London Bridge incident (03/06)

[DarloRich]

We need a robust response (note, not a knee-jerk response) to these events in terms of better funding for intelligence, police etc.

Agreed - but what does that look like. I don't think anyone knows.

 

[Bromley boy]

Agreed - but what does that look like. I don't think anyone knows.

I agree and I'm very thankful it isn't my job to come up with a solution!

I'd imagine any approach needs to be intelligence led and multifaceted, "carrot and stick". We certainly need to engage with the communities concerned but we also need to be a bit better at enforcing our liberal values and rooting-out those who reject them.

 

[Barn]

On the tv this a.m they had the dad of the girl Olivia Campbell who was tragically killed in Manchester.
At the end of the interview they asked him what he would like to be done to stop another similar atrocity.
His answer was "we need to hold hands" and after a pause "we need to come together" and that was it.

I would suggest that answer wouldn't be the one the vast vast majority would say in similar circumstances.

Whilst I have immense respect for this gentleman and his wife, and admire the stance he has been able to take, we need to recognize that there is a whole spectrum of perfectly legitimate feelings that families may be facing right now. Whilst his view is the most telegenic and, dare I say, the most Christian, other families should not be made to feel that they should not be feeling very angry right now. That is their right.

 

[ScotGG]

A waste of time really. They look to push cyclists in the path of traffic probably causing more accidents and there's a million other places terrorists can attack. A gesture that will likely cause injuries.

 

[Llanigraham]

A waste of time really. They look to push cyclists in the path of traffic probably causing more accidents and there's a million other places terrorists can attack. A gesture that will likely cause injuries.

As the barriers appear to be on the PAVEMENT, how is that pushing cyclists anywhere?
And sorry, but tough, cyclists are in the minority; PEOPLE need some protection.

 

[al78]

As the barriers appear to be on the PAVEMENT, how is that pushing cyclists anywhere?
And sorry, but tough, cyclists are in the minority; PEOPLE need some protection.

Cyclists are people as well, so I would suggest that IF cyclists are put in danger then the proceedures are inappropriate, unless you can demostrate convincingly that the proceedures put in place overall protect more than endanger. People need protection but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to take things to extremes. Once we start going in that direction we are now living our lives in fear, congratulations, one nil to the terrorists.

If you are really bothered about the safety of people, consider that this latest attack killed seven people. British motorists kill more than that every couple of days. What extreme measures to protect us against careless and dangerous drivers are being put in place?

 

[DarloRich]

I agree and I'm very thankful it isn't my job to come up with a solution!

I'd imagine any approach needs to be intelligence led and multifaceted, "carrot and stick". We certainly need to engage with the communities concerned but we also need to be a bit better at enforcing our liberal values and rooting-out those who reject them.

There are clearly fractured links with the "Muslim community" (although the "Muslim community" reported the Manchester bomber several times) that need to be fixed but people in that part of the community have to also help root out the "wrong uns" in their midst.

EDIT - i don't like "Muslim community" as a term but cant think of anything better. My Muslim neighbours aren't part of a separate community they are my nieghbours and they are just as disgusted by this kind behaviour as I am.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Now I don't profess to know what the solution is, but I can't see everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya making any kind of difference.

I think maybe you missed the bit of my post in which I said:

That of course doesn't mean to say we shouldn't be doing whatever we reasonably can to try to stop awful events like those of Manchester and London happening again. Of course we should. And that requires rational decision-making on the basis of what is most likely to work (while being consistent with the moral and ethical values that I'm sure most of us hold). Remember too that it's perfectly possible to make rational, well thought out, decisions, with the fundamental motivation still being love for all humanity, rather than coming from fear of some groups of people.

Who are you referring to? Personally, the only thing I have specifically called for in the near term is some more bollards along high risk pavements!

There have been some posts that border on condemning Muslims in general. And to give an example of something that came after my post but seems to fit what I was describing:

I've got no problem with loving fellow human beings. The trouble is these are not human beings

Clearly the people responsible for the attacks, and those who did the brainwashing/propaganda/radicalising that presumably lead to the attacks have done the most appalling things, and we need to do whatever we can to track them down - I'm sure there's no disagreement amongst any of us here. But to describe human beings as 'not human beings'?!?!?!? Surely it's obvious that that is exactly the kind of thinking that ISIS itself is guilty of, and it should be obvious where that kind of thinking has lead historically on so many occasions.

Regarding your own comments about bollards: I think the problem is that there must be thousands of streets across the country (and many hundreds in London alone) that frequently see the same levels of pedestrians that London Bridge has on a Saturday night. I can see some argument for bollards along London Bridge itself - because London Bridge is arguably unusual: In rush hours, it sees extraordinary numbers of commuters walking along it, there are no buildings along it that might cause access issues, and there's plenty of room for bollards. But more generally, it's not clear that to me you wouldn't find that there are so many roads with high pedestrian flows that it's not practically possible to put bollards on enough of them - and all you achieve by putting bollards on some of them is to move terrorists to other roads where they can still kill and injure just as many people. If that's the case, then you've just wasted money that could have been better used elsewhere (for example, in better intelligence).

