UKC

A man has been arrested after a truck was driven into a crowd on a busy shopping street in Stockholm before crashing into a department store, killing four people, in what the prime minister described as a suspected terrorist attack. At least 15 others were wounded when a man in a mask hijacked a beer truck that was making a delivery on Drottninggatan (Queen Street) in Stockholm on Friday, local time. Witnesses described seeing the truck swerve from side to side in an effort to deliberately mow people down. Swedish police said they had arrested one man late on Friday in connection with the attack, but they had not ruled out the possibility other attackers were involved.

Condolences to those affected.

In reply to Big Ger:

Terrible, just back from a wedding, and a good night out , and it's very sad to hear this. Just need to wait to find out more about who did this and their motives.

In reply to Jim C:

Info a little thin as suspects of offences aren't named here. They have 3 but the main man, the driver 39 from Uzbekistan, family still living there and he's working in Sweden sending money home. Police have said there are signs of Isis support on his social media trail and that he wasn't actual living at the address he said he was. Nothing stand out though so far.

Some of the UK press seems to be connecting another non terror incident involving arms to this, but the police were saying they weren't connected. Or at least they were last night.

Bit of a wake up call, most of Sweden knew it was just a matter of when, a few hundred thousand migrants arrived here through the schengen agreement prior to Sweden reintroducing border controls, so bound to be a few rotten apples. Hopefully the government will now increase the powers to the security services who have been complaining they are under resourced for some time. But the liberal left didn't want to acknowledge that perhaps some of the migrants might support IS. Interesting times ahead politically.

In reply to Big Ger:

But why Sweden?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Naive or intentionally disingenuous question.

They have voluntarily allowed a dramatic increase in the number of muslims. Islam is a vile, evil, intolerant and above expansionist, aggressive and forcibly proseltysing religion. The more muslims you have, the more terrorism and the more of every kind of society harming activity imaginable. It is a simple relationship.

In reply to Simon4:

Nope, Sweden willingly housed 100,000s of migrants fleeing wars started by primarily bush and Blair, when most other nations including the UK ignored them. A very small percentage of less tolerant IS supporters took advantage of the open door. It's still not good, but if 1 in 10000 support IS that still means there are quite a lot of potential terrorist migrants drifting around Europe and more to come.

In reply to Simon4:

Boll0cks!

These people are criminals and should not be given the honour of the labels 'Terrorist'

They are people who are medically unstable, with no affiliation to any organisation and just want to find an excuse for their merdorus criminal actions.

We are living in a world of violent Walter Mitty types not religious extremists fighting the good fight. The real religious extremists are living/dying for their dream right now in the battle field.

In reply to The Lemming:
In reply to simon.....

That's politer than i was tempted to be, but decided he wasn't worth it.

In reply to Simon4:

Little wonder the spectre of religious war seems to be always with us. You should check out what 'extremism' is in this context

In reply to Simon4:

Your are a poisonous little man, if it wasn't Muslims that you hated it'd be someone else....1930's Germany you'd be running along to join Hitler youth no doubt.

In reply to Big Ger:

My question is this : Why does it suit Isis to try to drive western populations to the extreme right through random outrages in our major cities? You might think it suited them to foment religious and racial hatred.

In reply to Big Ger:

indeed very sad

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Because their ideology is flawed.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

the IRA thrived on doing just that

In reply to wercat:


And they were the worst Muslim extremists of the lot.

In reply to The Lemming:
of course !


There are always those in activist groups (where terrorism is perhaps the most extreme form) who are interested in fomenting anger and violence to further justify the importance of their cause and their own place within the struggle. Without it they would just be insignificant figures like the rest of us but the cause justifies their existence whether they are part of the main struggle or not. Just as true of IRA acolytes as any other terrorist (or gangster, for that matter) group.


That is one reason why it is so difficult to find peace as even when the substantive cause has diminished there are so many whose lives and personal importance depend on their vested interest in being part of the violence.

out

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Isis believe that now the caliphate has been declared any Muslim who doesn't relocate there becomes apostate.
They seek to make the West as hostile to Muslims as possible, forcing them to join the caliphate and so save their souls.
Yeah , it's nuts but you've got to remember many medieval Christians believed it was a mercy to torture people into conversion as it saved them from eternal hellfire. You can't expect too much in the way of sanity from religious extremists.

In reply to Stichtplate:


I don't think it's correct to say that their reasoning is insanity. When you consider their upbringing, culture, religion, faith etcetc, all add together to play a huge part in their decision making. At the end of the day you can't win a war against someone who considers it the utmost honor to die fighting for their land and their god. And remember, they are doing this to save the /eternal souls/ of their brothers and sisters who share that same faith and those same convictions. Their families, friends, brothers in arms. What's one piddling life on earth compare to eternity in paradise?

So yeah, their reasoning is probably pretty alien to anyone who lived and grew up in the west but that doesn't make it insanity.

In reply to Removed User:

I believe we are all born with the ability to reason and to some extent to know right from wrong. In the world we live in today mobile phones and the internet have made access to knowledge and differing viewpoints almost global.
In the face of this to persist in the belief that it is OK to enslave people, treat women as second class and to kill people because you don't like their lifestyles is insane.

.... also bear in mind that there are thousands fighting with Isis who grew up in the West. Kalhid Masood grew up in Kent.

In reply to Stichtplate:

The inherent dogmatism of the muslim religion has tendency to suspend reason but that does not necessarily constitute insanity.

I think it may have been Richard Dawkin who said, and I'm paraphrasing. "Good people will always carry out good deeds and bad people will also do evil but it requires religion in order for good people to do bad things.

Al

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Although we don't yet know who the attacker was or the reason behind the attack, there is a growing population of disaffected immigrants in Sweden who feel alienated. There are tensions between them and the Swedes.
I witnessed a large number of immigrant men armed with meat cleavers attacking people in Malmo years ago so I've seen this at first hand.
Sweden is a great and tolerant country and seamless immigration is difficult especially when people move from a completely different culture.
I'm sure race relations will improve there,

In reply to GridNorth:

You can't put all Muslims in the same category. I have no issue with the vast majority of Muslims and how they practice their religion.
There are an awful lot of Muslims who would characterise the Isis ideology as insanity. I work with some of them.

... that is, unless you're being a bit pedantic and insisting on the strict psychological definition of insanity?

In reply to Stichtplate:

I would never put all muslims in the same category but it's not helpful to deny that there are inherent problems with the values of this specific religion. Many apologists for the terrorism however seem happy to put every one who questions the religion into the category of racist and bigot. A case of double standards perhaps?

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


You just need an ideology that makes it OK to murder enemies. Doesn't really matter if those enemies are political, racial or religious.

Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Rwanda, Pol Pot, military juntas etc etc etc etc didn't require much religion to get ordinary people to kill.

In reply to GridNorth:

If you had said " the inherent dogmatism of religion " instead of "the inherent dogmatism of the Muslim religion " you would have avoided any confusion that you might be tarring all Muslims with the same brush?

In reply to Stichtplate:

But Islam appears to be the only religion where that dogmatism results in violence and most certainly on the scale that we have been witnessing recently.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


In your full quote (above) you refer to the suspension of reason not the propensity to violence. Of course your pointing out that the Muslim religion today is becoming indelibly linked with violent extremism is entirely correct.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I have 4 muslim friends. They could probably best be described as "lapsed muslims" but even they cannot bring themselves to unreservedly condemn things such as the fatwa on Salmon Rushdie and the bombing of the Charlie Ebdo offices. When I ask them about stoning adulterers and gays and punishments for leaving the faith, they don't want to talk about it and cannot bring themselves to admit that in western society this is just plain wrong. If moderates feel like this am I not right to be concerned about the faith as a whole?

Al

In reply to GridNorth:
Definitely. As would I be if I knew moderate Muslims with such immoderate views.

