Thread: Westminster attack Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005673

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Nobody knows what is going on, but it looks bad at the moment. At least one dead, others with "catastrophic injuries", MPs locked into the HoP, tourists held on the London Eye, reports of a vehicle ploughing into people on Westminster bridge.

Fuck.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What we know at present
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
FWIW, the security authorities in London are acting as if the incident is still ongoing, with some reports of the bomb squad examining a vehicle in or near the HoP. But so far, it seems there was an incident on Westminster bridge (which is close to the Houses of Parliament) and outside the gates of Parliament itself where shots were fired. It is said by some agencies that the dead person was is a woman pedestrian and that there was some incident with a bus.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Further, it seems that a government minister attempted to give life-saving first aid to a policeman at the scene.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Further, it seems that a government minister attempted to give life-saving first aid to a policeman at the scene.

whilst this is hell I'll stick my neck out and say that I know from IRL (personal family stuff) that Tobias Ellwood is one of the absolute good guys, and this is not in the least surprising. He is a top, top man.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
A woman has been pulled alive from the Thames having been involved in the Westminster bridge incident.

Sorry, I'll stop now - there isn't any point in giving a running commentary.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I don't care if this is Hell...

Prayers for everyone affected by this horror.
[Votive]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Entirely appropriate in my view to pray in Hell. What better a place for it.

The terrible events and injuries sound like they were handled as well as can be expected. Which confirms to me that almost all people are basically good. Just not all of them.
 
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
Selfies. Really?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Selfies. Really?

Yet the police are asking for all this footage as vital evidence.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Some fools led by.. well, y'know-who, are jumping to assumptions that the guy shot by police had a beard and was generally brown, and therefore was a Muslim.

However there are photos showing paramedics treating the guy (and, yeah, we even treat people who have killed pedestrians. because that's who we are) and his socks have been removed showing very pale feet.

It seems to me that we'd all be best to not assume this is an Islamic terrorist outrage until, y'know, it is proven to be an Islamic terrorist outrage. It could easily be a lone gunman who just hasn't washed for a week.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Selfies. Really?

Yet the police are asking for all this footage as vital evidence.
Irrelevant to the motive of the selfish idiots talking them. It is valuable to take images in circumstances such as these, more so if the taker's bloody face isn't in the shot.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Irrelevant to the motive of the selfish idiots talking them. It is valuable to take images in circumstances such as these, more so if the taker's bloody face isn't in the shot.

I think we need to be a little more forgiving, these people saw something awful happen in front of them and were living in that moment of shock. It is a sign of the times that their first reaction was to take selfies (not really selfies unless they were smiling with the thing in the background, I suspect they were just taking photos of the weird stuff they saw in front of them, but anyway) but we also know that after that instant moment, people jumped to help.

I'd also note that police are said to have been on the scene first, and yet it took a MP to run out of Westminster and begin CPR (apparently on both the alleged assailant and the injured policeman) before the paramedics arrived.

Someone was clearly thinking clearly as the guy who has knifed the policeman was shot, but why the others stood around and let the MP do CPR is hard to understand - unless they too were suffering from a moment of extreme shock and only a battle-trained soldier was experienced enough to ride through that and begin trying to save the men's lives.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It may be that the others who 'stood around' saw that the MP was doing CPR correctly, but were ready to assist or relieve him as and when required. Best not to speculate, though, as we weren't there.

IJ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd also note that police are said to have been on the scene first, and yet it took a MP to run out of Westminster and begin CPR (apparently on both the alleged assailant and the injured policeman) before the paramedics arrived.

Someone was clearly thinking clearly as the guy who has knifed the policeman was shot, but why the others stood around and let the MP do CPR is hard to understand - unless they too were suffering from a moment of extreme shock and only a battle-trained soldier was experienced enough to ride through that and begin trying to save the men's lives.

Or, there was confusion. Concern that there was one or more other terrorists, and a priority to protect the MPs and others in Westminster from ongoing threats. Maybe their counter-terrorism expertise was better spent on that than seeing to the welfare of the suspect they'd already shot, or even one of their own. In the heat of the moment, that may have been their training - I doubt they'd have all left one of their own if not for training that put the defense of Westminster above it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Right. I'm not speculating, other than to suspect that everyone was being perfectly human and acted in understandable ways - and that we should give people a pass before assuming the worst.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right. I'm not speculating, other than to suspect that everyone was being perfectly human and acted in understandable ways - and that we should give people a pass before assuming the worst.

In hindsight, we know that it was over (probably) and in practice less severe than events that only make local (or at most national) news (which makes it no less upsetting for the families of those concerned, or less wrong).*
But for the officers and civilians at the time, it wasn't over (if nothing else, is running up to them going to get misunderstood)
[which is basically agreeing on the reactions issue]

*I'm of the opinion that a French, etc.. statement and dimming London's Tower Bridge is probably about right, dimming the Eiffel tower is making the murderer more significant than he deserves.

