Support NeoGAF

[cyberheater]

I'm not being dismissive of the loss of life, I am trying to bring some rational debate to a thread that's talking about internment and willing giving up civil liberties because of attacks that are still incredibly rare.

The reaction is hysterical and people are overreacting, it's understandable but it's not something that should be ignored because 'emotions are high'.

No you are directly being dismissive of those that lost there lives by trivialising it by saying more people died in road fatalities.

Think about what you are saying.

If it doesn't bother you then just flat out and say that but don't tell folks that they are acting hysterically because they are reacting to this terrible atrocity.

 

[hanspampel]

snip

you just proof their point
15 years of safety between 2005 and 2015
and not have a look what is happening in Europe since 2015


or even the general downwards trend since 1990
but now terrorism is on the rise again.

 

[Theonik]

O gave up arguing with people who go as low as comparing terrorism to random car accidents a long time ago.

There's no point trying to find a solution with a person who doesn't even recognize the problem.

People recognise the problem. Your solution is internment camps.
Perhaps some reflection on the value proposition is at hand.

People aren't against ridding the world of terrorism. They are appalled by proposals that require non-proportional responses,
often harming our way of life much more than any terrorist ever could.

People would be for solving world hunger too. If you came out proposing to kill the third world as the 'obvious' solution to the problem people might react in a similar way.

 

[cpp_is_king]

What percentage protection do you think we have now?

I think any specific number would just be pulled out of my ass. I think we could use a bit more though

 

[Betty]

Look at the figures above. The IRA killed far more people in Britain than al'quaida inspired terrorism has done. The IRA tried to assassinate two sitting prime ministers, and blew up the queens cousin and godfather of the heir to the throne. They levelled shopping blocks and towers and trains.

Ask yourself why the terrorist group who were, by *any* objective measure, more successful in terms of killing and hurting people, causing damage and destruction, and staying alive and out of reach of the law, didn't get anywhere near this hysterical level of response.

Because these attacks aren't localised to the UK, because our nearest neighbour France has suffered individual attacks far worse than anything the IRA dished out at any one time.

If the IRA published executions online or were a global brand attacking the world at large, to this day, it would have the same impact and reaction in people, but it's not, there is no other threat at the moment that is on the same calibre as this.

And again, accidental deaths are NOT the same damn thing so people bringing statistics of deaths from other incidents up is completely dishonest.

 

[R_thanatos]

Point taken...it did get me thinking though from some kind of weird counter logic scenario. I'm just genuinely baffled since school shootings and armed robberies happen here with such frequency: how is it that an organized event like this hasn't happened here yet? Are middle eastern looking dudes just flat out being blocked at point of sale by racial profiling? This is a fucking tragedy but at least these fuckers were only armed with a truck and knives.

Maybe he thinks ( trump ) that taking your gun going to the pub is something citizen do ?
or was the gun supposed to stop a van rushing at you at 80km/h ?

"Gun control" in an incident that used knives is just ... Logic was killed monhs ago

 

[diaspora]

The thing is that kids being blown up happens in other parts of the world already. Those places haven't always had that happening either.

The fact that the same type of terrorism with the same motivations is spreading around is and should be alarming.

And before you say anything like "well the IRA have..." I will say yes, there has been other types of terrorists around forever, but should we let these terrorists get into their level before we can start to worry about them? No, there should be zero tolerance for an uprise of any kind of terrorism. This needs to be stopped rather now than later. Awareness for it might be a good thing to help stop it too, and like it or not, people can and will have moments of fear and they have every right for that emotion.

The perpetrators were dead within minutes of the alert.

 

[RedSparrows]

Not sure ANYONE has said, or can be reasonably said to have implied, that these attacks are OK and should be ignored.

Also not sure where the idea that the state somehow doesn't take it seriously comes from either. If your criteria for 'taking it seriously' is no bad thing ever again, i got some magic beans for you.

 

[samn]

No you are directly being dismissive of those that lost there lives by trivialising it by saying more people died in road fatalities.

