London terror attack confirmed by Met Police

Phoebas wrote: »

That's not a radical proposal. Incitement to hatred is already an offence.

I'm well aware that it is already an offense.

It would be radical to see it implemented without fear or favour though.

Nor would I feel safe advocating that position in a bar full of the modern left.

I considered myself on the left but i'm not pretending there isn't a problem.

Deleted User wrote:

plenty to have a phobia about actually

I'm not sure why you are equating my concern/affection for Muslim neighbours with extremist *****, but ok...

ISIS and their tentacled affiliates have openly declared that, even if there were no Western intervention in the Middle East, that they would still exist to destroy our way of life. While Western foreign policy have have exacerbated a pre-existing problem (at most), the Islamist extremist problem is now here to stay and we must act accordingly.

As another poster commented above, the European populations are no longer taking excuses. Many of these excuses come from the Left; the Chomskyite-types whose worldview overlaps with the Islamist extremist perspective. Both far-left politics and Islamism share one core belief - that the West is the source of all human problems and that Zionism poisons everything. They only differ on detail.

And the idea that Theresa May should bear some responsibility for last night's attack is absurd. No one politician has the capability or capacity to prevent every possible attack. The responsibility must always go with the mass murderers, not us.

mikeybrennan wrote: »

'500 active plots being investigated by police and MI5'

Shows the scale of the problem and how powerless intelligence and police are to deal with it alone.

Tolerance and kind-heartedness started this ball rolling, offering our countries up to whoever wanted to come here.

Somewhere along the way, that genuine tolerance was hijacked by a rabid subset of people who transformed it into a police-like mindset, parroted across all forms of media for years upon years. This effectively placed the majority at the mercy of a suicidal-like minority.

And then the immigration crisis happened, and slowly but surely the majority are re-growing a pair of balls, demanding that this way of life halt. It wont come easy, theres still plenty of whataboutisms to come, plenty of racism accusations. But the indoctrination via media is wearing off.

Tolerance is code-word for "bend-over, and shut the f**k up"

So really, its time for some serious INtolerance to bring back balance. The politicians and police are hamstrung, afraid/prevented from doing anything that even resembles action. Lets change that.

Is it a nice thing? Nope. Is it the inevitable result of being told what to think, say and do for years and years while you watch your own country slip away? You betcha!

I read that the Met had killed the terrorists within 8 mins of getting the call. What would the chances of that be here. I know we have the ERU/ARU but there's not a lot of them and they tend to roam about when on duty so they could be a lot more than 8 mins away.

The old debate about arming the gardai is probably going to have to be dealt with. While I'm not really in favour of arming every Garda, I'd say a compromise where every (or a higher percentage) Garda is firearms certified and every station should have enough guns to cover an entire shift. if the s**t hit the fan.

kaymin wrote: »

Hopefully this event is the trigger for a tougher approach from the government:

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May's Statement on the London Bridge Terror Attack https://bloom.bg/2rpu8tN

I remain doubtful, a police chief was on sky earlier hammering The Tories for their cuts. The last line or so is absolutely frightening.

https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/871334312221736960

Potential routes to solutions (that do not involve the mass deportment/internment/murder of all Muslims, so if that's what you want, skip to the next post, please).

- Vigilance against extremist preaching - which includes removing imams that do preach violence or against the laws of Ireland and encouraging moderate normal preachers to replace them. Merely shutting down/demolishing all mosques just leads to underground preaching that will probably be more radical than it would have been otherwise, since only those already more hardline are likely to risk continued preaching under the threat of martyrism. Didn't work with the Catholics of England, unlikely to work in modern Ireland.

- Deporting/imprisonment for those actively engaged in radicalisation: Tbh, I prefer imprisonment and potentially de-brainwashing, which may or may not be possible. I've argued before that deporting does solve the immediate issue, but I'm not mad keen on sending a potential jihadist off to another country to join ISIS and be an active participant. Why give them soldiers? But anyway, that's a debatable one, just NIMBYism is dodgy in a globally-linked world.

