Terrorist Attack in London, UK (6/3/17)

[monir]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...after-incident

What's the chance these guys were linked with the other incident at Manchester?

This time 3 idiots with large knives started to stab people after running over few people with their car. Police shot and killed all three. For the victims, six killed thus far and 40+ injured.

[Honoakari]

The religion of peace strikes again. More sacrifices on the altar of multiculturalism...

So many incidents like this have happened in the recent period, it doesn't even surprise me anymore...

Western Europe needs to wake up. Abandon political correctness and get rid of this evil ideology before it's too late.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by monir

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...after-incident

What's the chance these guys were linked with the other incident at Manchester?

It has to be zero, or Theresa May just proved how incompetent her home secretary and all related staff members are, including herself.
Even if the cases are connected, it will be white washed until the tories are not part of the ruling government anymore, so maybe the truth will come out in 50+ years time...

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Honoakari

The religion of peace strikes again. More sacrifices on the altar of multiculturalism...

So many incidents like this have happened in the recent period, it doesn't even surprise me anymore...

Western Europe needs to wake up. Abandon political correctness and get rid of this evil ideology before it's too late.

Indulge me for a moment.

Assuming you're serious, and that you mean ALL of those people under this religion, how do you intend to eject all Muslims (citizen and non-citizen) from Western Europe and erect your ideological wall?

[Honoakari]

Not all of them are evil => not all of them should be excluded.

However, in my opinion, the following should have no place in the western world:

- people that celebrate or advocate terrorism;
- FGM practitioners;
- people who practice/endorse child marriage;
- people that want to turn sharia into state law;
- rapefugees and islamic rioters;
- basically anyone who is in support of the radical tenents of islam.

[MeoTwister5]

You do know that a lot of the perpetrators of the last decade are already native born who were radicalized/influenced in or around their countries of birth and not exactly unwanted elements being allowed in right?

Because a lot of those things are already patently illegal, and many perpetrators are silently radicalized who don't make themselves and their ideologies known until the last minute, and by then it's probably too late.

[Honoakari]

Here is a list of measures that can be taken by western countries to oppose radical islam:

- interview anyone who wants to immigrate in western countries and ask them if they are in favor of any radical tenents of islam. Answering yes = instant deportation.
- illegal immigrants should obviously be deported ASAP, regardless of whether they support radical ideas or not;
- people that belong to this religion should be placed on a list and monitored closely by police (especially if they endorse radical ideas). Whoever crosses the line should be dealt with ASAP;
- make sure the police do not lack the necessary personnel, funds or authority to enforce the rule of law;
- crack down on centers of radicalization, no-go zones and such (mobilize the army if necessary);
- Monitor prisons closely so that no radicalization takes place (radicals should be isolated, not allowed to preach their ideas);
- stop being politically correct about this issue. Remove hate speech legislation and teach people the truth about islam in schools and media: it's a religion founded by a pedophile warlord who advocates for the death and destruction of non-believers.

[MeoTwister5]

...What?

1. This is already a given and many countries do it already. It still doesn't stop HOMEGROWN terrorism which is the PRIMARY source.
2. I am almost sure this violates a couple of international binding conventions on human rights.
3. A good chunk of this not completely sustainable in terms of resources.
4. Fine.
5. This is already being done, and the parenthesis is pretty much akin to Martial Law, so no.
6. Also realistically unfeasible.
7. This is so unabashedly bigoted that it's something I only expect from reddit trolls and the Westbro Baptist Church.

[monir]

Honoakari and Meo, both of you provided feedback to each others understanding. Allowing you to continue any further, I'm afraid, will lead to deteriorating pleasantries which I can't allow. So I respectfully suggest both of you to take your viewpoint in other format such as PM/VM.

If you have anything further to add to event in London please feel free to post in the thread.

Btw, the death count is now 7.

[GDB]

And May is trying to use it as an excuse to seize control of the internet and get rid of porn. Because somehow that's related.

[James Rye]

Wasn't it under May's order as Inner Minister that 20k police officers were fired? I read that a lot of the police force that had to go and secure the area had to be called from holiday, had to enlarge their working hours from 12 to 16 and had to be taken from other stations around London because they didn't had enough officers inside London.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by monir

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...after-incident

What's the chance these guys were linked with the other incident at Manchester

I would make different questions. Why is this called a terrorist attack? When hijacking planes is involved I can understand, or where you bomb a federal office building or at the very least when they kill a prominent political figure. But if the only thing this incident wants to get is news headlines all over the world, why are they giving it to them? it is not like the investigation is going to progress faster if is on every news service in the plantet. If British news services do not report about it is very hard for the rest of the world to notice.

I mean, in my city we get in a bad week that number of murders (in different incidents), but it hardly makes it into the local news.

The only answer I can find is that so called terrorism card was so successful for Dubya (look WMD in Iraq!!!) to push his agenda that every politician in the world noticed and some are trying to copy it (in this case, with negative results for Theresa May).

[Wigwams]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I would make different questions. Why is this called a terrorist attack? When hijacking planes is involved I can understand, or where you bomb a federal office building or at the very least when they kill a prominent political figure. But if the only thing this incident wants to get is news headlines all over the world, why are they giving it to them? it is not like the investigation is going to progress faster if is on every news service in the plantet. If British news services do not report about it is very hard for the rest of the world to notice.

I mean, in my city we get in a bad week that number of murders (in different incidents), but it hardly makes it into the local news.

