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

Noddyholder wrote: »

I cant personally really answer that specific question as why there is not more attacks, This is what Europol said in Dec 16.

Further attacks in the EU, both by lone actors and groups, are likely to be attempted.

Estimates from some intelligence services indicate several dozen people directed by IS may be currently present in Europe with a capability to commit terrorist attacks.

2 In addition to France and Belgium, all other EU Member States that are part of the US-led coalition against IS may be targeted by terrorists led or inspired by IS.

3 The most probable scenario is the use of the same modus operandi, including the same types of weapons, used in earlier attacks.

4 If IS is defeated or severely weakened in Syria/Iraq by the coalition forces, there may be an increased rate in the return of foreign fighters and their families from the region to the EU or to other conflict areas.

5 Counter-terrorism experts expect that IS will start planning and dispatching attacks from Libya.

6 Modi operandi employed in Syria and Iraq, such as the use of car bombs, extortion and kidnappings may be employed as methods of attack in the EU.

7 The apparent preference for soft targets means that attacking critical infrastructure such as power grids and nuclear facilities is currently not a priority for IS.

8 Elements of the Syrian refugee diaspora may be vulnerable to radicalisation once in Europe and may be targeted by extremist recruiters. Given that it is in the interests of IS to inflame the migration crisis to polarise the EU population and turn sections of it against those seeking asylum, some infiltration of refugee camps and other refugee/migrant groups is likely.

9 Contacts between terrorists and career criminals are generally of a very pragmatic and opportunistic character, and for very specific purposes only. However, the relative incidence of such cases in which there are connections appears to have increased. Typically this is because terrorists are known for previous criminal activity and/or because they make use of organised crime networks in the preparation of attacks, e.g. to obtain false identity documents and/or firearms.

10 What should not be overlooked is that IS is not the only terrorist organisation with the intent and capability to carry out attacks against the West, or to inspire individuals and groups residing in EU Member States to do so. Al Qaeda and / or Al-Nusra affiliated or inspired groups and individuals continue to pose a serious threat to Member States of the EU and to Western interests in general.

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwio1vnDt-3SAhVCvBQKHQetBAMQFgghMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.europol.europa.eu%2Fnewsroom%2Fnews%2Fislamic-state-changing-terror-tactics-to-maintain-threat-in-europe&usg=AFQjCNEyKd2EpDEt1RQeUVE09qu33cmaog

'Several dozen' explains why there isn't many more attacks to me. It shows that motivating ordinary Muslims to attack is not as easy as some would lead us to believe.

Not trying to downplay the threat just putting it into perspective.

Kitsunegari

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Several dozen' explains why there isn't many more attacks to me. It shows that motivating ordinary Muslims to attack is not as easy as some would lead us to believe.

Not trying to downplay the threat just putting it into perspective.

That's true but it still doesn't mean that thousands more aren't radicalised but aren't are the stage of self-destructive radicalisation yet. The fact remains that British intelligence deemend this man not to be worthy of being in the top 3,000 so they would have additional powers to carry out surveillance on him. I agree with the sentiments that their is mass scare mongering about Muslim immigrants with regards terrorism but there are other social issues at play. Such as the lack of will to try and integrate many modern Muslim immigrants.

infogiver

OWinter wrote: »

My first thoughts when this happened was that it could be a possible RIRA or Eirigi tribute to the Late Martin McGuiness - glad I was wrong

RIP to the victims

Except for the RIP this is the "wrongest" post I've ever seen on boards

Ulysses Gaze

Nomis21 wrote: »

Most recent figures for death on London's roads:

204 killed by road accidents in one year.
4 people killed by terrorist incidents in one year.

Yes it is terrible what happened yesterday in London but if terrorists killed as many people as road accidents then the city would be in lockdown.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehillblog/2010/jun/22/transport-for-london-road-safety-statistics-crap-cycling-waltham-forst-blog

Why use this canard again?

You can't equate car accidents to a terrorist attack.