[ 22. March 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some fools led by.. well, y'know-who, are jumping to assumptions that the guy shot by police had a beard and was generally brown, and therefore was a Muslim.

However there are photos showing paramedics treating the guy (and, yeah, we even treat people who have killed pedestrians. because that's who we are) and his socks have been removed showing very pale feet.

It seems to me that we'd all be best to not assume this is an Islamic terrorist outrage until, y'know, it is proven to be an Islamic terrorist outrage. It could easily be a lone gunman who just hasn't washed for a week.

Yeah right, and I'm hung like Mandingo.

What odds are you giving cheesy, I might have a tenner?

Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Oh, look who showed up.

We don't know yet who this criminal was, or his motivations. But, it's easy to assume he was a Muslim and an immigrant. So, along comes deano taking the easy option because the alternatives would require some thought, and he's incapable of that. What do you suggest? Close mosques, ban Muslims, turn away refugees fleeing other Muslims?

We can debate endlessly whether Islam is a religion of peace with a few heretical thugs twisting the faith they're somewhat affiliated to to justify unjustifiable acts of murder. But, there's no doubt that the religion of deano is one of hate, spite and inhumanity, lacking any compassion or love, or even common sense.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
We could talk of pizza being a food of peace just as intelligently

or of deano being the pineapple of peace.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

Claiming him as one of your own? Doesn't seem like anything to boast about.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Turns out it was an Islamist attack, which is what I'd assumed once I knew that a cat had been used as a weapon on Westminster Bridge.

Before that, I was open to the possibility of it being a disturbed individual of any faith or none.

The odds were pretty high that this is what it would turn out to be given the current climate. The odds were even higher that Deano would respond with his characteristic level of crass and Neanderthal dip-stickery.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That should have been 'car'.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That should have been 'car'.

I think a cat as a weapon is even better.

It seems that the attacker was a man, which is clear proof that we shouldn't let men into this country. Unless, of course, you take the view that not all men share a single perspective, in which case we shouldn't let any unprincipled shitheads into this country. So there goes Trumps visit.

And Deano - your comment is the biggest load of racist, unjustified twattery I have seen for a long time, and that is saying something. If we want to talk about keeping people out of the country, I think you, with your bigotry and hatred would be top of the list. You are precisely the sort of person who commits this sort of act. So fuck the whole way to GN-Z11 and then don't stop, because you will still be in the same fucking universe as me, and that is still too near.

The attacker was a terrorist, someone who seeks to inspire terror. He failed. That makes him a knobhead. May he rest in shit.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though, if his actions result in further restrictions on the civil liberties of ordinary people, innocent of any crime and not inclined to criminal activity, then he has won a small victory. If we don't return to normal life rapidly, if we introduce further restrictions on immigration or accept less refugees, close off access to even more of our publicly owned property, or any of the other actions someone like deano are liable to want to introduce then this evil individual has won a small victory.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Turns out it was an Islamist attack, which is what I'd assumed once I knew that a cat had been used as a weapon on Westminster Bridge.

Was going to use the rofl emoji there but thinking it would not be appropriate. Had a cat been used one would probably have attributed to Satanists.

It has to be said that I found the news coverage to this incident to be well Ott.
An extra half of coverage TV news last night in which the presenter rounded off by saying-- This was an 'unprecedented' attack on the Seat of British democracy---
I suppose to be fair, Guy Fawkes' gunpowder never went off so maybe the comment had some merit.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm sorry, I've just been looking at several sensible news sources, and none of them are reporting that this is Islamic terrorism. The quote from the police was that it was "international" terrorism.

I can believe it absolutely is IS-inspired actions designed to spread fear, but until we actually know, how about we keep our powder dry?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I would also like to state something which is probably obvious to everyone: the space outside the Palace of Westminster is probably one of the most policed in the country. If this idiot wanted to cause mass casualties - as per the disgusting attacks in France and elsewhere - there are much softer targets.

The guy was an idiot as well as a terrorist.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:


It has to be said that I found the news coverage to this incident to be well Ott.
An extra half of coverage TV news last night in which the presenter rounded off by saying-- This was an 'unprecedented' attack on the Seat of British democracy---
I suppose to be fair, Guy Fawkes' gunpowder never went off so maybe the comment had some merit.

And of course there was poor old Airey Neave, who was my first thought when they said that. Just before I was born but even I've got that photo of the car with the door open and the papers all over the car park entrance burned in my mind.

They do like a bit of hyperbole.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, I've just been looking at several sensible news sources, and none of them are reporting that this is Islamic terrorism. The quote from the police was that it was "international" terrorism.

I can believe it absolutely is IS-inspired actions designed to spread fear, but until we actually know, how about we keep our powder dry?

