Bobnob
Member
https://youtu.be/aqF2XLxed70 one of my muslim friends just posted this on facebook, i was dissapointed at him but then it is kind of odd.Probably a hoax itself (the video)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Terrorist attack in London [up: 6 people killed, ~50 injured, 3 attackers dead]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
That's dumb as hell and you should feel bad for posting it.
Same shit as fucking Sandy Hook truthers with "Crisis Actors" that don't even look close to the same people.
ClosingADoor
Member
What is odd? That a police officer gets ready into combat gear? And that a terrorist has bought some camouflage pants somewhere?
Please don't spread this bullshit.
GTFO of here with this crap. It's so low effort.
The police are changing into better equipment to deal with the task at hand.
Bobnob
Member
i'm from the uk and not once have i seen a police officer in camo, like i said the video is probably fake.
Theonik
Member
This video gave me cancer.
Skellig Gra
Member
"Probably"
Chittagong
Gold Member
I hate tinfoil stuff with a passion, but this is an interesting coincidence worth a minute.
The weird part, as I understand, it is not the dead attacker wearing camo (it's dumb, and poor fashion taste, but not that weird), but rather the police changing into similar camo pants, and then putting on a second pair of pants on top of them. Surely it's just a coincidence, but a weird one.
I mentioned these pants yesterday
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=239083383
When being bored and smoking too much weed happens. Guy is trolling. Cmon man.
PatThePassive
Member
I want those 2 minutes back.
This coincidence is not worth a minute, camouflage clothing isn't impossible to come by and for the reason the attackers may have chose to wear camo maybe they viewed their actions as a act of war, or holy war and wanted to look the part.
The only thing those pants made me wonder is if the UK also has military surplus stores like in the states were you can get real deal military clothing minus the details like rank and name, or did they have to get them online?
GHG
Gold Member
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40148737
How many times do we need this to happen before something changes? I know people are against systematically going through the watch list and questioning/arresting people but when people are being reported by the community and still nothing is done...? Somethings not right about that and it really needs to be looked at.
GHG
Gold Member
Ok yeh sure, let's wait until these guys start killing people before we start questioning and arresting them.
Not sure how you go about arresting and questioning a dead person who has either blown himself up or been killed by police to prevent further damage but there you go, it's clearly better than arresting and investigating them them before any of this has a chance to happen.
ShironRedshift
Member
It's a difficult situation, for sure. With the cuts to the police, there just aren't the resources to deal with the tips and so too much slips through the cracks. This in turn causes people to feel that the police/intelligence services are deliberately ignoring or just don't care about the issue at all, which isn't true, but it's a hard feeling to shake when you hear about reports of the police getting tips and those tips not seemingly being followed up on. It just naturally feels that there could have been something more, anything at all, could have been done to prevent it when we aren't able to see the daily behind-the-scenes for the police force and have no clue when thinly stretched those resources can truly be (and in a quite similar fashion, upon hearing such reports, people naturally assume that the police/intelligence services were doing nothing at all, when, again, because we don't see the behind the scenes we can't possibly know what they were and weren't focusing on. It's a seemingly natural conclusion to come to, but it isn't necessarily so, but the natural want for these attacks to have been prevented and to be prevented in the future, and the terribly limited information most of us have about what the police is or isn't doing really makes that difficult).
But on top of limited resources, the problem of acting based on hearsay cuts both ways: if they were to act purely based on reports of what people claim to have heard and take people in for questioning or interrogation or even detainment purely based on that alone, that could very easily be turned around and abused, particularly if word got out (and it very quickly would if such much more aggressive tactics were used) about such an approach: people could and unfortunately certainly would make up false reports about people seemingly plotting Islamic terrorist activity.
If simple tips are enough to bring someone in for questioning, the problem with that is that they have to do that for every single tip they get, as of course it's naturally impossible to tell which have any credence to them and which don't any other way. It's naturally an all or nothing thing. But bigoted assholes surely wouldn't give a fuck, and would force the police to waste their already limited resources chasing down wild goose chases just because they wanted to show some random Muslim they ran into what for.