In reply to GridNorth:

This is the elephant in the room, ultimately the only defence against Islamic extremists is for mainstream Islam to condemn, marginalise and render extremists and extremism unacceptable. That seems a bit slow in happening! Unfortunately Islam appears stuck in the 15th century with 15th century values. eg an Islamic colleague of mine told me that conversion from Islam to Christianity was deservedly punishable by death, a muslim woman marrying a christian would also be deserving of such a sentence whereas a muslim man could marry a christian woman no problem. Unfortunately people who raise such issues are labelled as bigoted racists.

In reply to JimR:


Very difficult when many of those advocating and defending these issues are leading clerics of the faith. Whats more worrying is that in muslim countries, possibly the majority, these same people are also heavily involved in politics. I'm not sure where fear and faith, which all practising muslims seem to suffer form, and insanity cross over.

Al

In reply to Stichtplate:


So, do you know Muslims who do not? Have you asked them their views on these specific topics? Are they really Muslims?

I was baptised a Christian but I'm now an atheist and have been for most of my adult life.

Al

In reply to JimR:


No it's not ..


Nice.


That's because you're talking in a bigoted way. You just described over 1.6 BILLION people based off the terrible actions of the tiniest percentile of that group. Just out of interest I wondered what the chances were of dying from a terrorist incident, a second worth of googling suggests it's like 1 in 9.3million .. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-die-2...

Now compare that to your views on a religion of 1.6billion individuals.

In reply to Removed User:

Are you telling me I have more chance of dying in a terrorist incident than Labour winning in 2020. Not sure if I should be happy, worried, or relieved!?

In reply to Removed User:
I agree with you, statistically the chances are small but the threat is real, the perception even more so and if I'm brutally honest I'm more concerned about the apologists/deniers than I am of the terrorists. If we don't get real about this and stop labelling every one who questions Islam as a racist and a bigot, thus stifling debate, it will become a much greater threat.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

If all politicians don't talk openly, more and more people will eventually just vote for the few that do, usually the far right, which isn't a good thing either. It's wake up and face the music time. But as I said after London it won't happen. In Sweden right now politician and tv presenters have issued lots of condolences and placed little flags on Facebook and by Easter it'll all be forgotten, apart from by the families of the victims.

In reply to GridNorth:


Muslims I know at work express horror at Isis. I've not interrogated them on their specific views because... well you don't do you?
The two Muslims I know well socially are actually atheists and hold broadly the same views as I do on Isis. Neither of my nominally Muslim friends could be honest with their parents about their atheism as they would be ostracised by both family and community. I think a lot of people are in the same situation.
I understand your viewpoint but if you let yourself be sucked into an us and them position you're doing exactly what the extremists want.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Well other than that being a slight dig at me in that I must be gullible, no what they want is for Islam to be spread world wide with Sharia law and no room for other religions and free speech. The sad thing is that many moderates whilst disagreeing with the method do agree with the sentiment.

The biggest paradox, in my mind, is that most people who defend Islam, probably consider themselves supporters of a liberal, democratic society, women's rights, gay rights and above all free speech. Why so quick to rush to Islams defense?

I'm not a big fan of any religions but Islam seems to be particularly abhorrent and pernicious in every way imaginable.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


It wasn't a dig at you and I don't consider you gullible.
I do think that you shouldn't rush to categories people as your enemy.

In reply to GridNorth:
>I'm not a big fan of any religions but Islam seems to be particularly abhorrent and pernicious in every way imaginable.

And yet the Muslims we meet day to day seem normal.

It's as if only a tiny minority are dangerous.

Would you class that as being a terrorist apologist or being in denial?

In reply to GridNorth:
Just to clarify, do you consider anything I've posted as defending Islam?

In reply to elsewhere:

I wasn't talking about the people in that respect I was talking about the ideology and the reluctance of even moderates to speak out against some of the basic tenets of the religion, even when these are held and advocated by exremists.

Of course only a tiny minority resort to terrorism but it's my belief that the vast majority of Muslims support these values.

Al

In reply to Stichtplate:

No other than your reference to not interrogating them because " you don't do you?" Why not although perhaps interrogate is a loaded word.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Right.... so you consider my not wanting to question colleagues beliefs too closely to be akin to defending Islam. Nice talking to you back to the gardening now.

In reply to Stichtplate:

But surely that's the point. When people hold conflicting views it's not only reasonable to question them it could be considered a duty. I don't mean interrogate but surely just asking friendly questions shouldn't be a problem. You don't appear to have such inhibitions while dealing with me. I just brought these things up during general conversations with my friends, although colleagues would be a more accurate description as I knew them through work.

I'm not sure what I've said to offend you, I think you are being a little over sensitive. Or is this just another tactic to shut down debate?

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


I can have frank discussion with you because if we disagree, well no harm done . If I closely question my Muslim colleagues and find that while they detest Isis they have no problem with throwing homosexuals off buildings or stoning apostates to death then big problems ensue. In short those sort of discussions in a work environment are inappropriate and highly unprofessional.
I can't believe you really need that explaining?

In reply to Stichtplate:

Agreed but we would have these discussions during an after work drink for example. What problems ensue? Surely that's the whole point of having the discussion. You are confirming what I think and have said, Muslims find it uncomfortable to talk about these things but until they do we will continue to foster suspicion. I can't believe that needs explaining.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

I can't think why but my Muslim work colleagues just aren't up for going to the pub for a drink after work.

In reply to Stichtplate:

FFS now you are just being obtuse and sarcastic. My Muslim friends had no issues going to the pub, they just drank orange juice.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Just trying to inject a little humour.

Ok here's what I think. All this is really complicated and if me and you were in the pub together I'm sure we could thrash it out to our mutual satisfaction. But in reality what we think doesn't matter a jot.
But the beliefs of Muslims do matter because ultimately they're the ones who have to sort this mess out. If we, as unbelieving infidels say to our Muslim friends and colleagues "you're either with me or against me" , we're going to push an awful lot of them into the arms of extremists and then we all lose.
I'm not saying we should all become apologists for Islam, just that we shouldn't go out of our way to make enemies.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Don't give up the day job On the rest I think we are agreed.

Al

In reply to Stichtplate:


Mate, if they are thinking that you need to let someone know. That is totally illegal in the UK and you should ensure that they don't think it's acceptable.

"The two Muslims I know well socially are actually atheists and hold broadly the same views as I do on Isis."

Dude, they aren't muslim if they are atheist. That's fairly simple. Stop labelling, it only makes it worse.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Quite. If one of my colleagues showed support for any of those actions I would have no qualms and no problems in challenging their unprofessional workplace behaviour under our workplace regulations on conduct.

There is nothing unprofessional in asking a question of others in the workplace, where the expectation is that a reasonable person will make a reasonable response. Otherwise I'd never ask anyone "what did you do at the weekend?"...

Selective individual questioning based on religious profiling, I'd find that odd and potentially unprofessional. Conversely, I have no problems with discussing political issues in the workplace - if someone comes out with such an extreme response as you cite I'd probably go away and check out our flowchart on radicalisation and kick it upstairs

In reply to The Lemming:

No. Of course their "ideology" is flawed, as is their cosmology, values system, whatever. They are a murdering death cult.
My point is why do they feel it suits their purposes so well to drive us to the right? Why do they so want us to get into all that crazy crusader thing?

In reply to jonnie3430:


I hate to be the one to break it to you but thinking even the most hideous stuff is completely legal in the Uk.

I characterise my two friends as Muslims because that is how they describe and present themselves to the majority of people they know.

