Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***

[Fubsy]

May and Rudd will go full Stasi now. More attacks. Can't be stopped.

Corbyn and Abbott get in, it's all kumbaya. More attacks. Won't even try to stop it.

My willingness to go near large numbers of people wanes after each attack. I have tickets for the Manc Arena in July - my GF said she doesn't want to go now :/ I'll go on my own, but with a deep mistrust of my surroundings.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Eventually something will change when people stop caring about being labeled for speaking up.

Unlikely, unless a mass of people do it at the same time.

Tommy Robinson has spoke out for years and he's been imprisoned and had numerous attempts on his life for doing so and most of what he's done is say things that a lot of people are thinking now after another attack. I'm not saying I agree with many of his ideas either but he's always been aware of integration issues, mosques and communities that seem to ignore/sympathise with extremist followers and prison systems that have no hold on radicalisation. That and with the recent documentary on those three girls just makes people question what our government and previous ones have been doing for so long, yes they've prevented attacks but it's not enough and if we carry on as normal as suggested it won't magically get better.

 

[Greebo]

https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/videos/1281618235269748/

So internment camps for 100,000s of people then?

 

[dalehitchy1]

So internment camps for 100,000s of people then?

V for vendetta style purge for safety.... Then go the gays for purity.... Abit of the bbc as the governments propaganda machine. Not all that different from the movie.

 

[chef-borjan]

The problem is that the only real suggestions that are being put out there involve incredibly regressive policies like internment for suspected terrorists.

But you're right that there are things that could be done that *aren't* regressive, but require two things that are hard to come by: increased funding, and changes in attitude. On the first point, it can only be beneficial to increase the funding that is given to the police for counter-terrorism operations. We know that the majority of perpetrators of terror are known to the police for one reason or another -- though not necessarily in a terror context, as per the Westminster attacker -- and more detailed monitoring of potential suspects would at least give us the opportunity to react quickly. We've seen that the police tend to be able to round up accomplices relatively quickly; they likely already have these connections, but without proof that a suspect is about to perpetrate an act of terror, bringing them in can be counterproductive. This is where the second point comes in.

Certain communities (united by language, religion or race) tend to be somewhat insular. The reasons for this are complex, but generally boil down to a reluctance for members of the community to integrate with the wider population, and a reluctance for the wider population to accept them. We're automatically suspicious of people who look different to us, or speak a different language. We often project this suspicion in our body language and our general demeanour so it's unsurprising that integration can be hard. By being open and accepting of these communities, we foster trust and where there's trust there's more likely to be dialogue. If the police start bringing suspected terrorists and their contacts in for questioning left, right and centre, all that will happen is that the rest of that community will become distrustful of the police -- you can see how easily this happens by looking at the USA -- and so when they notice something suspicious or odd about people in their community they will be less likely to report it.

So what I'm saying is that there are things that *everyone* can do to help stop this. Put aside your prejudices about race, religion and country of origin and be welcoming and friendly toward migrants. If we show them that we're able to recognise that there's a difference between them and their subversive elements (in the same way that they presumably don't assume we're all rapists or murderers even though those elements exist in our society) then they'll be less likely to believe the propaganda that they're fed from those subversive elements. Unfortunately attitudes are hard to change, and while we have the power to do it ourselves, I'm not convinced there's the will.

Can't agree more.

 

[Tunney]

Tommy Robinson has spoke out for years and he's been imprisoned

Wasn't he sent to jail for trying to enter to US on someone else's passport?

 

[dowie]

No.

there is never going to be 'adequate' funding as you can always have more people to follow/keep tabs on yet more suspects etc..

fact is though that funding for counterterrorism has been on the increase and was specifically increased after the Paris attacks

 

[Ayahuasca]

Wasn't he sent to jail for trying to enter to US on someone else's passport?

A few weeks after he got back iirc, his story of what happened inside though is rather worrying if true.

 

[chroniclard]

Eventually something will change when people stop caring about being labeled for speaking up.

Nobody gets labelled for speaking up, they get labelled for being bellends.

 

[eatcustard]

nope - for example who was watching the Brazilian guy who was accidentally shot on the tube?

Who informed the police about him.

 

[Nitefly]

The problem is that the only real suggestions that are being put out there involve incredibly regressive policies like internment for suspected terrorists.