And of course you don't just have to worry about how bigots or assholes would use such a development, but also ISIS themselves. And I'm not just speaking about propaganda fodder (which they no doubt would also use it for to bolster their efforts, which would also be a huge issue with such an approach). No, if word got out that the police/intelligence services were so much as doing something as seemingly on its face innocent and benign as actually taking the time to make sure they at the very least question and interview every single person they get a tip about, without fail, ISIS would abuse the hell out of that, and it would be very easy to do: just fill the hotlines with all kinds of fake-tips about hearing people on the street plotting terrorist activities, and while the police are using their already limited resources trying to find and interview people who are completely innocent and did nothing wrong or who don't even exist in the first place, the real ISIS-supported/inspired terrorists take advantage of the diverted police resources to commit an attack elsewhere, in an area or time they weren't expecting or prepared for at all.
That's a huge problem--even as something as innocent, benign, and well-meaning as taking the time to process and interview everyone they get a tip about could be abused by ISIS if they found out about it, not only for propaganda and further heightening tensions even more, but also by them deliberately overwhelming such resources with extremely real-sounding wild goose chases (the type of stuff they've unfortunately gotten good at) to the point of making them useless.
And this is of course completely putting aside how even if the police were better funded, there would still be no way they would have the resources to do something that broad and far-reaching to begin with, and also ignoring how on top of all that such moves would still likely leave the police unable to actually do anything solid about such situations due to a lack of hard evidence, but in choosing to act in such a fashion regardless they just alert such terror cells that their presence is currently known, prompting them to either flee or act in a more hasty or haphazard fashion, with potentially even more dire consequences.
Unfortunately, there just aren't any magical solutions. Which is terribly, terribly frustrating, as these are great tragedies and people naturally want such incidents to be prevented and stopped as much as possible and are willing to give up quite a bit to make that happen, as long as that means that everyone is alive and safe. That in turn naturally makes people cling to any proposed solution that would accomplish those goals, or at the very least save even one single more life than the current approaches. But while that's all very natural and extremely well-meaning, it's important to keep in mind that just because a solution sounds good and sounds like it would help, that doesn't mean that it actually will and that's very important to keep in mind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.
Wanting to help people and prevent further loss and tragedies is one of the most natural feelings in the world. But if we truly want to accomplish that, we can't act in haste toward any solution that seems to accomplish those goals, as doing so might just make the situation worse instead of better. If we truly want to save lives, that means taking the time to calm down, focus, not let our emotions dictate our actions, but rather take the time to examine each proposed answer purely on its own merits and not just rush toward any given solution for the sake of having one. The latter might be well-meaning and tempting, but if we truly want to save lives and minimize such occurrences in the future, that means taking the time to make sure that whatever we do and however we respond, it's a choice that's well thought out and we know will help rather than rushing to an answer for the sake of having one, and damn the consequences.
Of course, to be clear, that doesn't mean doing nothing! Far from it. Giving it time and thought isn't doing nothing, but giving the problem the proper respect it deserves and avoiding trivializing by acting as if the answer's simple (if it were, it would have already been done! Clearly, it's not). If we really want to make something happen, we have to settle not just for an answer, but the best answer we possibly can. The lives already lost and those that potentially could be in the future don't deserve such haphazard, ill-considered answer, but the best one we can possibly give them to make sure we're really giving the problem our all.
To bring this back around and wrap this up, that's exactly why calls to say have everyone on the watchlist locked up tremendously frustrate me. A lot of well-meaning people might jump to solutions like that, precisely because they themselves are frustrated and want to see an end to that. But just because a solution is tempting and sounds good on it's face doesn't mean it actually is. Even if something sounds good at first, it could end up just making the problem worse instead. And putting locking people up on the watchlist aside, even doing something as simple as interviewing anyone and everyone who there's a tip about could cause terrible problems, as I've outlined above. And that's not what the people who's lives have been lost deserve. They don't deserve some half-assed solution that we came up in the heat of the moment just to get something done. No, they deserve the best we can come up with and absolutely nothing less, something that actually has had a lot of thought, work, sweat, and tears put into it to make sure it will improve the situation and nothing less.