In the overwhelming majority of car accidents there is no, and read this very carefully,INTENT to kill someone.

In the case of yesterday's attack. There was an INTENT to kill.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I agree with you that it's important to find out why people are becoming radicalised, but to be fair, the security and Intelligence agencies have probably figured that out years ago, that's not to say individual cases shouldn't be investigated. My problem with the mental health argument is not that it isn't a factor in why someone would do this, it's that people use it, and many have in the last few pages in this thread, to differentiate from previous Islamic attacks and make the attack into a lone wolf type of thing, and do it intentionally without wanting to realise or admit there's a bigger problem at play here. I've seen headlines from liberal media outlets saying the same thing. My view is that it's purely deflection, all these attacks have one thing in common, Islam.

Mental health is a reason for some. And it's two pronged. Were there issues before being radicalised? Did they appear after.
Take Brevik for example. It's a valid question to wonder if he would have still been a killer if he'd never been exposed to the right wing ideology that drove him. Would he have been attracted to another extremist ideology? Is it a particular type of person that is attracted to these extreme views and if so, what makes that sort of person? Or was he completely normal before exposure to the ideology? Did the right wing, anti muslim, ideology he followed warp him?

I mentioned Brevik because there have been a number of right wing Islamophobic attacks in the last few years. To use your phrase, they all have one thing in common, right wingers.

The fact is that the vast majority of people who are right wing aren't far right wing. The same goes for Islam. And if you want to say there's something wrong with Islam than you have to accept that there's something inherently violent about conservatives.

In Boston they found that up to 6% of catholic priests had abused children. There's a common connection there. they were all catholic and christian. Does that mean that believing in christ makes you more likely to be a paedophile?
Of course it doesn't. There were loads of other factors involved.
It's the same with islamic terrorism. When someone becomes radicalised it's easy to make a simple correlation = causation but it's wrong. There's loads of factors in each attack. And they're not always the same. Sometimes it is mental health that's a bit more dominant. Sometimes it's what they were exposed to as kids. Sometimes it's discrimination. Sometimes it's a violent narcissist personality. There's always a combination of factors and there's always a number of reasons.

Nomis21

prinzeugen wrote: »

So it is just a big US conspiracy to kill off the UK population?

What happens to the people that dont get killed by cars or terrorists?

Ah.. Forgot.. Chemtrails..

No not a conspiracy but short sighted policies.

These people are angry at the injustice they see caused by America and its allies. A policy of starting a war to obtain cheap energy. Now we pay the price in pollution, traffic accidents and terrorism. Fifty times as many deaths from road accidents than from terrorism (in London alone) resulting from motor vehicles running on middle eastern oil. Few people seem to be bothered.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agreed already, there is a problem. My problem is with those who say that there are hordes of Muslims waiting to cause problems.
A car attack is a simple act to carry out and more or less unstoppable and radical Muslims have asked that they be carried out.
If there are hordes of Muslims waiting, where are all these attacks.
Still waiting for this to be addressed.

Grayson wrote: »

Mental health is a reason for some. And it's two pronged. Were there issues before being radicalised? Did they appear after.
Take Brevik for example. It's a valid question to wonder if he would have still been a killer if he'd never been exposed to the right wing ideology that drove him. Would he have been attracted to another extremist ideology? Is it a particular type of person that is attracted to these extreme views and if so, what makes that sort of person? Or was he completely normal before exposure to the ideology? Did the right wing, anti muslim, ideology he followed warp him?

I mentioned Brevik because there have been a number of right wing Islamophobic attacks in the last few years. To use your phrase, they all have one thing in common, right wingers.

The fact is that the vast majority of people who are right wing aren't far right wing. The same goes for Islam. And if you want to say there's something wrong with Islam than you have to accept that there's something inherently violent about conservatives.