But you're right that there are things that could be done that *aren't* regressive, but require two things that are hard to come by: increased funding, and changes in attitude. On the first point, it can only be beneficial to increase the funding that is given to the police for counter-terrorism operations. We know that the majority of perpetrators of terror are known to the police for one reason or another -- though not necessarily in a terror context, as per the Westminster attacker -- and more detailed monitoring of potential suspects would at least give us the opportunity to react quickly. We've seen that the police tend to be able to round up accomplices relatively quickly; they likely already have these connections, but without proof that a suspect is about to perpetrate an act of terror, bringing them in can be counterproductive. This is where the second point comes in.

Certain communities (united by language, religion or race) tend to be somewhat insular. The reasons for this are complex, but generally boil down to a reluctance for members of the community to integrate with the wider population, and a reluctance for the wider population to accept them. We're automatically suspicious of people who look different to us, or speak a different language. We often project this suspicion in our body language and our general demeanour so it's unsurprising that integration can be hard. By being open and accepting of these communities, we foster trust and where there's trust there's more likely to be dialogue. If the police start bringing suspected terrorists and their contacts in for questioning left, right and centre, all that will happen is that the rest of that community will become distrustful of the police -- you can see how easily this happens by looking at the USA -- and so when they notice something suspicious or odd about people in their community they will be less likely to report it.

So what I'm saying is that there are things that *everyone* can do to help stop this. Put aside your prejudices about race, religion and country of origin and be welcoming and friendly toward migrants. If we show them that we're able to recognise that there's a difference between them and their subversive elements (in the same way that they presumably don't assume we're all rapists or murderers even though those elements exist in our society) then they'll be less likely to believe the propaganda that they're fed from those subversive elements. Unfortunately attitudes are hard to change, and while we have the power to do it ourselves, I'm not convinced there's the will.

A great, well thought-out post.

 

[eatcustard]

Nobody gets labelled for speaking up, they get labelled for being bellends.

Yes the do, it often happens, thanks you our liberal friends

 

[Ayahuasca]

Nobody gets labelled for speaking up, they get labelled for being bellends.

Really? I've even seen TV debates with people who quite clearly aren't racist being labelled so because they dared to say something about Islam.

 

[b0redj0rd]

So internment camps for 100,000s of people then?

I think the 'Terrorism Watchlist' is 3000 people (and probably rising)

 

[dowie]

Who informed the police about him.

the person carrying out surveillance in the area outside his flat - a soldier who was working with the police...

so like I said - they don't have a monopoly

 

[Six6siX]

So internment camps for 100,000s of people then?

"Now the names have been changed, but the story's true,
My family was locked up back in '42,
My family was there it was dark and damp,
And they called it an internment camp"

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/fortminor/kenji.html

 

[dalehitchy1]

Yes the do, it often happens, thanks you our liberal friends

Here we go again. Fault of all liberals. Shall I generalise too...

I cant speak out against the right wing. One person I know said all Muslims should be punched in the face. I said that's not nice and i got called a liberal and to shut up. I cant speak out

(not a true story... But you get the idea)

 

[V F]

Really? I've even seen TV debates with people who quite clearly aren't racist being labelled so because they dared to say something about Islam.

The same sort of thing happened to him.

 

[do_ron_ron]

I was reading news on Yahoo yesterday and an article said that an American TV station(one of the big ones - forgot exactly which one) had broadcast the name of the suspect of the bombing to American audiences. The article named him. Meanwhile the British police would not name him for operational reasons.

Today Rudd is moaning about the US for releasing the info.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40026413

 

[h4rm0ny]

She is obliged as the leader of a nation to speak on behalf of it when it is attacked, we already know she absolutely deplores engaging with the public every moment she gets... it's hardly a mistake to call her out on her lack of caring. With regards to politics... we'll see soon enough what this entails, i'm sure it will be exactly what everyone expects so we can all roll eyes.

That's a failure of logic. You're saying that because May is politically required to make a statement there's no evidence that she actually cares about this. Whereas I wonder why your default assumption is that someone doesn't care about children being murdered unless you find proof. May, for all that I am politically opposed to her, is a human being. It's downright offensive to accuse someone of being okay with child-murder just because you don't like them.

