Support NeoGAF

[Always-honest]

Stay safe England.
What a nightmare.

 

[samn]

The point is the attention we are giving terrorism isn't enough and saying "well it's not the most important thing" really doesn't do much to help the victims of it. Not when the attackers end up being described as known to the police nearly every time. The answer to that isn't to say but road accidents and climate change. The answer is to be honest about how serious terrorism is in the current day and what the failings of the police and intelligence services are.

Attention is a finite resource and it has to be spent where it is most useful.

It is impossible to prevent terrorist attacks no matter how much money is spent or whatever strategy is pursued. All it takes is a car, or a knife. Which means that by the 'even one is too many' doctrine an unlimited amount of time, money and civil liberties would be disposed of to go after something that causes in the grand scheme a minuscule proportion of the suffering experienced in our country.

Detaining everyone who makes it onto a watchlist as is being proposed here (do you even know how easy or difficult it is to make it onto one?) would cost hundreds of millions of pounds, money that would save more lives if spent on other things that garner less headlines and less of a gut emotional reaction. It would also be an incredible attack on the freedom of those who have not been found to have committed a crime, and so an attack on all of our freedoms. Sorry but it's just not worth it. The only way you can make a case is by arguing that we shouldn't be rational in our response, at which point we might as well stop bothering with this discussion.

By the way, jail extremist preachers if you like, but don't be under any illusions this will reduce hate speech rather than just driving it underground where we can't monitor who is speaking, who is being spoken to and what is being said.

 

[geordiemp]

To be blunt, anybody who votes conservative is, in my opinion, partially responsible as they implicitly support policies that increase the likelihood of these attacks taking place.

What a load of rubbish. Germany let in thousands of refugees and was the most compassionate country in last few years and did not get involved in most disputes. And what thanks did they get ?

Extremists hate western way of life, if your nice to them or not, does not seem to matter.

And if Corbyn gets in, this country will have statistically a higher chance of extremists if taking people from places like Syria.

 

[moggio]

increase the military budgets of all European countries, have a military presence everywhere possible. develop some weaponized drones with lasers that can kill terrorists instantly from above.. i dunno, fucking something, whatever it costs. even if many future generations have to pay for it.

Sounds like a great idea. Send Theresa an e-mail.

 

[DasPenguin]

There are immigrants from other communities and countries who are also facing shit in life. I don't see them being radicalized. What is it about Islam and/or these communities that they get radicalized so easily. And the they shout 'this is for allah' while killing innocent people who had nothing to do with any of their problems, just because they were feeling bad in their lives?

I can take a guess. Sure, most radical extremists are Muslim, but recruiting shouldn't be a problem. Since the Iraq war started the good Christian countries with God loving citizens have killed way over 100k civilians in the Middle East. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, imvading a country without any reason whatsoever and shooting missiles in the middle of someone's kitchen might have something to do with the rise of ISIS and other terrorist organizations?

Bush and his "war on terror". That might be the most ironically named thing, ever.

 

[BossDarkseid]

Fuck theresa may..saying the internet is safe space for terrorists. Bullshit, just bullshit she wants to regulate the internet and remove everyone's freedom of speech and freedom of information.

Just spewing miss information to gain control over everything.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/871309768052404224

Ye, but there's still a difference between what the Tories want and what the UK IC request/need.

 

[pigeon]

have a military presence everywhere possible. develop some weaponized drones with lasers that can kill terrorists instantly from above.. i dunno, fucking something, whatever it costs. even if many future generations have to pay for it.

Welcome to the United States of America.

 

[jelly]

I heard her speech on the radio and I have to agree she said the right things. Especially about jail sentences potentially being far too lenient. It appears it was from earlier this morning. Saying and actually doing are two different things though.

To correct myself above though, it was 5 plots that have been foiled, not 4.

But then prison funding and staff outrage. They can talk but were is the proof they are doing anything but cuts.

 

[Marlenus]

What a load of rubbish. Germany let in thousands of refugees and was the most compassionate country in last few years. And what thanks did they get ?