(And just to be clear, Closing, just in case it isn't, I'm not saying that you personally are in favor of any of those approaches--just using your post here as a launching-pad for a lot of ideas I have in my head over this stuff and to get this stuff off my chest. ^^)
See above:
-Lack of resources to do so due to cuts
-Even if they did have the resources, while such tips would be enough reason to question such an individual, they would be unlikely to be enough to hold them or do anything further. Thus, bringing them in just for questioning is just letting them know that the police are onto them, letting them flee or alter their their plans and making the police's job much harder from there on.
Such tactics might be well-meaning but if they're not done with care they can make the situation worse or much more complicated. Of course, that leaves the question of what should they do in that case? And that, I admit I'm not sure of. I know that I'm not smart enough to begin answering a question like that. A lot of incredibly talented and intelligent people have tried, and they themselves still struggle with it, which is why this type of thing is still a problem in the first place. If things were so simple, they would have already been solved. But lacking that answer doesn't mean we should just rush off to any old thing, as the victims deserve better than such a half-assed approach and it could just make the situation worse. Of course, that does not mean doing nothing! But whatever we do, we should make sure it's thought out and not something that will just fall into ISIS's hands and make them even stronger or make the problem worse. That is definitely not what the victims deserve and we should be better than that. I don't know what the answer is, but whatever it is, to give the proper respect to the victims, it needs to be something that definitely is thought out and not an emotional reaction that falls into ISIS's hands. that much, I'm sure of, and I wish more people could at least agree on that much.
Because suspicion has NEVER been based on anything but completely sound reason.....
Not necessarily.
https://twitter.com/ProfDaveAndress/status/871251642162741249
Interesting context given. Kind of curious what the public reaction was back when terrorism was a bigger problem.
Interesting context given. Kind of curious what the public reaction was back when terrorism was a bigger problem.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
Yeah, we have those, and the clothes themselves are a fairly common sight on the streets. I don't think there's the stigma here in the UK about wearing military style clothes without actually being in the military that seems to exist in the US.
Edit: unless you're actually trying to appear to be a member of the military, of course.
MisterFalcon
Member
Maybe people posted graphs of death tolls from the 1940's and said things were much worse then too.
It's time to go down the same route the US did during the Cold War. Liked something on Facebook even remotely Jihad related? Arrest them. An ISIS flag lying around in the attic? Arrest them. Present at a pro-sharia protest? Arrest them.
It's war. You're sympathising with the enemy? Tough luck, shithead. They kill you in those backward countries if you even hum a Rolling Stones tune. They drove a car over the head of a 6 year old for singing the Iraqi national anthem to himself. Least we can do is this. I'm done with seeing people dying in the arms of their fiancée because some fairytale creature from an ancient book told you to do so.
It's war. You're sympathising with the enemy? Tough luck, shithead. They kill you in those backward countries if you even hum a Rolling Stones tune. They drove a car over the head of a 6 year old for singing the Iraqi national anthem to himself. Least we can do is this. I'm done with seeing people dying in the arms of their fiancée because some fairytale creature from an ancient book told you to do so.
Are you seriously advocating for the implementation of a policy that ruined the lives of thousands, led to the persecution of Jewish and Lgbt lawful citizens, and did absolutely nothing to prevent actual spying?
What the fuck are we coming to? You do understand this is literally exactly what the terrorists want, and will do absolutely nothing to prevent further attacks, only encourage them?
In summary, are you fucking insane or just fucking stupid?
ShironRedshift
Member
Yikes. Are you... are you seriously holding up the Red Scare/McCarthyism as something to be inspired by? A positive example? Terrorism is terrible and more needs to be done to stop and prevent it but that's NOT in any way a road you want to go down.
Don Draper's Hat
Member
7 people died. Why has the thread title not been changed?
I don't know if you've studied history but the HUAC is seen as a blemish on the American tapestry, not a positive.
ShironRedshift
Member
There just very likely hasn't been a mod who has both a.) taken notice of the thread since then and b.) is aware that the number of fatalities has changed. The forum is very active and which threads are on the front page of a forum and which ones aren't are constantly changing and so both keeping track of particular threads and being aware of the latest up-to-date information on top of them is difficult and things slip through the cracks.