I wonder... With the age of this guy and him being male, is it more to do with the horrid education system in the last 20 years that has given little hope to this age group that they wont just be stacking shelves? I mean there's plenty of other problems in Britain (racial tensions, economic problems, family tensions, stale culture of drinking and drugs etc), but if people are growing up with little hope in this country, why wouldn't they lash out if they could and had extra motivation for being a racial minority?

There have been plenty of people in professional careers and well-educated who have fallen prey to ISIS propaganda. See my earlier story about a girl I knew who was happy and normal and with very Westernised parents (they left Pakistan to get away from religion) and yet suddenly started adopting strict Islamic beliefs because of the crowd she fell in with. She didn't join ISIS (there wasn't such a thing back then) but it was certainly a radical and disturbing conversion. This is someone with an education, degree and career opportunities.

Lack of opportunity or education is not the determining factor. Is it an exacerbating one? Maybe? But if so I think it's a minor one. A LOT of people are in such circumstances and worse. Also, this was someone who DID have the opportunity to go university. And he was employed at the time he carried out this attack. It's misguided to start suggesting it was due to economic / employment factors when there are far more likely explanations, namely his parents were political dissidents and he spent the last couple of years in Libya which is - since we bombed it - a hotbed of terrorism.

There are a lot of young white youths in this country who are in the same boat (chavs) who aren't too far away from being a similar nuisance if this country gets any less dignified and the European nationalism starts agitating too much...

I don't believe that because I've seen no evidence of it. Also, "chavs" is unnecessary. You get some Anti-Capitalist types who seem to think bombing somewhere would (for reasons unfathomable) be a good thing, but don't actually do anything. What radicalises people, imo, is not simply limited career opportunities (and again, this was someone who had prospects and seemingly gave them up), but war and civil unrest. When we overthrew the government of Libya we handed power to people (National Transitional Council) that were engaged in ethnic cleansing. Black people in Libya were rounded up and driven out to be lynched. By the people we supported. Being on JSA doesn't convince someone they're a soldier in the war against "The West". Seeing the death and destruction in a failed country does it. Many muslims are much closer to such horrors than other Britains. They have cousins or family that have been bombed or executed. They read non-Western news sources that actually show the bodies. Islam is a problem, imo. There are multiple things about the religion I dislike and its lack of separation between Church and State is one of those things that is relevant here. But more than this by far is the simple fact that many muslims in this country have close ties to people are ARE at war with the West. It's that exposure that makes some of them prey for radical sects of Islam like Saudi Arabian Wahabism. Not economic downturn. I believe this because it fits with what I have seen and read. And this tragedy that has just taken place also fits with this.

We can blame Islam all we want, but we're ignoring the biggest issue here.

Islam is a factor. Not a determinant. Not a reason to think any given muslim is a terrorist or sympathiser (because most aren't). But it is a belief system that is used by some to recruit and tie people together. I guarantee if it was the Wiccan State of Iraq and Levant you wouldn't see many British muslims thinking it represented them somehow.

Offensive?

You better be joking, you can't use anecdotal evidence and then call me offensive. I needn't remind you that there was a riot not too long ago mostly involving a certain demographic that i'm talking about. The 80s also is also a different period of time that is rather irrelevant to whats going on now.

No, offensive. I don't see why they "better be joking". They said it was bordering on offensive and it was. And the Eighties is an appropriate comparison. You attributed attacks like this to unemployment and lack of opportunity. They compared it to the Eighties where both were far worse yet such attacks by British citizens were rarer.

I firmly believe it has to start with the Muslim community itself, it probably is but that doesn't make nice headlines for the news papers or politicians with there own political agenda and I guess people would not like the money being diverted into programs to sort out the issue.

That process is happening. There are people like Maajid Nawaz who are working to improve things. And they're the right people to do so because they're part of those communities, not some outsider lecturing and threatening. Unfortunately he does get abuse from some other muslims for his position, but only from some. Change takes time but it does happen. And most muslims, like most of any people, just want to get on with their lives.

You might be interested in this just on the off-chance:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0674088700/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It's quite short (and thus pretty pricy per page), but it's about what you're talking about. It's a dialogue between a former radical and an atheist neurologist. Surprisingly it remains civil and is pretty positive about the future. Just mentioning in case you're interested.