Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask them, I'm not a recruiter. Essentially, yes, but it wouldn't happen because ''disaffection'' doesn't typically induce an urge to go on a homicidal rampage culminating in martyrdom. Whereas Islamism has an 'illustrious' history of it. As to why you'd bother declared your ''however false'' allegiance before topping a crowd and the yourself, is a mystery I'm sure only your unique way of thinking can decrypt.
I'm sure there are people who also think ''the whole isis/al quaeda thing'' is ''a bit too convenient'' in the CT forum. Along with the ones who same the same about the holocaust.

Re: typical urges. Dunblane, Cumbria, Hungerford. All disaffected mentally unstable rampages.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, everything should be considered and a rational conclusion reached.

There are huge dividends for certain activities if you keep people living in heightened fear.
The Rooskies aren't a threat since the USSR broke up bar some posturing and playing taunt. And to me there always has to be a big bad entity out there.

What 'evidence' have you actually seen and examined BTW?
Did you immediately think the Birmingham 6 were innocent or did you just trust everything you were fed by a police and justice system that turned out had concocted the whole thing?

I don't think I was around/can't remember the birmingham six and they're irrelevant to this case. You are theorising yourself, as you were when you pondered whether the westminster attacker only hit those people when he was trying to escape. Clearly there is far more evidence between the intelligence services, police, what has been released to the public, than you or beyondgone have, but don't let that deter you. you yourself admit you believe something unless you think it's proved it did not happen, when you can't prove a negative.

Will I Am Not

wes wrote: »

Some info on the attacker. He wasn't Asian despite some of the early reports (people really need to take early reports on this things with a grain of salt, as they are often wrong), and he was a convert, and born in the UK. Had a history of violence, and been in and out of prison for years.

He was probably radicalized via the Internet, which is an increasing problem, not just with ISIL, but other violent far right movements, for example Dylann Roof was similarly radicalized by white supremacist material online.

The tit for tat is unbelievable really. You just couldn't post that information without something about the right.

This place is a joke.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Re: typical urges. Dunblane, Cumbria, Hungerford. All disaffected mentally unstable rampages.

And they were claimed by? It helps if you don't omit salient facts.

The media, far from crying terrorism every time a muslim coughs, has a recent record of apportioning blame on non existent or presumed mental health problems from an early stage-for example, it happened with the BBC coverage of the Ansbach attack.
That's enough entertaining of trollish antics.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't think I was around/can't remember the birmingham six and they're irrelevant to this case. You are theorising yourself, as you were when you pondered whether the westminster attacker only hit those people when he was trying to escape. Clearly there is far more evidence between the intelligence services, police, what has been released to the public, than you or beyondgone have, but don't let that deter you. you yourself admit you believe something unless you think it's proved it did not happen, when you can't prove a negative.

Why are you making up stuff about what I said. You tried to claim last night I said he hit them accidentally too.
I didn't.

I said, pay attention now, that after killing the people on the bridge he may have been on his way somewhere else to continue but accidentally crashed the car and in trying to run killed the policeman. The HOP may not have been his target.

And I said that because I and others where wondering why he would raise a rumpus before getting to his ultimate target.


Got it? Don't lie about what I said again please.

wes

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

The tit for tat is unbelievable really. You just couldn't post that information without something about the right.

What tit for tat? I wasn't replying to someone . No back and forth of any kind.

Also, my point was around the Internet being used to radicalise people, and it not just being ISIL, using that medium to deadly effect, to get people to commit acts of violence. Its perfectly valid to discuss such similarities in a thread of this nature, and claiming that it some kind of tit for tat argument, is problematic in the absence of any such conversation having taken place.

Also, both ISIL and white supremacists are far right movements, so any discussion on ISIL would fall under talking about the right if you want to get technical about things.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

And they were claimed by? It helps if you don't omit salient facts.

The media, far from crying terrorism every time a muslim coughs, has a recent record of apportioning blame on non existent or presumed mental health problems from an early stage-for example, it happened with the BBC coverage of the Ansbach attack.
That's enough entertaining of trollish antics.

All the actual experts I have listened to say that IS will typically claim these acts without any knowledge that they were happening or assisting in them.

You could say ISIL did it, who is gonna verify it is coming from ISIL it's not like they have a phone line or offices.