The only answer I can find is that so called terrorism card was so successful for Dubya (look WMD in Iraq!!!) to push his agenda that every politician in the world noticed and some are trying to copy it (in this case, with negative results for Theresa May).

because this is london, london is 1 of the most prominent western capitals in the world. anything like this that happens in london will make it to front page.

even if mainstream media does not cover it, social media will and it will be unprofessional. so its best for it to be reported by professional news outlets.

[monir]

Originally Posted by GDB

And May is trying to use it as an excuse to seize control of the internet and get rid of porn. Because somehow that's related.

This speech may help her win the election. Undelete your post, Bleue. Control of the internet wasn't her only alarming proposition. She is also signaling about changes within the country to curtail extremist behavior. Muslims in Britain may have to brace for some limitation to their religious freedom they are currently enjoying. I am not sure what they are at the moment, but they are on their way. And if May goes on to win it, those changes will be introduced fairly quickly.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monir

This speech may help her win the election.

I don't know, Corbyn is really hammering her on how she basically fired 20k policemen and essentially allowed this to happen.

[James Rye]

Strong and stable, GBD, strong and stable. People vote for phrases, not for facts. Got nobody time for some facts.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I would make different questions. Why is this called a terrorist attack?

Because it targeted innocent civilians who have nothing to do with public policies toward immigrants, Islam, or ISIS. Terrorism by definition targets civilians to undermine their support for the government and its policies. Sometimes the targeting is more precise, like McVey's bombing of a Federal building, the Algerian attacks on French cafes during their fight for independence, or the massive recent bomb in Kabul that was positioned outside Western embassies. Sometimes, as in Orlando, terrorists kill people just because they are gay.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Wigwams

even if mainstream media does not cover it, social media will and it will be unprofessional. so its best for it to be reported by professional news outlets.

Even if social media is free as in beer, do not forget they are owned by private companies that are more than glad to comply in removing photos, videos or audio from their servers if the "national security" card is played.

Don't be fooled to think that because we live in the 21st century that truth can't be hidden, quite the opposite, I do not think there was a time period where misinformation was as rampant as today.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Because it targeted innocent civilians who have nothing to do with public policies toward immigrants, Islam, or ISIS. Terrorism by definition targets civilians to undermine their support for the government and its policies. Sometimes the targeting is more precise, like McVey's bombing of a Federal building, the Algerian attacks on French cafes during their fight for independence, or the massive recent bomb in Kabul that was positioned outside Western embassies. Sometimes, as in Orlando, terrorists kill people just because they are gay.

The missing link in your statement is that terrorist attacks are perpetrated by terrorist organizations. Think about it, in the 20th century we had ETA, ERI and other groups that were feared because they were organized. It is how we as a society fear organized crime a lot more than your average random robbery at a liquor store.

You might argue that so called "lone wolf" incidents are still terrorist attacks, but you are missing the point. This just in, breaking news:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us...ies/index.html

But no one is calling it a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, same city one year ago we had:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Or...tclub_shooting

which was labeled a terrorist attack. See the pattern? If suspect is believed to be muslim then he was a terrorist, otherwise he is just batshit crazy. That is just as wrong as when dubya linked 9/11 to iraq. This is perpetuated when a terrorist organizations does a press release saying the attack was planed by them (most of the time the perp is already dead so he can't deny it), even if they provide no proof at all media will report the incident as part of an intentional terror organization agenda (assuming they waited that long).

The thing is that even if there was no ISIS, alqaeda and similar, we would still have this kind of murder sprees, in fact I think we would have more since instead of going to fight for ISIS and die anonymously in the dessert, they would blow themselves where they already live.

So yeah, on one side you have terrorist organizations glad for all the free publicity and on the other hand you have politicians glad to profit from other people misery to advance their own agenda.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

The missing link in your statement is that terrorist attacks are perpetrated by terrorist organizations. Think about it, in the 20th century we had ETA, ERI and other groups that were feared because they were organized. It is how we as a society fear organized crime a lot more than your average random robbery at a liquor store.

You might argue that so called "lone wolf" incidents are still terrorist attacks, but you are missing the point. This just in, breaking news:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us...ies/index.html

But no one is calling it a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, same city one year ago we had:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Or...tclub_shooting

which was labeled a terrorist attack. See the pattern? If suspect is believed to be muslim then he was a terrorist, otherwise he is just batshit crazy.

This isn't even close to accurate. On the one hand, you have someone killing others for their beliefs and for being who they are and the killer not being able to come to terms with that. He kills them to both strike fear in others who are similar and to get rid of those they don't care for. On the other hand, you have some guy who wants revenge for being fired and targets his former work place. He's trying to get revenge, targeted specific people such as the boss, and had no intention of making a political or religious statement.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GDB

This isn't even close to accurate. On the one hand, you have someone killing others for their beliefs and for being who they are and the killer not being able to come to terms with that. He kills them to both strike fear in others who are similar and to get rid of those they don't care for. On the other hand, you have some guy who wants revenge for being fired and targets his former work place. He's trying to get revenge, targeted specific people such as the boss, and had no intention of making a political or religious statement.

Your basic distinction is that one killed people he knew (like the guys that attacked the french Charlie Hebdo) and the other one killed perfect strangers (like the guy that killed in the cinema during the batman movie).

Besides that, both were batshit crazy, they wanted to die in a blaze of "glory", whether their excuse was religious in nature or not, both believed the world was wrong and they were somehow correcting said wrongs (again, they were simply batshit crazy) because they were right.

Another example is the mosque attack in quebec or the Charleston church shooting, in both "you have someone killing others for their beliefs and for being who they are and the killer not being able to come to terms with that. He kills them to both strike fear in others who are similar and to get rid of those they don't care for." yet neither was labeled as a terrorist attack.