London Bridge Incident - mod warning in OP

katiek102010

statesaver wrote: »

Jesus, a couple of men chased the fool down using a whale tusk and a fire extinguisher and a third man pushed him to the ground. All while the fool was waving a knife and had a suicide vast on which they did not know was fake.

The bravery of these men is unbelievable and surely will be rewarded.

One of them was a murderer on day release from prison for the murder of a disabled woman in kent

AllForIt

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's going after radical Muslims in a fair way.

Shamima Begum is a toxic creature. She can rot and dissolve in some Syrian dungeon for all I care.

Yes exactly. But Yasmin would infer your only showing your general Islamophobia in that statement. This is to say your only using her case as an excuse to target Muslims, in the same way more generally that taking a harder line with Muslim terrorists is only an excuse to exercise your Islamophobia. Yasmin won't even tolerate the term "Muslim terrorist" - I heard her say live on TV some time ago '...terrorists who just happen to be Muslim'. I kid you not.

AllForIt

walshb wrote: »

Except in this case, this monster was well known. Never should have been on the streets after 2012...

Justice system is an effing joke, and this shows, that’s it’s not just in Ireland..

Sorry , I should have said known terrorists who could potentially strike again, rather than 'new' ones. So yeah, they can't even monitor all the one's they know.

Blind Eagle

walshb wrote: »

Whatever they did was correct...

They did shoot him to end his terror...whether they intended to end his life? I think they intended that as well. So, “in the moment” it was shoot to kill..

Yes, the whole going out with the shoot to kill policy is a different scenario..

It's always shoot to kill. There is no such thing as shoot to injure.

Blind Eagle

mynamejeff wrote: »

Almost all police world wide train to "shoot to end the threat " which is another way of saying shoot to kill in reality .

the idea of shoot to injure or shoot the knife out of his hand is hollywood bs .

there is a row going on in the usa at the moment because some clueless police chief said that cops shouldn't draw their guns on people waving knifes about

They shouldn't. In such cases they should use tasers, unless the person in questions is directly attempting to stab people, or has already.

Lethal force should be a last course of action only used if absolutely required, such as yesterday.

mynamejeff

Blind Eagle wrote: »

They shouldn't. In such cases they should use tasers, unless the person in questions is directly attempting to stab people, or has already.

Lethal force should be a last course of action only used if absolutely required, such as yesterday.

why dont you go ahead and list you qualifications and real world experience that led you to that conclusion ?

tazing a lad with a electrically triggered bomb strapped to him ?

ya good idea

Blind Eagle

mynamejeff wrote: »

why dont you go ahead and list you qualifications and real world experience that led you to that conclusion ?

tazing a lad with a electrically triggered bomb strapped to him ?

ya good idea

Did you read the last part of my post? Or who and what comment I was responding to.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes exactly. But Yasmin would infer your only showing your general Islamophobia in that statement. This is to say your only using her case as an excuse to target Muslims, in the same way more generally that taking a harder line with Muslim terrorists is only an excuse to exercise your Islamophobia. Yasmin won't even tolerate the term "Muslim terrorist" - I heard her say live on TV some time ago '...terrorists who just happen to be Muslim'. I kid you not.

The reality is that we are targeting Muslims.

By definition, targeting involves aiming for something; in this case, radical elements within the Muslim community who seek to cause mayhem and destruction.

So, there is no shame or Islamophobia in that statement - only a statement of incontrovertible fact.

If anything, targeting those Muslims is most beneficial for the Muslim community at large, who are having their faith dragged through the cesspit by these radical extremists.

Any Muslim worth their name would support targeting extremist Muslims.

Islamophobia would be rounding up all Muslims because of the actions of a few. A completely different thing. Yasmin is a total idiot.

take everything

The levels of absurdity in this one would put the Onion to shame.

The denizens of Cambridge university hosting a well-meaning pow-wow with the prize of a potentially-reformed Jihadi as a guest speaker relating his experience.

Can you imagine how edgy the Cambridge academics must have felt hobnobbing with and understanding a real-life terrorist.

Then he gets a bit stabby and puts the oul suicide vest on for one last time.

You could not make this stuff up.

Blind Eagle

Rebranding wrote: »

Lads, bit of mad idea here so bear with me, but how about European nations stop importing violent muslim savages who hate us?

You can't in a sense, unless they already have convictions or are on terrorist watchlists. This is not forgetting the fact that a lot of the attacks that have happened in Britain have been carried out by people of British citizenship, most of whom have been born in the country.

Rebranding

Rebranding wrote: »

Lads, bit of mad idea here so bear with me, but how about European nations stop importing violent muslim savages who hate us?

We need to have a zero-tolerance approach.