I agree.

I am sick about the attack.

I also am sick of the coverage and the point-scoring by the likes of Theresa May. The police actually stated that the man was 'inspired by international terrorism' - that does not necessarily make him a terrorist - but it suits the purposes of some to call it that.
It seems to me that the panic of the actual event was worsened by the sensationalist (that may not be the right word for the response but (as Rolyn said) it was OTT.
I think there are questions to be answered about the shooting of the attacker, too. Where was the tazer? Whatever they thought might be round the waste of the man or in the car (I assume they were thinking of those possibilities) and whatever they thought about the pssibility of an accomplice/s it would have been better to have immobilised the man and kept him on the ground guarded by suitable weapons whilst they did their investigations. If it turns out that the man was mentally ill - well, say no more. But perhaps we will never know.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It is not impossible that the attacker may have been both inspired by quasi-Islamic ideas or actions, and also a lone disturbed person who would have acted in a similar way without the input of that source. Or, indeed, the support of a group of Islamist activists in Birmingham.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is not impossible that the attacker may have been both inspired by quasi-Islamic ideas or actions, and also a lone disturbed person who would have acted in a similar way without the input of that source. Or, indeed, the support of a group of Islamist activists in Birmingham.

Yes. At the moment we know very little. He could have been anything at all. That's why it is unhelpful (not least because it causes panic) to call him a terrorist unless and until we know he was.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Whatever they thought might be round the waste of the man or in the car (I assume they were thinking of those possibilities) and whatever they thought about the pssibility of an accomplice/s it would have been better to have immobilised the man and kept him on the ground guarded by suitable weapons whilst they did their investigations.

Jaw dropping. You don't tazer people who may be wearing what your suggesting they might have thought he was wearing for the fairly obvious reason that passing large amounts of electrical current through such things (or their wearers) has a tendency not to help the situation. Not always but unless you know specifically what you're dealing with then you can't rule it out.

More prosaically, armed police, as the Met (and Londoners) are all too well aware, are as fallible as the next person. But if you don't want to be shot by one of the UK's relatively few armed policemen, then cases of mistaken identity to one side, it can generally be avoided by not steaming along the pavement in your 4x4 catapulting pedestrians over walls and under buses, stabbing a policeman and then running into Parliament.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Jaw dropping. You don't tazer people who may be wearing what your suggesting they might have thought he was wearing for the fairly obvious reason that passing large amounts of electrical current through such things (or their wearers) has a tendency not to help the situation. Not always but unless you know specifically what you're dealing with then you can't rule it out.

Pretty sure there wasn't any time to tazer him anyway. There were loads of witnesses, several dead and an extreme threat of loss of life. I think it is highly likely that lethal force was the only thing preventing further loss of life.

quote:
More prosaically, armed police, as the Met (and Londoners) are all too well aware, are as fallible as the next person. But if you don't want to be shot by one of the UK's relatively few armed policemen, then cases of mistaken identity to one side, it can generally be avoided by not steaming along the pavement in your 4x4 catapulting pedestrians over walls and under buses, stabbing a policeman and then running into Parliament.
Yes. And personally I've found the media coverage to be quite measured (leaving out the pudding-faced bullshit utterings of Tommy Robinson, the pseudo-journalism of Hopkins and the like).

To me the problem is when we move swiftly into the space of "oh well we obviously don't have a very big IS cell in the UK because they're using low-tech things like cars to do these kinds of attacks" that drives me mad.

It might well turn out to be inspired by IS, but at the moment we know jack-shit. What do we gain from speculating about the relative skills of terrorists from an Islamic group who may, or may not, be involved in this event?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah right, and I'm hung like Mandingo.

What odds are you giving cheesy, I might have a tenner?

Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

I think you must be quite a young person? People of forty-five and over will remember that the terrorist threat in the olden days - on mainland Britain (I use the term especially) - was always from Ireland, particularly the Black North. A very large percentile of Irish terrorists where, therefore by birth, British.

Of course, those terrorists were white, ostensibly Christian, had names like Fred and Joe, and spoke excellent English. Maybe that's what makes the difference?

Of course, in those days even racists had enough intelligence to know that sending all the Irish 'home' wouldn't solve the problem of a handful of fanatical, violent thugs planting a bomb. It seems our class of racist, these days, has gone down hill rather. But interbreeding does that, I understand.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah right, and I'm hung like Mandingo.

What odds are you giving cheesy, I might have a tenner?

Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

I think you must be quite a young person? People of forty-five and over will remember that the terrorist threat in the olden days - on mainland Britain (I use the term especially) - was always from Ireland, particularly the Black North. A very large percentile of Irish terrorists where, therefore by birth, British.

Of course, those terrorists were white, ostensibly Christian, had names like Fred and Joe, and spoke excellent English. Maybe that's what makes the difference?