Think about what you are saying.

If it doesn't bother you then just flat out and say that but don't tell folks that they are acting hysterically because they are reacting to this terrible atrocity.

Reacting with sadness and grief. Totally fine.

Reacting by throwing away my rights and freedoms. Not fine.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

People recognise the problem. Your solution is internment camps.
Perhaps some reflection on the value proposition is at hand.

His solution earlier in the thread was guns.

 

[Kinyou]

In which case most of these recent attacks wouldn't count as terrorism, because they have no demands behind them, no overarching agenda other than killing and scaring people. It's not like they are even demanding we withdraw from middle eastern countries or implement their twisted version of Sharia law.

What attacks are you referring to? Didn't Manchester for example get claimed by Isis?

 

[Betty]

I'm not being dismissive of the loss of life, I am trying to bring some rational debate to a thread that's talking about internment and willing giving up civil liberties because of attacks that are still incredibly rare.

The reaction is hysterical and people are overreacting, it's understandable but it's not something that should be ignored because 'emotions are high'.

You are dismissing the threat, not loss of life.

Factor in failed attempts, factor in worldwide attacks by the same fellowship of individuals, factor in how many more Muslims are killed the same way that barely get's past a page when a thread is made on it, even when the total is far greater.

This is a big problem that people want tackled, and extinguished, now, just like any other group committed to dealing death continually would be treated.

 

[Auraela]

Well bbc is reporting they were using telegram to do attacks. And after this happened they were msging saying for others to do similiar attacks cos its easy

Stay safe everyone

 

[Any Questions]

As a Londoner​ born and bred, and now commuter into this great city. All I can say is what a waste all this hate is. What have these twats achieved apart from murder, sadness and pain. Muslim members of London society are now going to feel bad because again Islam is being abused in the face of this madness.

In my opinion I am all for the government having full access to my online habbrts and chats if it will help.

I understand that these three sinners had been reported in by their peers and nothing done. If giving the powers that be full and easy access to potential suspects would help. I say go for it.

 

[holygeesus]

I love it how you say "unfortunately". As far as Farage goes I think there's very little wrong with that statement.

Here's another "hot take" for you - people are getting sick of it. People are sick of seeing kids blown up or people hacked to bits in the street in planned attacks against our way of life.

In this country you mean? I can assure you terrorist attacks of those ilk are a constant around the world. They aren't suddenly a new thing.

 

[diaspora]

Well bbc is reporting they were using telegram to do attacks. And after this happened they were msging saying for others to do similiar attacks cos its easy

Stay safe everyone

I mean, anyone can drive a van into a group of people and stab some folks with a knife in a mall. This isn't rocket science and doesn't require encrypted communications to pull off.

You are dismissing the threat, not loss of life.

Factor in failed attempts, factor in worldwide attacks by the same fellowship of individuals, factor in how many more Muslims are killed the same way that barely get's past a page when a thread is made on it, even when the total is far greater.

This is a big problem that people want tackled, and extinguished, now, just like any other group committed to dealing death continually would be treated.

It's nice to want things, but there isn't a silver bullet or panacea that would prevent people from being able to drive cars into crowds of people or pulling a knife on folks in a crowd. Nothing. What needs to be addressed is how people end up engaging in deviant homicidal behaviour. What gets them to this point, what support systems can be built to support communities in addressing their fucked up men.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Well bbc is reporting they were using telegram to do attacks. And after this happened they were msging saying for others to do similiar attacks cos its easy

Stay safe everyone

I strongly suspect there will be another tonight at the benefit concert

 

[yanipheonu]

Does it matter? How many times does it take? Is there an arbitrary point in time or a death count we need to get to before that becomes relevant or until people, yourself included, stop downplaying this and start to even acknowledge there is a problem?