• Any foreign Muslim convicted of any crime is deported back to their home country. No second chance.
• Any radical Muslim - foreign or native - who are members of a proscribed Islamist organization, are convicted and incarcerated, in solitary confinement, for life.
• Any radical Muslim involved in a plot to kill civilians are tried for treason and killed.
• Limit immigration from countries from which radical Muslims may exist by only allowing in highly-skilled professionals, and not unskilled people vulnerable to exploitation.
• Close mosques that promote hate.
• Incarcerate Muslim leaders for a minimum of 25 years who openly call for jihad/war against the West, or covertly do it to promote a foreign jihad.

Blind Eagle

take everything wrote: »

The levels of absurdity in this one would put the Onion to shame.

The denizens of Cambridge university hosting a well-meaning pow-wow with the prize of a potentially-reformed Jihadi as a guest speaker relating his experience.

Can you imagine how edgy the Cambridge academics must have felt hobnobbing with and understanding a real-life terrorist.

Then he gets a bit stabby and puts the oul suicide vest on for one last time.

You could not make this stuff up.

It's absolutely crazy. If they wanted a "reformed" terrorist they could have just looked across here for someone (from either side of the divide), or someone like Maajid Usman Nawaz, as opposed to recently released Jihadi only convicted 8 years previously.

Blind Eagle

Rebranding wrote: »

Stop mass importing third world savages. Those who have citizenship? Strip them of their citizenship and deport them.

How do you know who the savages are and who aren't?

You can only strip someone of their citizenship after the crime has been committed. The questioner asked how to stop these crimes in the first place.

c.p.w.g.w

Rebranding wrote: »

Lads, bit of mad idea here so bear with me, but how about European nations stop importing violent muslim savages who hate us?

I find the whole idea of Muslims who hate western values moving to the west utterly bizarre. There are plenty of Muslims who don't really care.

Like i wouldn't move to UAE or Saudi because as far as i'm concerned their laws are regressive and barbaric.

In the west their seems to be a drive for us to change to accommodate Muslims, yet in the east their is no such drive.

Blind Eagle

Blind Eagle wrote: »

Ya great response. How do you know who the savages are and who aren't?

You can only strip someone of their citizenship after the crime has been committed. The questioner asked how to stop these crimes in the first place.

You can never stop it completely.

But if you implement a hard-line approach, you can reduce the likelihood of these events happening in the future.

At present, we're a soft touch.

Deleted User wrote: »

We need to have a zero-tolerance approach.

• Any foreign Muslim convicted of any crime is deported back to their home country. No second chance.
• Any radical Muslim - foreign or native - who are members of a proscribed Islamist organization, are convicted and incarcerated, in solitary confinement, for life.
• Any radical Muslim involved in a plot to kill civilians are tried for treason and killed.
• Limit immigration from countries from which radical Muslims may exist by only allowing in highly-skilled professionals, and not unskilled people vulnerable to exploitation.
• Close mosques that promote hate.
• Incarcerate Muslim leaders for a minimum of 25 years who openly call for jihad/war against the West, or covertly do it to promote a foreign jihad.

Blind Eagle

Deleted User wrote: »

You can never stop it completely.

But if you implement a hard-line approach, you can reduce the likelihood of these events happening in the future.

At present, we're a soft touch.

I don't disagree necessarily. But remember, a lot of these attacks have been carried out by natives of the country in question, or at least Europeans. They haven't immigrated, their parents have.

So the question of preventing people coming may not be 100% the correct question to be asking, more why 1st generation children of immigrants are seemingly so likely to be the culprits and how to stop them.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

We need to have a zero-tolerance approach.

• Any foreign Muslim convicted of any crime is deported back to their home country. No second chance.
• Any radical Muslim - foreign or native - who are members of a proscribed Islamist organization, are convicted and incarcerated, in solitary confinement, for life.
• Any radical Muslim involved in a plot to kill civilians are tried for treason and killed.
• Limit immigration from countries from which radical Muslims may exist by only allowing in highly-skilled professionals, and not unskilled people vulnerable to exploitation.
• Close mosques that promote hate.
• Incarcerate Muslim leaders for a minimum of 25 years who openly call for jihad/war against the West, or covertly do it to promote a foreign jihad.

Maybe stop exploiting and blowing the **** out of countries for their own benefit or for the craic?

NewbridgeIR

Looks like it was somebody else's fault. He wanted to stop but nobody listened.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/30/london-bridge-attacker-had-asked-for-help-to-deradicalise-lawyer?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&#Echobox=1575121557

Blind Eagle

Rebranding wrote: »

Let in small numbers of educated people. People who actually have skills that Europe needs. Don't let in hordes of low IQ men. Simple.

Fair enough. But how do you know these educated people aren't savages? Osama Bin Laden was relatively well educated, Anjem Choudry is a lawyer.

Blind Eagle

Blind Eagle wrote: »

Fair enough. But how do you know these educated people aren't savages? Osama Bin Laden was relatively well educated, Anjem Choudry is a lawyer.

