead of Muslim you're correct in that Islamists were to blame for "only" 99.5% of suicide attacks in 2015. That's hardly a good thing to say about them.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of...n-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/



he sense of hopelessness and being powerless is unconvincing given the fact a large number of Islamic terrorists come from well to do families. It can explain a portion of Palestinian terrorism, especially with their government paying bounties to families of successful terrorists, but that's an exception and not the norm.

It is historically true several other cultures also produced suicide attackers. You could add the Japanese Kamikaze in the mix as well. Those were orders of magnitude worse, almost four thousand Japanese gave their lives in less than a year in that way, out of a population of only 50 million - and that's not counting other suicide weapons fielded by the Empire of Japan, which had the potential to be even worse, had the Allies invaded the Japanese home islands. Needless to say here, of course, is how that was resolved in the end - from Atomic bombs to evisceration of traditional Japanese warrior culture.

Overall it is true that Islamism is not the only historic ideology to produce suicide attackers. What of it? It's by far the most prolific and the most productive right now and the only one which, according to many, deserves to survive. Why is that? We agree today Japanese warrior culture didn't deserve to survive, why should that right be extended to any other problematic culture?

McHrozni

So true. There is a notorious American who calls himself, 'Yahya' from Texas, from a military upper-middle class home, whose conservative Cypriot-descent parents have little idea how deeply involved their rebellious son is in the ISIS order, working as an English language translator, churning out recruitment material for the cause. He is typical.

The brains behind the so-called IS are highly educated (=well off) fluent Arabic speakers with an inside-out knowledge of the Qu'ran and its many scholars down the ages.

The thugs, semi-criminals and "foot soldiers" of the twilight world are just their cannon fodder, in the same way the hordes of young men who died during the Great War were the foot soldiers of the Generals who sat in the War Cabinet moving about toy models.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> for rule 11.

So, yeah, look to the inner circle: the wahhabists, Baghdadi, etc.,etc.

Compare Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto on counter-terrorism to Thereas May's. He specifically aims to review the connection to Saudi Arabian extremism, whence it originates.

 

[Vixen]

Now just imagine if Labour had been in term with Corbyn and Abbott at the helm. It's genuinely shocking to contemplate. No MI5, no security services, no armed police, no terrorist database, no Prevent strategy, no control orders, no TPIM restrictions. We would literally be at war and these incidents would be a weekly occurrence.

Stop talking nonsense. Police Chief, Cressida Dick, herself today said they needed more resources.

Penny-pinching May had slashed the police force by 20K since 2010.

In fact, protesting police officers who knew this was a mistake - remember, May was Home Secretary for six years so had inside knowledge of security issues - they appropriated May's own (weak) soundbite, 'Enough is enough' before May, as featured on many of the UK's front pages today.

 

[baron]

Stop talking nonsense. Police Chief Cressida Dick herself today said they needed more resources.

What has that to do with what you quoted? Did you even read what I wrote and if so, did you understand it?

Penny pinching May had slashed the police force by 20K since 2010.

Yes, what point are you trying to make?

In fact protesting police officers who knew this was a mistake - remember, May was Home Secretary for six years so had inside knowledge of security issues - they appropriated May's own (weak) soundbite, 'Enoguh is enough', as featured on many of the UK's front pages today.

Don't waste my time quoting my posts if you're going to talk about something unrelated.

 

[Vixen]

What has that to do with what you quoted? Did you even read what I wrote and if so, did you understand it?



Yes, what point are you trying to make?



Don't waste my time quoting my posts if you're going to talk about something unrelated.

I am taking it as given that it was counteracting your nonsense attacking 'Corbyn and Abbott', which appears in the quote box above my reply, so there was no need for me to repeat your false claim. If anyone has been negligent on the security, intelligence and police issue, it is May, not Corbyn.