If you want it changed, it's much more productive to just PM an active staff member and let them know that the situation has unfortunately changed and the thread title needs to be updated (green icons on the page linked below indicate online staff members), since mods can't magically see posts complaining about the thread title not being up to date but they can and do read PMs asking for such changes:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showgroups.php
So if you want a thread title changed, that's a more effective and quick way of making it happen. Just keep that bookmarked for future reference (or, on the NeoGAF Home Page, there's a link to it called "Forum Staff" right underneath the "Welcome to NeoGAF" introductory text)! ^__^
ReplacementPelican
Member
I get that you're upset and scared but I would genuinely suggest you read up on what you're recommending. This isn't a route to go down and exactly what ISIS wants.
Audioboxer
Member
People that show worrying behaviour will get put on a watch list before we go right to arresting. Lawyers and UK law makers will need to confirm for us plebs what exactly allows an immediate arrest. I often from my own seat of ignorance think it's not quite that easy to just arrest people for thought-crime. Even in the UK. However, in saying that, we do have some easily usable hate speech laws which have led Twitter trolls to being arrested over things you'd see people get away with in other countries. When you think about it that way openly supporting or engaging in conversations about ISIS or terrorism should be able to lead to arrests quite quickly.
It's just a balancing act between human rights and your freedoms. This is not in support of terrorists, I think that should be quite clear. It's more about the reality around our UK law and what can and can't be done. The general public need the Government to be far clearer about when they can intervene. MI5 is obviously sketchy about how much information they spread to the public, but they did recently release the numbers of people they see as people of interest. It might be good to know a bit more about how they put people on these lists, and what their methodology is behind continuing to watch before actually acting. When people hear person X was reported for radical behaviour and worrying signs and there is no action it obviously angers the general public.
US and UK just installed sharia law in Iraq by toppling secular Saddam.
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/22/iraq.rorycarroll
- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-women-islam-idUSBREA270NR20140308
Stereogatari
Banned
I agree. You give Islamists an inch, they take a quarter.
Always-honest
Banned
Wow... Some people.
Which does support the notion that there is a complete disconnect between the public's perception of their own safety and reality.
Audioboxer
Member
The question now really needs to be are they "ignoring" and if so why? Or are they genuinely spread so thin (incorrect) judgement calls keep getting made along the way? If it's the later, backed up by MI5 trying to say it's so (with the figures they released), then the Government needs to respond asap.
As above I think the general public need an expert to spend a bit of time explaining what we can arrest for pre-emptively. After an attack, so many arrests get made. Is it true that the people they arrest if they know about them could've therefore been arrested long before the attack?
Also, prison sentences need to be looked at. These two articles are a bit worrying
http://news.sky.com/story/warning-as-hundreds-of-jailed-terrorists-back-on-uk-streets-10639848
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/782668/70-terrorists-back-on-streets-release-UK-prisons
Express is a bit of a dodgy source, but for that article, they are working off a government stats release. When it comes to stating the length of sentences which you often see are 4~6 years. That man recently with a mental condition that created a bomb and got 15 years had many on GAF saying not long enough. I had to say in that topic, well, the average sentence length for terrorism is even lower than that. Some stats here ~ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=238146459&postcount=78
Lock them up and throw away the key is often used as hyperbole to state disgust and disbelief, but the number of years some of these terrorists are getting really need to be looked at. Especially considering that Sky estimate of up to 2/3rds DO NOT engage with deradicalisation programmes. That means they are back on the streets and presumably back on stretched thin watchlists that are often failing as it is.
I'm inclined to agree with you on longer sentences in general but those 4-6 year sentences are not for acts of terrorism, they're for showing public support of ISIS, which rightfully carries prison terms but if every idiot was jailed they'd come back a lot hardened and likely even more committed. Though 4-6 is still too low for people rallying others to join ISIS, 10 sounds better.
When there is actual intention and planning to commit a terrorist acct, I'd expect 20 years at least and then heavy surveillance upon release.
