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

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.

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.

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.

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''?

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.

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.

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

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..

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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