Another day, another killing (split from US shootings topic)

[Durandal]

Haha so much emotional volatility when proving that you don't have a single original reasoned thought in your head, it's all just buzzwords and notions you picked up from leftist propaganda and hivemind circles. I'm emotionally stable and psychologically well adjusted, you jelly?

lol

London should have taser shops.

can't see this being halaled.

Remind me to wear a rubber suit before I go postal.
More means of 'self-defense' would have probably unbalanced the stakes even further in this case. Heck, the perpetrators attacked with illegally obtained knives. That's about as British as it gets.

Anyway it seems like the big three religions, or at least Islam show no signs of slowing down or reducing numbers.

Do you think the world will ever move on? What could encourage this..
Banning religions or attacking them doesn't work. I remember reading in the bible about being the chosen people and all the sinners will persecute you etc etc.

Depends on how you plan to give everyone an identity. People used to maintain homogenous societies in order to avoid an identity crisis, but that's obviously no longer a realistic solution anymore. One thing I like about religion is how it can foster a strong tight-knit community. One thing I dislike about religion is how conflict is almost unavoidable when the interests of two different communities overlap. It'd be easier if an alien threat warped in so we could all unite as 'humans' against a common threat until the aliens are destroyed, but that's not going to happen for the time being.

[Bananamatic]

if only there was a knife surrender bin on london bridge

[Mortificator]

Didn't Russia do something where they would arrest the family of a terrorist... and it kind of worked. It seems very hard line, but it's a threat isn't it. I doubt something like that could happen here but as I have a pretty low opinion of the average dicksplash I'd be fine with it.

If you're fine with going after people who did nothing wrong because they're related to people who did, congratulations, you're fine with terrorism.

[dan76]

If you're fine with going after people who did nothing wrong because they're related to people who did, congratulations, you're fine with terrorism.

I suppose that depends on how you define "doing nothing wrong".

[trap15]

Are you implying that a terrorist's mother definitely was the cause of their actions and they need to be held accountable?

[dan76]

Are you implying that a terrorist's mother definitely was the cause of their actions and they need to be held accountable?

No. But it's late.

[Skykid]

Are you implying that a terrorist's mother definitely was the cause of their actions and they need to be held accountable?

That's not the point, it's meant as a deterrent. They're not looking to lock up people's innocent families, they're just threatening that should you be wise enough to become a terrorist in which you kill, or have intent to kill innocent people, your entire family will face the consequences. So when that radical batshit insane fucknut tries to radicalise you, for the sake of your family look the other way.

Hard line is really the only way to make a dent, so I don't blame the Russians for going to extremes to combat extremism.

[Xyga]

Haha so much emotional volatility when proving that you don't have a single original reasoned thought in your head, it's all just buzzwords and notions you picked up from leftist propaganda and hivemind circles. I'm emotionally stable and psychologically well adjusted, you jelly?

You really can't exist on this forum without attacking me randomly once in a while, now you're even quoting my posts from about a year ago.
I'd suggest you lay off me now you brain dead goat-fucking fascist cockroach, or do you want to escalate this into an open internets brawl so we can have real fun?

[MintyTheCat]

Are you implying that a terrorist's mother definitely was the cause of their actions and they need to be held accountable?

That's not the point, it's meant as a deterrent. They're not looking to lock up people's innocent families, they're just threatening that should you be wise enough to become a terrorist in which you kill, or have intent to kill innocent people, your entire family will face the consequences. So when that radical batshit insane fucknut tries to radicalise you, for the sake of your family look the other way.

Hard line is really the only way to make a dent, so I don't blame the Russians for going to extremes to combat extremism.

It will not deter anyone. You are quite independent from your family, hell, I doubt most of them really have much care for their families so this is not going to be effective.

I think most of you guys are looking for quick, short and short-sighted solutions. The Nazis tried that and it never works out.

What you are describing is handled by general police enquiries anyway, Skykid, so I fail to see how parading or labelling a perpetrator's family serves any further purpose from what you are suggesting that already takes place.

The top and bottom of it is that some people, not ALL people, will murder, will pick up a piss poor 'cause' and try to score a hit. Sometimes for no other reason than they fancied it and perhaps couched in the tired "it was my duty" or "god told me to" etc. Debating on a forum about banning religion, victimising families, etc. will have no effect what so ever.

