London Bridge Incident

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

band terrorist organisation

..literally stand on stage 

The Killers?

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Can't say I'm keen on the idea of armed police performing their duties, towards the end of a 16 hour shift. 

Don't worry.  If any accidents happen, the medics can deal with it, at the end of their 16 hour shift.

[mykeyb]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Stop publicising these attacks - these people who commit these attacks are insane. Completely insane.  By showing the world the damage they caused and announcing their names, they have achieved what they wanted. Which encourages others to do the same.

How the feck does that work......for someone who is all for civil liberties the censoring of the press should be right up there with it.....

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

How the feck does that work......for someone who is all for civil liberties the censoring of the press should be right up there with it.....

No idea. As I said, if I were the ideas man, I'd be very rich.

I was asked to give my ideas, after questioning somebody who wouldn't mind mass surveillance, I gave them and was suitably skewered.

I think that proves the point that this is absurdly difficult. I can't help thinking surveillance and arrests of potentially innocent people are the easy option though.

[peterms]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

I agree, but apparently they are free to murder, maim and rape as long as they do it to foreigners somewhere else and we watch them when they come home. 

I cant decide if that's unintentionally racist or just chop slappingly dumb, but it is government policy.... because they tolerate extremism. 

There is some discussion here from a couple of years ago about our approach towards radical Islamist groups.  Too long to quote all of it...

Quote

Britain’s contribution to the rise of the terrorist threat goes well beyond the impacts its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had on some individuals. The more important story is that British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called ‘national interest’ abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain’s global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain’s imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world.

With some of these radical Islamic forces, Britain has been in a permanent, strategic alliance to secure fundamental, long-term foreign policy goals; with others, it has been a temporary marriage of convenience to achieve specific short-term outcomes. The US has been shown by some analysts to have nurtured Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida, but Britain’s part in fostering Islamist terrorism is invariably left out of these accounts, and the history has never been told. Yet this collusion has had more impact on the rise of the terrorist threat than either Britain’s liberal culture or the inspiration for jihadism provided by the occupation of Iraq...

...In promoting its strategy, Britain has routinely collaborated with the US, which has a history of similar collusion with radical Islam. Given declining British power, Anglo–American operations changed from being genuinely joint enterprises in the early postwar years to ones where Whitehall was the junior partner, often providing specialist covert forces in operations managed by Washington. At times, Britain has acted as the de facto covert arm of the US government, doing the dirty work which Washington could not, or did not want to do. This said, the British use of Muslim forces to achieve policy objectives goes back to the empire, thus predating the US. Equally, in the postwar world, Whitehall has sometimes acted independently of Washington, to pursue distinctly British interests, such as the plots to overthrow Nasser in the 1950s or the promotion of Londonistan in the 1990s.

My argument is not that radical Islam and violent jihadism are British or Western ‘creations’, since this would overstate Western influence in regions like the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where numerous domestic and international factors have shaped these forces over a long period. But British policy has contributed to the present threat of terrorism, although this dare not be mentioned in mainstream British culture. It is only the anti-Soviet jihad in 1980s Afghanistan that is well-known as contributing to the emergence of terrorist groups. Even here, much more attention has been paid to the covert US role than the British. As for the rest of history, there is virtually complete silence, similar to the darkness that prevails over other episodes in Britain’s recent foreign policy, where less than the noblest of intentions were in evidence. The British public has been deprived of key information to understand the roots of current terrorism and the role that government institutions, who pose as our protectors, have played in endangering us.

 

[mykeyb]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

No idea. As I said, if I were the ideas man, I'd be very rich.

I was asked to give my ideas, after questioning somebody who wouldn't mind mass surveillance, I gave them and was suitably skewered.

I think that proves the point that this is absurdly difficult. I can't help thinking surveillance and arrests of potentially innocent people are the easy option though.

So you would be in favour of state sponsored censorship?

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

So you would be in favour of state sponsored censorship?

no, as I said. An idea. Nothing more and not thought out past the idea. Considering the world wide publicity is what these terrorists want, not sure why its getting so much pushback.

although I wish they were barred from publishing the attackers name. People's names are barred from publishing in some criminal cases so I can't see how the legality would be any different. (I'm not talking about the reasoning, purely the legality of it)

Edited June 4, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Not "do you approve?", but "can you understand why?". I would 100% answer "yes" to that myself. It's because they are teenage girls. Their heads are full of romantic fantasies. They don't think they are going to Syria to be raped and used as domestic slaves, they think they are going to marry handsome warriors and fulfil God's work. Most kids have a bit more nous, even in a strict religious culture, but some will always be gullible airheads, in any culture. They need protection for their own good. 

I was thinking the exact same thing.

If all the questions are worded that way (I can't tell if it's intentional or not) then the stats coming out of it are in no way surprising. LIke you, I would 100% answer yes to that question. It doesn't for one second mean I agree with it or support it, just that I understand why THEY might. 

It sounds like the kind of survey that is deliberately manipulated to form the front page of the daily mail.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Stevo985

[mykeyb]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

no, as I said. An idea. Nothing more and not thought out past the idea.

although I wish they were barred from publishing the attackers name.

Which by definition is......

Your idea is censorship, you put it out there......if you didn't think it through then shame on you really, now we sea why you against mo itoring too.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

Which by definition is......

Your idea is censorship, you put it out there......if you didn't think it through then shame on you really, now we sea why you against mo itoring too.

I suppose that when someone's name is barred from the press in a criminal case then its state sponsored censorship too.

Really silly argument this.

