London Bridge Incident

[peterms]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I would hope our politicians aren't as stupid as Trump because a travel ban would be utterly pointless.

To date every attack has been carried out by British citizens, I suspect last night will be no different.

So a travel ban is utterly pointless.

The travel ban as proposed by Trump was no more than a racist dog-whistle.  We can and do already impose travel bans on people thought to be a danger.

One of the issues in the Manchester incident is how and why the bomber was allowed to travel to Libya.  There is a troubling account here about how the security forces allowed people from the Manchester Libyan community to travel to Libya, knowing that they were going there to fight, to link up with terrorist groups, and obviously as part of that to receive training and instruction in terrorist methods.

Quote

One British citizen with a Libyan background who was placed on a control order – effectively house arrest – because of fears that he would join militant groups in Iraq said he was "shocked" that he was able to travel to Libya in 2011 shortly after his control order was lifted.

"I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.

He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels.

"They didn't have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across," said the source.

But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.

"These were old school LIFG guys, they [the British authorities] knew what they were doing," he said, referring to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi Islamist militant group formed in 1990 by Libyan veterans of the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The British government listed the LIFG as a proscribed terrorist organisation in 2005, describing it as seeking to establish a "hard-line Islamic state" and "part of the wider Islamist extremist movement inspired by al-Qaeda". Former members of the LIFG deny that the group had any links with al-Qaeda and say it was committed only to removing Gaddafi from power.

Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under 'Schedule 7' counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. Schedule 7 allows police and immigration officials to detain and question any person passing through border controls at ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.

He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK's domestic security agency: "Are you willing to go into battle?"

"While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi," he told MEE.

Travel 'sorted' by MI5

As he was travelling back to Libya in May 2011 he was approached by two counter-terrorism police officers in the departure lounge who told him that if he was going to fight he would be committing a crime.

But after providing them with the name and phone number of the MI5 officer he had spoken to previously, and following a quick phone call to him, he was waved through.

As he waited to board the plane, he said the same MI5 officer called him to tell him that he had "sorted it out".

"The government didn't put any obstacles in the way of people going to Libya," he told MEE.

"The vast majority of UK guys were in their late twenties. There were some 18 and 19. The majority who went from here were from Manchester."

But he said he thought it was unlikely that Abedi, who would only have been 16 at the time, would have been recruited as a fighter.

"The guys I was fighting with would never put a 16-year-old boy anywhere near the frontline."

Younis said he did not think that the policy of allowing British-Libyans to fight againt Gaddafi had been a contributing factor in Monday's attack, pointing out that IS was not present in the country at the time - and said he had no regrets about his decision to fight.

"What inspired me to go to Libya was the liberty of civilians. There's no way that that can morph into killing children," he said.

Another British citizen with experience of fighting in both Libya and in Syria with rebel groups also told MEE that he had been able to travel to and from the UK without disruption.

"No questions were asked," he said.

We need to know whether the account given in the article is true.  We must also ask whether, if true, the actions of MI5 were concealed from the head of the department and politicians, or whether there was support for the general approach.  We should also ask what the Home Secretary of the day knew about this.

The point about groups and networks of people and how they operate is important, and runs counter to the notion of lone wolves self-radicalising via the internet.  An article in the New Statesman discusses this.

Quote

We are learning ever more about Salman Abedi, the terrorist who walked into the Manchester Arena and killed 22 other people, including ten in their teens or younger. From the moment Abedi detonated his device on 22 May, it was clear this was a more sophisticated and ambitious plot than most previous acts of terrorism on our shores. He was not acting alone.

Since 2013, along with several ­colleagues from King’s College London, I have mapped the flow of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq. It has become clear to us, having closely examined these clusters, looking at the networks of interpersonal relationships and offline socialisation, that the challenge facing this country is complex and diverse.

What the data shows is that real-world interactions play a highly significant role in the process of someone moving from merely supporting extremism to becoming a terrorist.

It is best to think of this in the following terms. A large pool of people consumes extremist content for all sorts of reasons – by accident, for professional purposes, out of curiosity or through experimentation. Significantly smaller numbers then subscribe to it ideologically and become active supporters. An even smaller proportion mobilises and either travels abroad for terrorist purposes or conducts attacks at home.

The testimony of Jake Bilardi, an Australian convert who joined Islamic State at the age of 17, brings this into sharp relief. A self-published account on his blog reveals that he wanted to join IS for several months but was thwarted because he “hit one key roadblock, how was I to get in? I had no contacts to assist me. After failed attempts at finding a contact I gave up all hope of making hegira [migrating: in this case to Syria].”