Of course, in those days even racists had enough intelligence to know that sending all the Irish 'home' wouldn't solve the problem of a handful of fanatical, violent thugs planting a bomb. It seems our class of racist, these days, has gone down hill rather. But interbreeding does that, I understand.

Oh I don't know. Back in the mid-1970's and early 1980's my brother from my mother's first marriage, to a Belfast Irishman who was killed in the war, lived in Birmingham. In the wake of the pub bombings they changed their daughter's school and surname because of the abuse and bullying she got. Eventually he got another job and they left the area. At the first opportunity she left for Australia and hasn't been back, except for one brief visit, in thirty years.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, of course, the last significant attack on British democracy was the murder of an MP last year. That murderer wasn't a Muslim or acting under the inspiration of Islam either. Though, perhaps deano agrees with several groups who have stated that Jo Cox had it coming for her support for immigrants.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, perhaps deano agrees with several groups who have stated that Jo Cox had it coming for her support for immigrants.

I think you might be expecting rather a lot of the brainless oaf, consistency isn't his strong point.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Selfies. Really?

Journalists have been doing exactly the same thing for decades. And they're not "selfies" unless you're in them.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

While we're facing facts, let's examine your apparent assumption that he wasn't from the UK.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Turns out it was an Islamist attack, which is what I'd assumed once I knew that a cat had been used as a weapon on Westminster Bridge.

Was going to use the rofl emoji there but thinking it would not be appropriate. Had a cat been used one would probably have attributed to Satanists.

I may be over-tired but I really did spend quite some time wondering how a cat was used as a weapon and also whether it was Larry the cat from Downing Street.

Yesterday was just weird. Everyone having to stay inside their buildings, sirens, helicopters overhead, half the roads closed. But today London is pretty much bumbling along OK so I guess we'll cope.

[Edited for typo - I really am tired]

[ 23. March 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Basically we've had worse. Don't get me wrong: this is obviously horrific for anyone directly involved. But the fact is that any big, culturally significant capital city is vulnerable to groups of people who are pissed off to the point of getting violent about it. Growing up in the 1980s I think I just absorbed the fact that the IRA were out there and would occasionally blow stuff up.

But crucially, getting killed in a terrorist attack is one way to die out of a million and one more likely scenarios. When terrorists strike they take advantage of one of our cognitive biases that suggests that because something is in the news and in our faces it's more likely to happen to us. They don't want us to see what a tiny threat they really are. Again, obviously it isn't going to feel that way if it's you or your loved ones caught up in it. But I am fully aware that pizza is more likely to kill me than terrorism, and I still ate it last night.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Attacks like these are not attacks on democracy, nor attacks on any foundations of a nation or society. To suggest otherwise gives the attacks status they simply don't have. The attack, as reported here, suggests that it brought out the goodness, decency and strength of average people, showing in fact, that the country is stronger or at least as strong.

Except perhaps for doufusses like pineapple deano.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

While we're facing facts, let's examine your apparent assumption that he wasn't from the UK.
He was from the UK.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

While we're facing facts, let's examine your apparent assumption that he wasn't from the UK.
He was from the UK.
I know. That's exactly why I'm raising it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Mark Wuntoo
quote:
I also am sick of the coverage and the point-scoring by the likes of Theresa May.
What point scoring? Mrs May stood in Downing Street and gave a measured response, deploring the action, regretting the loss of life and injuries and thanking the police and emergency services for their work. She also reiterated that, in common with every other administration for the last 40 years, hers would not be bullied by the cowardly action of the perpetrator of the outrage.
quote:
The police actually stated that the man was 'inspired by international terrorism' - that does not necessarily make him a terrorist - but it suits the purposes of some to call it that.

It is an act of terror to mow down pedestrians with your car, to then attempt to force your way into a guarded building and to stab many times an unarmed police officer who attempts to stop you: those actions would make ANYONE a terrorist, regardless of so-called cause. I cannot imagine why you would have any objection to calling a spade a spade, nor can I imagine the supposed "purposes" to which you refer - but feel free to enlighten us.
quote:
It seems to me that the panic of the actual event was worsened by the sensationalist (that may not be the right word for the response but (as Rolyn said) it was OTT.

I hope you are referring to the blanket news coverage here and not the actions of the emergency services; if not, unless you were there I don't think you are qualified to comment about any "panic". Of course people will panic if they are caught up in an event such as this - that is at least part of the motivation behind such attacks. As for remarks made by journalists (perhaps Laura Kuenssberg?) about people not knowing what to do within the Parliament buildings, I think you'll find that officials, from the Deputy Speaker downwards, all moved into an obviously well-rehearsed pattern.
quote:
I think there are questions to be answered about the shooting of the attacker, too. Where was the tazer?
So tell us, how would you go about disarming an attacker armed with several knives who suddenly comes at you in a furious assault, eh? First, a Taser is not a weapon to be drawn and fired quickly like a hand-gun; second, the release of an electrical charge into modern explosives is going to cause an explosion.
quote:
Whatever they thought might be round the waste of the man or in the car (I assume they were thinking of those possibilities) and whatever they thought about the pssibility of an accomplice/s it would have been better to have immobilised the man and kept him on the ground guarded by suitable weapons whilst they did their investigations.