In reply to wintertree:


You're opening a whole can of worms there. If I question them on their views and they answer truthfully , as strict Muslims then all those vile punishments, as mandated by Sharia law are bound to come tumbling out. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it unless you break the law or incite others to do so you have the right to state your religious beliefs.
One of the reasons that the wider Muslim community has such trouble combating the ideology of Isis is that it sticks so strictly to the Quran in all its 7th Century glory.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Nonsense. The UK isn't some repressive state. We can have grown up conversations on politics at work. The idea that we shouldn't for fear that it will "entrap" someone by forcing them to deliver a bigoted and homophobic speech is risible. Apologies if I've misunderstood your argument.


If someone wants to run their mouth of in the workplace that's their problem, not mine.

I think you are being quite arrogant and discriminatory when you say "bound to come tumbling out". I'm no apologist for religions, can't stand any of them myself. On the other hand I couldn't disagree more with your comment on this outcome being certain to happen.

As I say, if it does happen it's an excellent chance to try out the grievance procedures and to dust of the radicalisation flow chart.


I don't recall Al or I mentioning the law? I suggested that if someone made homophobic statements in my workplace, that there exist work regulations that they would violate. This exposes them to grievance procedures. If they choose to not back down and apologise for their homophobic behaviour it could ultimately end up in front of a judge who'd have to weigh up the fact that both sexuality and religion are protected characteristics under UK law. I suspect the fact the person who made the homophobic comments was not compelled to do so by their religion makes it a relatively simple decision.

I don't like to accuse people of constructing rediculous strawman arguments, but...

In reply to summo:


All 3?

In reply to wintertree:


It wouldn't be a conversation about politics it would be a conversation about religion and a very specific religion, Islam.
The Quran isn't like the bible , a collection of religious tracts that has undergone arbitrary editing over the centuries as such is open to wide interpretation. The Quran is regarded by Muslims as the literal word of God . It brooks no argument.

In reply to Stichtplate:

So does the bible in many Christian cults, it's all down to interpretation.

In reply to Stichtplate:


If it's so definitive and authoritarian how comes there are several significantly different sects within Islam that can't agree? Or derivative splinter faiths that change?

I do so dislike it when a poster puts on a front of thoughtful, engaged debate and just turns out to be parroting the exact same simplistic and flawed "arguments" as simon4.

In reply to wintertree:

I have been explicitly talking about the ideology of Isis which is very different from talking about Islam as a whole . I'll repeat myself because you didn't pick up on it before.
The wider Muslim community has a great deal of trouble combating the ideology of Isis because it sticks so closely to the edicts of the Quran in all its 7th century glory.

That isn't opinion or interpretation that's just what is happening.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Just out of curiosity, are they muslims or atheists?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Muslims who don't believe in God I think? Maybe they're just having me on?

In reply to Stichtplate:


Like catholics who don't believe in god?

In reply to Stichtplate:


No, you and then we were talking about what people might say in the workplace as part of discussions around the subject. It's all there on the thread to read.

You yourself said that if a colleague was a strict Muslim that various homophobic and other comments were "bound to come tumbling out". You very explicitly were not talking about the ideology of Isis, unless you are accusing one or more of your work colleagues of being Isis members just because they are strict muslims.

You seem a little confused.

In reply to Simon4:

As religious extremists go, you really are right out there, aren't you ?

In reply to Stichtplate:


Really?? https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/hate-crime/...


They are perpetuating it, shame really.

In reply to wintertree:

Not confused at all . If you're talking about a strict Muslim then they will strictly follow the edicts of the Quran. That's pretty much the definition of a strict Muslim.
In my post I said I wouldn't question Muslim colleagues too closely because if they were (as in turned out to be) strict Muslims then this stuff would come out.
I'm not islamaphobic I'm just aware this stuff is out there and I don't want to have to address it in my workplace.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Yes really. Take a minute to read your own link. Thought crime is only a real thing in a novel by George Orwell.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Again with the "would". You are making judgements on (hypothetical?) other people based on your fixed world view. That's prejudice.

Earlier you stated:


That is indeed your opinion. Here is my interpretation and opinion.

The best understanding I have reached of our discussion, after re-reading all your posts and mine in our side conversation is that you'll not ask any colleagues about their views because they might turn out to be "strict muslims", which you seem to equate with Isis supporters, and it would be unprofessional of you to start that conversation.

In reply to wintertree:
Its religion so unfortunately it's a lot more complicated than that. You can be a strict Muslim strictly following the edicts of the Quran but if you also happen to be Shia an Isis follower would declare you apostate and call for your execution.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Dude, if the have revealed what they have after you have "closely questioned," them, then they are no longer thinking it, it's "verbal or physical abuse," or "threatening behaviour."

In reply to jonnie3430:


Sorry, I can't understand you.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Not actually very representative of Muslims then really.

In reply to Big Ger:
No I would imagine not. You don't get to know your typical Muslim down the pub.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Wintertree is right. There's very few Muslims out there that strictly follow the Quran, if any, mainly because the Quran can contradict itself in many things and the whole book can be 10 different books depending on interpretation. For example, since you mentioned about gay people being thrown off towers, there is nothing in the Quran saying that.

What you get complementing the Quran are Hadiths, which are 3rd party stories written after the fact over a span of centuries, again all of them open to wildly varying translations and interpretations.

Depending how people interpret the Quran and which Hadiths you 'choose' to follow, you already get load of flavours of Islam, all of which have evolved and spawned even more branches, and all of which could be followed 'strictly'.

Then you got things like the often mentioned but poorly understood 'Sharia law', which is something that does not really exist as unified thing, or it does if you are muslim. Sharia law is the law as intended by Allah, but then only Allah knows what that is. It isn't written anywhere and nobody knows what it is. Scholars try to glean into what that law is and then put it into paper by interpreting whichever interpretation of the Quran they use, whichever Hadiths they follow in their respective branches, and a bunch of other different methods, and as you could guess that generates even more different versions of it. So like with being a 'strict muslim' can mean a lot of difference things, adhering to Sharia law is also pretty unscientific.

So no, you don't have to believe homosexuals have to be thrown off towers or that apostates must be stoned to death to be a strict muslim.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

This does all point towards the trite statement from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that those committing terrorism "aren't real Muslims", as being a weak and pathetic response to the situation. I can perhaps understand the sentiment, but its a cop out.

A large number of areas of Islamic practice do appear utterly backwards in today's world, especially when practiced in the West. But in fairness, and having sat through an African Pentecostal service just the other week, so are large swathes of Christian practice, and no doubt Jewish, Hindu and others.

Individuals seem capable of justifying anything, whether religious or not, and with 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, many of them bitter, failing, impoverished or stifled by conservative thinking, its no surprise that there are hundreds and thousands who have essentially fallen in with the equivalent of gangs and willing to enact death on anyone not in their gang.

Using the actions of 1% to castigate the other 99%, no matter how at odds the practices of those 99% are with our own is not really going to help things given that 99% are entirely peaceful. However, I'm actually surprised there is not more terrorism around the world, practiced by all religions. Perhaps there is, and we just call it "hate crime", murder, assault, GBH, or suicide.

In reply to Simon4:


It was neither naive or disingenuous. Whilst I have a deep mistrust and dislike for all religion, and a fear of the current crop of copycat muslin 'terrorists' (I used this word loosely because l see them more as crminals, inspired by ISIS), I didnt see Sweden as an obvious target.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


The isis logic would be because sweden offers sanctuary to those who don't wish to live on their caliphate. The hypocrisy of living here taking the free housing, food, education and benefits for years, and then complaining is lost on them.

In reply to summo:

I suspect we overthink it.

A red-neck yank's response to 9/11 might be to put his fist through the face of anyone of a vaguely dusky complexion.

Likewise, an unstable religious conservative, down on his luck, frustrated, and potentially wanting out of this world, might find his name appearing in headlines worldwide and the possibility of recognition in the ISIS weekly news as reason enough to drive his truck through a street full of infidels.