 

[MichaelAMW]

Cyclists are people as well, so I would suggest that IF cyclists are put in danger then the proceedures are inappropriate, unless you can demostrate convincingly that the proceedures put in place overall protect more than endanger. People need protection but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to take things to extremes. Once we start going in that direction we are now living our lives in fear, congratulations, one nil to the terrorists.

If you are really bothered about the safety of people, consider that this latest attack killed seven people. British motorists kill more than that every couple of days. What extreme measures to protect us against careless and dangerous drivers are being put in place?

I made a comment along those lines at work today and I thought they were about to lynch me! There appeared to be some complete logical disconnection between the mere observation of the numbers killed by these crimes, which are obviously terrible, and the 5ish a day deaths on the roads that we as a society seem to tolerate. In both cases, somebody is pootling along minding their own business, be that in a car, on a bike or walking, and 1 minute later they are dead. Stabbed by a terrorist or squashed by a car, your mum/wife/daughter is still bereaved.

Sorry, you've picked my top-of-the-charts subject for a rant!!

 

[najaB]

An interesting question that I just came across in an article I was reading. For those who make the claim that the killing of Christians is somehow an 'Islamic thing': Islam is 1400+ years old, how comes it's only in the last 30 years or so that we've been seeing groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda? It's not about religion, it's about politics and power. Religion is used as an excuse.

 

[AlterEgo]

An interesting question that I just came across in an article I was reading. For those who make the claim that the killing of Christians is somehow an 'Islamic thing': Islam is 1400+ years old, how comes it's only in the last 30 years or so that we've been seeing groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda? It's not about religion, it's about politics and power. Religion is used as an excuse.

It is about religion - a specific interpretation of it. There have always been power grabs and religiously inspired uprisings in the Islamic world.

Now, with shady money and tacit backing from some Middle Eastern oligarchs, (not to mention revolutions in global communications etc) forces like Al-Qaeda and ISIS have actually been *able* to launch expansionist campaigns.

The goal of ISIS is to establish their own state and expand it to encompass the entire world under their brand of Islam, and their wish for the decadent kuffars in the West - and apostates in the Islamic world - to convert or be murdered in the name of Allah.

Islam and Islamic allies are part of the solution to this brand of nihilistic and militant Islamism.

This is not about politics and power, else we'd be able to negotiate or use diplomacy with these people. This is about Islamism, and while that might be a tough pill to swallow, because of the arguments it might open up, it is nonetheless the truth.

 

[najaB]

This is not about politics and power, else we'd be able to negotiate or use diplomacy with these people.

That is an incredibly weak argument. We (the liberal West) could negotiate with ISIS, however the terms that they would want are not ones that we could accept. Hence there's no negotiation.

 

[Bromley boy]

An interesting question that I just came across in an article I was reading. For those who make the claim that the killing of Christians is somehow an 'Islamic thing': Islam is 1400+ years old, how comes it's only in the last 30 years or so that we've been seeing groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda? It's not about religion, it's about politics and power. Religion is used as an excuse.

It's about a number of things. Politics and power are part of it but there is no doubt that attacks (on both Christians and Muslims) are being carried out in the name of Islam, as understood by the perpetrators, so religion is clearly an important component.

The below article is lengthy but provides an interesting overview of the rise of Islamism.

http://www.newsweek.com/short-history-islamism-298235

Modern Islamism originally emerged in response to multiple crises in the vacuum created by the Ottoman Empire’s collapse and as an alternative to the dominant ideologies of either East or West. Often in the context of European colonialism, Islamist leaders argued that the outside world was out to exploit, control, or destroy Muslim lands. The only way to defend the faith was to fight back, politically, socially and physically.

Modern Islamism began with a tiny cell in 1928, when a 22-year-old schoolteacher mobilized six disgruntled workers from Egypt’s Suez Canal Company. It was originally a social and religious movement. But Hassan al Banna’s little group grew into the Muslim Brotherhood, the first popular Islamist movement in the Arab world. It eventually spawned more than 80 branches worldwide.

The brotherhood created the startup model that initially focused on fusing Islam with public services, such as schools, clinics, cooperatives, social clubs, welfare providers and religious support groups. The public services evolved into mini-states-within-states, taking on distinct political agendas for changing the rest of society too. Many other Islamist movements later duplicated the formula.

The first phase peaked in the 1970s, as secular ideologies failed to deliver. The turning point was the 1973 war, when Arabs fought for the first time in the name of Islam.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is an incredibly weak argument. We (the liberal West) could negotiate with ISIS, however the terms that they would want are not ones that we could accept. Hence there's no negotiation.