And if Corbyn gets in, this country will have statistically a higher chance of extremists if taking people from places like Syria.

For the sake of argument I will assume more refugees = more extremists.

Germany was not attacked 3 times in 3 months despite letting in a lot of refugees. Perhaps they did let in more extremists but they have not cut their police and security services so they had fewer attacks despite the increase in extremists.

EDIT: To your edit.

Sure I can agree that extremists hate our way of life but the journey to becoming an extremist is far easier with our current foreign and domestic policy than it needs to be. That increases the burden on police and security services which this government has seen fit to cut.

The whole point of different foreign policy is not to stop those that are already true believers but to prevent some of those who might​ be swayed from going down that path, the same applies to domestic policy as well.

 

[StayDead]

If Theresa May and the Tories really wanted to protect the country rather than banning encryption they'd fund and stop cutting the police force.

Taking away our freedoms mean the terrorists have won.

 

[Zaph]

May says we must adapt in four ways:


Ideology - extremist Islamism perversion of the truth. Prove our values our superior to those of hate and evil;
Internet - regulation with ISP/Google etc. to prevent a safe space for terrorism to breed unchecked;
Military - intervention, both abroad and domestic. We are tolerant of terrorism, especially public sector??;
Review counter terrorism strategy - Increase sentences for less serious crimes with terrorist links.

Edit: quote on tolerance. Must take action at home. We have made significant progress. Too muh tolerance of extremism. Have to be more robust identifying it across the public sector and society.

None of that will change anything. We have an endless supply of young men in this country who, because of their upbringing, feel disconnected and isolated from their own homeland. I saw it happen to my friends when growing up in east London - I consider myself one of the "lucky" brown ones who dodged it.

It starts at a young age, early teens, with small issues. They can't hang out with us after school or the weekend because they're always going to Islamic class. They can't be around when we're chatting to girls in case someone tells their parents they've got a girlfriend. This sounds minor, but this is where the frustration and isolation begins. All those small social and life skills they're missing out on start to add up, and as they get older it gets harder.

Their immigrant/first gen parents think they're doing the right thing because "it's how they were raised" in their native country, but they didn't have to grow up witnessing all the things they're missing out on. Their kids grow bitter and resentful of the western world, while being fed rose-tinted memories of their homeland by their elders.

This is how you end up going into college on the Wednesday morning after 9/11 and hear some of your classmates cheering the attacks.

 

[avaya]

Tory cuts are an issue but the underlying factor for the sudden ramp up in attacks of this nature is that these people are fundamentally copy-cat attempts. They've seen the success in France and other places in Europe and are willing to copy it. These incidents, unless you have the assailant under close surveillance are virtually impossible to stop.

This maybe an unpopular opinion but one freedom I am more than willing to give up is for the ability of government agencies to have full unfettered access to all social media, since social now houses the vast majority of human interaction. They had this access to cellular networks previously, there is no real justification for them not having this access to social media, it is a requirement for them to able to effectively do their jobs. I really couldn't care about the privacy implications of it whatsoever. I couldn't give a fuck if the NSA or GCHQ are trawling my whatsapp messages.

 

[Nokterian]

Ye, but there's still a difference between what the Tories want and what the UK IC request/need.

There is no difference, you can't control it. In the end it is simple, you the normal person will be targeted no matter what just like China it will have the great firewall of britain.

Innocent people will get caught, nothing to hide nothing to fear. Her statement is utter bullshit and people who believe it need to think twice before you can say anything again with your freedom of speech removed.

It is literally becoming Stasi 2.0 this way.

And yes removing freedoms like they want to regulate the internet like anyone says the terrorists will have more privacy than you do and they will win this way.

 

[Audioboxer]

If only her and her party would have ruled the country in the past years. Imagine how easily these attacks could have been prevented. /s

Well yeah, saying and doing are two different things. I'm about as unhappy with the Tories as you can be. I simply don't have an issue saying May's speech was a decent one. No doubt written by someone else mind you.

Attention is a finite resource and it has to be spent where it is most useful.