The main problem is that fear is the only real victory these guys have (well, besides the obvious tragic death of course, but we're looking big picture here). They won't be altering the policies of the country (outside of security changes which will make their job harder) or winning new territory with a bunch of desperate lone wolf attacks. Hell, the main change created by the Manchester attack appears to be a more popular benefit concert.

It's the paradox of rebellion: even a violent action against the system is easily incorporated into the system.

Now if people are afraid, they've got something. They can recruit people based on noteriety. And they can make their presence much larger than their meager numbers imply.

When in reality, they have barely enough resources to kill a handful of people, with no capability to get bombs or guns apparently.

I'm aware and sympathetic about death of course, this is always a tragedy. But keep your fear in check. You're allowed to be afraid, but realize that fear is irrational: the odds are incredibly low you'll ever be in a terrorist attack. Even lightning strikes have better odds.

 

[jelly]

Well bbc is reporting they were using telegram to do attacks. And after this happened they were msging saying for others to do similiar attacks cos its easy

Stay safe everyone

In real time does that even matter.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not being dismissive of the loss of life, I am trying to bring some rational debate to a thread that's talking about internment and willing giving up civil liberties because of attacks that are still incredibly rare.

The reaction is hysterical and people are overreacting, it's understandable but it's not something that should be ignored because 'emotions are high'.

While they are rare, they have a very high impact on society and there is a rising trend in these attacks. So things need to be done about it.

If you went two decades with declining road fatalities, and then a few years in a row it is rising again, you don't go: well, it is still rare. You look at why the downwards trend is broken and see how we can fix it.

 

[Bumhead]

You continually talk about people are tired of kids being blown up and people being hacked to bits in our streets but for some reason you won't or can't accept that these are still incredibly rare events and not the norm.

I think the issue is you're not thinking rationally, you're scared and want to lash out at something, anything, and so you keep talking about acknowledging a problem, but because of how you're feeling, you don't know what the real problem is.

We already have all the laws we need to deal with terrorism in place, but what we don't have is proper funding.
.
So if you want to acknowledge the real problem, focus on how our police services have been decimated through cuts, focus on how our intelligence community isn't funded adequately, focus on the government, that has for the past seven years, taken an axe to all the services that are meant to keep us safe.

Again with a comment regarding how "rare" these things are.

So I ask - again - how many times does this have to happen and how many people have to be killed before you acknowledge there's a problem?

You are quite happy to shout people down about being irrational, scared or angry to justify their over exaggeration. I think you're being laughably and damagingly dismissive, and are vastly under playing how much of a problem we currently have in this country (and across Europe and beyond) with extremist terrorism.

 

[Breakage]

Did you guys read this post?



It's very easy to look at life purely logically or by the numbers and tell someone the numbers say they're more likely to die in some other random accident, but life is more than just numbers and stats. Psychologically, I think it's ok for someone to be more scared of having their legs blown off or their throats stabbed by a madman no matter how small the odds are. Just the fact that the chance of an experience that horrible happening has increased, even if that chance is miniscule, is concerning to people.

People aren't only thinking about themselves either. They're thinking of their spouses, or their siblings, or their children too. I don't know, I get that it might be irrational, but I can empathize and see how people aren't afraid of driving, but are afraid of being intentionally murdered.

Yeah, I'm a Londoner and this attack wasn't far from me, so the threat of terror will be a bit more prominent in my mind from now on. Everytime I step on the bus or when I'm at my local shopping centre, the thought of getting caught up in terror attack is always there. I look around and think what would I do if a man suddenly runs through the centre with a knife or a device goes off while I'm in the supermarket. I suppose the strike anywhere, anytime nature and nearness of it all influences my growing concern despite the statistics.

I have even considered learning some verses from the Quran so I could perhaps blag my way out of a situation by appearing as a fellow "brother" in order to increase the chance of my life being spared. Perhaps it is OTT, but I think that's just the psychological impact of terrorism - I don't blame other people for having similar feelings. I don't even think about being run over by accident or falling down a set of stairs when I'm out even though those are far more likely to happen because I accept such events as geniune accidents that are a part of living life.

