Police rush to London Bridge after reports of van hitting pedestrians

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

What assumptions?  All your posts are full of vacuum.

 

What are you going to do to stop the terror threat?  You've talked a lot but have nothing to offer just like our emptyheaded government.

 

You can't negotiate with a dead terrorist.  

 

So you're left with a proactive rather than reactive proposal.  What are your proposals?

 

 

Ask Box

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

What assumptions?  All your posts are full of vacuum.

 

What are you going to do to stop the terror threat?  You've talked a lot but have nothing to offer just like our emptyheaded government.

 

You can't negotiate with a dead terrorist.  

 

So you're left with a proactive rather than reactive proposal.  What are your proposals?

 

 

He has actually come up with some very good ideas, knocking down mosques with extremist ideas being one.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

A few posters have suggested ways to target those moslems recruiting supporters.

 

There is no way (conceivable) way to stop these terrorist attacks in the near future.  We need to concentrate on the best ways of preventing future Brit born moslems turning into terrorists.

 

There is no way to completely prevent terrorist attacks. In that sense,  the "learn to live with it" comment, it not entirely off-mark. But it is not true that various measures and policies cannot be taken to diminish the threat,  even on in the short term. This usually boils down to the balance of freedoms and liberties vs. enhanced (not, to stress, perfect) security. Some are willing to make the trade-off, some are not.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

A set-up vigilante force would be very cheap. 

 

If it's set-up it isn't really vigilante, though.

And, of course, you get what you pay for.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, yes....it was expected that you'd the recent attacks, was kind hoping you'd skip the deflection. To repeat the the premise - Russia's (and formerly, the USSR) involvement goes way back and much wider that addressed above. Overall, attacks are not on par with those directed at Western targets, nor is there as much overt antagonism expressed.

 

Minimizing the part of perpetrators is another tired deflection. Just some "petty criminal types", weak minded, easily influenced. Sure thing. They are not doing it of their volition. The real culprits are those "wooing" them. And ultimately, it's back to the old excuse of Western fomentation/meddling/imperialism.

 

Russian/Soviet involvement did not meet with the same response, and don't recall a whole lot of Vietnamese terrorists back when the West was up to its evil misdeeds. 

 

Your use of 'deflection' twice in one reply suggests that you think I am trying to deviate away from an obvious conclusion, which couldn't be further from the truth because the reality is that I am as clueless as just about every other non-specialist member of the public; I have no idea of the myriad causes behind these acts, but am merely trying to understand based upon the evidence I see and my ability to synthesise it. But I am always happy to be enlightened by those with a deeper insight.

 

So if I understand you, you are saying that Russian/Soviet involvement in the Middle East is long standing and their experience of Islamic terrorism (excluding Caucasus borne) was minimal until recent years. How is that significantly different to the European/US experience?   Everything about what we are seeing has been morphing over the years - communication, movement of people, even the mechanics of terrorism: all changing with time. As for Russia experiencing fewer attacks - is that because they have allowed few refugees into their country? If so, where does one stop with the unravelling of the thread? The refugees are there, after all, in part because of Russian and the West meddling in their countries. 

 

As for the character of the average suicide bomber - I can accept that this is a lazy analogy (in my defence, it is a popular one in the media). This was an interesting read, but not one that fills me with hope.

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

If it's set-up it isn't really vigilante, though.

And, of course, you get what you pay for.

Volunteers from SAS already trained and paid for, it would be termed as a black ops operation obviously.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If it's set-up it isn't really vigilante, though.

And, of course, you get what you pay for.

Morch, every time you say something, I think to myself 'I Wish I had said that'

[GuiseppeD]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

He has actually come up with some very good ideas, knocking down mosques with extremist ideas being one.

Not within our recent debate, though.  And that would mean demolishing all mosques in the country.

 

Agreed, great idea but this isn't going to happen nor is banning encryption technology.

 

We're going to have to look to much more severe sanctions than that and that's up to the present government.  And I mean really severe, i.e. internment, banning returning jihadis, permanent expulsion of involved families from the UK to name but a few.

[brewsterbudgen]

Conspiracy theories ok then?

Fair enough. I regret posting that and personally I am not that cynical.

Of course people want to make political points - it's a political issue.
 
If it isn't a political issue, what on earth is it? An opportunity to light candles and create hashtags? Yeah, that works.
 
You may disagree with the political sentiments expressed by the poster above. Then discuss and rebut them, instead of trying to close down debate with meaningless abuse.

While of course you're right that the cause of the problems and the solutions to them are political, making generalised and inaccurate political points is unhelpful, albeit understandable. What angered me specifically about the poster was an earlier veiled comment that Jeremy Corbyn was not condemning ISIS and these attacks. I do accept that feelings are running high, including, as a Londoner myself, my own.

[dexterm]

The usual redneck nonsensical counterproductive, impractical/impossible responses when the scumbag perps are usually native born citizens anyway.