It is a fine line but the best that they can do is to gather intelligence as to how people are attracted to radicalism, for a model, offer people other options. Marginalised, isolated people find it easier to pick up a cause usually.

[Skykid]

Debating on a forum about banning religion, victimising families, etc. will have no effect what so ever.

But apparently it has had an effect in Russia

Isn't that the current topic of discussion?

I don't understand the Nazi correlation at all: we're not looking for a swift sharp solution (and neither were the Nazis, which is why isn't doesn't make any comparative sense) we're looking for a solution full stop.

You say these people don't care enough about their families for their incarceration to have an effect, and maybe you're right. But that's a broad generalisation and no one can possibly know whether or not that's true for all people.

You consider this action extreme and unfair - and so do I - but you need to look at the bigger picture. Do you allow some people to suffer to protect the safety of the majority?

[BryanM]

I agree; throwing every congress critter who voted for the Iraq war, every sponsor that gave them more than $300 in campaign contributions, and their families into jail.

They're insane bloodthirsty terrorists, after all. It's only way to make us safe.

[Skykid]

I agree; throwing every congress critter who voted for the Iraq war, every sponsor that gave them more than $300 in campaign contributions, and their families into jail.

They're insane bloodthirsty terrorists, after all. It's only way to make us safe.

I agree completely.

[BulletMagnet]

But apparently it has had an effect in Russia

Unfortunately, Russia has also been using "anti-extremism" as a rationale to crack down on groups that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and in truth I'm tempted to guess that any ruling authority prone to bragging about its "tough stance" on anti-terrorism is partially, if not primarily, motivated by the opportunity to sweep such "collateral damage" under the rug while the populace is afraid enough to look the other way.

[CHI]

10 weeks + 3 incidents = what is the World (UK) coming to

[tomwhite2004]

10 weeks + 3 incidents = what is the World (UK) coming to

murders occur every day, just becuase these are ideologiclly motivated doesnt give them any more significance in my opinion, its about time the media stopped going so overboard and essentially giving the perpetrators better obituaries and more attention than the victims. and its ramadan so that always raises the odds of some fuckwit going for it.

[Mortificator]

Debating on a forum about banning religion, victimising families, etc. will have no effect what so ever.

But apparently it has had an effect in Russia

As if there wasn't a major attack there just recently. Russia has had more severe terrorism than the UK, both total and proportional to the population, for as far back as I can find statistics for. Trying to reduce terrorism via their methods is like trying to have a healthier liver by adopting the lifestyle of a guy with cirrhosis.

Because, unsurprisingly, the harshness of punishment has a minuscule deterrent effect. It's not like this hasn't been tried many times throughout human history; were it actually effective, crime would have been solved long ago.

Furthermore, I think it's short-sighted not to consider the potential draconian tactics have as a catalyst. Can you guarantee that no one will be incited and made susceptible to radicalization by the British people agreeing to hurt law-abiding citizens solely over the actions of their parent / child / sibling / cousin?

[DEL]

CHI wrote:

10 weeks + 3 incidents = what is the World (UK) coming to

I explained it all years ago.
Now let's play Call of Duty Black Ops.

[emphatic]

murders occur every day, just becuase these are ideologiclly motivated doesnt give them any more significance in my opinion, its about time the media stopped going so overboard and essentially giving the perpetrators better obituaries and more attention than the victims. and its ramadan so that always raises the odds of some fuckwit going for it.

This is basically how the Ministry of Magic reacted to Voldemort's return. Except, you know, these are real, flesh and blood people being slaughtered in the streets.

[tomwhite2004]

never read a harry potter novel so that reference is over my head.

[neorichieb1971]

Britain should lead with a harder line on terrorism than other countries. The London Bridge case was solved in 8 minutes and if that isn't a deterrent I don't know what is.

But what is more terrifying to me is things like -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA6XcyXsxXU

and -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xYdUJeGWbM


If this keeps on happening there will be war on the streets of every town not just fancy parts of London.

[BryanM]

This is basically how the Ministry of Magic reacted to Voldemort's return.

Pretty sure these are just human beings, and not god-wizards with supernatural powers and their own personal army.