- Enough with the "soil of the first country" thing for refugees. It's overloading countries on the borders of the Med, including Greece which just plain can't cope. The burden should be spread more evenly. Otherwise, you can't integrate people, only hold them indefinitely. They cannot contribute, they see their own lives and those of their children put on hold for months at best, years at worst. We can't just box up a load of traumatised people forever and expect them to get on with things and it is entirely unfair on struggling economies. If the UK are bitching about migrants, imagine how Greece feels! This solution is so far only making things worse for everyone involved, bar the northernmost countries who are insisting that the south copes with the majority of the problem. It also bangs up a large group of ordinary people with perhaps the odd few with a predisposition to radicalism and leaves them feed on the desperate and bored (Boredom might sound a very minor complaint, but people who have been interned, even in the Nazi or Japanese WW2 camps have talked about how boredom was one of the worst aspects, even more so than the violence and fear in the long term).

- Programs for newly arrived migrants. This would include gradual integration, language learning and where conflicts between personal faith and the law of the country may arise. The law of the country -must- outweigh personal considerations influenced by faith. It would also include paths towards employment (people integrate a lot better if they have something to do in the public sphere, and isn't one of the complaints that immigrants drain our resources? Let's let them create resources then.) And counselling for those who have come from places where they have been exposed to traumatic violence, had family or friends murdered, have lived under the fear of murder. This must also emphasise that in Ireland/given European country, the rights of women are held at the same standards as the rights of men, and the rights of homosexual people are just as important as the rights of heterosexual people. Breaking these laws is a crime.

- Absolutely discourage vigilantism, both nativistic and Sharia patrolling. Both of these should be criminal if they impact people innocently walking down the street. No-one should be accosted for the "crime" of just being there. And clamping down on revenge attacks against Muslims (which absolutely do happen) reduces the feeling of -need- for such patrols. Same goes for out and out hate speech, from either side.

- Controls on migration - I absolutely believe that we have a human duty to protect those who are fleeing oppression and murder. We can reduce so-called "economic migrants" (although I suspect some do use the term way too loosely) in favour of those desperately in need of asylum, but we should be cautious about over-controlling it, as Britain may well find out in the next couple of years as their industries that depend on economic migration struggle. There is a balance to be struck, and neither unrestricted migration nor a complete ban is the way to do it.

- Increase the police force and the intelligence services and ensure they can work freely with those of neighbouring countries to share intel and report/contain jihadist movement or potential bombs. May be difficult to do that with the US at the moment, all things considered, but European and Middle Eastern countries whose leaderships are untainted by ISIL propaganda.

- Integrate children of refugees through schooling. We may need to sort out some of our own religious issues around schooling while doing that, mind you. For god's sake, don't poison the minds of our own children against eleven-year-old Muhammad or Aamirah. Children can be cruel and if they pick up from their parents that Muslims are to be hated and reviled, those kids will not be allowed to integrate and we will end up with social misfits who feel they will never be treated with anything but suspicion and contempt. There's your potential jihadist, same as your potential school shooter.

- And the hardest one, solving the Middle East so people don't have to flee for their lives. I don't even have a starting place there, although I see another migration crisis soon to result from the absolutely shameful bombing tactics going on in Yemen, powered by the Saudis, supported by the US and the UK and ignored by the rest of the world.

None of these will solve everything in the get-go. This is not a problem that can be solved by one sweeping answer. I don't have one and frankly, nor does anyone else. Anyone that claims they have is either lying or Katie Hopkins (see lying).

Yes, it will take money. But overall, probably less money (and cruelty) than attempting to eradicate an entire sector of Irish society, be it by deporting, murder or internship. I'm sure there's holes to pick with every single point I've made, but I think they are decent starting places, even if the details would need more hammering out.

123shooter wrote: »

Warning Lefty Alert

Sorry mate i dont want to be always looking over my shoulder when i go about my daily business or worry about my mrs getting wiped out if she goes shopping.

Neither do i want to tolerate and definitely not respect scum who want to kill me and mine or force me to believe their hocus pocus ****e.

I suggest you shove your tolerance and respect. Something needs doing and it needs doing now we have all been far to tolerant for far to long.

An ostrich will only survive a short time with his head stuck in the sand. His enemies just see him as an easy meal.