Killing a load of civilians for no apparent reason is a long established strategy, both a means and an end, in the world of terrorism. Its incredibly simple to emulate and seizes headlines in a way that far more costly events fail to. I don't think you need some complicated, convoluted, grand geo-political outcome or intended meaning to make it an attractive course of action for the type of person willing to undertake it.

In reply to David Martin:

Good post and i agree with most but


Thing is, you can't just grab a copy of the Quran and the Hadiths, pick and choose a few choice sections, and declare to the World that you are now a Muslim following the Martinhabi branch of Islam. Keep in mind that where most Islamic branches are centuries to milleniae old, the one ISIS follows was 'created', while in the middle of military conflict, barely a few years ago.

This article touches a few points and is a good read http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/03/mehdi-hasan-how-islamic-i...

In reply to Big Ger: yeah race hate attacks are getting more common. There was another one in NYC recently.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/nyregion/manhatt...

In reply to Simon4:
Wasn't this guy a legal immigrant not associated with their increase in refugees?

In reply to David Martin:
The greatest response is just ignore them.

They want hate, they want to stop refugees which is why they will target countries like Sweden as they know if fires up the hatred.

The press are playing right into their hands.. and so are many on here.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Agreed.


But this is why I say we overthink things.
The opposite could just as easily be argued; that they want even more refugees, allowing more potential terrorists, more potential conflict, more tension in countries like Sweden, and the more Muslims there are, with greater birth rates, the greater the likelihood of a caliphate there.

Its hard to say with any certainty which direction any of their actions or our reactions will drive events. Just doing something "big" seems reason enough, for terrorists and world leaders alike.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I can see your where you are coming from but at what point do we stop ignoring them? There doesn't appear to be a week goes by without some report of terrorist activity and I get the feeling that we don't know the half of it. Hitler was appeased and ignored for far too long.

Why would they want to stop refugees? the more Muslims that enter Europe, the higher the likely hood of there being extremists among them and more potential recruits and as a consequence more attacks.

To say people on here are playing into their hands is just plain balmy.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:
>Hitler was appeased and ignored for far too long.

Ignoring terrorists as much as possible is not appeasement.
It is denying them everything they want.
It is the opposite of appeasement.
I'd go so far as to say it is your patriotic duty!

We are not very scared by the 99% of murders that aren't terrorist.
There's not much reason for us to fear the 1% of murders that are terrorist.

>To say people on here are playing into their hands is just plain balmy.

See https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660621&v=1#x8523221

To believe in a future of race race war in which non-muslims will be inevitably exterminated plays into the hands of IS.
Reacting as desired by terrorists is closer to appeasement than attempting to ignore them.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Try telling Andreea Cristea that.

In reply to Big Ger:

I don't know what you mean by that, but she might have been in agreement, that people should carry on as normal and not change how they/we live?

If the aim of terrorists is to cause terror, distrust, division and fear...

In reply to Timmd:

So we should ignore these attacks?

A British man killed in the Stockholm lorry attack has been named as 41-year-old Chris Bevington.
Two Swedes and one Belgian also died in the attack on Friday, when a hijacked lorry was driven into a store.
His family said they were devastated by the "untimely and tragic death" of the "wonderful husband, son, father, brother and close friend to many".

In reply to Big Ger:
I'm saying we shouldn't live in fear, or start being suspicious of Muslims as a general group. Bin Laden's goal, as far as he saw things through his distorted Islamist world view (Islamism being a particular perspective), was to start a war being Islam and the West.

Do we want him to succeed?

Edit: Ever since 9/11, the world has been in a state of conflict and fear.

It's acting against what he wanted to happen, for us to carry on without giving terror any thought (as far as we can), and without thinking any differently about anybody visibly Muslim (etc) who we might encounter.

In reply to Big Ger:


Do you actually have a suggestion that will improve the situation?

In reply to Big Ger:


They are bloody awful, but once again it's the rarity of them allied to the media narrative that makes them newsworthy rather than actual numbers of people killed. I was genuinely upset when I read about the young Romanian woman losing her battle, you can bet she had had the best medical care the UK can provide, and it just seems so unfair for her not to recover and get the chance to continue her life. But scan the local newspaper websites and regularly you will reach the same numbers of people having died as were killed in the London attack - just by far more mundane things like traffic accidents, house fires or suicide. We should of course try to stop or minimize all untimely deaths, but we do give disproportionate attention to ones caused by terrorism. In short, are we ignoring all these other diverse and disparate tragedies?

In reply to Timmd:


That's very different to saying we should ignore the attacks. There is no need to live in fear, or be suspicious of Muslims as a group. However the vain hope that by ignoring people being run down on our streets by terrorists they will go away and leave us in peace, is rather silly.

In reply to TobyA:


We give "disproportionate" attention?


Why should we?

In reply to Big Ger:

I never did say we should ignore the attacks in the hope they'll stop, as far as an approach taken by the UK with it's intelligence services is concerned.

As individuals, though, that's the best way we can respond, to not react in fear, and to (as far as we can) ignore that they've happened.

I think it might be rather a leap to think that roadrunner is thinking that the overall strategic approach of the UK should be to ignore the attacks and hope they'll stop?

I'm talking about what Bin Laden wanted to happen, and how we as individuals can help stop it from happening, or stop our lives from being affected in the way that terrorists want them to be.

I sometimes think the whole approach to terror has been wrong since 9/11, that things are going according to plan, as far as how Bin Laden wanted things to happen.

In reply to Timmd:


Agree with your first part, disagree with the second.


Nope, I think you and him are on the same page, that we should "ignore" these attacks as private citizens. However, I feel that doing that would only encourage more, and more vicious, attacks.


I think the recent attacks are far distanced from Bin Boy, and are a whole beast of a different hue.

In reply to TobyA:

I agree in principle more folk probably died in sweat shops making goods for us etc.. It's because it is visible that matters. Out of sight out of mind.

But I think if we don't tackle terrorism with more intelligence gathering, border control etc.. it will get much worse.

Even our far left PM is now hinting the days of Swedish open and welcoming migration are over. There will be thousands more who are likely to have their applications rejected, let's hope they take the news more calmly.

In reply to summo:


They should ignore it.

In reply to Big Ger:


Many do. They just disappear. In the days before border checks were reintroduced, they'd just travel to friends or family living elsewhere in Sweden. Reinvent themselves and present themselves at migration claiming asylum all over again. That's two more of years of just sitting around while another made up story is checked.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, totally disproportionate attention if you are judging it purely on a utilitarian basis.

In reply to TobyA:

So what would you consider "proportionate"?

In reply to Big Ger:



The Islamic State (IS) has claimed its responsibility for the two bombings that took place in Egypt during the celebrations of Palm Sunday, according to the group’s news agency “Amaq”.

Islamic State says it had carried out Egypt church bombings with suicide vests; ISIS further added that more attacks are yet to happen.

A bomb detonated early on Sunday at St Geroge’s church in the governorate of Tanta, leaving at least 27 killed and more than 71 injuries.

In reply to GridNorth:

Then you're not looking at the evidence or maybe not wanting to look up Anti-balaka.

Just because it isn't reported here doesn't mean it's not happening.


Meanwhile http://shoebat.com/2013/11/10/christian-militias-rise-new-crusade-coming/

Disgraceful.

In reply to Stichtplate:


I do. The majority do not accept free speech. They do not accept the right to criticise Islam. They do not accept the right to blaspheme and they do not accept the right to apostasy. Nor do many of them accept church/state separation.

All of these are fairly extreme positions in the modern West (if a Christian held to the equivalent of the above list, everyone would have no problem regarding them as an extremist.)


Doesn't that suggest to you a really big problem in the Islamic religion?

You've just said you have no problem with how the vast majority of Muslims practice their religion, yet you then suggest that your friends have to go through life hiding what they believe for fear of the consequences from Muslims. How do you reconcile those two thoughts?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Why wouldn't it be a target for ISIS and Al-Qaeda sympathizers within Sweden? You don't actually believe the evasion that it's only about foreign policy do you?