Twenty-twenty hindsight from the comfort of "Somewhere else" is a wonderful thing. If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in an incident such as this you don't have the luxury of time to debate which 'measured' response you should make: it is a situation for instant action, and the best you can do is to train people so that they can protect themselves and, in the case of police, others.

Yes, the policeman who died may have thought the attacker had a waist-belt packed with explosive: modern explosives aren't necessarily bulky, and nor can you tell from the outside whether a car has been rigged to explode either. However, since the policeman died no one is able to ask what flashed through his mind before he had to fight for his life.
quote:
If it turns out that the man was mentally ill - well, say no more. But perhaps we will never know.

Well of course he was mentally ill - or are you suggesting it is the action of a sane, rational person (holding whatever belief or none) to plough into unarmed tourists before ramming into cast iron railings with your vehicle and then rushing at a policeman with multiple knives?

Whether or not any investigation will be able to come up with answers is highly questionable - in reality because they cannot be an acceptable motive for taking the actions that caused the death and injury of so many yesterday.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Attacks like these are not attacks on democracy, nor attacks on any foundations of a nation or society. To suggest otherwise gives the attacks status they simply don't have. The attack, as reported here, suggests that it brought out the goodness, decency and strength of average people, showing in fact, that the country is stronger or at least as strong.

Except perhaps for doufusses like pineapple deano.

Thanks for stating this. I've wanted to say it but had no idea how to start. Exactly right. It's part of what I meant when I suggested that some people are seeking to make gain out of it for their own purposes (I'm sure they are seriously against what happened - just blind to what they are saying, perhaps.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Except that if the attacker was inspired by Daesh - and their claim of 'responsibility' doesn't make that any more or less likely - it is a fact that they disapprove of elected democracy and so an attack of the Houses of Parliament is indeed an attack on a symbol of democratic rule.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Attacks like these are not attacks on democracy, nor attacks on any foundations of a nation or society. To suggest otherwise gives the attacks status they simply don't have. The attack, as reported here, suggests that it brought out the goodness, decency and strength of average people, showing in fact, that the country is stronger or at least as strong.

Except perhaps for doufusses like pineapple deano.

Thanks for stating this. I've wanted to say it but had no idea how to start. Exactly right. It's part of what I meant when I suggested that some people are seeking to make gain out of it for their own purposes (I'm sure they are seriously against what happened - just blind to what they are saying, perhaps.
I think you're both woefully confused in your analysis and L'organist is far sharper.

It doesn't give "status" in the sense you're talking about to acknowledge what the target was. It only gives that kind of "status" if you say that the target was genuinely under threat. Saying that democracy is being attacked is completely different to saying that democracy is under a meaningful threat.

If I take a small stick and start furiously bashing it against the side of an armoured tank, whether or not I am attacking the tank is completely separate from whether or not I am being effective.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Except that if the attacker was inspired by Daesh - and their claim of 'responsibility' doesn't make that any more or less likely - it is a fact that they disapprove of elected democracy and so an attack of the Houses of Parliament is indeed an attack on a symbol of democratic rule.

No, not even that I think. People have killed others because they don't like Mondays, because they think some movement or cult or group has the answer. I don't care if they are followers of Jim Jones or are hashashin (assassins). It doesn't matter who they think they are, it matters who we understand them to be. The person who engineered this attack is dangerous maniac who thought something about himself. But it's not right and it's not true. Unless we let it be. So let's not.

I am not fond of pictures of such things, but there were a couple of the aftermath that very much were the reason I posted about this, and the admirable behaviour and conduct of the regular everyday people. (no, not the selfies)

[ 23. March 2017, 15:09: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah right, and I'm hung like Mandingo.

Doubling down on the racism, are we? And showing up here to get your masturbaTory fix on other people's tragedy. Hardly surprising, and not a even a new low for you.
Careful the friction will burn the tiny prick of the larger prick.
quote:

Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

Because Christianity's track record is so fantastic.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It doesn't matter who they think they are, it matters who we understand them to be.

It also matters that we understand the circumstances that allow for the influence of radical groups and do what we can to minimise this. We are not doing that.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Selfies. Really?

Journalists have been doing exactly the same thing for decades. And they're not "selfies" unless you're in them.
There appear to be actual selfies taken. One news report included a video selfie in which one could see precious little other than the selfie taker. Not journalism unless one is doing a news story on self-centred idiots.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some fools led by.. well, y'know-who, are jumping to assumptions that the guy shot by police had a beard and was generally brown, and therefore was a Muslim.