Beyondgone

Beyondgone wrote: »

If I loudly declare my (however false) allegiance to ISIS and go off and do severe harm to people on O'Connell St while roaring "Allah Uh Akbar!" - do I become an ISIS warrior? Despite the fact I was annoyed by some other trivial stuff but lacked perspective and had seen some videos? I think the whole "Isis/Al Quaeda" thing is a tiny bit too convenient. A catch all for the disaffected.

Well yes actually you probably would become an Isis terrorist, and they would claim you were.
It's not like you have to sign a form to join, you don't make an oath.
You just have to believe what they believe, & if you commit an act of terrorism shouting the above, why wouldn't people believe you were in ISIS?

That's the thing about it, plenty of people become radicalised on their own, through the internet for example. And they can commit attacks on their own. It's their ideologies that make them Isis terrorists.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All the actual experts I have listened to say that IS will typically claim these acts without any knowledge that they were happening or assisting in them.

You could say ISIL did it, who is gonna verify it is coming from ISIL it's not like they have a phone line or offices.

Who were the experts?

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you making up stuff about what I said. You tried to claim last night I said he hit them accidentally too.
I didn't.

I said, pay attention now, that after killing the people on the bridge he may have been on his way somewhere else to continue but accidentally crashed the car and in trying to run killed the policeman. The HOP may not have been his target.

And I said that because I and others where wondering why he would raise a rumpus before getting to his ultimate target.


Got it? Don't lie about what I said again please.

It was a misunderstanding, then.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

Who were the experts?

Talking heads on the TV. Security analysts

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

It was a misunderstanding, then.

Not when you do it twice

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Talking heads on the TV. Security analysts

Contradicts everything I have read and heard from security analysts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not when you do it twice

I didn't see a clarification until now.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Well yes actually you probably would become an Isis terrorist, and they would claim you were.
It's not like you have to sign a form to join, you don't make an oath.
You just have to believe what they believe, & if you commit an act of terrorism shouting the above, why wouldn't people believe you were in ISIS?

That's the thing about it, plenty of people become radicalised on their own, through the internet for example. And they can commit attacks on their own. It's their ideologies that make them Isis terrorists.

Widdershins was on about the Sharia killing of a probably mentally unstable Muslim saying the wrong thing (according to his friends) but NO there could be no mental issue with this man, no sir. He's a hardened radical Islamist carrying out the orders of a group whom he never met and eh never actually got any orders from.

A little too desperate to believe methinks.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Widdershins was on about the Sharia killing of a probably mentally unstable Muslim saying the wrong thing (according to his friends) but NO there could be no mental issue with this man, no sir. He's a hardened radical Islamist carrying out the orders of a group whom he never met and eh never actually got any orders from.

A little too desperate to believe methinks.

According to the killer. Who made a statement professing the reason he killed the man. The mentally ill angle only comes from some Muslims trying to defend him in a few youtube comments, to diminish the danger to him. He clearly believed he was a prophet, this is no stranger than believing there ever was a prophet, it's as mentally ill as any religious belief, no less and no more. Stating it openly put him at risk.
You can search for it on youtube if you wish.

You know for a fact he never met nor took orders? As for hardened, that's a relative term. He did what he did and was sufficiently hardened for that. If you doubt that why not doubt all the other attacks. That's where the possibility you are into conspiracy theories starts to look more and more likely.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

According to the killer. Who made a statement professing the reason he killed the man. The mentally ill angle only comes from some Muslims trying to defend him in a few youtube comments, to diminish the danger to him. He clearly believed he was a prophet, this is no stranger than believing there ever was a prophet, it's as mentally ill as any religious belief, no less and no more. Stating it openly put him at risk.
You can search for it on youtube if you wish.

You know for a fact he never met nor took orders?

I don't know. It's a fact at the moment that he didn't.

Professor Moriarty

Masood acted alone according to police. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39396101

Widdershins

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Masood acted alone according to police. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39396101

Yes. There were no accomplices on that day. It also says: ''"Nevertheless, we are determined to understand if Masood was a lone actor inspired by terrorist propaganda or if others have encouraged, supported or directed him.''

ChikiChiki

Just seen on twitter about an incident in Islington tonight where people were mowed down. Police saying not terror related but there are pics of a knife on the pavement.

FrancieBrady

They were 'determined' with the Birmingham and Guilford bombings too.
Just saying.

Depp

Good to see we're back to the old ''He wasn't isis, he was mentally ill! the right has mentally ill too!'' line of arguement!