In reply to Big Ger:


Why wouldn't they, they getting plenty of publicity, even if they had nothing to do with it.

They are still calling the London murders a "terrorist attack" when there still hasn't been any link to terrorism., that's not ISIS but the BBC FFS!!


All psychological advice to stop these kinds of acts, like the mass shootings in America is to not sensationalise them and to report them in a succinct and measured way, yet we had three days, of TV coverage of next to nothing but recycled interviews and speculation.

We know what to do to decrease the incidence of these acts, but we choose not to do it.

In reply to GridNorth:


Really? All over the world people clash over religion, it's anything but unique to Islam, it's a human problem.
jk

In reply to krikoman:


In what way are they not a terrorist attack?

In reply to krikoman:
The guy in Sweden had popped up the security services radar before because of links, he has IS stuff on his phone etc.. he has had residency refused. He copied other IS attacks.. it appears he was aiming towards key royal/government buildings etc... The pedestrian street he was on is like a pedestrian link between the busier shops and the island where the palaces are etc.. I would say that's IS terrorism. They don't think he planned to crash as he could have killed hundreds had he reached where the street narrowed a little in a hundred metres time.

The London guy, slightly different method/profile but again certainly aimed for a government building.

Both pretty much hit the definition of terrorism in any language. We can call them mad, mentally unstable etc.. but that is just ignoring the real discussion in relation to IS and Islam.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Who are we talking about here? British Muslims? All Muslims in the world? Bangladeshi Muslims? Indonesian Muslims? Etc.

And what does "accept" mean? I know Pew has asked these sorts of questions, but I imagine lots of Muslims in the UK might say "no, you should not mock the Prophet. It is wrong." but their inaction says what they are willing to do about, which is nothing much.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't think it really matters what we call it except in how the law changes when terrorism is concerned. Was the murder of Jo Cox terrorism? I don't think he was charged with terrorism related crimes was he?

In reply to TobyA:


All of them, really. The points I listed are fairly mainstream and widespread.


That opinion still has a huge affect on free speech in the UK. Just for example, when Maajid Nawaz re-tweeted a very innocuous Jesus and Mo cartoon, and in the resulting controversy, Channel 4 news refused to show the resulting cartoon un-censored. Can you imagine them refusing to show a cartoon about Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn?

Mainstream media has capitulated to pressure from Muslims `and has now adopted Islamic blasphemy rules for itself. Further, Islamic groups continually keep up the pressure by regularly complaining about anything they dislike. And everyone just submits. The outrageous treatment of gymnast Louis Smith is an example.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'd like to give you a full response but I'm not going to.
I spent the first half of Saturday fending off vague hints that I was a typical liberal apologist for Islamist terrorists and the second half defending myself against accusations of Simon4 type bigotry. I'm a long way from either position.
I'm not suggesting that you fall into this category but there do seem to be a lot of people on here falling over themselves to twist other people's posts to fit their own agendas.
Life is too short and issues like this too complicated. Face to face where there is less scope for misunderstandings (deliberate or otherwise) fine. But on an internet forum, beyond the superficial I'm not willing to get involved.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In most contemporary strains of Islam there are no innocuous pictures of Mohammed because they are seen as shirk. It's not my world view, but there is little point in trying to argue the toss over whether a depiction is innocuous or not, if they are seen as risking idolatry. And of course what a picture really depicts has little importance once it has been used for political purposes in a febrile atmosphere, i.e. the various Jylland Posten cartoons that do NOT depict the Prophet. After such events I can see why TV news would not show cartoons.

A Corbyn and May cartoon isn't really analogous, but the Labour party pulling itself apart over what is anti Zionism and what is antisemitism seems closer. I can see why a Jewish person might find something insulting when I can just shrug it off.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

'In what way are they not a terrorist attack?'

Because the word terrorism implies a number of factors, not least defined objectives, some coordination of terrorist activities, preparation and planning and follow up. Otherwise the term becomes a vague Trump-like term meaning 'bad things.'

And it matters because the response of the State to defend us against genuine terrorism - as practised by the IRA, Basque separatists and Al Qaeda - inevitably involves infringement of personal liberties and human rights which we mostly sign up to because it's necessary. None of that will help prevent inadequate dimwits with mental health issues committing random acts of violence. And the more we pounce on the fact that ISIS claim responsibility or whatever the more we are falling in with their agenda.

So no, ISIS, you had nothing to do with either Stockholm or London, however much you may wish you had: you haven't the resources, the reach, the planning or the contacts.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think you are wrong. I very much doubt either would have happened without ISIS's "successes" in the Middle East. Possibly the attackers would have done other things with other motivations, but the nature and locations of the attacks I would say is directly a result of ISIS.

In reply to Big Ger:


By ignoring them, I simply mean not feeling fearful when we go out and about.

In reply to summo:


Slightly different in the fact they have found NO links to terrorist groups at all yet?

Both pretty much hit the definition of terrorism in any language. We can call them mad, mentally unstable etc.. but that is just ignoring the real discussion in relation to IS and Islam.

Not really ignoring anything, as long as you're interested in facts and not rumour then it makes a difference.

The blokes that killed Lee Rigby could be said to be more nutters than fanatics.

But the fact it was on TV for three days, with no "new" news doesn't help.

What are ISIS after - notoriety and publicity.

What does three days of mainstream news give them, whether they are involved or not, - publicity.

What do most physiologists suggest is the best thing to do when mass murders of these types occur - low key reporting.

Then why do we choose to do ISIS's advertising and publicity for them?

We've banned adverts for cigarettes because we know they encourage people to smoke.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

>. The points I listed are fairly mainstream and widespread. That opinion still has a huge affect on free speech in the UK.

Does it? I've been thinking about this more - how does it? I know the BBC and other media decided not to show cartoons that have led to terrorism, but the media is full of think pieces making the same points you are. You seem perfectly happy to argue here that Muslims in particular are a risk to us because their religion is even less compatible with modern British liberal democracy than other religions. Simon4 can be relied upon to pop up and do the paedophile-warlord sthick for those who don't fancy reading Jihadwatch and the like for themselves. Tommy Robinson was down by Westminster Bridge trying to find media to listen to him blame Muslims just hours after the attack last month. I do know Muslims feel their free speech rights as British citizens are curtailed in a way that they aren't for those attacking Muslims. There are two sides to those stories if course but it is definitely a sense that is out there, and every PREVENT notification from a teacher, social worker or religious leader makes the point.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I see your new here.

Simon tends to call people who disagree with him names, you'll get used to it, if you stick around

Water and ducks backs come to mind, and don't take the bait.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Good for you.

In reply to TobyA:


It's not just you who can shrug it off.

Yet there has been no news of the Jewish supporters, and there have been numerous and some high profile ones, of Ken Livingstone. We've only been "treated" to those speaking out against Ken and the Labour Party. As most people are only getting one side of the story, it's easy to make their minds up.

I'm not a fan of Ken, but I understand what he's trying to say, and I can see the lack of reporting of his support form some Jews and Jewish groups, it does make you wonder about an agenda.

Best I could find with a quick google http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/04/05/jewish-labour-party-members-slam-d...

In reply to krikoman:
Can you point to a "Jewish group" supporting Ken? A statement or link, for example? OK, I see you have edited and found, err, 30 supporters.. By contrast.

https://www.bod.org.uk/board-of-deputies-condemns-labours-failure-to-expel-...

In reply to jkarran:


Of course but we are talking about Islam and in the context of terrorist attacks in Europe. For all I know a group of Buddhists and a Hindus are scrapping it out as we speak but it's not newsworthy and I'm not particularly concerned by it. I am concerned by a group who openly call me an "infidel" (isn't that racist by the way. I feel offended by it but I'm not sure why ) and advocate violence in support of their religion and especially in a country I call home. Even some moderates have what I would class as extreme views or at best can be described as out of sync with western views.