However there are photos showing paramedics treating the guy (and, yeah, we even treat people who have killed pedestrians. because that's who we are) and his socks have been removed showing very pale feet.

It seems to me that we'd all be best to not assume this is an Islamic terrorist outrage until, y'know, it is proven to be an Islamic terrorist outrage. It could easily be a lone gunman who just hasn't washed for a week.

Yeah right, and I'm hung like Mandingo.

What odds are you giving cheesy, I might have a tenner?

Let's face facts. He will turn out to be a member of the "religion of peace" and if he hadn't been in this country at least five (four of worth) people would still be alive.

And if the thousands of doctors and other health professionals of the same faith weren't in this country, a hell of a lot of people would be dead.

Fuck off twat.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not journalism unless one is doing a news story on self-centred idiots.

If I thought there was a chance of getting through to them and causing them to rethink their behaviour then now might be as good a time as any...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And if the thousands of doctors and other health professionals of the same faith weren't in this country, a hell of a lot of people would be dead.

Don't forget the police officers. Some of those men and women rushing towards potential danger to protect members of the public would have also been of that same faith.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

I see you've abandoned your "If he hadn't been allowed into the country, all those people would still be alive" line of argument.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

You are a pineapple. You do not belong on pizza. You do not belong. Anywhere.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Sioni Sais

I did think about including memories of English tabloid hysteria telling the British in Northern Ireland - meaning the million Protestants who lived in NI - to 'leave Ireland to the Irish' and move to England if they wanted to be British. But, as I recall, such stupidity was treated with the contempt it deserved.

Of course, prior to that the Irish didn't need to be associated with terrorism to experience prejudice in Britain. But I think that's probably getting outside the argument of this thread.

I, too, remember Irish and Ulster family members and acquaintances being harrassed and intimidated by English people because of the terrorist activities. And anyone who's ever tried driving a car with an NI or ROI reg through Great Britain will know what I mean! And I recall some violence against Irish people during the Falklands conflict, because of the Republic's stance on the war.

But I don't think it compares in scale to the current waves of mindless hysteria being incited against dark-skinned people.

I lived in England myself for over twenty years and despite my British citizenship, I knew I was Irish to most of my fellow Brits. But I knew that life would've been much tougher if I hadn't been white.

I remember one landlady having a talk with me about why she hadn't rented a room to a black man. He was very nice, she said, perfectly clean and solvent, but well, you know. She just didn't feel 'right' about it, what with him not being from 'here' meaning England.

'I'm not from here,' I pointed out, 'you rent me a room.' 'Yes, but you're not like him.' No. I wasn't like him. I blended in better.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

So, he has a Muslim name. That doesn't mean he's a Muslim, any more than someone called James (good Biblical name) Kirk (meaning Church) is necessarily Christian.

And, if he is a Muslim then he could be devout or not, faithful to the teachings of his religion or not. Since both Daesh and the rest of the Islamic world agree that there are Muslims who are not faithful (they simply disagree about who is faithful) this shouldn't be discounted.
 
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

Fuck you Deano. Just fuck you.

Khalid Masood was a criminal mad man who no more represents Islam than barbie represents a normal female body.

And he was born in Kent. Y'know KENT. That well known foreign country.

Am I emotional. Yes.


I work in the Houses of Parliament. I spent yesterday afternoon shut in an office. I got off lightly. I spent today with colleagues who witnessed the attack and its aftermarth. We were all surrounded by policmen who lost a colleague.

You chose to see this attack as something to sow division; to score points; to entrench your warped steretypes.

No one I spoke to today thinks like you.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

The stupidity of believing that a person's religion can be assumed based on their name is mind boggling, even for you.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
In fact, let me be really specific about just how fucking stupid it is to assume religion based on a name. The world has endured 8 years of morons assuming that a man named Barack Obama must be a Muslim because of his name. That's the level of idiocy involved.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Moving on past Deano, the turd in the punch bowl, as an American I'm embarrassed that Donald Trump JR was flaming the Mayor of London after the attack.

I remember the kindness and support that we Americans and especially New Yorkers got after 9/11. I'm ashamed that Trump Jr is seen as speaking for Americans.

That's not the way the rest of us feel.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I was doing sums with my age and his age and running names past my memory of Dartford classes. I could have taught him, maybe, I thought, but it seems he moved to Rye before that could have happened.
I wonder where he was teaching.
And thank you Palimpsest - I suspect that DTJ couldn't get past an obviously Muslim name.

[ 23. March 2017, 23:19: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Moving on past Deano, the turd in the punch bowl, as an American I'm embarrassed that Donald Trump JR was flaming the Mayor of London after the attack.