It is impossible to prevent terrorist attacks no matter how much money is spent or whatever strategy is pursued. All it takes is a car, or a knife. Which means that by the 'even one is too many' doctrine an unlimited amount of time, money and civil liberties would be disposed of to go after something that causes in the grand scheme a minuscule proportion of the suffering experienced in our country.

Detaining everyone who makes it onto a watchlist as is being proposed here (do you even know how easy or difficult it is to make it onto one?) would cost hundreds of millions of pounds, money that would save more lives if spent on other things that garner less headlines and less of a gut emotional reaction. It would also be an incredible attack on the freedom of those who have not been found to have committed a crime, and so an attack on all of our freedoms. Sorry but it's just not worth it. The only way you can make a case is by arguing that we shouldn't be rational in our response, at which point we might as well stop bothering with this discussion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Even all the intelligence service agents and counter terrorism figures being interviewed right now are speaking out about how we need more resources and focus. Inaction or business as usual is not acceptable here. This can face an increased focus just as other areas in life can without people seemingly acting apologetic because guys, climate change. Two big issues can be focused on at the same time. The utensils used by the terrorists are easily obtained, sure, but no one with a sane brain is asking for cars and knives to be banned. The people and their behaviour in the run up to attacks is where the resources and effort needs to go.

 

[sflufan]

I've seen Wahhabism been mentioned a few times, but can someone elaborate on that. Do you mean the same as Salafism, or Salafis. I don't know if there is a difference or not. Muslim Brotherhood? Some say this is like Kharijism considering all of this recklessness.

For all practical purposes, Wahhabism is essentially the same as Salafism with any differences being subtle theological nuances.

 

[Salvadora]

Foiling 5 credible terrorist plots in 3 months is ominous.

 

[samn]

This maybe an unpopular opinion but one freedom I am more than willing to give up is for the ability of government agencies to have full unfettered access to all social media, since social now houses the vast majority of human interaction. They had this access to cellular networks previously, there is no real justification for them not having this access to social media, it is a requirement for them to able to effectively do their jobs. I really couldn't care about the privacy implications of it whatsoever. I couldn't give a fuck if the NSA or GCHQ are trawling my whatsapp messages.

You don't think there is any possibility that unrestrained access to the movements and communications of billions of people might be used by an authoritarian government to destroy political opposition? You don't think this possibility is more concerning than a few dozen dead (which this surveillance is unlikely to have prevented anyway)?

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Even all the intelligence service agents and counter terrorism figures being interview right now are speaking out about how we need more resources and focus. Inaction or business as usual is not acceptable here. This can face and increased focus just as other areas in life can without people seemingly acting apologetic because guys, climate change. Two big issues can be focused on at the same time.

Security services want more money, more at 11.

A few dozen people are dead and people are losing their minds and demanding their liberties be stripped from them. Utterly absurd and terrifying.

 

[bosseye]

Attention is a finite resource and it has to be spent where it is most useful.

It is impossible to prevent terrorist attacks no matter how much money is spent or whatever strategy is pursued. All it takes is a car, or a knife. Which means that by the 'even one is too many' doctrine an unlimited amount of time, money and civil liberties would be disposed of to go after something that causes in the grand scheme a minuscule proportion of the suffering experienced in our country.

Detaining everyone who makes it onto a watchlist as is being proposed here (do you even know how easy or difficult it is to make it onto one?) would cost hundreds of millions of pounds, money that would save more lives if spent on other things that garner less headlines and less of a gut emotional reaction. It would also be an incredible attack on the freedom of those who have not been found to have committed a crime, and so an attack on all of our freedoms. Sorry but it's just not worth it. The only way you can make a case is by arguing that we shouldn't be rational in our response, at which point we might as well stop bothering with this discussion.

By the way, jail extremist preachers if you like, but don't be under any illusions this will reduce hate speech rather than just driving it underground where we can't monitor who is speaking, who is being spoken to and what is being said.

You're right of course. But preemptive action seems to be the only way to limit those who discuss terrorism from suddenly deciding to action terrorism with something as mundane as vehicle and a knife.