 

[Airola]

The perpetrators were dead within minutes of the alert.

Yes and several terrorist plots were also completely stopped before anything happened.
Which is amazing and fantastic and wonderful.

I'm just commenting on the way some people are kinda "handwaving" the severity of this away. While the authorities are doing amazing job in dealing with these situations, we have still our rights to be worried even if 9/10 plots get stopped and 1/10 plots get executed in a year.

 

[diaspora]

Yes and several terrorist plots were also completely stopped before anything happened.
Which is amazing and fantastic and wonderful.

I'm just commenting on the way some people are kinda "handwaving" the severity of this away. While the authorities are doing amazing job in dealing with these situations, we have still our rights to be worried even if 9/10 plots get stopped and 1/10 plots get executed in a year.

Nobody said people aren't allowed to be worried or anxious. It seems less like that people are "handwaving" incidents away but offering statistics for the sake of context and perspective when considering a response. Given both the nature of the attack, speed and effectiveness of the response, nature of the perpetrators, when contextualized against the broader picture and history of terrorism in the UK how extreme of a response is necessary? How effective would it ultimately be versus alternate approaches to address why young men are acting out on violent impulses?

 

[Skyzard]

It's absolutely cause for concern and I really think it will continue to be. Even if the numbers are currently low, they could rise up and the effect it has on the population who aren't used to daily atrocities is strong.

What's going to be done about it that will actually stop it though? Nothing all that significant under Theresa. The government can already spy on communications.

Jeremy Corbyn might have actually improved relations with other middle-eastern countries by not following in US's bloody footsteps. There would be little to no motivation to target the UK, especially as times goes on.

Foreign policy is never discussed, it's all "how do we stop muslims from being really muslim - I know, let's blame islam!"

It's short-sighted and simple minded.

 

[holygeesus]

Again with a comment regarding how "rare" these things are.

So I ask - again - how many times does this have to happen and how many people have to be killed before you acknowledge there's a problem?

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a problem, just not one worthy of dismissing the concept of personal freedoms like you seem to be suggesting. You can't lock people up for thinking about crimes.

 

[diaspora]

It's absolutely cause for concern and I really think it will continue to be. Even if the numbers are currently low, they could rise up and the effect it has on the population who aren't used to daily atrocities is strong.

What's going to be done about it that will actually stop it though? Nothing all that significant under Theresa. The government can already spy on communications.

Jeremy Corbyn might actually have improved relations with other middle-eastern countries by not following US's bloody footsteps. There would be no motivation to target the UK.

Foreign policy is never discussed, it's all "how do we stop muslims from being really muslim - I know, let's blame islam!"

It's short-sighted and simple minded.

Not not entirely sure how effective this would be IMO. AFAIK all these attacks have been committed by younger men right? Would a better foreign policy approach prevent them from acting on violent impulses?

 

[Skyzard]

Not not entirely sure how effective this would be IMO. AFAIK all these attacks have been committed by younger men right? Would a better foreign policy approach prevent them from acting on violent impulses?

Not blowing their muslim brothers up and bringing countries to the point of civil war? Helping the countries (without air strikes) with issues we've helped cause?

It might just help...

The number of terrorist attacks has risen in relation to military action in the middle east, which has been massive the last two decades.

 

[Salvadora]

I strongly suspect there will be another tonight at the benefit concert

You could have said the same about the Champions League final.

It's too high profile.

 

[diaspora]

Not blowing their muslim brothers up and bringing countries to the point of civil war?

It might just help...

Eh, probably not. The idea that young men are compelled to commit murder and drive vans into people because of foreign wars is a bit of a stretch and honestly... a bit insulting.

The number of terrorist attacks has risen in relation to military action in the middle east, which has been massive the last two decades.

