Breaking : Numerous people shot outside UK Parliament .....

if 4% or more as that ... I think it is a dynamic digit which changes in both directions always.

But right these named segment is the problem, because if doing worst enough, often enough or using media to spread their BS around best enough, people think they are the majority of the society!

 

Ok, thanks for responding. It was not obvious to me which is why I asked.

 

The 3000 radicalised Muslims represent 0.1% of our Muslim community in the UK and such a tiny proportion of the whole population I can't be bothered to work it out. I suspect a massively disproportionate amount of money is spent in an attempt to prevent them from committing a crime yet somehow it is our fault that these attacks happen.

 

@PrincipleInvestment
Really? You think we don't? Yet you believe we bug Trump towers.

 

.................

 

You think terrorists are planning attacks on their phones and computers?

 

Radical Islam exploits western humanitarianism. They rely on the west using humane, and obscenely expensive techniques to thwart terrorism. Financial collapse is exactly their goal.

 

Technically Jesus was an alien visitor with awesome powers who came to clue us in about things-
"I am not of this world ....though you do not believe me, believe the miracles.....i'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:23,John 10:38,Matt 13:35)
so isn't it a bit unscientific and illogical not to hear him out?
Hey Spock will you listen to him?

"Affirmative, I'm all ears"..

 

I know the UK has an Orwellian facial recognition network that frightens me. I know the US bugs our allies. I know an ex MI5 agent compiled a highly dubious dossier. I trust few agencies. Seems they focus their attentions on things that don't ensure our safety as much as they should.

 

So you wish us to abandon western humanitarianism? Who has won in that scenario?

 

Very good post and sowing of facts!

Particularly the point "freedom of speech" is very important in matter of these rat pipers...

A full freedom of speech is abused by this scum, because due to it they are able to spread around the BS with what they catch these people like the Brit here now and many others! So to restrict this freedom of speech to prevent that it is miss-used to be attacked at least ... means to forbid hate speeches and calling for violence and so on, will hinder the job of the scum!

 

So let me sum this up. You want us to adopt automatic surveillance measures but you don't trust the security agencies. Also you think these techniques are ruinously expensive and Orwellian. You also think we are too humanitarian. I'm confused, if we could harness the energy of you spinning around contradicting yourself maybe we wouldn't need the oil which is the source of this violence in the first place.

 

Re the London terror attack, I'm English living in England and can make a few harsh observations-
1- The police botched up by having an unarmed officer guard (you couldn't make it up) who sadly got stabbed to death and hadn't even been issued with a stab vest, and how did the terrorist get so close to him with a knife, didn't the cop have a baton?
2- Why wasn't the whole area sewn up tighter than a drum with strategically-placed firearms officers?
3- Likewise why wasn't the whole area saturated with CCTV for after-incident analysis, for example to see if the terrorist had accomplices in the car who ran off?
4- The media were wrong to give ISIS free publicity by blowing the whole thing up into a "major incident" whereas it was just one wackjob with a car and a knife.

 

Oh fer cryin' out loud, you know exactly what he means. By using "mister" the BBC is showing mindblowing respect for this terrorist, which may or may not be surprising for this bunch of lefty crackpots, but is lamentable by any decent standard. Stop being pointlessly provocative.

 

Good.

I don't think there is any evidence that secular countries are less likely to be brutal. What there is evidence for so far is that so called democracies do not attack each other - so far.

There certainly is though evidence that Fundamentalist religion is prone to extremes. However these things can also be looked at in a larger context. Re radical Islam. Re neo con's. The neo cons in the 60's decided that one of the ways to blunt democracy with control was to bring back religion and bring it into politics. They rightly saw the power in it so when the Russia/Afghan/US war was ongoing they decided to stop supporting democratically minded afghans and instead to fund and train religious fanatics who were let out of arab jails, it being imagined they would die more quickly. Abdul Haq, a democractic Afghan told the US again and again what they were like and kept asking them to stop funding them but the US continued supporting them because they believed that the democratic Afghans would be much more likely to come to a truce with the Russians than the religious fanatics. That is how as a force they were born. However it was not until the US started making failed states in the ME that they became what they are now. I think in this what Timothy Snyder says about the holocaust has some relevance. He said that it was the destruction of states and all the norms which they entail which allowed people in these failed states to act in a way which normally they just never would. We see exactly the same with people who join ISIS and similar. Now where I would argue with you is that while you lump them all together you are in danger of creating a self fulfilling prophecy. ISIS is using religion for political means. Sort out the political problems which have been created in the ME and no one would want to spend a minute with them. Before the Afghan war Abdul Haq asked the US not to bomb. He said the people, including much of the Taliban were ready to get rid of the Taliban and put in democracy. They had well had enough of them. He asked the US to allow them a short time when he believed they could overthrow them through largely psychological means whereas if the US came in bombing and killing innocents people would just go back to the Taliban believing that was the way they could protect their families. He was probably the last man in Afghanistan who had the respect of all the tribes and who could bring them together and they had told him, just give us the nod and the wink and we will go after the Taliban - or give up being the Taliban which many were. The US would have none of it and he was caught and killed by the Taliban while the US did not even respond to his call for help.