We have had penny-pinching measures which are mean and inappropriate (pension snatching, police slashing when she must have known security level threats were at dangerous levels [look at Europe] and her election manifesto aiming to abolish winter fuel allowances for many frugally-living pensioners who rely on them) and it is laughable for you to claim 'Corbyn & Abbott' would mean zero security, intelligence and policing, when Labour's written manifesto is to INCREASE police by 10,000.

May is silent.

 

[The Don]

I am taking it as given that it was counteracting your nonsense attacking 'Corbyn and Abbott', which appears in the quote box above my reply, so there was no need for me to repeat your false claim. If anyone has been negligent on the security, intelligence and police issue, it is May, not Corbyn.

We have had penny-pinching measures which are mean and inappropriate (pension snatching, police slashing when she must have known security level threats were at dangerous levels [look at Europe] and her election manifesto aiming to abolish winter fuel allowances for many frugally-living pensioners who rely on them) and it is laughable for you to claim 'Corbyn & Abbott' would mean zero security, intelligence and policing, when Labour's written manifesto is to INCREASE police by 10,000.

May is silent.

Then again Corbyn is looking to increase police numbers in order to provide more of the good old-fashioned unarmed "bobbies on the beat" to make the Great British Public^TM feel more comfortable. They are of course entirely the wrong sort of police to tackle the current terrorist thread where those most in need are intelligence officers to identify and foil threats and armed response officers in case the terrorists are able to attack.

 

[William Parcher]

It seems that the police response was exceptional. Taking out the murdering terrorists within 8 minutes of the attacks starting. Good show.

I now await vehement criticism of Met cops......

More of a suggestion than a criticism.

It's reported that one of the first cops on the scene only had a baton. He did go after the three but was stabbed multiple times and is in serious condition in the hospital. If that cop had a gun it may have all ended with him and no subsequent stabbing spree by the attackers. My suggestion is to arm all the cops with guns.

It's also reported that an off-duty cop happened to be there and he went after the attackers with bare hands. He was stabbed and is also serious in the hospital. It's not mandatory but it is fairly common for off-duty American cops to carry a concealed gun. This allows them to enforce the law at any time and also gives opportunity for self defense. Maybe these recent events in Britains will encourage cops to be armed when off-duty.

Please don't interpret my comments as being a slam against the British police or any officer. They seem to have done an excellent job with this incident.

 

[Darat]

Then again Corbyn is looking to increase police numbers in order to provide more of the good old-fashioned unarmed "bobbies on the beat" to make the Great British Public^TM feel more comfortable. They are of course entirely the wrong sort of police to tackle the current terrorist thread where those most in need are intelligence officers to identify and foil threats and armed response officers in case the terrorists are able to attack.

Actually are they in this instance? On the beat doesn't seem to have much effect on a wide range of crime and disorder stats but I wonder if "counter-terrorism" may be an exception to this? Having police that regularly call into local shops and businesses, walk around local high streets and so on may enable the police to pick up more and better informed intelligence and be able to better asses what is important/significant/a change than the more hands-off approach of intelligence gathering?

 

[Darat]

More of a suggestion than a criticism.

It's reported that one of the first cops on the scene only had a baton. He did go after the three but was stabbed multiple times and is in serious condition in the hospital. If that cop had a gun it may have all ended with him and no subsequent stabbing spree by the attackers. My suggestion is to arm all the cops with guns.
It's also reported that an off-duty cop happened to be there and he went after the attackers with bare hands. He was stabbed and is also serious in the hospital. It's not mandatory but it is fairly common for off-duty American cops to carry a concealed gun. This allows them to enforce the law at any time and also gives opportunity for self defense. Maybe these recent events in Britains will encourage cops to be armed when off-duty.
Please don't interpret my comments as being a slam against the British police or any officer. They seem to have done an excellent job with this incident.

The first highlight is a constant discussion in the UK, it wanes in and out of public discussion often after such an attack.

The second one is a no-way, if off-duty police officers can carry guns than so should I, and I really don't see the UK adopting such a fundamental change.

Remember if citizens were allowed to carry firearms such as pistols then the attackers would have been armed with those firearms.