Author Topic: London in the news again.  (Read 532 times)

Claireliontamer

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
London in the news again.
« on: June 19, 2017, 01:24:32 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960

Another incident of someone driving a vehicle into a crowd of people.  The major difference this time being the group of people targeted were a group of Muslims leaving the mosque after evening prayers.  The driver is rumoured to have cried out "I want to kill all Muslims".  Sad times we live in :(

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2017, 02:20:08 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960

Another incident of someone driving a vehicle into a crowd of people.  The major difference this time being the group of people targeted were a group of Muslims leaving the mosque after evening prayers.  The driver is rumoured to have cried out "I want to kill all Muslims".  Sad times we live in :(

I have it in my mind that this could be a "spur of the moment" type attack - coincidental, but I might well be wrong. A man, perhaps harbouring anger after the two attacks in London and the Manchester bomb, saw one Muslim already on the ground and this acted as a "trigger" for that semi-dormant anger.

If so it is not technically a terrorist attack, not that that makes any difference to those hurt nor much to those now angered by it. That there will be individuals, affected by events and not entirely "of sound mind", prone to take individual action, is part of human nature. Planned attacks by two or more people for a political, cultural or religious purpose, aimed at creating terror in an indiscriminate manner, in places where such an attack is not "expected",  is another matter.

Overeaction to such "individual anger reaction" attacks, engendered by previous attacks, are a distinct danger to all of society - perhsps more so than the larger events.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Claireliontamer

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2017, 02:55:23 AM »
I see terrorism as anything that is designed to scare people, literally fill them with terror.  Islamophobia is sadly rife at the moment in certain parts of the country and I think this is an extension of this so think it should be labelled a terrorist incident.  Extremists don't only come from Islam, sections of the far right in this country are extremists too and are seeking to divide the country even more than it is at the moment. 

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2017, 03:38:21 AM »
I see terrorism as anything that is designed to scare people, literally fill them with terror.  Islamophobia is sadly rife at the moment in certain parts of the country and I think this is an extension of this so think it should be labelled a terrorist incident.  Extremists don't only come from Islam, sections of the far right in this country are extremists too and are seeking to divide the country even more than it is at the moment.

Yes, thst is how the word is usually used by the media, which means that is how it is used in ordinary speech. Trouble is that this can cause "hyperbolic inflation", increasingly stronger language is used, or mis-used, by the media to keep the pot on the boil in the public mind, especially certain right of centre media. This, of course, can only serve to increase division.

Legally though they might tend to stuck to something more like the dictionary definition shich usyully includes phrases  like, "..indiscriminate attacks"..."to political or religious ends."

If the attacker had a personal grudge against a specific group - regardless of their actual innocence- he is of no interest to the security services since he is not a "terrorist" in the strict definition. The media could be instrumental in "re-educating" but the more gutter type rags are more likely to be read by those of lower intelligence and, possibly, some prejuduce and bigotry. And they want to maintain tgeir readership.

Mosques should consider themselves as likely targets, unfortunately, and take all reasonable precautions for the security of their congregations abd users, the police cannot be present every time they meet, nor, probably, would they be welcome.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Claireliontamer

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2017, 03:57:34 AM »
What's the difference between an individual who is 'radicalised' by ISIS and one who is 'radicalised' by a far-right group?

They both have grudges against specific groups, one targeting Muslims and the other targeting westerners.

I don't understand the legal difference.   

No one

  • Living a Thoughtcrime
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2017, 04:35:33 AM »
Well Claire, one kills in the name of a make believe god, and the other kills in the name of an even more make believe god.

Firebird

  • Taste's like chicken
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
  • Gender: Male
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2017, 05:28:43 AM »
I agree with Claire. For all intents and purposes, this is also a terror attack. Even if this was a spur of the moment decision (and by the way, there's no evidence of this one way or another), it makes no difference.
Unfortunately, what's true in the legal sense doesn't always hold true in the court of popular opinion.
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Claireliontamer

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2017, 05:49:16 AM »


It's not difficult to see why this has happened when people are surrounded by headlines like this.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14309
  • The GrayGod
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2017, 06:26:39 AM »
Hm...

Is this a terrorist attack? I'm not sure. sounds like more of a one-man ethnic cleansing attempt to me.

Also, I do think that Islam is a far greater problem than Islamophobia. A greater problem still is stupidity, short-sightedness and/or other pejoratives easily applicable to some...  Certain... *Many* members of the general public. Some Muslim idiot drives his Truck'o'Martyrdom into a group of random people, mostly non-Muslim, then somebody drives their Truck'o'Righteousness into a group of random people, mostly Muslim... And what has been accomplished? For the vast majority of people, life goes on as it did yesterday and the day before. No tangible message was sent. No attempted lesson was learned. No coherent statement was made.

A bloody waste of life and road vehicles.  :sadshake:
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2017, 09:23:31 AM »
What's the difference between an individual who is 'radicalised' by ISIS and one who is 'radicalised' by a far-right group?

They both have grudges against specific groups, one targeting Muslims and the other targeting westerners.

I don't understand the legal difference.