There are many people who are religious and use it to help them in their lives. However we also know that people including Muslims were giving up religion until - well recent happenings and non Wahhabi Islam had been used for years to stop desputes - no cutting off the heads and so on so I would suggest that the most likely way to get people off religion is to not harm them politically and certainly not to claim they are all maniacs.

The US itself now has a strong presence of the American Christian Right in Government. Their views at worst are not that different from ISIS. The US may indeed be about to see itself go through a change of this kind. People are suggesting if you are heading for fascism, then it may well be the Christian Right who present the ideology to go with that.....and that is not to be confused with American progressive Christians who do whatever they can for those in need.

 

He actually was under surveillance, but was taken off the priority radar a while back.

The word is that the British intelligence services are very good. Nothing has happened here like there's been on the European continent, and many attacks have been prevented.

 

Is "Mister" really a term of respect, though? Don't courts and formal, government letters address anyone as "Mr"? Isn't the use of "Mr." as a term of respect more of an American thing?

 

Yes Bjorn, it is.

https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/845064558548963328

Great monologue from Andrew Neil, the UK's number one political interrogator and TV presenter.

 

1- The officer killed was tasked with directing visitors around parliament and not one of the special armed guards there to protect parliament so presumably that was why he didn't have a stab vest on. We don't yet know how the attacker got close enough to stab him or why he didn't have time to draw his truncheon.
2- It is, it is one of the most tightly secured areas in London which is why the attacker didn't get anywhere near the main building before he was shot.
3- It is, presumably the images have not yet been released yet as they are part of the ongoing investigation. The police have stated he as a lone attacker so they must have had footage of the incident.
4- It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. The BBC has come under attack for down playing incidents and not immediately speculating about the motives of attacks until details have come in. Newspapers are in the business of selling papers so blowing things out of proportion is their MO. Also, multiple deaths and injuries and an attempted attack on the seat of our democracy does actually make it a major incident. Whether it is a lone whackjob or several whackjobs is not really the point.

 

Don't think the irony escapes me. It presents quite a paradox indeed. The US is trying to balance privacy, and safety. Mass surveillance, and profiling. Radical Islam has spurred a socio-philosophical crisis in western cultures. I believe modern culture cannot combat an archaic, barbarous ideology utilizing civilized methods. We cannot degrade our own freedoms for the sake of our enemies. Jihad at some point must be countered by crusade, if we wish to preserve western civilization. I know exactly how extreme that sounds ... sigh.

 

Hi Bjorn, nice to see you.

 

I'm not the one doing the nitpicking. The BBC even referred to mass murderers and war criminals as 'Mr'. I suggest you quit trying to find apologists for terrorism in every written word. Would it have made you any happier if the BBC had called him, 'that murdering bastard'?

 

It is a complicated situation with no easy answers. The lack of a clear good guy to support in places like Syria makes crusading a snakepit.
One thing I am sure about though is that abandoning our western values to fight barbarism with barbarism is NOT the answer and is in fact counterproductive.

 

welcome to the club(s)
Legal and law abiding gun owners are thrown under the bus because of the bad apples.
Moderate Christians that couldn't give a rat's azz about abortion are lumped in with the crazies.
Average Whites are tossed in the white supremacist salad
Normal civilized Minorities are grouped with the gang bangers and criminals.
Violent Protesters ruin the message for the peaceful ones.
Radicalized Muslims give the other 99.9% a bad rap, but probably due to ISIS "declaring war on everybody" not to mention broadcasting beheadings and such, not very good PR when that minority conducts car bombings at the village market.

The 4% was just a random figure TBH put forth for the sake of discussion, not just the "bad guys", certainly you could include the vocal minority that is given a media voice and pretends to represent the values of the rest.