Only once you've established a government, as ISIS has been trying to do, and Saudi Arabia has done, can you have such overwhelming might. Good thing we're trying to pressure Saudi Arabia to commit less murder, right?

[MintyTheCat]

Debating on a forum about banning religion, victimising families, etc. will have no effect what so ever.

But apparently it has had an effect in Russia

Isn't that the current topic of discussion?

I don't understand the Nazi correlation at all: we're not looking for a swift sharp solution (and neither were the Nazis, which is why isn't doesn't make any comparative sense) we're looking for a solution full stop.

You say these people don't care enough about their families for their incarceration to have an effect, and maybe you're right. But that's a broad generalisation and no one can possibly know whether or not that's true for all people.

You consider this action extreme and unfair - and so do I - but you need to look at the bigger picture. Do you allow some people to suffer to protect the safety of the majority?

Russia is a very different kettle of fish, Skykid, for a start you can lose people along the way and have people taken out as part of the course.

First of all, the Nazis were looking for a short, sharp solution and behaved post-haste in killing great numbers of people that they deemed 'not suitable'. Few times in our collective history have we seen just industrialised murder, Skykid.

Your 'solutions' miss the entirety of the situation. People, the relations they form, how groups of people work is a complex area. It requires years and direction and focus to have any effect. By banning one thing or another it rarely does anything. When a martyr is killed off or assassinated it becomes a rallying-cry for others to follow. It barely matters then what the individual did or did not do once they reach that martyr'd status. So, in short: if you push quickly, look for easy, quick solutions you will nearly always get it wrong and be suffering the outcome long-term.

Second statement has no meaning, Skykid.

We have heard what amounts to "break a few eggs to make an omelette" argument time over, Skykid, and it never justifies draconian measures. You are trivialising a complex situation that you are ill-equipped to solve, and in fact, you cannot solve it, because to do that you risk losing semblance.
As a compromise, the state puts people in prison if they are found to be guilty. The state taking a guilty individual's time and such and taking much of their freedom is pretty much as far as the state can go whilst maintaining civilisation and there it can hope that the individual will work it out for them self.

However, by dividing society, marginalising society, splitting people up into polarised groups you pretty much always end up with the same outcome.
The only way that I can see to prevent this is to simply not marginalise people in the first place.
I live in a country that has a set of welfare protocols in place and in part the amount of cash that unemployed people receive is to used to stave off radicalism with the idea being that a content potential malcontent would have less to be pissed off about when they are not living hand to mouth all the time and thereby removes the most radical elements from appealing to the masses of marginalised.

I remember a russian Engineer saying to me at work a few years ago : "you either have a strong welfare system or a strong police force". In Russia's case it is closer to a strong police force.
I see the UK moving further towards that.

Debating on a forum about banning religion, victimising families, etc. will have no effect what so ever.

But apparently it has had an effect in Russia

As if there wasn't a major attack there just recently. Russia has had more severe terrorism than the UK, both total and proportional to the population, for as far back as I can find statistics for. Trying to reduce terrorism via their methods is like trying to have a healthier liver by adopting the lifestyle of a guy with cirrhosis.

Because, unsurprisingly, the harshness of punishment has a minuscule deterrent effect. It's not like this hasn't been tried many times throughout human history; were it actually effective, crime would have been solved long ago.

Furthermore, I think it's short-sighted not to consider the potential draconian tactics have as a catalyst. Can you guarantee that no one will be incited and made susceptible to radicalization by the British people agreeing to hurt law-abiding citizens solely over the actions of their parent / child / sibling / cousin?

Completely agree: harsh measures kind of attract nut jobs.
Russia has a terrible, terrible social history.
In some arab countries they decapitate folks for crimes and such, but they do it every year, year after year. That you would think would be a healthy deterent so why do people 'keep committing crime' - by your understanding a suitable deterrent would be effective such as shaming the family and such, but I would put the 'individual decapitated' higher up my scale of severity than a family being shamed who committed an act of terrorism. I think that we can perhaps deduce from this that it serves no useful purpose and only really serves to ostracise a criminal's family.

I agree: it 'justifies' any means under the guise of "terrorism" and that puts the government in a position to abuse the rights they were invested with. If you are stopped going out of your accomodation and searched "because of terrorism" or prevented from leaving the town/air port/etc. for those reasons just where does it end?