1. this is a correlation and not a cause/effect relationship
2. the middle east's instability being attributed to exclusively foreign intervention and asserting that terrorism would ease up without it is... a bit of a ridiculous assertion

Between inter-religious factionalism, the interplay of foreign interference of other local actors, and of course probably the most important thing: water I don't see "military action" actually resulting in fewer homicidal young men.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Not blowing their muslim brothers up and bringing countries to the point of civil war?

It might just help...

It might help but the history will still be there. Those grievances won't just disappear.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Again with a comment regarding how "rare" these things are.

So I ask - again - how many times does this have to happen and how many people have to be killed before you acknowledge there's a problem?

You are quite happy to shout people down about being irrational, scared or angry to justify their over exaggeration. I think you're being laughably and damagingly dismissive, and are vastly under playing how much of a problem we currently have in this country (and across Europe and beyond) with extremist terrorism.

You're right, just sign away your internet privacy over to your PM and all will be taken care of.

 

[Theonik]

His solution earlier in the thread was guns.

Oh sorry I was thinking of an earlier solution.

 

[TCRS]

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a problem, just not one worthy of dismissing the concept of personal freedoms like you seem to be suggesting. You can't lock people up for thinking about crimes.

But you should be able to lock people up with clear ideological links to an apocalyptic mass murdering terrorist organisation.

 

[Skyzard]

Eh, probably not. The idea that young men are compelled to commit murder and drive vans into people because of foreign wars is a bit of a stretch and honestly... a bit insulting.

what the fuck?

It might help but the history will still be there. Those grievances won't just disappear.

It'd be on a downward trajectory as opposed to now.

 

[diaspora]

what the fuck?



It'd be on a downward trajectory as opposed to now.

Yeah, that's what I asked when you asserted that englanders radicalise because of muslims being killed overseas just because they're muslims too. Surely you can see how shitty of a sentiment that is.

But you should be able to lock people up with clear ideological links to an apocalyptic mass murdering terrorist organisation.

Conspiring to commit murder is already a crime AFAIK.

 

[Skyzard]

Yeah, that's what I asked when you asserted that englanders radicalise because of muslims being killed overseas just because they're muslims too. Surely you can see how shitty of a sentiment that is.

People being killed in other countries can have a strong effect on people, especially when they consider them brothers. Muslim brotherhood is a very common idea.

It makes people angry. What else would they be angry about?

The freedom they have in the UK? Nice one, Bush.

Being oversees means very little when England and the English are not the only country and people you care about and have a hand to play in why they're angry.

 

[diaspora]

People being killed in other countries can have a strong effect on people, especially when they consider them brothers.

Being oversees means very little when England and the English are not the only country and people you care about.

Again, where do you get off saying that just because an englishman is muslim that they'd carry this sentiment? Are muslims a monolithic block to you?

Muslims are people too, they have political points of view on foreign policy, economics, faith that differ from each other. The problem is young men are willingly committing mass murder even if it means getting themselves killed- what needs to be looked at is how someone even gets to that point, what happens to a person to make them willing to do this.

I say person, and yet all these attacks are done generally by young men.

 

[samn]

Again, where do you get off saying that just because an englishman is muslim that they'd carry this sentiment? Are muslims a monolithic block to you?

He didn't say that. Try to engage with the other person's argument instead of making things up.

 

[D4Danger]

developing story on the BBC

Friend reported suspected attacker to anti-terror hotline

A friend of one of the suspected attackers says he had reported him to the anti-terror hotline, but no action was taken.

The man, who asked not to be named, told the BBC's Asian Network that the pair had spoken about previous attacks and he was shocked at what he had heard.

"We spoke about a particular attack that had happened and, like most radicals, he had a justification for anything, everything and anything," he said. "That day I realised that I need to contact the authorities."

But the friend claims the suspected attacker was not arrested and was allowed to keep his passport.

"I phoned the anti-terrorist hotline and spoke to the gentleman," he said. "I told him about our conversation and why I think he has been radicalised.

"I did my bit, but the authorities didn't do their bit."

The BBC has asked Scotland Yard for a response.

 

[diaspora]

He didn't say that. Try to engage with the other person's argument instead of making things up.