Al

In reply to MG:
I did say it was a quick Google, and how many people knew ANY Jewish people supported Ken on this, it's hardly been reported anywhere.


While I don't want to go off topic, here's another interesting link.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105

In reply to GridNorth:

Of course if you arbitrarily restrict the context sufficiently you can claim Islam is uniquely violent. Doesn't make it true.

I'm so sick of these threads, we pick up on these deluded inadequates seeking their moment of perverted glory, we give them it a thousand times over and we do nothing about the really serious threats we face in the world as a consequence. Fuc* em, they should be a headline for a local paper, not dominating the international news, they're just not that important.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

So are you claiming that the Clerics and Imams, some of whom speak for both their religion and respective countries, and who encourage and support these activities are deluded inadequates seeking a moment of perverted glory?

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Obviously I refer to the sad dickheads who stab folk, run them over and ineffectually self immolate outside airports.

But yes, I would also describe a lot of those with loud and angry voices venting from their pulpits as deluded inadequates. The main difference between them and their followers seems to be they have some sort of plan beyond becoming corned beef and shrapnel or now that even that is too difficult, a messy car crash and suicide by cop.
jk

In reply to krikoman:

Anyone fanatical about any religion is nuts in my book. Muslim and IS; or the pope covering up pedos.

Ps. Rigby' s killers had intent to target a service person, they weren't just out to try and cut the head off the first person they saw. Deranged maybe, but there was still some level of planning and for thought.

In reply to krikoman:

I remember hearing from and reading quite a few Jewish pro-Ken voices but maybe that's just the blogs and the like that get reposted in my particular social media echo chamber.

In reply to jkarran:


But that to me is the main worry. These people are lauded by some, respected by most and feared by many. And I would include moderates in that number.

If you do not think that is something to be concerned about we will have to agree to disagree.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


That's a very bold claim and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence but I'm not even seeing half arsed anecdotes.

Or is this another case of you arbitrarily restricting the context so by 'most' what you actually mean is most of a small, probably imaginary group of socipathic religious loons who might approve of that sort of thing or most IS fighters rather than most of the 1Bn+ muslims worldwide or most of the 3M decent law abiding British muslims?


Totally pointlessly and as a result of our actions not theirs in granting them publicity and gravitas they simply do not deserve.


Again, why and on what evidence?


I think we should treat terrorism seriously and I believe we do. Beyond that we should starve them of the oxygen of publicity and get on with addressing some of the more serious problems we face.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
I really don't have the energy to debate this any more and I certainly don't have the time or energy to look for the evidence. It's an informal friendly debate not a university essay. Sometimes you read loads of stuff, don't necessarily remember all of it but none the less form an impression. I've come to the conclusion that there are those who see Islam as a threat to Western values and those who don't and neither seems able to shift from that position. The rest is just chatter.

Al

In reply to TobyA:


What I mean is that they are innocuous by any normal Western standards. Yes, they are unacceptable by mainstream Islamic standards, but that's the problem, we -- the mainstream media -- seem to have decided to throw out the normal Western standards of free speech on which the whole of society stands, and to replace them with Islamic standards. Yet, these Islamic standards and demonstrably harmful, if judged by the outcome of most majority-Muslim countries.

In reply to GridNorth:


Really because it seems you had plenty of energy for this debate before I asked you to evidence your extraordinary claim that most (Muslims presumably?) respect terror attackers.

Anyway, if you're done talking about this, fair enough, have a nice afternoon.
jk

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm sure it's been done somewhere but I haven't time for google while I'm at work - but it would be interesting to see how the various indices of development - child mortality, life expectancy, literacy, GDP (adjusted for natural resources); corruption rates, Huma rights violations, violent deaths, wars undertaken, calorie intake etc etc correlate with the proportion of the population that claim to be Muslim.

It might be particularly interesting comparing, say, states in Africa that are more or less Islamic, Pakistan vs India, Philippines vs other far East states; and so on.

The point of this would be to shed some light on a key argument that is rarely made: look folks, you can have economic prosperity, healthy children, economic development, and improving standards of living (or in the case of ME states when the oil runs out, avoid a catastrophic implosion); or Islamic fundamentalism You choose.

In reply to jkarran:

My final word on the matter is that all of this is based on perceptions. Your perception differs from mine and I'm just not experiencing any closing of that gap so further debate seems a little futile. I think Islam is something that we in the west should be wary of, you think my fears are misplaced. Time will tell which of us is right.

Al

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You haven't actually answered my main point - how is our freedom of speech curtailed? The media have at times chosen not show cartoons that Muslims feel are insulting. Perhaps you think editors should be obliged to turn themselves and their staff into potential targets for extremists in order to make a point. I don't think I see that as necessary.

But where else is our freedom of speech restricted? It like I said, you seem to be able to make the anti-Islam argument consistently and coherently here. Alan has never tried to ban you from UKC for doing so as far as I know. Newspapers and websites regularly have people making the same or more extreme versions of the argument. I think you are right that some media is scared to now directly publish pictures of Mohammed for fear of violence but not really sure that is the same as loosing the freedom of speech in any profound way.

In reply to TobyA:


Exactly. An active press is actually necessary for a free society. If they "voluntarily" decide to self-censor owing to threats then that is a problem.


Just suppose a government headed by someone such as Gert Wilders got elected. Then, groups of his supporters went around around physically threatening any newspaper or broadcasters that criticised the government. And, in response, out of fear, the media started self-censoring and not criticising the government.

Would you see that as a problem, or would you suggest that there would be no need for newspaper to "turn themselves and their staff into potential targets for extremists in order to make a point"?


The treatment of Louis Smith for example. He had his livelihood threatened for merely laughing at someone else who was ridiculing Islam, and all indoors at a private party. Do you see anything wrong with that? Who is standing up for free speech?

Then there are university campuses for example, where ex-Muslims and those who want to reform Islam are often unable to speak because of threats. Often the platform is withdrawn owing to "security concerns", which just means that society is to a large extent deciding to capitulate to those threatening violence.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's tour of Australia was recently cancelled owing to "security concerns" after Islamic groups undertook a campaign to try to prevent the tour.


Yes, and the loss of free speech is not uniform it is as yet patchy. But that just means we should not be complacent.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I watched the Smith video again earlier, he also shouts things he thinks sound "Muslim" to. He was found to have contravened the standards of behaviour of his sports governing body, presumably his funders, by letting his childish and arguably slightly racist behaviour be publicised (I'm never quite sure how I'm meant to discipline pupils who do things like silly Indian accents, they think people who look and sound different are funny, which is what Smith and his friends seemed to think.)

Maybe as a presumably tenured academic you are in a very fortunate position of being able to express the views you wish, when people could tie them to your employer - academic freedom and all that. Many of us sign things under the banner of professional behaviour where we are somewhat limited in what we can say in public forums with out it potentially becoming a disciplinary issue.

In reply to TobyA:

Is it really ok that such a governing body concerns itself with behaviour at private parties that are unrelated to the sporting activities?


"Letting" it be publicised? As I understand it, it was leaked to the media by an unknown person, without Louis Smith's prior knowledge. This doctrine effectively means that any person who is known to the public has no private life.

By the way, do you think that if he had ridiculed some aspect of Christianty, say someone made a joke about priests and choirboys and he laughed at it, there would have been any penalty applied?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
It might be unrelated to sport but it is not unrelated to income when public profile or brand pays the wages.

In reply to elsewhere:


I think that British Gymnastics funding is mostly from UK Sport, and thus ultimately lottery funding or government funding, isn't it?