In Boston they found that up to 6% of catholic priests had abused children. There's a common connection there. they were all catholic and christian. Does that mean that believing in christ makes you more likely to be a paedophile?
Of course it doesn't. There were loads of other factors involved.
It's the same with islamic terrorism. When someone becomes radicalised it's easy to make a simple correlation = causation but it's wrong. There's loads of factors in each attack. And they're not always the same. Sometimes it is mental health that's a bit more dominant. Sometimes it's what they were exposed to as kids. Sometimes it's discrimination. Sometimes it's a violent narcissist personality. There's always a combination of factors and there's always a number of reasons.

I wonder if, during the Blitz, the British incessantly reminded themselves that not all Germans were in the Luftwaffe. Even as they were being incinerated, ''not all Germans...''

It really is a bit unnecessary. What are you worried about? Baying mobs coming for ''de muslims''?

Nomis21 wrote: »

No not a conspiracy but short sighted policies.

These people are angry at the injustice they see caused by America and its allies. A policy of starting a war to obtain cheap energy. Now we pay the price in pollution, traffic accidents and terrorism. Fifty times as many deaths from road accidents than from terrorism (in London alone) resulting from motor vehicles running on middle eastern oil. Few people seem to be bothered.

And the Muslim sects being persecuted, and the Hindus, and the Jews, the gays, the disabled children in Isil dominated areas, Bangladeshi bloggers, ancient buildings and libraries.. what do they have to do with oil?

Nomis21

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Why use this canard again?

You can't equate car accidents to a terrorist attack.

In the overwhelming majority of car accidents there is no, and read this very carefully,INTENT to kill someone.

In the case of yesterday's attack. There was an INTENT to kill.

Yes I agree, no INTENT. correct.

So it's often manslaughter instead of Murder. Only a slightly less serious crime in many cases.

Widdershins wrote: »

I wonder if, during the Blitz, the British incessantly reminded themselves that not all Germans were in the Luftwaffe. Even as they were being incinerated, ''not all Germans...''

It really is a bit unnecessary. What are you worried about? Baying mobs coming for ''de muslims''?

You aren't adding to the sense of somebody treating this rationally with posts like that. I will leave you to it.

Noddyholder

Nomis21 wrote: »

Yes I agree, no INTENT. correct.

So it's often manslaughter instead of Murder. Only a slightly less serious crime in many cases.

There called road accidents for a reason.

[Deleted User]

Noddyholder wrote: »

There called road accidents for a reason.

They're not called accidents anymore.

Widdershins wrote: »

I wonder if, during the Blitz, the British incessantly reminded themselves that not all Germans were in the Luftwaffe. Even as they were being incinerated, ''not all Germans...''

It really is a bit unnecessary. What are you worried about? Baying mobs coming for ''de muslims''?

I don't think you can equate a nation state with a religion. Even if you could, are you saying that all germans are nazi's? Should we watch the number of germans coming into the country? Is there something inherently violent about being German

Then again, the number of places that rejected Jewish refugees because if their religion. Apparently they wanted to destroy our way of life, their culture wasn't compatible with ours... Hell, they killed Jesus.

At any time you can find an acceptable, irrational fear of some group. The jews, the Irish, the Catholics, the protestants etc... When you look back it always seems stupid.

Will I Am Not

Nomis21 wrote: »

Yes I agree, no INTENT. correct.

So it's often manslaughter instead of Murder. Only a slightly less serious crime in many cases.

Oh ffs. This is the dumbest line of argument I've seen in the whole thread and it's full of dumb arguments.

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think you can equate a nation state with a religion. Even if you could, are you saying that all germans are nazi's? Should we watch the number of germans coming into the country? Is there something inherently violent about being German

Then again, the number of places that rejected Jewish refugees because if their religion. Apparently they wanted to destroy our way of life, their culture wasn't compatible with ours... Hell, they killed Jesus.

At any time you can find an acceptable, irrational fear of some group. The jews, the Irish, the Catholics, the protestants etc... When you look back it always seems stupid.

No, you can't equate a nation with a religion, it was a flippant attempt to illustrate the pointlessness of repetitively stating the obvious to reasonably intelligent people.