I realise this skirts dangerously close to Thought Police though.

 

[Boy Wander]

Yes, Blair's government did exasperate the issue and start the ball rolling. Fortunately the current leader of the Labour party (and others in the shadow cabinet) voted against it, as did the Lib Dems.



Had it coming is far too strong a statement. They did vote for policies that increased their risk without having an up side to balance it.

Contrast with internet privacy issues that also increase risk from these attacks but have benefits.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate but Corbin came across badly when asked about terrorism. He seems spineless.

 

[Ashes]

Tory cuts are an issue but the underlying factor for the sudden ramp up in attacks of this nature is that these people are fundamentally copy-cat attempts. They've seen the success in France and other places in Europe and are willing to copy it. These incidents, unless you have the assailant under close surveillance are virtually impossible to stop.

This maybe an unpopular opinion but one freedom I am more than willing to give up is for the ability of government agencies to have full unfettered access to all social media, since social now houses the vast majority of human interaction. They had this access to cellular networks previously, there is no real justification for them not having this access to social media, it is a requirement for them to able to effectively do their jobs. I really couldn't care about the privacy implications of it whatsoever. I couldn't give a fuck if the NSA or GCHQ are trawling my whatsapp messages.

The councils used terrorism laws to spy on bin crime. Your intentions whilst noble, will be our undoing.

There is a systematic racial profiling problem in the UK police force. Why would you allow this force more unfettered access to this data? You've got to have checks and balances.e.g. Judicial oversight.

 

[Jezbollah]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate but Corbin came across badly when asked about terrorism. He seems spineless.

It is important to note that Corbyn opposes the Shoot to Kill policy. In the context of last night this policy is likely to have avoided further injuries and perhaps deaths.

 

[samn]

You're right of course. But preemptive action seems to be the only way to limit those who discuss terrorism from suddenly deciding to action terrorism with something as mundane as vehicle and a knife.

I realise this skirts dangerously close to Thought Police though.

If unrestrained mass surveillance of all movements, actions and communications is the price to pay to prevent a couple hundred deaths a year, then no, we should not be willing to pay it. This is just ridiculous. We don't make such sacrifices to prevent far greater suffering and death in other areas of life but when it comes to terrorism all sense of proportion goes out the window.

It is important to note that Corbyn opposes the Shoot to Kill policy. In the context of last night this policy is likely to have avoided further injuries and perhaps deaths.

No he doesn't. This is false. I'll give you that he has communicated his thoughts on this badly, but this is false.

 

[Auraela]

Foiling 5 credible terrorist plots in 3 months is ominous.

Its a good thing they stopped 5 for sure

that number is looking like isis is becoming desperate and things are getting cracky and we are stopping there plots easier


The attack last night coulda be made by any terroist they coulda planned this on that morning. Where as terrorists planning bombing etx is far more better for them to get intel on

 

[Boy Wander]

It is important to note that Corbyn opposes the Shoot to Kill policy. In the context of last night this policy is likely to have avoided further injuries and perhaps deaths.

Fuck's sake. These are religious maniacs we're dealing with. Does he want to ask them to come quietly?

 

[avaya]

You don't think there is any possibility that unrestrained access to the movements and communications of billions of people might be used by an authoritarian government to destroy political opposition? You don't think this possibility is more concerning than a few dozen dead (which this surveillance is unlikely to have prevented anyway)?

Oh yes this was always the fear. However The UK isn't going to turn into Erdogan's Turkey overnight. The US even under Trump isn't going to become some Stasi wasteland.

Government's have already had this level of power over us for a long time. The internet age is the first time where they are actually blind to human interaction, where they are genuinely walled away.

Absolute privacy and the inability of government agencies to effectively operate is a balance that needs to be struck. The ability to unlock social media at court request is not something I would be against in any form.

 

[pigeon]

You're right of course. But preemptive action seems to be the only way to limit those who discuss terrorism from suddenly deciding to action terrorism with something as mundane as vehicle and a knife.

I realise this skirts dangerously close to Thought Police though.

Uh...it actually is thought police.