Audioboxer
Member
Fair enough, but it's terrorism-related charges at least. A big issue we have is those that eventually carry out attacks often seem to progress through the ranks of "terrorism-related charges", don't get caught or brought in and therefore eventually carry out some sort of violent action. A terrorist attack.
Then even if we manage to negotiate higher sentences as the average, if even 1/3rd let alone an estimated 2/3rds of those released do not deradicalise successfully that is watch lists being overloaded with people again.
While someone carrying out an attack or attempting to is obviously the most serious of offences, those that keep preaching and influencing others is a massive part of this too. Manipulating young minds/minds in general to do your bidding is often how the imams/figures of power do it. They themselves might not carry out an attack but they radicalise lots of "ground troops" to potentially do the "dirty work". The ever growing back heads of the hydra cannot be properly cut off unless the source, the preaching/propaganda and circulation of the ideas, gets seriously hamstrung. The online side of things is a nightmare to try and go after (Twitter and FB certainly need to do more), but communities and figures in the country passing around or preaching propaganda can certainly be gone after fast and hard.
brokenbeans
Banned
Can I get away with carrying a weapon yet? You know for protection?
ClosingADoor
Member
People giving "context" like this ignore that the amount terrorism related events in Europe now is rising. This is a reverse of the downwards trends we have seen. So saying things like it was worse in the 80s holds little relevance.
There is nothing odd about it and just fuel for conspiracy nuts. They are two obviously different people, different clothes, time doesn't fit.
No. It's illegal to carry knives above a certain length in public in the Uk without a valid reason (e.g. Coming home from a shop).
Also, do you really think drunken party goers carrying knives would have helped at all? And wouldn't lead to *vastly* higher stabbings and knife injuries every other day of the year when drunken people get into fights like they do every night?
Perspective please folks.
MilkyJoe
Member
Don't be daft.
brokenbeans
Banned
Fuck perspective.
I'm telling you now this whole situation is a ticking time bomb if the government doesn't get a grip on this.
These suspected terrorists and associates need to be taken of the street immediately what's the point in a list over 3,000 people long when they are plotting against us.
It's time for a hardline approach.
Bobnob
Member
What's odd is the police officer getting into camo pants, i have lived in the UK for 40 years and never seen a police officer in camo. Other than that its most likely an hoax video from another time.
I'd feel much safer knowing someone with such a cool head is carrying a weapon about.
/sarcasm
Audioboxer
Member
"Arming the public" as a direct approach to counteract terrorism isn't the best way to go about things. The public largely have zero training or filtering through a selection process of who is capable and responsible enough to go around carrying serious weapons. If we're talking serious blades, concealed weapons and obviously guns.
The police and intelligence services are supposed to be there to protect the public which is why most of us aim our criticism and questions at them. Not widespread wishes for us all to be armed from our boots to our chests with weapons and chain mail. It's not the wisest hardline approach to be looking for. Hardline preventative measures are really where to look. For that most of the experts are explicity stating both budget and staff numbers need to be far better than they are.
Guns are never going to be accepted by our culture either. Look at what happens when you make it easy for the public to get guns. The terrorists find it easy too. Assault rifle/high powered weapon attacks in other countries are seen more frequently than the UK. Obviously knives, bombs and vehicles can do equal levels of damage, but guns in confined spaces can be catastrophic. It's just another layer of madness the majority of the UK do not want. Thankfully.
A ticking time bomb of what exactly? Sorry but again, the fact you aren't capable of assessing risk and are emotionally wound up shouldn't be how we determine our CT response.
And the list is not people 'plotting against us'. It's people who we think *may* have radicalised views, some of whom *may* plan to attack us. It's not a list of people we know to be planning attacks - we arrest those! Are you suggesting that we should just indefinitelyn incarcerate people on the change they may plan to commit a crime? Because the security services will tell you that's insane, pointless, and the only result would be to radicalise vast numbers of people who currently aren't extremists.
The camo pants are that officers own undergarments that he's wearing under the fireproof boiler suit that's part of the riot/public order gear.
Officers can wear whatever personal issue long sleeve top and trousers they want under the riot gear, as long as they're cotton so they wont melt.