Don't show your ignorance, an ostrich is a tough bird and has few enemies as far as I know. Do not go on a jury any time soon. The words I mentioned tolerance, respect to apply to everyone, not just one sided, as you chose. You clearly do not appear to have either.

gandalf wrote: »

So some say these fanatics carry out these atrocities because they hate the liberal Western way of life that we all enjoy and these people want to fight the criminals by curbing and restricting our freedoms and way of life. That sounds like capitulation to me.

I agree to an extent. It is paradoxical.

It's also paradoxical to argue that we can't act (on immigration, curtailing of propaganda, sanctions on agents of propaganda...) for fear of upsetting in situ Muslims, while arguing that not all Muslims are volatile extremists.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Such a move would only increase the hostility and resentment. There is no overnight solution, other than vigilance, tolerance and respect.

With all due respect, you're assuming Muslims in Europe are thick.
I've tried to put it in more delicate ways, but really this is the bottom line.

Taking sanctions against extremists' propaganda is really something that any reasonable Muslim can understand and accept, and communicate about. Surely.

It's weird.
It's like every body is talking about Muslims as if they're completely unable to communicate or understand our concerns. Muslims whose families moved to the West, presumably to enjoy the Western ways, and for their kids to grow up in a Western culture environment.

It's either a) or b).

a) We can't do anything, tighten any restrictive measures whatsoever, we have to pussyfoot around with sporadic and inconsistent actions ...

... because Muslims already resident in the various nations will go ballistic if we hint at diminishing propaganda and risk of attack. This is assuming currently moderate Muslims are mostly likely to react aggressively to any measure taken against religious extremism.

b) We can attempt to control propaganda/radicalization by tightening measures already in place, sanctioning some mosques, stopping immigration, possibly other measures like revoking nationality/deporting/jail...

... and most Muslims already within our midst will understand, express concerns where concerns are, and engage in dialogue, because that's what regular people do, they're not completely thick, and they have families to protect too.

Paradoxically, option a), which a lot of liberals on here are suggesting is our only option, is more prejudiced and reductive than option b), imo.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Don't show your ignorance, an ostrich is a tough bird and has few enemies as far as I know. Do not go on a jury any time soon. The words I mentioned tolerance, respect to apply to everyone, not just one sided, as you chose. You clearly do not appear to have either.

Many people who have views like yours though tend to be selective in how they are applied.

If a man calls for Jews to have their throats slit in a public meeting the response from many who express similar views tends to vary depending on who he is.

Pointing out that it being done on a regular basis to hundreds of thousands of people and that one has a problem with it, irregardless of who they are or why they say it is enough for many who express views like you have to lead to No Platforming or personal abuse.

The above may not apply to you.

Samaris wrote: »

Potential routes to solutions (that do not involve the mass deportment/internment/murder of all Muslims, so if that's what you want, skip to the next post, please).

- Vigilance against extremist preaching - which includes removing imams that do preach violence or against the laws of Ireland and encouraging moderate normal preachers to replace them. Merely shutting down/demolishing all mosques just leads to underground preaching that will probably be more radical than it would have been otherwise, since only those already more hardline are likely to risk continued preaching under the threat of martyrism. Didn't work with the Catholics of England, unlikely to work in modern Ireland.

- Deporting/imprisonment for those actively engaged in radicalisation: Tbh, I prefer imprisonment and potentially de-brainwashing, which may or may not be possible. I've argued before that deporting does solve the immediate issue, but I'm not mad keen on sending a potential jihadist off to another country to join ISIS and be an active participant. Why give them soldiers? But anyway, that's a debatable one, just NIMBYism is dodgy in a globally-linked world.

- Enough with the "soil of the first country" thing for refugees. It's overloading countries on the borders of the Med, including Greece which just plain can't cope. The burden should be spread more evenly. Otherwise, you can't integrate people, only hold them indefinitely. They cannot contribute, they see their own lives and those of their children put on hold for months at best, years at worst. We can't just box up a load of traumatised people forever and expect them to get on with things and it is entirely unfair on struggling economies. If the UK are bitching about migrants, imagine how Greece feels! This solution is so far only making things worse for everyone involved, bar the northernmost countries who are insisting that the south copes with the majority of the problem. It also bangs up a large group of ordinary people with perhaps the odd few with a predisposition to radicalism and leaves them feed on the desperate and bored (Boredom might sound a very minor complaint, but people who have been interned, even in the Nazi or Japanese WW2 camps have talked about how boredom was one of the worst aspects, even more so than the violence and fear in the long term).