Nothing much between those teo, both terrorists if they carry out acts of terrorism. Individuals, acting alone, on a personal grudge or through mental illness, pre-meditated or otherwise, are not terrorists in the way that the security and judicial services may look at them. If so then the likes of Jill Dando, Jo Cox etc are also victims of terrorism.

Hmm, unless, of course, one considers actions driven from purely racial hatred terrorism. In the same bracket. But they also do not come under the purview of the security services since they are not considered a threat to the nation. Which, indirectly at least, they actually are - anything that disrupts the peaceful running of the country is to the detriment of the whole country.

But, as alluded to before, the casual or intemporate use or misuse of certain words in the media can affect public opinion and phycology. This xan inflame matters. I understand Google search terms and Twitter tweets etc are analysed for the frequency of psychological key words (as well as security sensitive key words). This may be mainly accademic at the monent but . . .
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Firebird

  • Taste's like chicken
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
  • Gender: Male
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2017, 12:32:25 PM »
Individuals, acting alone, on a personal grudge or through mental illness, pre-meditated or otherwise, are not terrorists in the way that the security and judicial services may look at them.

That's a tricky standard to define. What's the difference between a personal grudge and a "threat to the nation?" Take the Tsarnaev brothers that bombed the Boston marathon. Apparently they had a personal grudge against the US government. Are they terrorists, or merely murderers? If the former, why is this person who mowed down Muslims different?

Also, I do think that Islam is a far greater problem than Islamophobia.

We should be careful not to elevate the problems with Islam over other religions. Christianity, Judaism, etc are no better in terms of what their holy books proscribe against "sinners" by their screwed up standards. I firmly believe the problem has more to do with religion in general, the cultures themselves and how they allow religion to be exploited within them to manipulate people into committing acts like this, and the inability of these communities to integrate into the western societies they live in. Saying it's "Islam" is too simplistic, even with your later qualifiers.
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2017, 01:51:44 PM »
Quote
That's a tricky standard to define.

It is indeed, Firebird! And you made some good points there. In terms of reactions it is how the public define the words and the actions. And again, thise definitions are under a degree if "control" by anyone who wishes to inflame feelings against one or another group. Actually even the politicians who know better use language to promote their ideology and politics that influence the public in a negative way.

The police over here tend to be a bit cagey by using phrases like, "We are investigating to see if there are terrorist connections to the . . ." before iutright labelling the event as a terrorist action.

Again, our security firces do not investigate "personal grudges", you have a very different security set-up over there.

What classifications do we have, top down:

1. Direct action by foreign agents "imported" into the victim country for the specific purpose, 9/11 being the most obvious example.

2. Immigrants, 1st or whatever generation, or native converts being radicalised or coerced directly by forieign agents brought in for that purpose.

3. The above in self-radicalising groups or radicalised in a college, university, mosque or penal institution by other immigrants not "imported" specifically for that purpose.

4. Self-radicalised individuals.

5. Individuals angry at authority for perceived oppression or those "taking the law into their own hands" because of a perceived lack of action by the authorities over a previous event or their perception of the general situation.

6. Action by mentally ill individuals.

There may be others I have missed and there may be combinations of the above.

Perhaps "Threats to the nation" can be said to mainly cover 1. and 2. mainly - the direct involvement and/or actions of foreign agents. Next comes the "home grown" self-radicalising groups. 5. and 6. do not represent a direct national threat - other than the indirect one of inflaming others in reaction.

1. to 4. are definitely terrorist actions, though of two kinds in the UK. 5. is less easy to define. 6. is, in my mind, not terrorism, possibly legally not even a crime but is non-the-less bad for victims and needs to be handled carefully and transparently not to provoke the victim community. That includes very careful use of language.

In the UK the 5th branch of Military Intelligence, MI5. On their website they define their role as:
[quoteThe role of MI5, as defined in the Security Service Act 1989, is "the protection of national security and in particular its protection against threats such as terrorism, espionage and sabotage, the activities of agents of foreign powers, and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."/quote]
Thus nothing of a purely criminal nature. The MI5 took over most of the roles of the old police "Special Branch" the police started agencies to cover the remainder themselves.

The UK's legal definition of "terrorism" is wrapped up in there somewhere, and then subdivided between direct foreign and locally inspired action. The police have to define whether it is terrorism or not, who handles it then if it is of domestic origin is probably a joint effort between several agencies.

Terrorism may be defined as a criminal action but whether a criminal actions can be defined as terrorism probably needs a whole disputation of lawyers!

Damn glad I am not a police lawyer! Or a lawyer if any kind in this area come to that.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 11182
  • Gender: Female
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2017, 04:02:20 PM »
Geez, what is it with some people? That's one thing a group like ISIS wants to happen!
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


No one

  • Living a Thoughtcrime
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2017, 05:24:42 PM »
The problem​ with some people silver, is that they're people. And people suck! They are easily the worst form of life on the planet!

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 11182
  • Gender: Female
Re: London in the news again.
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2017, 05:47:03 PM »
The problem​ with some people silver, is that they're people. And people suck! They are easily the worst form of life on the planet!

Surely they can't be worse than a room full of mosquitos carrying tropical diseases. :notsure:

Well, maybe Trump can.
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.