 

Yeah ... lets get 'em, paint a quarter of the world's population with the same bigoted brush, stereotype 'em, ban 'em, deport the lot, intern 'em, demolish their places of worship. The latter four of course (lets get real) have a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

 

You'd have all made good Nazis.

 

But I know it feels good to rant on to vent your fury. But for crying out loud, think of realistic steps to stop these atrocities happening again. 

 

Seek out any cells the terrorists belong to. Prosecute, imprison, deport those you find. Criticize  what the UK  is doing in terms of its morally corrupt interfering/populist vote winning/money grabbing foreign policy. But don't do what the terrorists want you to do..attack the entire faith of Islam, thus inevitably creating more converts for revenge, whose mosques tomorrow get graffitied, whose sisters get their hijabs torn off, whose mothers get abused on public transport ..all fired by the same blind hatred that inspired the OP maniacs. All that will do more harm than good.

Edited June 4, 2017 by dexterm

[Khun Han]

15 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Perhaps if the West and the Russians hadn't interfered in their homes in the first place we wouldn't be getting the mayhem back but of course you've got to keep that oil flowing. That isn't sanctioning terrorism but it is perhaps an explanation.

 

Nope. The jihadists' ambitions to crash the west and take it under a caliphate umbrella long pre-date modern war crimes by the west.

[RickBradford]

Quote

 ...I am as clueless as just about every other non-specialist member of the public; I have no idea of the myriad causes behind these acts, but am merely trying to understand based upon the evidence I see and my ability to synthesise it.

 

This is the kind of thinking that truly amazes me. We know why they do it - they go out of their way to tell us. They post their reasons online, they explain them in videos. They even print them in English-language magazines, for heaven's sake.

 

For example, here is a snippet from an article in the ISIS magazine Dabiq, entitled "Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You"

 

 

It couldn't be much clearer, could it?

Edited June 4, 2017 by RickBradford

[brewsterbudgen]

Deleted

 

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

This is the kind of thinking that truly amazes me. We know why they do it - they go out of their way to tell us. They post their reasons online, they explain them in videos. They even print them in English-language magazines, for heaven's sake.

 

For example, here is a snippet from an article in the ISIS magazine Dabiq, entitled "Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You"

 

 

It couldn't be much clearer, could it?

Who's "they"?

 

Glad you clarified it... ISIS .. about .01% (and falling...good!)  of the 1.6 billion world's Muslim population.

 

Stereotype away.

Edited June 4, 2017 by dexterm
spelling

[brewsterbudgen]

 ...I am as clueless as just about every other non-specialist member of the public; I have no idea of the myriad causes behind these acts, but am merely trying to understand based upon the evidence I see and my ability to synthesise it.

 
This is the kind of thinking that truly amazes me. We know why they do it - they go out of their way to tell us. They post their reasons online, they explain them in videos. They even print them in English-language magazines, for heaven's sake.
 
For example, here is a snippet from an article in the ISIS magazine Dabiq, entitled "Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You"
 

 
It couldn't be much clearer, could it?


So you take extremist terrorist propaganda as the truth?

[katana]

Keep calm and Cuck on. Styx's view from across the pond.

 

 

[Wilsonandson]

Suspect 'usually a nice friendly guy'

Barking resident Ken Chigbo told Sky News one of the men believed to be behind the attack had asked about hiring a van from him the day before the incident.

"I'm moving house at the moment, so I had a big van outside," Mr Chigbo said.

"He's usually a very nice friendly guy. But this time it was on a different level of nice.

"[He asked] all these specific questions about the van, which obviously now makes sense in my head. At the time, I didn't think anything of it."

[RickBradford]

@brewsterbudgen

Only when it makes good sense and is entirely consistent with their own actions over several years, and the actions of people who act on their behalf. 

 

What is your evidence that they are not telling the truth? If you have that evidence, what does it suggest is their motive for lying?

Edited June 4, 2017 by RickBradford

[dexterm]

17 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Nope. The jihadists' ambitions to crash the west and take it under a caliphate umbrella long pre-date modern war crimes by the west.

Here's a tip. If a couple of mad mullahs appear at your front door canvassing for ISIS ..just say no and vote accordingly!

 

Islamic (not so sure about Christian) fanatics havent a hope in hell of taking over western democracies. That's just hysterical bs.

 

And certainly murdering innocent people as in the OP will not help their cause.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Your use of 'deflection' twice in one reply suggests that you think I am trying to deviate away from an obvious conclusion, which couldn't be further from the truth because the reality is that I am as clueless as just about every other non-specialist member of the public; I have no idea of the myriad causes behind these acts, but am merely trying to understand based upon the evidence I see and my ability to synthesise it. But I am always happy to be enlightened by those with a deeper insight.