There isn't an argument.

 

[Ether_Snake]

They do it because they believe it gives them rewards in heaven.

You think they would do it if they believed it would send them to hell?

To them it's like a short farming run in an MMO, but the rewards are given after death.

No end of wars in the Middle East will stop this. It is progressive society that they are fighting against. They fight against "Western education", they do not recognize any form of government other than that based on their holy book. This isn't the PLO.

developing story on the BBC

Friend reported suspected attacker to anti-terror hotline

Need more money, more internet censorship, less privacy, less freedom, less rights to a lawyer, clearly.

 

[Skyzard]

^ sounds like the same bullshit "they hate our freedoms" that Bush spread to answer why Bin Laden attacked the US. Even though he mentions the famine caused by sanctions.

Why did terrorist attacks rise so much when the middle-east got bombed to hell?

Again, where do you get off saying that just because an englishman is muslim that they'd carry this sentiment?

Why would a muslim from another country care about other muslims?

What are you even saying?

Muslims are people too, they have political points of view on foreign policy, economics, faith that differ from each other. The problem is young men are willingly committing mass murder even if it means getting themselves killed- what needs to be looked at is how someone even gets to that point, what happens to a person to make them willing to do this.

Looking at foreign policy to see why they're angry is doing exactly that.

 

[Auraela]

You could have said the same about the Champions League final.

It's too high profile.

Drive a van into entrance as concert finishes

 

[diaspora]

Why would a muslim from another country care about other muslims?

That's what I'm asking you- actually even more than that, why would people commit mass murder over complete fucking strangers? Just because they're both muslim? What bullshit is this?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

People being killed in other countries can have a strong effect on people, especially when they consider them brothers. Muslim brotherhood is a very common idea.

It makes people angry. What else would they be angry about?

The freedom they have in the UK? Nice one, Bush.

Being oversees means very little when England and the English are not the only country and people you care about and have a hand to play in why they're angry.

If we're talking about ISIS ideology then there's plenty of other reasons. And yes, certain freedoms we have are a part of that. ISIS are killing muslims abroad too.

 

[TTOOLL]

His solution earlier in the thread was guns.

I was surprised police officers had batons and not guns. And said by having guns tell could have killed the terrorists faster. It is by no means the solution for terrorism.

Prove I said guns were the solution.

Why are you being dishonest?

 

[Theonik]

Again, where do you get off saying that just because an englishman is muslim that they'd carry this sentiment? Are muslims a monolithic block to you?

Muslims are people too, they have political points of view on foreign policy, economics, faith that differ from each other.

To play devil's advocate for a short while, the issue is one of personal identity. Even for second generation migrants, hell, especially for second generation migrants the concept of 'home' and their identity often lies between the two. Now the issue isn't that they are Muslims here. A second generation migrant from Iraq might have some very vocal views about the Iraq war and might be a target for radicalisation as a result. Some Muslims might similarly see violence against middle eastern states as an attack on their identity while the region itself might have very different views.

It's a pretty complex issue.

 

[Ether_Snake]

^ sounds like the same bullshit "they hate our freedoms" that Bush spread to answer why Bin Laden attacked the US. Even though he mentions the famine caused by sanctions.



Why would a muslim from another country care about other muslims?

What are you even saying?

IS and its followers are not mentioning "famine caused by sanctions", don't mix everything up.

Like others said, they are constantly killing Muslims in various Muslim-dominated countries that aren't being bombed by the west. It's not "Bush bullshit", it's facts.

 

[cloudburst]

^ sounds like the same bullshit "they hate our freedoms" that Bush spread to answer why Bin Laden attacked the US. Even though he mentions the famine caused by sanctions.



Why would a muslim from another country care about other muslims?

Quit playing dumb, man. The Manchester terrorist said he did the attack because of the US air strikes in Syria. These terrorists use those events as justification for attacking the West. Of course, if there was no air strike, they'd find some different excuse to wage their war against the West.