There were never such issues with the Jews' religion to be fair. Nor do you see the same sensitivity around discussing the Jews, for that matter. I find the comparison to antisemitism a bit thin. We've not seen anything remotely comparable to it directed toward Muslims in general, even though Islamic terrorism is a continual issue in Europe. On the contrary, I think the overall attitude to the Muslim community has been supportive in the face of terrorism.

Ulysses Gaze

Daily Mail reporting another explosion near Westminster.

Suspect package found

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4343862/Gun-shots-explosion-heard-Westminster.html

wakka12

RobbingBandit wrote: »

There are radical Christian pastors in america that insight hatred towards many different avenues, I have met two Imams one here in Dublin through my brother as he has a business near the mosque where the imam preaches and one in Turkey about 10 years ago through a family friend while in Kusadasi both were very gentle men not in any way imposing not in any way intimidating like the hook hand cleric to use one Muslim radical. Thinking every Muslim is a terrorist is like thinking every Irish person is a drunk, it is a stupid stereotypical way of thinking which can quickly lead to situations where people using rubber gloves are locked up in prison accused of being IRA bombers, racial profiles do not work in any situation.

This bs needs to stop being repeated
Look, there is literally NOBODY on planet earth that thinks all muslim are terrorists . Not even donal trump himself
So can we stop saying this over and over and over and over

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You aren't adding to the sense of somebody treating this rationally with posts like that. I will leave you to it.

Rationally? Do you mean seriously? I'm entirely rational as always, Francie. I treat it seriously, doesn't mean I can't make a less than serious comment. After all, a terrorist killing and injuring 33 people isn't, apparently, all that ''major'' or worrying in the grand scheme of things, so I would hope a joke is to permitted..

BorneTobyWilde

Another dies
Death toll rises
Man in hospital died from his injuries

wakka12

Nomis21 wrote: »

Most recent figures for death on London's roads:

204 killed by road accidents in one year.
4 people killed by terrorist incidents in one year.

Yes it is terrible what happened yesterday in London but if terrorists killed as many people as road accidents then the city would be in lockdown.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehillblog/2010/jun/22/transport-for-london-road-safety-statistics-crap-cycling-waltham-forst-blog

Ah grand so. Let the terrorist attacks continue, when more than 204 people are killed in the next terrorist attack then we are granted permission to worry about it, as its then and only then an issue!

wakka12 wrote: »

This bs needs to stop being repeated
Look, there is literally NOBODY on planet earth that thinks all muslim are terrorists . Not even donal trump himself
So can we stop saying this over and over and over and over

Nobody on the planet thinks that? there's loads. Maybe nobody on this forum but there's plenty of right wing nutjobs.

wakka12 wrote: »

Ah grand so. Let the terrorist attacks continue, when more than 204 people are killed in the next terrorist attack then we are granted permission to worry about it, as its then and only then an issue!

No-one has said that here. What people are saying is that it needs to be kept in perspective. The security forces need to have what they need to investigate. There should be adequate protection at certain events. But don't go nuts over it.

The US invaded two countries, spent billions and killed hundreds of thousands to stop terrorist attacks.

It's what an old professor of mine would have called using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Hank Scorpio

Grayson wrote: »

Mental health is a reason for some. And it's two pronged. Were there issues before being radicalised? Did they appear after.
Take Brevik for example. It's a valid question to wonder if he would have still been a killer if he'd never been exposed to the right wing ideology that drove him. Would he have been attracted to another extremist ideology? Is it a particular type of person that is attracted to these extreme views and if so, what makes that sort of person? Or was he completely normal before exposure to the ideology? Did the right wing, anti muslim, ideology he followed warp him?

I mentioned Brevik because there have been a number of right wing Islamophobic attacks in the last few years. To use your phrase, they all have one thing in common, right wingers.

The fact is that the vast majority of people who are right wing aren't far right wing. The same goes for Islam. And if you want to say there's something wrong with Islam than you have to accept that there's something inherently violent about conservatives.