The terms being our conversion to their horrendous brand of Islam or die. It's definitely about religion I'm afraid.

ISIS' goal is entirely about religion and imposing their brand of religion on the entire world. I think it is naive to suggest they only want to have influence over their particular patch.

 

[Barn]

That is an incredibly weak argument. We (the liberal West) could negotiate with ISIS, however the terms that they would want are not ones that we could accept. Hence there's no negotiation.

What is the practical difference between an inability to negotiate and an ability to have a 'negotiation' that's so pointless as to not be in any way worthwhile?

 

[AlterEgo]

What is the practical difference between an inability to negotiate and an ability to have a 'negotiation' that's so pointless as to not be in any way worthwhile?

Quite - dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind.

 

[KN1]

In the 15th edition of Dabiq the ISIS periodical and news sheet they list 6 reasons why they hate the west, our foreign policy is the last one of the 6.

The article says while it considers foreign policy an issue, the main reason they are set on destroying the west is because they don't like the West much at all.

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/isis-wrote-six-reasons-listicle-11690188

They reckon they simply hate us for not being like them and not being Islamic so the foreign policy myth can be largely discounted as being only a minor reason.

 

[najaB]

Quite - dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind.

There is, however, a difference. A story comes to mind...

A rich old gentleman is out at a party and sees an attractive woman. He goes over to her and says "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars."

"Why, that's quite an offer. I suppose so."

"What about if it was one hundred dollars?"

The woman, outraged: "What kind of woman do you think I am?"

"We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

The point being, if it was truly, solely about religion then there would be no negotiation under any circumstances. However, ISIS have demonstrated that they are quite willing to negotiate freeing hostages in return for large ransom payments.

 

[Bromley boy]

In the 15th edition of Dabiq the ISIS periodical and news sheet they list 6 reasons why they hate the west, our foreign policy is the last one of the 6.



http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/isis-wrote-six-reasons-listicle-11690188

If they reckon they simply hate us for not being like them then the foreign policy myth can be largely discounted as being only a minor reason.

Quite right. I referred to the same document (referenced by a different source) earlier in this thread, post #105.

 

[KN1]

Quite right. I referred to the same document (referenced by a different source) earlier in this thread.

Oh sorry I must have missed it.

 

[najaB]

They reckon they simply hate us for not being like them and not being Islamic so the foreign policy myth can be largely discounted as being only a minor reason.

Well, foreign policy makes up numbers four, five and six on the list so it's hardly a minor factor.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's quite Buzzfeed - Top Six Reasons You Should Hate The West (#5 will AMAZE YOU!).

 

[Groningen]

My God; 6 stupid reasons they hate us. Well they have to gonna life with it.

 

[Barn]

However, ISIS have demonstrated that they are quite willing to negotiate freeing hostages in return for large ransom payments.

That's just so they can spend the ransom on continuing to fight. As that was the very reason why they abducted the hostage, ISIS consider that an outright victory rather than a negotiated settlement. You might be able to negotiate a skirmish but you can't negotiate the war.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In the 15th edition of Dabiq the ISIS periodical and news sheet they list 6 reasons why they hate the west, our foreign policy is the last one of the 6.



http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/isis-wrote-six-reasons-listicle-11690188

They reckon they simply hate us for not being like them and not being Islamic so the foreign policy myth can be largely discounted as being only a minor reason.

The point about foreign policy, at least for me, isn't that it is the reason why ISIS want to kill us. It is more that certain actions (like bombing innocent people) make it so so easy for ISIS to essentially say "look at what they are doing, they are killing our kids" as a propaganda / marketing / recruitment tool. Certainly isn't the reason for them existing, or for the attacks, but certainly it does not help us!

 

[takno]

So you're assuming the vast majority of people in the same situation would have said the same as him, I very much doubt it but can't prove it like you can't prove your theory.

I don't have a theory, I just try not to use an imaginary "most people" to support my arguments.

 

[najaB]

That's just so they can spend the ransom on continuing to fight.

One thing ISIS was not short of at that point was money. At their 2014-2015 peak they were bringing in up to and over $2 billion a year.

 

[Barn]

One thing ISIS was not short of at that point was money. At their 2014-2015 peak they were bringing in up to and over $2 billion a year.

OK so why do you think they sought ransoms for hostages then? Honestly, sometimes I think you just argue with people for the sake of it without even really believing in what you're saying.

 

[Mag_seven]

Turns out one of the attackers was known to the police and MI5. There is Channel 4 footage of him parading an ISIS flag about. Despite all this he was allowed to walk our streets - something seriously wrong somewhere.

 

[Howardh]

Turns out one of the attackers was known to the police and MI5. There is Channel 4 footage of him parading an ISIS flag about. Despite all this he was allowed to walk our streets - something seriously wrong somewhere.

That should be illegal if it's not already. Also inciting others? 10 years, minimum. Vote For Me.