 

So if I understand you, you are saying that Russian/Soviet involvement in the Middle East is long standing and their experience of Islamic terrorism (excluding Caucasus borne) was minimal until recent years. How is that significantly different to the European/US experience?   Everything about what we are seeing has been morphing over the years - communication, movement of people, even the mechanics of terrorism: all changing with time. As for Russia experiencing fewer attacks - is that because they have allowed few refugees into their country? If so, where does one stop with the unravelling of the thread? The refugees are there, after all, in part because of Russian and the West meddling in their countries. 

 

As for the character of the average suicide bomber - I can accept that this is a lazy analogy (in my defence, it is a popular one in the media). This was an interesting read, but not one that fills me with hope.

 

I use "deflection" because these views expressed by posters are usually repetitive, and hence, not too hard to guess ahead. Making a game of it (say, allowing an extra drink for every x posted correctly anticipated) isn't much of a challenge by now. In most cases, the view expressed is a derivative of a political stance, and is often presented in a simplified manner.

 

The difference is that the "meddling" argument is constantly used to bash Western countries, and regularly used as some "original sin" to which all current woes could be related. It fails to address the lack of a similar experience with regard to Russia/USSR, in terms of criticism, actual response and antagonism. 

 

If, as you say, the refugee issue is caused by both Russian and Western meddling (which, again, is a rather simplified way of putting it) - why isn't there a general call for Russia to accept refugees, or to contribute anything toward alleviating the issue? None of that. It's somehow all the West's fault. And, of course, not that many refugees eager to go to Russia. Not even from Afghanistan. Go figure.

 

Sorry, not into the whole presumed collective Western guilt trip.

 

To get back to topic - the knee-jerk responses from the right are as expected as those from the left. Can't say there's a whole lot of substance to either. Even worse, these patterned arguments do not leave much room for anything not fully subscribing to one view or another. Realistically, neither offers much of a solution, or even a coherent policy.

[brewsterbudgen]

[mention=25648]brewsterbudgen[/mention]

Only when it makes good sense and is entirely consistent with their own actions over several years, and the actions of people who act on their behalf. 

 

What is your evidence that they are not telling the truth? If you have that evidence, what does it suggest is their motive for lying?

I have no evidence. But I would never take the propaganda of evil murdering terrorist scum as the truth. To do so gives them far too much credibility. They are just evil scum, or as someone else said recently, losers.

 

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Volunteers from SAS already trained and paid for, it would be termed as a black ops operation obviously.

 

Sure thing, I hear the Pattaya detachment are waiting for their marching orders.

[Flustered]

56 minutes ago, In the jungle said:

It was bad enough that May's thoughts were vacuous but mixing in a bunch of electioneering at such a time?

 

 

Your lefty, anti May drivel is not welcome on this thread which is a very serious one.

 

Grow up or clear off TROLL

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, vogie said:

Morch, every time you say something, I think to myself 'I Wish I had said that'

 

Must send cash to Morch.

 

Ah...was worth a try.

[evadgib]

14 minutes ago, katana said:

Keep calm and Cuck on. Styx's view from across the pond.

 

 

Lectured by a John Lennon lookalike from a Country that elected Trump and hadn't heard of Terrorism until this century...?

[In the jungle]

3 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Your lefty, anti May drivel is not welcome on this thread which is a very serious one.

 

Grow up or clear off TROLL

 

I am by no means a troll.

 

Enough is enough has as much meaning as brexit means brexit.

 

And longer sentences would hardly have deterred the three terrorists involved.

 

Both May and Trump are seeking to make political capital from this.

[Kwasaki]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sure thing, I hear the Pattaya detachment are waiting for their marching orders.

OK you can joke all you want,  obviously you don't give a monkeys about museys taking over England in the future and just another sitting on the fence..

[Flustered]

5 minutes ago, In the jungle said:

 

I am by no means a troll.

 

Enough is enough has as much meaning as brexit means brexit.

 

And longer sentences would hardly have deterred the three terrorists involved.

 

Both May and Trump are seeking to make political capital from this.

Not a Troll but using the thread as an anti May post to spread your lefty cause?....Pathetic.

[Khun Han]

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Here's a tip. If a couple of mad mullahs appear at your front door canvassing for ISIS ..just say no and vote accordingly!

 

Islamic (not so sure about Christian) fanatics havent a hope in hell of taking over western democracies. That's just hysterical bs.

 

And certainly murdering innocent people as in the OP will not help their cause.

 

ISIS is not 'a couple of mad mullahs'. And the taking over of western countries by muslims has been happening for decades. Analysis of polulation sector growth rates shows that muslims will be in the majority in the UK within a few generations. Not long after, full sharia law for all will come with their strict, medaeval religion.

[In the jungle]

2 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Not a Troll but using the thread as an anti May post to spread your lefty cause?....Pathetic.

 

So you throw out a random insult and retract it 14 minutes later?