Background checks; access to long-term social media profiles etc.

If they fail to provide these accounts/details, their request to enter the country is denied.

This puts the onus on them, rather than us.

MontgomeryClift

Perhaps this has already been mentioned in this thread, but the killer had been convicted of plotting to blow up the stock exchange, and had his indefinite sentence changed to a fixed-term sentence:

The Guardian wrote:

He was originally given an indeterminate sentence, with a minimum term of eight years in February 2012. This was replaced by a 16-year fixed-term sentence and an extended period on licence by the court of appeal in 2013.

In his judgment at the time, Lord Justice Leveson said: “There is no doubt that anyone convicted of this type of offence could legitimately be considered dangerous.

“There is an argument for concluding that anyone convicted of such an offence should be incentivised to demonstrate that he can safely be released; such a decision is then better left to the Parole Board for consideration proximate in time to the date when release becomes possible.”

Khan served the first year of his sentence on remand and spent about seven more behind bars after sentencing, before being released in December 2018 at about the halfway point.

Lord Justice Leveson is Jewish, so I suppose this will give more ammunition to the hateful Alt-Right, who will try to persuade us that British institutions have been infiltrated by Jews, who work against the interests of British people.

The ethnicity of the judge in this case is a complete coincidence, and we can't let hate win. Diversity is a strength.

MontgomeryClift

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Perhaps this has already been mentioned in this thread, but the killer had been convicted of plotting to blow up the stock exchange, and had his indefinite sentence changed to a fixed-term sentence:

Lord Justice Leveson is Jewish, so I suppose this will give more ammunition to the hateful Alt-Right, who will try to persuade us that British institutions have been infiltrated by Jews, who work against the interests of British people.

The ethnicity of the judge in this case is a complete coincidence, and we can't let hate win. Diversity is a strength.

I'm fascinated how you even know this... :rolleyes:

walshb

Boggles wrote: »

Maybe stop exploiting and blowing the **** out of countries for their own benefit or for the craic?

Yes, we could do that, too!

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Yes, we could do that, too!

ISIS have already come out and said that foreign policy has next to nothing to do with why they are waging war on the West. They said that even if all intervention stopped, they would still be doing what they're doing.

In their words, it's because we have not "embraced Islam".

So, dare I say, let's trust ISIS' word on that.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

ISIS have already come out and said that foreign policy has next to nothing to do with why they are waging war on the West. They said that even if all intervention stopped, they would still be doing what they're doing.

In their words, it's because we have not "embraced Islam".

So, dare I say, let's trust ISIS' word on that.

I’m with you. My post had a twinge of facetiousness!

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

ISIS grew out of the "illegal" war in Iraq.

So yeah, let the west stop blowing the shít out of countries and forcing regime and leaving large vacums and we may have some chance going forward.

A couple of facts:

• Islamic jihad can be traced back to the 1920s. There were movements then, that mirror what we now see.
• UK didn't invade Nigeria. How do you explain Boko Haram and a whole spectrum of Islamist organizations throughout Africa?
• US invaded Vietnam. Where are the Vietnamese terrorists?
• US invaded Korea. Where are the Korean terrorists?

How do you explain the formation of terrorist organizations such as:

• Turkistan Islamic Party
• Al-Shabaab in East Africa

The point is this: by focussing on Iraq/ISIS, you miss the wider context and history of Islamic fascism, which is at least a century old, and which has tentacles throughout most continents in the world. Furthermore, military invasion does not successfully equate to "that's what produces terrorism".

walshb

In a nutshell, humans have time and time again proved that integration and diversity and assimilation cause problems. Even with your own “people” there are problems; throwing in other peoples and expecting any semblance of harmony is just foolish idealism..

First victim announced.

A man killed in the London Bridge terror attack has been named as 25-year-old University of Cambridge graduate Jack Merritt.

Mr Merritt was a course coordinator at Learning Together, which held the prison rehabilitation conference attended by Usman Khan before his deadly rampage on Friday afternoon.

Mr Merritt's father David Merritt posted on Twitter: "My son, Jack, who was killed in this attack, would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily.

"R.I.P. Jack: you were a beautiful spirit who always took the side of the underdog."

Mr Merritt studied law at the University of Manchester before attending the University of Cambridge from 2016 to 2017, according to his Facebook page.

Blind Eagle

Rebranding wrote: »

Oh I understand only too well. So stop importing muslins and you won't have this problem in the future. In the meantime life imprisonment or deportation for any muslim who embraces radical Islam.

Simple as.

...but he wasn't imported. That's the point. I am no fan of religion or Islam in particular but the idea of refusing to allow ~24% of the World's population into Europe, that's around 1.8 billion people, because of their religion is preposterous.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

First victim announced.

Tragic..Whole life ahead of a young man..

But let’s detain people necessarily...

I don’t think anyone is advocating the detention of people unnecessarily..