I remember the kindness and support that we Americans and especially New Yorkers got after 9/11. I'm ashamed that Trump Jr is seen as speaking for Americans.

That's not the way the rest of us feel.

I don't think you need to worry that the trump idiot child is seen as speaking for Americans - it is well known that his arrogance and stupidity are all his own, by right of inheritance. His father, on the other hand, might have found a few moments to express his sympathy to Londoners whose bravery has always set the standard. My mother worked through the blitz in Whitehall, and would have understood.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I hope the British people will avert their eyes from the TinyFingered train wreck, and accept the condolences that Barack Obama posted. We over here are frantically hoping that he is the Shadow President.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thank you Badger Lady.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm still waiting to learn why that poor man who fell onto the concrete was a great American. From his photos and his neighbours comments he looks a nice guy.
Some comment about the others who died would have been welcomed.
I'm off to find what Obama said.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm still waiting to learn why that poor man who fell onto the concrete was a great American. From his photos and his neighbours' comments he looks a nice guy.
Some comment about the others who died would have been welcomed.
I'm off to find Obama's message.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Adrian Elms.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

(which with the renaming technically leaves the religious issues alive*, but where it's used as proxy for racism... Cref a 'friends' use of "Cuckoos in Warbler nests" (and the like) or any mention of immigration)

*and so by words doesn't really refute the post. (though of course, is open to selection and religious bigotry, I don't remember a similar post when the Canada attack happened) or ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Seems the attacker was a convert to Islam. Original name Adrian Elms Aloa.

Meanwhile,relax US Shipmates, we don't tar you all with the Trump brush anymore than you tar us all with the shit-dripping lavatory brush that goes by the name of Deano.

Meanwhile, from what little we know so far about the attacker's profile he seems to fit the pattern for those lured into extremism - previous convictions for violence and possession of offensive weapons, known to the police but not directly in the spotlight as a terror suspect. As far as I know, a number of jihadist have been converts and exposed to particularly virulent versions of Islamism.

That's not to say that all converts are drawn that way but I suspect that some with a propensity for violence and who would be drawn to extremes of one form or other - fundamentalist religion, fundamentalist politics - would be fertile soil for radicalism whether in a copy-cat form or formally 'groomed' way.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

Well, guess no more, Sherlock! Here you go!

An English man called Adrian, apparently. With a history of petty criminality including GBH and public order offences.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Some pricks near to the US president are saying that this shows that the travel ban is necessary.

So Mr Trump, you are seriously saying that a guy from the UK who has apparently taught in Saudi (because none of you fuckwits have ever had business there) would be caught by your ban. You do realise that all Muslims are supposed to go on Hajj? To Saudi?

So we're left with the idea that either you've arbitarily decided to put Brits or all Muslims on a no-fly list. Which is it? Oh wait, we're your oldest friends, it must be the Muslims that you hate so much.

This country has problems, but we're not going to be taking lessons from you about mass killing incidents, thanks all the same. We will keep our largely unarmed police force and we'll keep treating people who try to kill us and we'll keep thinking the best of our fellow citizens and we'll keep believing that Muslims are our friends and neighbours and are not the blanket demonic force that you seem to want to paint it.

You utter utter piece of slime.

[ 24. March 2017, 07:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some pricks near to the US president are saying that this shows that the travel ban is necessary.

So Mr Trump, you are seriously saying that a guy from the UK who has apparently taught in Saudi (because none of you fuckwits have ever had business there). You do realise that all Muslims are supposed to go on Hajj? To Saudi?

So we're left with the idea that either you've arbitarily decided to put Brits or all Muslims on a no-fly list. Which is it? Oh wait, we're your oldest friends, it must be the Muslims that you hate so much.

This country has problems, but we're not going to be taking lessons from you about mass killing incidents, thanks all the same. We will keep our largely unarmed police force and we'll keep treating people who try to kill us and we'll keep thinking the best of our fellow citizens and we'll keep believing that Muslims are our friends and neighbours and are not the blanket demonic force that you seem to want to paint it.

You utter utter piece of slime.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The murderer was called Khalid Masood.

Shinto perhaps? Maybe he was a militant Shinto'ist.

Or, and I'm just guessing here, maybe he was part of the armed struggle of the Quakers?

Well, guess no more, Sherlock! Here you go!

An English man called Adrian, apparently. With a history of petty criminality including GBH and public order offences.

Where's the "drop the mic" emoji when you need it?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm uncomfortable with today's counter-narrative which says this guy's "original identity" was Adrian-from-Kent.

OK, I understand that he had various names and that there is work to be done to suggest that he wasn't some foreign jihadi fighter who just flew in to carry out this attack.

But I think there is an under-current that seeks to delegitimise people who convert religion, particularly when that is a conversion to Islam. Somehow we're subtly saying that white people might change their name, but underneath they're still Adrian-from-Kent - because white people can't become Muslims, cannot legitimately change their name, are unable to shake their birth identity.