It's funny that you can say "look I don't want to indefinitely detain people like Guantanamo or anything but maybe that's the only way" and not realize that you're literally suggesting indefinitely detaining people who haven't committed a crime, just in case.

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that you're having exactly the reaction the terrorists hoped you would have when they carried out this attack. Encourage the government to violate civil liberties of Muslims in the hopes that those Muslims will feel shut out of society and become radicalized. That's the whole game plan.

 

[Jezbollah]

No he doesn't. This is false. I'll give you that he has communicated his thoughts on this badly, but this is false.

I'd be happy to hear more if this is not the case. If it is, he most certainly needs to communicate it better.

(I saw this from the clip here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34836582/jeremy-corbyn-opposes-shoot-to-kill-policy)

 

[El Topo]

I don't think one can reasonably say how to prevent all of this, even moreso given that we don't have details for this terrible attack yet.

I would argue that one must properly review the security apparatus and if necessary grant more resources. Is the situation in the UK similar to that in Germany, where politicians (if I recall correctly) have been rather penny pinching when it comes to police and secret service? Simply granting more rights is not a catch-all answer, as e.g. the mistakes that were made regarding the Berlin terror attack have shown. Either way, obviously one has to look further into ways to prevent such attacks.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrible attack.

 

[Marlenus]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate but Corbin came across badly when asked about terrorism. He seems spineless.

He thinks there are more effective methods than might is right. Based on the evidence over the last decade or so it might be worth a change in strategy.

 

[Joe]

How not to overreact to ISIS
(Author is a current foreign policy research fellow and former high-level US Govt foreign policy official)
This was written after the Paris attacks in 2015 but I will highlight the relevant parts.

The body politic demands a response. And so a response it will have. Unfortunately, if experience is any guide, that response will be borne more of anger than of wisdom.

This is very understandable, even natural. But even in this moment of pain, we should understand that such a reaction is the intent of the attack. The purpose of terrorism, a weapon of the weak, is to goad the strong to lash out. The perpetrators want a response that inspires more violence and creates more fear and division. As the dramatic outpourings of solidarity demonstrate, a handful of thugs can never truly threaten a great nation. Only the wrong response can do that.

In times of national trauma, politicians will not even dare utter words of restraint lest they be swept up in the righteous anger gripping the populace. Civil liberties are curtailed, and wars are waged that often have little relation to the threat at hand.

Terrorism is a permanent problem that can only be managed, not solved—more akin to fighting crime than waging war.

Terrorism needs to be fought more at home than abroad.

A successful attack does not indict the entire approach to counterterrorism.

Unsexy efforts to increase intelligence budgets or improve cross-national bureaucratic cooperation, more than airstrikes in distant lands, are the heart and soul of counterterrorism in Europe.

 

[StayDead]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate but Corbin came across badly when asked about terrorism. He seems spineless.

Yet authoritarian May who wants to take away all your civil liberties continues cutting the police force making it harder for them to do anything about this sort of thing sounds better?

 

[avaya]

None of that will change anything. We have an endless supply of young men in this country who, because of their upbringing, feel disconnected and isolated from their own homeland. I saw it happen to my friends when growing up in east London - I consider myself one of the "lucky" brown ones who dodged it.

It starts at a young age, early teens, with small issues. They can't hang out with us after school or the weekend because they're always going to Islamic class. They can't be around when we're chatting to girls in case someone tells their parents they've got a girlfriend. This sounds minor, but this is where the frustration and isolation begins. All those small social and life skills they're missing out on start to add up, and as they get older it gets harder.

Their immigrant/first gen parents think they're doing the right thing because "it's how they were raised" in their native country, but they didn't have to grow up witnessing all the things they're missing out on. Their kids grow bitter and resentful of the western world, while being fed rose-tinted memories of their homeland by their elders.

This is how you end up going into college on the Wednesday morning after 9/11 and hear some of your classmates cheering the attacks.