He then decided to launch a series of bomb attacks in Melbourne; these he never carried out, but he eventually found a way into Syria. Within months of doing so, he became a suicide bomber for IS, blowing himself up in Ramadi, Iraq, in March 2015.

Bilardi’s case underscores the importance of real-world networks, which often help the transition into terrorism. This is why we see concentrations of fighters emerging from specific locations. A small cluster of people from the Manchester areas of Chorlton, Moss Side and Fallowfield, the area where Abedi was raised, have joined IS. Pull at the threads of his connections and a worrying picture emerges.

Abedi knew and was linked to perhaps one of the worst young men from Britain to have joined IS, Raphael Hostey, who took the nom de guerre Abu Qaqa al-Britani (it is worth pointing out that two British fighters took this name and they are frequently confused by the media). Even by IS’s depraved standards, Hostey was particularly doctrinaire and sadistic.

Within weeks of arriving in Syria, towards the end of 2013, Hostey was shot in the foot while fighting in Deir az-Zour province. His recovery was slow, involving multiple operations in makeshift field hospitals run by IS surgeons.

Unable to fight, Hostey was confined to the back room. There he concentrated on propaganda, recruitment and inspiring attacks at home, something that suited his personality, as he fancied himself as an intellectual of sorts.

He was part of a network of fighters from Manchester, including Anil Raoufi and Mohammed Javeed. The group travelled to Turkey together after Javeed’s elder brother, Jamshed, gave them £1,400 to buy tickets. Jamshed Javeed was arrested for trying to join IS, too, after his family called the police.

Hostey’s group is connected to two more, one from Portsmouth and the other from Cardiff. The Portsmouth cluster was led by Ifthekar Jaman, who became the most prolific and significant IS recruiter in the country. Without him, the other prospective jihadis from Portsmouth, Cardiff and Manchester would probably have found it much harder to make the journey.

Jaman initiated a chain reaction of exponential recruitment – akin to a pyramid selling scheme – in which each one of his recruits would recruit another group of people. This is the pattern of mobilisation apparent across the country and it explains why groups of fighters are often concentrated in some communities and areas.

It is not only in Britain that this pattern occurs. More than 59 people affiliated with Sharia4Belgium, an international chapter of a group founded in Britain by Anjem Choudary, travelled to Syria, most of its members originating from the geographical axis of Antwerp, Mechelen, Vilvoorde and Brussels. The same is true in Sweden, where 11 fighters were identified as having resided in two small neighbouring suburbs of Gothenburg – Angered and Bergsjön.

When the Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, investigated Sharia4Holland, it concluded that such movements create “an environment in which people with similar ideas meet and develop radical ideas into jihadist ideologies. This group dynamic has led to a rapid radicalisation of many individuals as well as concrete attempts to join the jihad in Syria.”

Many of the fighters maintain contact with friends back home who, as a result, are far more likely to engage in terrorist activity of some kind. It is precisely from within this kind of milieu that Abedi and his deadly plot emerged.

Given that IS has decided to prioritise terror attacks, its Western members are now focusing their efforts on this, rather than winning new recruits to fight in Syria or Iraq. When an IS gunman opened fire on a beach in Tunisia in 2015, killing 38 people (including 30 Britons), one of the Cardiff fighters was quick to glorify the assault.

Nasser Muthana said the incident “cures the hearts of the believers and angers the hearts of the kaffir [disbelievers]”. He wanted to see more attacks of this sort and posted pictures of himself at an Isis bomb-making factory, showing more than 30 improvised devices. “So the UK is afraid I come back with the skills I’ve gained?” he asked when he uploaded the picture to Twitter.

This is the challenge facing Britain’s security services. One of the main aims pursued by politicians after the 11 September 2001 attacks was to close down terrorist safe havens. The idea was that terrorists should be denied ungoverned spaces where they could train and from which they could launch deadly attacks across the world as they had done in the United States.

Abedi’s attack shows just how far we are from achieving this goal. France’s interior minister, Gérard Collomb, has already claimed that Abedi had “proven links” to Syria but has not elaborated on the nature of the connection, or its form. The implication, of course, is that he was a returning foreign fighter, and yet this seems unlikely. What is more probable is that his Syrian connections are limited to having known members of these foreign-fighter clusters, but that his actual training took place elsewhere – in Libya, the country his parents left to come to Britain.