Beyondgone

Omackeral wrote: »

I nearly did the O Connell Street/Allah Akbar thing last Tuesday when I put out my recycling bin instead of my general waste one. Damn infidels!

I stubbed my ankle off the towbar yesterday and strongly considered joining ISIS for about 15 minutes..

FrancieBrady

Depp wrote: »

Good to see we're back to the old ''He wasn't isis, he was mentally ill! the right has mentally ill too!'' line of arguement!

You forgot to put 'may have been' in there.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were 'determined' with the Birmingham and Guilford bombings too.
Just saying.

If you are suspicious of the intelligence services and the police for all eternity and you find a stitch up or a huge case of mistaken identity more likely than a terror attack, at this point, there's no arguing with you. It's a form of bias.

ilkhanid

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder if the West stopped killing innocent people in North Africa would terrorism decrease or increase? To answer my own question, I think it would decrease. Perhaps the West could start there in their quest to deal with terrorism.

Who exactly are the "West" killing in North Africa? If I recall correctly Islamists had killed a hundred thousand people in Algeria well before 9/11. And they are still killing people in Mali,Sierre Leone and Burkino Faso. How did this nebulous "West" make them do that?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I can't see how the terrorists' behaviour in their own country is relevant to my point. If the West drops a bomb and kills a child then the West is responsible for that child's death.

It's perfectly relevant. We have people claiming that terrorists kill westerners because westerners killed children (or whoever ) in North Africa or in the Middle East, but we can see that these people have no moral objection in principle to killing civilians in their own countries and never had, so how does that have any logic? "I was outraged that the USA killed 5 innocent people in a drone strike...so I struck back by detonating a suicide vest in a crowded market in Karachi and killed 20 innocent people", Yes that makes sense .

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Infidels killing Islamic women and children requires martyrs to defend them and Islam.

Whereas the Godly have the right to fill mass graves with Islamic women...but that's all right because these women were'nt proper Muslims, they were apostate, or unholy or didn't cover their faces, or looked at TV programmes, or...something or other.
In short, these fanatic's claims (or rather claims on their behalf ) that they are prompted by some sense of injustice has as much validity a a Nazi claiming that he kills Jews because of RAF firebombing. "Our" dead are innocents, "their" dead had it coming.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

I stubbed my ankle off the towbar yesterday and strongly considered joining ISIS for about 15 minutes..

Isn't that the point, mr. disaffected? (or mrs) people generally don't go jihadist because they're pissed off. Insanity as a criminal defense has to be determined by professionals, not speculation by people hyper alert for discrimination against ''brown skinned people''.

Beyondgone

Widdershins wrote: »

Isn't that the point, mr. disaffected? (or mrs) people generally don't go jihadist because they're pissed off. Insanity as a criminal defense has to be determined by professionals, not speculation by people hyper alert for discrimination against ''brown skinned people''.

I may be playing devils advocate. Putting a point across from the other side never went down too well.

Depp

Widdershins wrote: »

Isn't that the point, mr. disaffected? (or mrs) people generally don't go jihadist because they're pissed off. Insanity as a criminal defense has to be determined by professionals, not speculation by people hyper alert for discrimination against ''brown skinned people''.

Maybe the cause could actually be the guy telling him ''yeah look we know you've sinned and are destined for hell but we can make that go away, all you have to do is kill a few people and all is forgiven and you'll be straight up to heaven!'' on second thoughts no, it couldnt be that, he must just be disaffected!

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

If you are suspicious of the intelligence services and the police for all eternity and you find a stitch up or a huge case of mistaken identity more likely than a terror attack, at this point, there's no arguing with you. It's a form of bias.

You should always be suspicious of what you are told to believe.
Are you saying governments don't falsely escalate threats in order to spend money on defence?
Are you saying the police force of the UK haven't concocted stuff for political reasons? Because you'd be wrong.

CaptainR

I watched a very interesting documentary on PBS America tonight entitled "Terror in Europe" focusing on the Paris and Brussels attacks, high ranking members of the French, Belgian and Spanish intelligence services as well as a top guy in Europol talked about how open borders in Europe is detrimental to having accurate information on who is where.

I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount on national security but I found it amazing that the European Parliament have repeatedly voted against having a no fly list on the grounds of data protection. Apparently Germany and Austria have vowed never to let the state know that much about its citizens ever again.

Anyway, its quite good (as is most of PBS's documentaries) and I'd say its well worth a watch.