"now we can see why you're against monitoring too"

why?

Edited June 4, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I was thinking the exact same thing.

If all the questions are worded that way (I can't tell if it's intentional or not) then the stats coming out of it are in no way surprising. LIke you, I would 100% answer yes to that question. It doesn't for one second mean I agree with it or support it, just that I understand why they MIGHT. 

It sounds like the kind of survey that is deliberately manipulated to form the front page of the daily mail.

Exact same thing happened after Charlie Hebdo. On this forum too.

"Do you understand the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack?" (publishing pictures of Mohammed)

something like 20% said yes and certain people were screaming "20% of Muslims support terrorism!!!"

Loaded polls tell us absolutely nothing.

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Exact same thing happened after Charlie Hebdo. On this forum too.

"Do you understand the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack?" (publishing pictures of Mohammed)

something like 20% said yes and certain people were screaming "20% of Muslims support terrorism!!!"

Loaded polls tell us absolutely nothing.

Yeah I remember that actually. I think it was even vaguer than that to be honest!

[TrentVilla]

 

Enoughs enough aye Theresa... have you forgotten you are PM and what you did previously. 

Take a look at your own actions, if you are saying enough is enough it only suggests you've not done enough previously, which is the first thing I think I've ever agreed with you on.

You absolute gibbon.

What are you going to do Theresa? Remove a few more thousand Police from the streets? Demand more access to people's internet history? What you going to do arrest people for hiring vans and buying knives.

Enough is enough is such a f^%k^*+ empty platitude designed to nothing more than try and ensure people think you are taking action so you can win next week. 

I bloody hate her.

[Chindie]

I really, really hope some Rottweiler of a journo goes for her record. I really do. She's days before to judge her on her record. Let's do that.

I don't think she'll like the outcome.

[TrentVilla]

Just now, Chindie said:

I really, really hope some Rottweiler of a journo goes for her record. I really do. She's days before to judge her on her record. Let's do that.

I don't think she'll like the outcome.

I honestly think with a few hours research there are a number of people that contribute to this thread who could seriously drag her over the coals in an interview. Not that she would bloody answer anything.

[Jareth]

12 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I really, really hope some Rottweiler of a journo goes for her record. I really do. She's days before to judge her on her record. Let's do that.

I don't think she'll like the outcome.

It will happen, but not today as it is too soon, not that May realised that. 

[colhint]

I'll try to defend Stefan here. And to be honest we have different opinions on politics, however I believe he is trying to think of a solution to the situation. He hasn't said this will definitely work, more, would this work.He has said he doesn't have all the answers. He seems have strong views about society and people, So I do not think for one moment he would try to infringe peoples rights at all. From reading his posts, he is not that man. 

In times like these, where we have had people killed in the name of religion , I find it down heartening when all you hear is you cant do that and you cant do this. 

I'm not agreeing with his earlier post but I respect him for trying to think of a solution.

[turvontour]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the incident in Vauxhall last night wasn't linked to terrorism - it was someone on a Saturday night stabbing someone else on a Saturday night somewhere in the UK. It's worth remembering that whilst terrorism can be scary and it's horrible to think that there are people out there plotting these things, you're still much more likely to be stabbed by a mugger or an angry drunk bloke on seven pints on a Saturday night just about anywhere in the UK than you are by an Islamic terrorist. 

There. That's comforting isn't it?

 

 

So there's been a lot more than 55 alcohol related stabbings by drunks on Saturday nights in the UK so far this year then? 

If true, in most cases id imagine that the people are known to eachother, and its some form of fight/altercation. Not helpless members of the public having their throats cut while out having a meal.

Sorry, im just annoyed by this constant reassurance by the media that theres more likely ways to die.

After Manchester, i read that you are more likely to be killed by lightening, and then this morning a spokesman for Scotland Yard said that youre more likely to die in a car crash. Im guessing that weve surpassed the lightening death average for the year after yesterday then?

Comparing accidents with what has happened is pointless. 

It just works to distract away from the issue.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, turvontour said:

So there's been a lot more than 55 alcohol related stabbings by drunks on Saturday nights in the UK so far this year then? 

If true, in most cases id imagine that the people are known to eachother, and its some form of fight/altercation. Not helpless members of the public having their throats cut while out having a meal.

Sorry, im just annoyed by this constant reassurance by the media that theres more likely ways to die.

After Manchester, i read that you are more likely to be killed by lightening, and then this morning a spokesman for Scotland Yard said that youre more likely to die in a car crash. Im guessing that weve surpassed the lightening death average for the year after yesterday then?

Comparing accidents with what has happened is pointless. 

It just works to distract away from the issue.

It's supposed to defuse the fear, which is the whole point of the act.

Terrorism is particularly pervasive in attacking the psyche, by pointing out the stats you attempt to undermine that by pointing out the millions of other unlikely things that could kill you at any moment during your day that you don't give a seconds thought to.

It's not about distracting from the issue. At all.

[Daweii]

@turvontour Using logic and statistics doesn't distract from the issue, it merely defuses the fear.

Terrorism hits us all so much harder that it's easy to forget just how unlikely it is to kill any of us. I could go out tonight with my friends and get killed, in fact that is infinitely more likely to happen than dying in a terrorist attack. Yet millions of people every Friday and Saturday night go out and have fun without a fear in the world, but mention terrorism and they will cancel their plans without hesitation.

Statistics help to reassure the frightened that this isn't something to fear. Yes it is something to be vigilant about just like you should be vigilant towards all other threats, but don't let the fear control you.