There is little solace in this. Although our attention and resources are understandably focused principally on Syria, the unravelling of the global order has touched more than the Levant. North Africa is once again a permissive environment for terrorists, with militant groups proliferating across Libya and parts of the Egyptian Sinai. Lawless environments in which terrorists operate have also deepened across the Horn of Africa and Yemen.

Britain cannot insulate itself completely against the febrile global climate or such convulsions. They pose a severe challenge to our security apparatus, one for which there can be no quick fixes.

The crisis of governance in the Middle East and beyond has provided a boon to violent non-state actors, extending the threat from international terrorism for at least a generation, maybe even longer

 

[Rugeley Villa]

35 minutes ago, DK82 said:

Had to do terrorism training at work recently. As a key holder I have been told to go 'different routes to work', just incase somebody watches our building at any point. Scary but the reality we live in.

The run, hide, tell thing was part of the training and video about people in an office block getting to safety. Actually a really interesting video.

One of our sites had a terrorism briefing the other week. My wife took our kids to Drayton manor the other day and there was loads of security there which is good but shit it's come to this.

[coda]

Longer interview with that Gerard bloke on Sky. Talk about bottle.

[Rugeley Villa]

5 plots foiled since the Westminster attacks. 

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, DK82 said:

I don't disagree with you, but I do think there are issues with a lack of Police.

It might not have stopped it, but from those I have spoken to, there is a lack of information coming in off the streets now. Police are reacting to things too late - when before they were proactive. So although the attacks might still have happened pre cuts, I think we need to look at the fact that there are not enough numbers of police to cope and information is bound to be lost because of this.

(Typing this fast as I am literaly heading out the door in 2 mins)

Agreed. There's two things here. Firstly, reducing police numbers cannot help. You'll never prove that one more officer on one more shift would have saved one life, it isn't that simple a sum. But it isn't just the reduced numbers, it's the reduced presence, the increased workload on the remaining staff.

But it's not just police either. If we do prosecute some low life petty crim with a head full of half baked shit, what do we do with them? We dump them in a largely unmonitored storage facility for four months. No proper segregation, no proper officers to protect from the worst influences, no education. Just a value engineered facility staffed by the minimum number of G4S contractors that allow a dividend to be paid to the investors.

We can't run all of society on a minimum cost lowest tax reduced spend happy shareholders basis. Not for the long haul. Shit towns with shit jobs and shit schools breeding thick idiots that then get whispered to about being a hero by killing little girls. 

Nothing, absolutely nothing mitigates or excuses retarded murderous scum. But at some point we have to decide if reducing police staffing costs and reducing prison costs and reducing education costs and reducing prospects all whilst talking about how important the nuclear bomb button is...well, wake up 'cos reality is happening all around you.

Well done on the swift actions of the brave police. Let's hope the political reaction goes a bit beyond 'enough is enough, brexit means brexit, I need to know who watches porn'.

 

 

[snowychap]

40 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Ah, how quickly this had been manipulated into just another justification for May's desired authoritarian regime. 

Yep.

Enough mentions of 'extremism' separately to terrorism to lend credence to the worries that she'll be looking to revive her anti-'non-violent extremism' agenda of a couple of years ago in the next parliament.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Agreed. There's two things here. Firstly, reducing police numbers cannot help. You'll never prove that one more officer on one more shift would have saved one life, it isn't that simple a sum. But it isn't just the reduced numbers, it's the reduced presence, the increased workload on the remaining staff.

But it's not just police either. If we do prosecute some low life petty crim with a head full of half baked shit, what do we do with them? We dump them in a largely unmonitored storage facility for four months. No proper segregation, no proper officers to protect from the worst influences, no education. Just a value engineered facility staffed by the minimum number of G4S contractors that allow a dividend to be paid to the investors.

We can't run all of society on a minimum cost lowest tax reduced spend happy shareholders basis. Not for the long haul. Shit towns with shit jobs and shit schools breeding thick idiots that then get whispered to about being a hero by killing little girls. 

Nothing, absolutely nothing mitigates or excuses retarded murderous scum. But at some point we have to decide if reducing police staffing costs and reducing prison costs and reducing education costs and reducing prospects all whilst talking about how important the nuclear bomb button is...well, wake up 'cos reality is happening all around you.

Well done on the swift actions of the brave police. Let's hope the political reaction goes a bit beyond 'enough is enough, brexit means brexit, I need to know who watches porn'.

 

 

Ha.

Got that answer already.

[lapal_fan]

May has effectively justified attacks and hatred on Muslims ("extremists").. she hasn't said it, but the people that needed that have got what they wanted.  Sigh.