No one will really address this post because it goes right to the fundamental issue. Integration is easier said than done. In the examples you cited, it's fairly obvious there are direct incompatibilities. You see in integrated situations the larger compromise often come from immigrant communities since they need to dilute some aspects of their culture away in order to be more socially accepted in the wider society. That can't be forced either, it has to be done willingly and it will take decades.

 

[samn]

Oh yes this was always the fear. However The UK isn't going to turn into Erdogan's Turkey overnight. The US even under Trump isn't going to become some Stasi wasteland.

Government's have already had this level of power over us for a long time. The internet age is the first time where they are actually blind to human interaction, where they are genuinely walled away.

Absolute privacy and the inability of government agencies to effectively operate is a balance that needs to be struck. The ability to unlock social media at court request is not something I would be against in any form.

Not overnight, but over several years, quite possibly given the right conditions. It's important there are strong safeguards against this happening.

Just a few years ago there was a case of British police working with companies to spy on those engaged in trade union activities and help to destroy their careers. With unfettered access this kind of activity could become commonplace.

The security services can already access e.g. Facebook messages and email with a court order and approval from a judge. They cannot access end-to-end encrypted messages. What you are proposing is preventing internet companies from offering end-to-end encryption. This is not exotic technology. The mathematics required has been available for decades. Anyone can download the code needed to rig up an unbreakable end-to-end messaging system. Stop people from communicating via WhatsApp securely and normal people and companies will have their communications exposed to theft and the baddies will move on to other easily obtainable methods of communicating securely.

(By the way, the Paris attackers communicated via SMS, which is not encrypted, and so the regulations you propose would have made no difference there.)

I'd be happy to hear more if this is not the case. If it is, he most certainly needs to communicate it better.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-26/...rror-strategy-flaws-after-westminster-attack/

The police have never actually operated on a shoot to kill policy. The aim is not to kill the terrorist, but to prevent the terrorist from causing further harm. The death is just a byproduct.

 

[Zakalwe]

My girlfriend works in Borough Market. She left that day around 7:30. Two of my friends were on the bridge earlier that day. I go there once or twice a week to work and meet my GF for lunch.

So this is very, very close to home for me. Still feels utterly surreal and ultimately pretty terrifying as these kinds of attacks will be incredibly difficult to prevent.

I'm hoping that Londoners remain vigilant over the coming months, I won't be avoiding travel around the centre as fuck letting the fear they installed prevent us from living, but I'll certainly be mindful of this.

Much respect to the various emergency services who responded and acted with bravery. Thoughts with those affected by this tragic terrorist attack.

 

[bosseye]

Uh...it actually is thought police.

It's funny that you can say "look I don't want to indefinitely detain people like Guantanamo or anything but maybe that's the only way" and not realize that you're literally suggesting indefinitely detaining people who haven't committed a crime, just in case.

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that you're having exactly the reaction the terrorists hoped you would have when they carried out this attack. Encourage the government to violate civil liberties of Muslims in the hopes that those Muslims will feel shut out of society and become radicalized. That's the whole game plan.

Ha, yes I suppose so. It's a very emotive subject. Its tough to draw a line between those just making noises about terrorism (ie potentially committing no crime) and those actually plotting, so whilst my gut says preemptive action, you're probably entirely right that it's not really going to achieve anything (or achieve entirely the wrong thing).

As Samn says above, this sort of thing does go straight to the gut which tends to bypass critical thinking about actual level of threat, frequency, proportional response etc.

 

[jelly]

I do wonder if guns not being used is because criminals actually have a tiny bit of a soul and won't sell them to these people who want to go on a mass killing rather than a gang hit or something.

 

[Ashes]

How not to overreact to ISIS
(Author is a current foreign policy research fellow and former high-level US Govt foreign policy official)
This was written after the Paris attacks in 2015 but I will highlight the relevant parts.

Unsexy efforts to increase intelligence budgets or improve cross-national bureaucratic cooperation, more than airstrikes in distant lands, are the heart and soul of counterterrorism in Europe.

This.

 

[FyreWulff]

I do wonder if guns not being used is because criminals actually have a tiny bit of a soul and won't sell them to these people who want to go on a mass killing rather than a gang hit or something.