If a high-profile celebrity gets sponsored because of his image, then the sponsors would be entitled to drop them for bad publicity from their private life, but I think we need to be very wary about extending that principle beyond that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Was that due to all the Christians protesting, and threatening to murder the cartoonists?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I guess it's in his contract, just as I said lots of us get told (or strongly advised) what we can or can't say publicly by our employers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes. Don't embarrass the paymaster applies for that and not just commercial sponsorship.

In reply to TobyA:


But that's my point, the news on TV has had nothing but Jewish voices against Ken, when the reality is not ALL Jewish people are against what Ken said. The sad part is unless you're listening to you're echo chamber you don't hear it, if the News is supposed to be balanced, then surely we should have heard something about at least one Jewish person not thinking he was Hitler incarnate.

So for the average man in the street, Ken's anti-Semitic and ALL Jews are against what he said.

It's very similar with the "terrorist" attack on Westminster Bridge, The BBC continued to call it a terrorist attack up until yesterday, even after the head of BBC news admitting on Saturday, there was NO link to any terrorist group and no suggestion that the bloke that did it was influenced by them.

So the average bloke gets, "terrorist Muslim attack in London". It doesn't stop people being dead, but it does add to ISIS's advertising and terror campaign, when it was possibly, if not probably, nothing of the sort.

In reply to Big Ger:

The Stockholm truck attack suspect has confessed to a "terrorist crime", his lawyer says.
The admission came at a custody hearing in the Swedish capital.
Rakhmat Akilov, 39 from Uzbekistan, admitted responsibility for the attack in court.
Four people were killed when a lorry was driven into a department store on Friday. A number of people were also injured, including two who are in a critical condition.
"His position is that he admits to a terrorist crime and accepts therefore that he will be detained," said lawyer Johan Eriksson.

In reply to krikoman:

I heard a pro Ken Jewish Labour member on Today i think last Friday IIRC, that's pretty agenda setting isn't it?

Are you suggesting an anti Ken bias in the media? Or a Zionist bias or what?

In reply to TobyA:


I'm suggesting that on the TV news I watched and the radio I heard, I noticed plenty of time give to Jewish people who had come out against Ken and none that spoke in his favour. Nothing more nothing less of the newspapaers I've read I've also seen the same issue.

I'm not saying there hasn't been coverage, just there hasn't on the places I've seen the issue mentioned. BBC, ITC and Channel 4 news.

You can make you own mind up about what it means, but I know that if I only got my news from the sources quoted above I would think ALL Jewish people thought Ken was the devil.

In reply to David Martin:

I just think the threat the pose doesn't justify the mass hysteria.

Obviously they worry me and especially flying but statistically the threat from ISIS is far less than the threat from a lone gunmen especially for me the US.

As said we generally practice this in other situations, with teen suicides for example, nowadays the press tends not to report too much as they know it can lead to a South Wales situation.

These killers want notoriety, the more press, the more terror we generate the more we encourage further attacks. As hard as it is I think a good dose of British Stiff upper limit is the best response the general public can take, obviously whilst being vigilant.

In reply to TobyA:

Did you know you can't tell people you've signed the Official Secret's Act?

Somebody told me, who'd erm...

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I agree, I would be happy to have these off the front pages, and put in the ' other news category' , we are currently pandering to their aims.

In reply to Timmd:

when I signed it for the second time I assumed I could talk about the first time

In reply to Jim C:

So, we take the recent London attack off the front pages, and relegate it to the "drop the dead donkey" pages.

Do the terrorists think;

1) "Oh dear they are ignoring us, better give up our Jihad and go grow grapes.

or

2) "Well, if the five dead in London this time didn't make the front page, maybe we'd better aim for a more spectacular impact, like say the 52 dead on 7/7 or the 130 dead in the Bataclan theatre attack. Maybe that'll perk up the presses.

I know which one my money'd be on.

In reply to Big Ger:


Again you're calling the latest London attack a terrorist attack why, there are STILL no links to any terrorist organisation.

This bloke may have got the idea from the notoriety of the French attacks in Nice, which would sort of prove the point above.

Most psychologist agree the best way to discourage copy cat attacks, copy cat mass shootings or copy cat suicides, as in Wales a number of years ago, is to not sensationalise the reporting. I'm presuming you think they are wrong and you know best.

It's not so much the front page but the continued front pages and headline news, that say nothing more than the first days news, but keeps repeating the same "news" over and over again, adding nothing.

In reply to krikoman:



So, if not to inspire terror, what do you think his motives were?



Really? Where did you get that idea from...


That's the way the news works. But I'm sure if you write in and complain they'll take your advice, I can imagine it now;

(BBC early evening news)

"But luckily the cat was retrieved safely from the drain and reunited with its owners.

Now at 6.25 pm, our daily round up of mass killings, by people who may or may not be terrorists. London 7 runnings down, Bristol two stabbed and three shot, Cardiff seven blown up and four run over.
Remember not to worry about this, your city's figures may be different.

Here's Sally with the weather.

In reply to Big Ger:


I have no idea, but Peter Sutcliffe killed more people and he wasn't called a terrorist. So unless you're going to argue about semantics or what a terrorist actually is, then who knows?

Causing terror and being a terrorist isn't always the same thing now, is it?


The idea about the psychology of copycat actions is well published, you could always try reading.

Again though you seem to know better so why bother, eh?

In reply to krikoman:

IMO terrorism is an act of violence intended to bring about a change in society. This can be political, religious or ideological. I don't think Peter Sutcliffe qualifies on those counts. Acts carried out in the name of religion either by individuals or groups clearly do even if they are misguided or mentally impaired.

Al

In reply to krikoman:


Because he wasn't trying to cause terror, clearly. Terrorist is a loose, possibly not very helpful term, but trying to pretend driving along the pavement mowing people down and then attempting to enter parliament in the most high profile way possible wasn't within it is perverse.

In reply to MG:


Terrorists in the accepted sense of the word usually have some ulterior motive though or are affiliated to some group or other, but you know that, and as I said above, unless you what an argument about semantics then the London murderer wasn't a terrorist he's not been linked with any group and certainly not ISIS, which was what everyone was saying.
Of course he caused terror and if that' what you want to call a terrorist then feel free.

Saying he was a terrorist and part of ISIS when he wasn't only "helps" their publicity and THEIR terror campaign.

In reply to Big Ger:

Or...perhaps the Bataclan attack and the response which followed, inspired further attacks?

As a general observation, it's possible to argue to ages, but how does one know?

In reply to krikoman:

So if he had an ulterior (ulterior to what?) motive you might say he was a terrorist?

In reply to krikoman:


That's two different statements. Anyway, do you honestly think he would have done this without ISIS and similar being current? And do you really think he didn't by his lights have a motive linked somehow to Islamic extremism?

In reply to Big Ger:
By saying one can argue for ages and asking how can one know, I mean to do with when it's an alternative series of events to what's happened or generally happens.

Was a general observation on the limits of being human - our ability to determine how life unfolds.

In reply to MG:


That's the point I'm making FFS!! That if the other attacks weren't given so much continuous news then other attack might not follow. People who know more than me are suggesting, they don't.

And do you really think he didn't by his lights have a motive linked somehow to Islamic extremism?

I don't know what this means.

Would you class Netanyahu a terrorist for his bombing of Gaza?

In reply to krikoman:


That's possibly true but different to denying as you appeared to be that there was a connection with Islamic fundamentalism.


What it says? Do you really think that in his mind what he was doing wasn't inspired in some way by Islamic extremism?



Is there any topic you can't shoe-horn Israel into!? Generally no as I don't think his main objective is to spread fear. Sometimes it would appear it is though, and in these cases yes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Of course, if he was a member of Al-Qaeda, The Real IRA, ETA, Boko Haram, Baader-Meinhof, Shining Path, Continuity Irish Republican Army.

Even then he might have just wanted to kill a load of people because his milk was sour and he didn't get to eat his cornflakes.