In Boston they found that up to 6% of catholic priests had abused children. There's a common connection there. they were all catholic and christian. Does that mean that believing in christ makes you more likely to be a paedophile?
Of course it doesn't. There were loads of other factors involved.
It's the same with islamic terrorism. When someone becomes radicalised it's easy to make a simple correlation = causation but it's wrong. There's loads of factors in each attack. And they're not always the same. Sometimes it is mental health that's a bit more dominant. Sometimes it's what they were exposed to as kids. Sometimes it's discrimination. Sometimes it's a violent narcissist personality. There's always a combination of factors and there's always a number of reasons.

Brevik, or Priests who abused Children, are scumbags. I still believe it to be not comparable though, ISIS is a terrorist group who has killed tens of thousands and are actively looking to recruit people to attack the West, entirely different situation. Parts of the teaching of their Religion advocate for physical violence against non believers. We're letting people in may who influence others to commit terrorism, or in some cases terrorists themselves get a free ride.

Forget the extremism and terrorism though for a second. Do you think forced multiculturalism from terror prone regions like we've seen in recent years adds a positive or negative aspect to developed European countries, in respect to economic and social benefits? Respected polls have shown the majority of people in the EU are entirely against Muslim immigration from such regions. Merkel, who most would consider strongly on the left, has said Multiculturalism is a fictional myth creating parallel societies and that it has utterly failed in Germany.

Grayson wrote: »

Nobody on the planet thinks that? there's loads. Maybe nobody on this forum but there's plenty of right wing nutjobs.

It was only this morning that somebody on here was extolling forcing Islam back to the desert.

with no clue of how that could be done I might add.

ceadaoin.

Widdershins wrote: »

Rationally? Do you mean seriously? I'm entirely rational as always, Francie. I treat it seriously, doesn't mean I can't make a less than serious comment. After all, a terrorist killing and injuring 33 people isn't, apparently, all that ''major'' or worrying in the grand scheme of things, so I would hope a joke is to permitted..

Uh oh, Not thinking rationally? are you sure you aren't literally insane?

Widdershins wrote: »

No, you can't equate a nation with a religion, it was a flippant attempt to illustrate the pointlessness of repetitively stating the obvious to reasonably intelligent people.

There were never such issues with the Jews' religion to be fair. Nor do you see the same sensitivity around discussing the Jews, for that matter. I find the comparison to antisemitism a bit thin. We've not seen anything remotely comparable to it directed toward Muslims in general, even though Islamic terrorism is a continual issue in Europe. On the contrary, I think the overall attitude to the Muslim community has been supportive in the face of terrorism.

Jews killed German diplomats. Remember that? they also committed lots of acts of terrorism in Palestine. The first modern suicide bomber in the middle east was a jew. People who wanted to hate jews found their reasons to hate jews.

Of course that's different because we like jews now but hate muslims.

You ignored the rest of my original post. Should we ban priests? 6% in Boston were paedophiles. 6% is a very, very high number. Far higher than the number of muslims that have committed a terrorist attack. There's a far higher correlation between Catholicism/paedophilia than there is between Muslims/Terrorism. Should we ban priests from coming into the country? Does being catholic mean that you're more likely to be a paedophile? Should we monitor catholic communities and give them extra vetting? This is a religion that has endorsed the killing of non believers, encourages the spread of the faith (sometimes by force) and actively covers up child abuse. There's obviously something inherently wrong with that religion. I mean, have you read their holy book. It's filled with more violence than the Koran.
Or do you just not care about the children.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Uh oh, Not thinking rationally? are you sure you aren't literally insane?

My car's at the garage, luckily

Hank Scorpio

When I brought up things about HRC/Obama and so on in the past to defend Trump, I was instantly slammed as deflecting. Now the narrative of people is bringing up Catholic Priests, the IRA, and other terrorists as somewhat of a defense mechanism inciting if others have done bad things, there isn't a problem.

The double standard of the left is ridiculous, and quite honestly, a waste of time engaging in such discussions.