There also isn't a massive ocean of guns flowing like there is in the United States. People use guns in US crimes because they're stupid easy to get even legally for cheap.

 

[Audioboxer]

I do wonder if guns not being used is because criminals actually have a tiny bit of a soul and won't sell them to these people who want to go on a mass killing rather than a gang hit or something.

I'd assume cost too. I doubt the black-market for guns in the UK is cheap. It's probably cheaper to learn and build a nail bomb than it is getting a gun. Although I could be talking out of my ass but guns are just so heavily regulated in the UK.

 

[Skyzard]

What a load of rubbish. Germany let in thousands of refugees and was the most compassionate country in last few years and did not get involved in most disputes. And what thanks did they get ?

Extremists hate western way of life, if your nice to them or not, does not seem to matter.

And if Corbyn gets in, this country will have statistically a higher chance of extremists if taking people from places like Syria.

Germany started striking ISIS in Syria in 2015. Terrorist attacks in 2016 and 2017. They basically lead Nato.

I'm not saying Germany were wrong to do so in that particular case but claiming extremists just hate the west for being the west is naiive.

The other countries with terrorist attacks had a much heavier involvement in more situations in the middle-east, some that didn't even involve ISIS but were focused on removing leaders from power that weren't friendly to the West (business).

Corbyn is the best bet at deterring terrorist attacks if he cuts back direct military intervention in the middle-east, which from the sounds of things, he would.

A lot of the terrorism happening is home grown.

 

[MrS]

It is important to note that Corbyn opposes the Shoot to Kill policy. In the context of last night this policy is likely to have avoided further injuries and perhaps deaths.

Corbyn is loopy and thankfully he will begin his return to obscurity on Friday morning after he loses the GE. His stance on terrorism is at odds with what our country needs right now.

 

[Lime]

May advocating more surveillance and more prison is just one more step towards a horrible police state. She's such a terrible human being.

 

[Showaddy]

I do wonder if guns not being used is because criminals actually have a tiny bit of a soul and won't sell them to these people who want to go on a mass killing rather than a gang hit or something.

Street level guns in the UK are pretty damn crap as well and that if you even manage to get one without counter-terrorism finding out. One of the Lee Rigby killers used a revolver that was so rubbish it blew his own fingers off, just not worth the effort when a rental van and kitchen knives can do so much damage.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Corbyn is loopy and thankfully he will begin his return to obscurity on Friday morning after he loses the GE. His stance on terrorism is at odds with what our country needs right now.

Are you signing up for the military?

 

[isaacnukem]

Rest in peace to the victims.

 

[MrS]

Are you signing up for the military?

GAF needs me too much.

 

[mrproducto]

Seriously, F these cowardly POS.

My wife and I spent a day in and around the Borrough Market when we visited London a few years ago.

So sorry UKGAF.

 

[Chinner]

nvm, was responding to a troll post.

 

[Zakalwe]

Corbyn is loopy and thankfully he will begin his return to obscurity on Friday morning after he loses the GE. His stance on terrorism is at odds with what our country needs right now.

Your posts are consistently maddening to read.

This especially so, as Corbyn's views on how to handle this are /exactly/ what we need, ie: more investment in active policing, intelligence gathering, and diplomatic relations with specific countries.

Yes, the last 7 years of the current government sure has been effective at deterring terrorist attacks. I know, lets sell some more arms to Saudi Arabia.

Check the user's post history. Pretty convinced their either crazy or a troll account.

 

[D4Danger]

Corbyn is loopy and thankfully he will begin his return to obscurity on Friday morning after he loses the GE. His stance on terrorism is at odds with what our country needs right now.

Just keep banging your head against the wall. Things will change eventually.

Your posts are consistently maddening to read.

This especially so, as Corbyn's views on how to handle this are /exactly/ what we need, ie: more investment in active policing, intelligence gathering, and diplomatic relations with specific countries.

As we learned on question time this week there's a fairly large part of this country that isn't interested in this because YOU AV TO NUKE EM FIRST MATE