The thing is no one at present knows, he's not be linked to any of the above organisations, like he was on the news, the best we can come up with was he converted to Islam some time ago. Which as much a some people may like to contradict doesn't make him a terrorist.

Are the killers at Columbine terrorists, because I've not heard them called that.

In reply to MG:


I had trouble getting it into a discussion about the grading of TPS, if that counts.

In reply to krikoman:

Naughty, what you wrote was “Terrorists in the accepted sense of the word usually have some ulterior motive though or are affiliated to some group or other”, don’t forget the “or” you inserted. Putting the superfluous “ulterior” to one side all you’ve said is that terrorists usually have some motive. Well, no shit! Perhaps this bloke didn’t have a motive, perhaps he’s not a terrorist, but I’m not sure the rules of being a terrorist state that you have to be in a club. If we find out his motive was in support of Isis/to help create a caliphate/to strike at the west why would he not be a terrorist? Because he isn't on the Isis membership list?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Like I said above it's turned into a deliberation on the meaning of words. so if you want him to be a terrorist then so be it, he is one, well done.

I'd prefer to have a bit more truth in my news if that's OK.

Generally acts of terrorism and terrorists like to publicise their causes otherwise what's the point? "A load of people got killed by someone but we don't know why" but that's not great news is it.

In reply to krikoman:


The meaning of words doesn't matter? Right.


What I was trying to find out was what it would take for you to label him a terrorist (not that the meaning of words matters to you, obvs).

In reply to krikoman:


ROTFLMFFAO!! That has to be the worse comparison I have ever seen.


LOL!! It's so "well published" that you couldn't bring a single example of it here to back up your claim?

Do you really think ANYONE is going to fall for that sad old trick here anymore? "Make a claim , state there is loads of evidence to back it up, then demand others find the links to back up your claim" is so last decade darling!

In reply to Timmd:


It certainly did nothing to lessen the numbers.

In reply to Big Ger:

>.LOL!! It's so "well published" that you couldn't bring a single example of it here to back up your claim? Do you really think ANYONE is going to fall for that sad old trick here anymore? "Make a claim , state there is loads of evidence to back it up, then demand others find the links to back up your claim" is so last decade darling!In reply to krikoman: ROTFLMFFAO!! That has to be the worse comparison I have ever seen.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychology+of+copycat+actions

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Perhaps it would have been better to leave krikoman to find them, he may have even read one to educate himself.

In reply to Big Ger:


I'm already educated enough thanks, unfortunately I have work to do so I can't spend all day educating the hard of thinking.

You might want to read this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7205141.stm

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I like a bit of evidence to clarify what people are telling me.

What I was trying to find out was what it would take for you to label him a terrorist (not that the meaning of words matters to you, obvs).

They seem to be able to obtain evidence to put people in jail for being ISIS supporters. Recent youth jailed for trying to get to Turkey then Syria as an example.

besides killing a load of people and his brown skin, what evidence do you have that he was a terrorist ( in the sense of killing for a reason, rather than just wanting to kill people)

In reply to krikoman:


That he did it in the most high profile way he could - he wanted people to notice
That he targeted figures and symbols of authority, not random people
That he used a method similar to other Islamist inspired attacks

In reply to krikoman:

In reply to krikoman:


I'm sure those pots and pans won't wash themselves.



Suicide clusters? What do they have to do with terrorist attacks?

In reply to krikoman:


What's the point when you don't care what words mean.


Ok.


You see, this is why words matter, I haven't (so far) said he's a terrorist, I accept he might not be a terrorist. Perhaps he had no more motivation than wanting to kill people, so perhaps he's not a terrorist. Perhaps he was motivated by his political/religious beliefs, in which case I'd call him a terrorist.
And, as you failed to answer before, what would it take for you to label him a terrorist?

In reply to Big Ger:


What do they have to do with terrorist attacks?

OR indeed psychology, you must be right.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Some evidence FFS! Links to ISIS, an IRA members booklet in his locker at work, a Red Army Birthday card. Most people have an idea of what a terrorist is, you seem to and yours is roughly the same as mine by the looks of things.

My argument above was to someone who suggested that because he created terror, therefore he's a terrorist. Which you could have read.

In reply to krikoman:


You said; "unfortunately I have work to do so I can't spend all day educating the hard of thinking"

I was merely commenting on the great importance of your work. BTW you seem to be neglecting it



I always am.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I can answer that; "white skin".

In reply to krikoman:


But if it's just his political/religious motivation that's insufficient for you? He's got to be a member of an existing group?

In reply to Big Ger:


Come on there's quite a clear link. We are talking about suppressing press coverage for fear of copy cats..

You may disagree but that's a pretty clear and obvious link to the issue being discussed.

A number of prominent people have said the excessive coverage of such attacks is what they want, i.e. Terror and notoriety.. and giving such coverage encourages further copy cat attacks.

In reply to Big Ger:


WTF has that got to do with it?

Evidence would be nice, I know you don't seem to care about that, but a lot of people do care.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No and No.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

We are talking about suppressing press coverage for fear of copy cats..

Who decides what gets suppressed and will those same people be able to suppress other events that might not be in the public interest?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Respectfully, (and apologies for highlighting your quote alone, ) I think that blanket press suppression of press coverage of these incidents is not only counterproductive, it leads us then into an Orwellian world where the government allows us to only know what it thinks is good for us to know.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
? George Orwell, 1984.

In reply to Big Ger:


How to stop terrorism, Swedish style.

"
Instead, it is cars — which she calls “effective murder machines” — that Franchell says “must simply be removed from city centres and places where people gather, if people are to be protected in future”. Vehicles are “easy to steal, and so nothing has been able to stop their advance”, writes Ms. Franchell. “It just isn’t reasonable that a big truck can be driven right into one of Stockholm’s busiest streets on a Friday afternoon right before Easter.”

Noting how it is a popular destination for tourists, Franchell says the city centre must be a “safe environment” for visitors to enjoy. She described it as “remarkable” that it is possible to drive around the Swedish capital’s medieval old town. Outlining her vision for a car-free Stockholm, she argues: “Most problems with regards to mobility and public transport can be solved, and deliveries to shops and restaurants could take place at times when people aren’t out on the streets.” “Vehicles have been allowed to dominate our cities for decades and it’s the people who need space. It’s vital now that cars be regulated,” the piece concludes.

“Cars are driven largely by men so by giving a lot of space to cars; we’re giving a lot of space to men — at the expense of women,” Karolina Skog explained.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/swedens-largest-newspaper-demands-...

In reply to Big Ger:

Just far left nut job, part of the same green lobby living in the city, walking distance to work etc.. that thinks they can get rid of cars across Sweden for environmental reasons. They haven't grasped that not everyone lives in Stockholm and can cycle to work.

Aftonbladet is like a more commercial version of the dm or express. Every article is clickbait.

In reply to summo:

Amusing enough though, and nice to know the UK has no monopoly on such creatures.

In reply to Big Ger:


There are several here. One of kid's friend's parents is part of their ilk despite living rurally. It was funny last year when one of ours was at their house on a play date and we had to go collect, as their electric car hadn't charged up enough to do the few km back and forth. According to their 9 yr old it's a common event as it's range rules their life.

In reply to summo:

Wind too low to turn the turbines for them?

In reply to Big Ger:


They have plenty hot air already on how they think things should be done, but when anywhere needs some voluntary help on the local hall, council or after school stuff... she's suddenly very busy.

In reply to Big Ger:
Dortmund Team Bus attack - motive - share price manipulation.

What an idiotic world we live in.

http://www.dw.com/en/police-arrest-man-suspected-of-attack-on-dortmund-socc...

In reply to elsewhere:

I've not received any bets for "Stock Manipulation" therefore: house wins! Thanks for playing, folks.