- Programs for newly arrived migrants. This would include gradual integration, language learning and where conflicts between personal faith and the law of the country may arise. The law of the country -must- outweigh personal considerations influenced by faith. It would also include paths towards employment (people integrate a lot better if they have something to do in the public sphere, and isn't one of the complaints that immigrants drain our resources? Let's let them create resources then.) And counselling for those who have come from places where they have been exposed to traumatic violence, had family or friends murdered, have lived under the fear of murder. This must also emphasise that in Ireland/given European country, the rights of women are held at the same standards as the rights of men, and the rights of homosexual people are just as important as the rights of heterosexual people. Breaking these laws is a crime.

- Absolutely discourage vigilantism, both nativistic and Sharia patrolling. Both of these should be criminal if they impact people innocently walking down the street. No-one should be accosted for the "crime" of just being there. And clamping down on revenge attacks against Muslims (which absolutely do happen) reduces the feeling of -need- for such patrols. Same goes for out and out hate speech, from either side.

- Controls on migration - I absolutely believe that we have a human duty to protect those who are fleeing oppression and murder. We can reduce so-called "economic migrants" (although I suspect some do use the term way too loosely) in favour of those desperately in need of asylum, but we should be cautious about over-controlling it, as Britain may well find out in the next couple of years as their industries that depend on economic migration struggle. There is a balance to be struck, and neither unrestricted migration nor a complete ban is the way to do it.

- Increase the police force and the intelligence services and ensure they can work freely with those of neighbouring countries to share intel and report/contain jihadist movement or potential bombs. May be difficult to do that with the US at the moment, all things considered, but European and Middle Eastern countries whose leaderships are untainted by ISIL propaganda.

- Integrate children of refugees through schooling. We may need to sort out some of our own religious issues around schooling while doing that, mind you. For god's sake, don't poison the minds of our own children against eleven-year-old Muhammad or Aamirah. Children can be cruel and if they pick up from their parents that Muslims are to be hated and reviled, those kids will not be allowed to integrate and we will end up with social misfits who feel they will never be treated with anything but suspicion and contempt. There's your potential jihadist, same as your potential school shooter.

- And the hardest one, solving the Middle East so people don't have to flee for their lives. I don't even have a starting place there, although I see another migration crisis soon to result from the absolutely shameful bombing tactics going on in Yemen, powered by the Saudis, supported by the US and the UK and ignored by the rest of the world.

None of these will solve everything in the get-go. This is not a problem that can be solved by one sweeping answer. I don't have one and frankly, nor does anyone else. Anyone that claims they have is either lying or Katie Hopkins (see lying).

Yes, it will take money. But overall, probably less money (and cruelty) than attempting to eradicate an entire sector of Irish society, be it by deporting, murder or internship. I'm sure there's holes to pick with every single point I've made, but I think they are decent starting places, even if the details would need more hammering out.

Well thought out, agree with a lot of it. But I have a more simplistic stance on these things now.

We can get ourselves in a tizzy trying to accommodate people and the potential murderers that come with them, or we can just not accommodate people.

It has been blasted so much into our eyes and ears by the extreme left/liberal mindset that sometimes its very, very easy to lose sight of solution.

The actual idea that we DONT have to accommodate people disappears. If things were equal all round, Europeans by the millions living and emigrating to muslim countries, then this argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But things are not equal, and we don't owe other countries anything, and we should get that bit of clarity going again.

I mean picture it say a 100 years from now. Mohammed Ali with his family living in Ireland for a few generations, a country far less irish than ever in history. He wakes up one day, "hey kids, lets go back to visit the old country, it'll be fun, everyone looks like you and there are no foreigners around. It'll be nice!"

Nice for them to have the option. We wont have that, because its all so unequal.

Ranting here, but I'll state it again. We, seriously, need to question whether we have an obligation to ourselves, or to people from other countries. There really isn't a middle ground thanks to the one-way flow.

Murrisk wrote: »

Seriously, again with this bizarre... euphemism, I guess?

In some ways it is a euphemism but it is very accurate in other ways.