FFS:
It’s a second career for proper losers now.
So somewhere between 10 and 100? On a medium famous for attracting anonymous frothing lunatics? When this is being put forward as an official line by people in authority and power I will join you in rising up against it, in the meantime lets just agree that random dickheads will post hateful things and can be challenged or ignored without considering it to be a reflection of a deeper malaise.
Of course if you don’t agree with that it leaves you in the awkward position of having to agree that equivalent, isolated hateful views in any community or society show an equally problematic mindset. Say…in certain religious communities?
For anyone who hasn’t seen it, I highly recommend the film “Four Lions” by Chris Morris.
It is a pitch-black comedy about the ineptitude and delusional mindset of a group of Islamist suicide bombers…“losers” certainly fits the bill. “rubber dinghy rapids” indeed.
Ineptitude and bumbling should be expected from “lone wolf” suicide terrorists. After all, it’s almost by definition a one-off, so there is no experience involved, and no prior knowledge. That’s why the Manchester bomber was most probably not a “lone-wolf” - the bomb was too sophisticated and powerful for one such and was most probably prepared by someone else.
They can still be deadly. Just not as deadly as organized, prepared and experienced terrorists would be. But those, again, by definition, are not “lone wolf” ones.
FFS. It was totally low tech; there was no planning that might have been picked up or monitored.
The London Bridge attack could have been organised in an hour; rent a van, take a few knives from home, pick up your mates, pop into Sports Direct for a few water bottles, drive to London Bridge.
I’m not sure what your objection to my post is. Yes, it was low tech. Yes, it was not well organized or well thought out. Thank God for that. Yes, it was still deadly.
Sorry, I was just following your lead of random thoughts.
But they werent. Stop playing gotcha.
BTW Andy…its dishonest to lump a peaceful Jewish community subject to harsh discrimination to a Muslim community that tolerates violence and is protected by governments. Lets see if you have the integrity to address the issue at hand and offer some solution to this violence.
If you want a very, very rough ballpark figure, then maybe a third of them that I saw. I’d agree that the British political environment at its top end is stable, or at least principled, enough that I am not too worried about the political parties on that front, even UKIP.
Very darkly funny film, and I also recommend it to people who haven’t seen it.
Why are you lumping all Muslims together into one monolithic community that all think and act alike? The mayor of London is from the Muslim community. You are saying that, because he is a Muslim, he tolerates violence? In your opinion, does he, as a Muslim man, bear any responsibility for the violence done by other Muslims because he was born into the same religion as them?
I do, and I’ve offered it many times: enlist the great majority of peaceful Muslims in the cause, which requires being specific in criticism, not broad brushing all Muslims or inaccurately describing a mostly peaceful community as one that “tolerates violence”. I want to oppose ISIS, not help their cause by pushing moderate and peaceful Muslims away from us by slandering them and their communities.
Lumping all Muslims together, and slandering mostly peaceful communities, helps ISIS. One of their main goals is for all Muslims to see America and the west as their enemy.
By lumping in the great majority of peaceful Muslims with the small minority of violent ones, you’re helping extremists. I don’t think peaceful Muslims will run out to join ISIS, but with your rhetoric they will be more likely to be afraid of the west, and less likely to see us as allies. We’ll never defeat the extremists without them.
I get it - you’re afraid to actually answer my question. I’ll keep that in mind.
The Manchester bomber was reported by four different Muslims including a member of his own family before the attack. Strange sort of “tolerance”.
I made this post in a different thread a little while back, which covers my thoughts a little better, I think:
There are upwards of a billion (or more) peaceful Muslims around the world who want nothing more than to live their lives, support their families, and be comfortable and peaceful. They already hate ISIS and other violent Muslim extremists. In order to defeat such extremism, we will need their cooperation – it will be essentially impossible to defeat extremism (to the point where it ceases to be a significant force in world events) in the Muslim world without the cooperation of the great mass of peaceful and decent and reasonable Muslims.
This kind of policy [Trump’s Muslim ban or other harsh measures that harm all Muslims including the great mass of peaceful Muslims] won’t push most of them towards ISIS, but it might push many away from us. They will be less likely to see us as allies, and may even start to be afraid of us. Many might retreat into the shadows, refusing to assist in the fight with or against ISIS, when with tolerant and compassionate policies they might aid us against the extremists. It definitely feeds the rhetoric (and the desires) of ISIS and other extremists, who want Muslims to see the West in general as their enemies. Those small but significant number on the edge – who already strongly dislike and fear America, but still don’t want to be involved in violence – might be more likely to decide to embrace violence.
I don’t see the two sides as the West and Islam, or the West and the terrorists, but rather the pro-religious-world-war and anti-religious-world-war side. This kind of policy helps ISIS – they want America to do all they can to make Muslims everywhere angry (and state this publicly) – and, in my view, aids the pro-religious-war faction (represented in the Trump administration and its supporters by folks like Michael Flynn, Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Pamela Gellar).
It’s similar to racist extremists in the US – both the Charleston black-church shooter and black extremists like the one who killed cops in Dallas are on the pro-race-war side, even if on the surface they seem to be in direct opposition. They both want the same thing – a giant conflict between white people and black people. Similarly, both ISIS and American anti-Muslim extremists want the same thing – a giant world war between the West and Islam.
There’s a CCTV video of the police shooting the three terrorists widely circulating now.
If a terrorist is unequivocally identified and appears to be wearing an explosive suicide vest (as these men were), I would have expected the “rules of engagement” of necessity to be completely ruthless - to close in and continue shooting them in the head. I don’t see that happening. Perhaps it’s just down to the chaos of the situation.
The encounter between the armed units and the attackers lasts only a few seconds, and 46 shots were fired. That kinda suggests that the ROE were pretty unequivocal re ruthlessness.
Wow, okay.