Britain should lead with a harder line on terrorism than other countries. The London Bridge case was solved in 8 minutes and if that isn't a deterrent I don't know what is.

It was not solved what so ever because it will happen again if we go by the conditions of the situation.
Hard and fast will not make a dent. I mean, you cannot even scare them off with a "shoot to kill" policy. If they set themselves up for certain death they are already way ahead of the competition. This is part of the tenet of radicals; you cannot beat them with force or severity or condemnation.

You need bigger, broader policies and ideas to have any effect.

[Durandal]

Theoretically, it's already fine as it is. You can't apply stricter and more preventative but draconian measures without risking even more power falling in the hands of the government at the cost of your privacy and freedom (especially when the quality of the security the government provides isn't the least bit guaranteed), and there's only so much tax money you can spend on welfare checks and ensuring better living conditions for immigrants and lower-class citizens to prevent further radicalization. But when the police do a poor job of maintaining public order where you get shit like no-go zones and people taking advantage of welfare while unemployment is still an issue, it's only bound to create more fissures in society. Not that a perfect implementation of the current system would 200% prevent terrorism, but it certainly helps.

Overly comfortable living conditions with no countermeasures in place against people taking advantage of the system at the taxpayers' expense and being arrested by the police for showing signs of thought crime while technically not breaking any laws are no surefire methods of preventing further terrorism, they set more of a bad precedent than anything for both the populace and government. You don't exactly want to be told that you're powerless to prevent those around you from dying aside from being as hospitable and altruistic as possible to every shade of humanity you encounter, and you don't exactly want to be thrown in jail by Big Brother for showing an interest in facesitting (at most they can keep an eye on you, which makes it doubly more ironic that the bobbies of the British Police State failed to apprehend these culprits despite both showing several severe signs of radicalization, if that's the direction the UK law enforcement is going for then they should at least do it right).

This may sound incredibly nihilistic, but aside from reducing unemployment, ensuring the quality of law enforcement and preventing radicalization in Islamic communities by spreading awareness, there's not much you or the government can do to stop one of the million people currently driving a truck or holding a kitchen knife from becoming a martyr. Stricter law enforcement will always come at the expense your freedom on top of enforcing negative stereotypes and marginalizing a certain people, while apathy and pretending nothing is happening certainly doesn't do much to improve the nation's happiness and feeling of security. It's a tough balance to strike. Unhappy people will welcome any change as long as it feels like something is being done, which makes them easy prey for ideologues and politicians. Apathy is only a personal solution, if you're ok with things as they are then you don't have the desire to improve the current state of affairs either which clearly doesn't fly for everybody else.

[dan76]

This is part of the tenet of radicals; you cannot beat them with force or severity or condemnation.

You need bigger, broader policies and ideas to have any effect.

Like what?

How can you have a country that is against an ideology and not breed radicals? There will always be people who want to push back and unfortunately their version of pushing back is blowing themselves up or ramming into people. Are they nuts beforehand and latch on to something, or does the radicalisation turn them nuts. Who the fuck knows.

[ZacharyB]

It seems to be the same problem as preventing suicide. If people want to kill themselves, how do you stop them? A person's life is one of the most elemental personal properties.

The typical one-liner of normal people to suicidal people is to "get help", but what if that person doesn't want help? Or at least, the kind of help that such a phrase implies. At that point, it's down to personal precepts.

What Minty's Russian friend said is really interesting.

[Bananamatic]

How can you have a country that is against an ideology and not breed radicals?

by not letting them in in the first place? seems to work decently here in eastern europe and I hope it stays that way

[Giest118]

by not letting them in in the first place? seems to work decently here in eastern europe and I hope it stays that way

But that's racist and nazi.

[Durandal]

How can you have a country that is against an ideology and not breed radicals?

by not letting them in in the first place? seems to work decently here in eastern europe and I hope it stays that way

They don't even want to permanently stay in Eastern Europe in the first place

[charlie chong]

cant believe politicians are actually talking about harsher sentences for suicide bombers as a deterrent

how do these people run our country

[emphatic]

cant believe politicians are actually talking about harsher sentences for suicide bombers as a deterrent

OMG, LOL