Think that's just put breathing space between her winning the election personally.

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

But at some point we have to decide if reducing police staffing costs and reducing prison costs and reducing education costs and reducing prospects all whilst talking about how important the nuclear bomb button is...well, wake up 'cos reality is happening all around you.

Well done on the swift actions of the brave police. Let's hope the political reaction goes a bit beyond 'enough is enough, brexit means brexit, I need to know who watches porn'.

 

 

That's what pisses me off so much about some of the dickheads I know with right-wing ideas who are convinced they're right. All about making and keeping money. And then the biggest deal is if someone is willing to launch a bloody planet killer. The thing is, these people aren't bad people, they've just been slowly programmed over the last 20 years to whatever narrative the unchallenged press want to feed them.

I put pretty much all of the blame for almost every current societal problem on Dacre, Desmond, Murdoch and Barclays. They prevent people being able to come together and decide the best course of action from an objective point of view. Not specifically to blame for the cause, but for the division of society preventing solutions being agreed.

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

May has effectively justified attacks and hatred on Muslims ("extremists").. she hasn't said it, but the people that needed that have got what they wanted.  Sigh.

Think that's just put breathing space between her winning the election personally.

How convenient for her to look strong and stable again.

(this is not in any way suggesting any involvement, which would be ridiculous)

[Chindie]

You'd like to think someone might mention to Theresa, or just anyone that was listening, that these things seem to have gotten worse on her watch. She was Home Secretary for 6 years. You'd think she'd perhaps reflect that whatever she's done either hasn't helped or outright hasn't worked, and perhaps a different approach is needed.

Instead you know she'd double down.

But first, you know nobody will make the point.

[Awol]

20 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

May has effectively justified attacks and hatred on Muslims ("extremists").. she hasn't said it, but the people that needed that have got what they wanted.  Sigh.

Think that's just put breathing space between her winning the election personally.

Eh? Can you explain what she said in that speech that effectively justified attacks on Muslims? 

[Xann]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Arm all police in London and attackers will switch focus to softer targets.

Not sure they've been all that bothered in London?

The locations they've selected to attack have visible armed police anyway, it's all about the drama.

A different shade of bad from the Berlin/Manc attacks.

We'll all get maced up in the capital and get on with it, like this couple calmly fleeing with their drinks.

[Brumerican]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

You'd like to think someone might mention to Theresa, or just anyone that was listening, that these things seem to have gotten worse on her watch. She was Home Secretary for 6 years. You'd think she'd perhaps reflect that whatever she's done either hasn't helped or outright hasn't worked, and perhaps a different approach is needed.

Instead you know she'd double down.

But first, you know nobody will make the point.

I was just about to post the same thing . 6 effing years and NOW it's a problem.

 

[Risso]

24 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

May has effectively justified attacks and hatred on Muslims ("extremists").. she hasn't said it, but the people that needed that have got what they wanted.  Sigh.

Think that's just put breathing space between her winning the election personally.

She's done nothing of the sort.  Christ, you get to read some nonsense on here at times, but that's right up there.

[bobzy]

Just now, Risso said:

She's done nothing of the sort.  Christ, you get to read some nonsense on here at times, but that's right up there.

I think her saying we have been too "tolerant of extremism" is dangerous, personally.

[Xela]

49 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

5 plots foiled since the Westminster attacks. 

Frightening.

Just glad we have such good security services. 

[Rugeley Villa]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I think her saying we have been too "tolerant of extremism" is dangerous, personally.

We are doing all we can at the moment I believe but I think we could do more if certain powers and funding are put in place. We are a pretty tolerant bunch I think but I'm not sure what she means by us being too tolerant regarding extremism.

[rjw63]

Forgot to say, when we came out of the Symphony Hall a couple of weeks ago after a gig, there were coppers armed with machine guns.

I liked it.

[Risso]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I think her saying we have been too "tolerant of extremism" is dangerous, personally.

Look at some of the polls that have been carried out, this one for example:

http://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf

Only small percentages support the likes of IS, but 5% of 2m people is 100,000. An example is the following question:

Q.32 Recently, four school girls from London travelled to Syria to join Islamic State. They are believed to have been recruited to become "jihadi brides". Can you understand why school girls like these would be attracted to become jihadi brides?
Base: All respondents 

Roughly a quarter of respondents said yes.

Q.35 Have you personally seen anything which has tried to encourage people to support violent extremism in the name of religion? 

Between 10% and 15% of people said yes.

And so on.