Well, I don't believe that.

Fair enough, if he was a criminal and was changing his name to avoid detection that's one thing. But let's show a bit more respect for the principle that people are free and have the right to change religions (and their name).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How is acknowledging that this guy was originally called Adrian and converted to Islam 'delegitimising' someone who converts to Islam and doesn't go around mowing people down with a vehicle nor attacking them with knives?

The vast, vast majority of converts to Islam don't go around doing that.

Sure, it could lead to dick-heads like Deano tarring all Muslims, converts and otherwise, with the same brush. But that tells us more about Deano than anyone else. As if we didn't already know that the man is an arsehole and a twat.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Archbishop Cranmer has written a genuinely brilliant about Elms.

He was a violent Christian before he became a violent Muslim. Cue deano wheeling out the One True Scotsman fallacy.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
A lot more people than deano are wheeling it out...

After events like this, I often find myself wondering which is really worse: killing a few people, or demonising a billion people.

The moral calculus is tricky. Because I'm not entirely convinced that sprinkling your evil over a vast number of innocent victims is somehow better than concentrating it on a few.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Someone has already mentioned understanding why people are radicalised and commit such criminal acts, so that we can work to reduce the number of people radicalised.

I sometimes think that we already know what causes people to become radicalised. And, our governments then deliberately set out to do those things which create the environments to foster radicalisation. Things like viewing large groups of innocent people as pseudocriminals and punishing them for crimes they haven't committed, and would have never contemplated - restricting their ability to travel, telling them that they can't wear certain types of clothing, etc. Is it any surprise if we treat a lot of people as though they're almost criminals that a few of them become criminals?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sadly, alas, true.
[Disappointed]

Welcome to Planet Earth...
[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Welcome to Planet Earth...
[Help]

When can I leave?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As one of my erstwhile patients (with mental health problems) used to say: 'Is this the last spaceship for Mars?'......

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
We have wrestled with this concept many times on the Ship. It easier to understand why someone with a warped ideology would attack close to the HofP and kill innocent people as opposed to a random shooter with no ideology just killing, presumably for the fun of it,(accepting there is usually some specific grievance driving them).
The common denominator is that both overcome the normal desire to stay alive along with that of not wishing harm on others.

Still can't quite understand if perpetrators like this latest one are acting on their own initiative or whether they are taking orders from a central IS or Al Qaeda command.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In the old days, terrorists would have used guns or bombs. Which require being able to get hold of them, and some skill to use them (especially making a bomb). That would normally mean some network of people to provide necessary training or equipment. In the UK at least, the majority of people can't just buy a gun (to be honest, I don't even know how to go about buying a gun), and bombs are even harder to get hold of.

But, inspired by international terrorism, we all know that you don't need a gun or bomb. A van or car can make a very effective weapon to kill and injure large numbers of people. Something that the majority of people have ready access to, without the need for any form of support network.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
It was Alistair Cook who said that a way to cause widespread mayhem would be to take a damp hanky impregnated with a vicious waterborne virus and ring it out in a reservoir. Then ring the water authorities.

Jengie
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Then ring the water authorities.

...or not, as the case may be.

Germ warfare used to scare the living shit out of many of us during the 60s and early 70s. Films like the 'Satan Bug' illustrated this quite well.
We had talk of the 'Dirty Bomb' post 9/11, as yet nothing on that score thank goodness. At present most free world dwellers seem too confused by world affairs to even know whether to be scared or not.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's no need to leave earth, and if you do, don't leave in a car. That's a statistically much more likely way to be killed or injured than by a wanna be maladjusted English twit. We had a maladjusted Canadian twit shoot up our parliament. These people are nutty first, delusional second.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is surprisingly difficult to weaponize a biological agent. Most viruses, etc. are finicky about their environment, or refuse to multiply rapidly enough to really impact a population, and so forth.
If you really want to create terror there are easier ways. My notion would be a hand grenade or a pipe bomb. Buy it on the internet or download the instructions for assembly; take it to a big shopping mall on the 23rd of December. There's one in my area which would be ideal for this, one of those multilevel affairs with parking garages and a central courtyard. Drop it from one of the upper levels down into the crowd, pop out the door to the garage, and drive away.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Latest on this geezer is Police announcing his motive 'may never be known'. One minute it is presented as a direct attack on our free democracy, next the action of a motiveless nutter.

The only 'good' thing to come out of this, if one can call it that, is that the ring of steel around our politians will be ever thickened and ever tightened.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There are two answers to the question of "motive" for the mayhem on Wednesday, both equally valid and both can be held alone or together.

FIRST, the attacker was mentally ill and a sign of his mental illness was his decision to mow down pedestrians with a car driven at high speed along a pavement before crashing into railings and stabbing a policeman. Since it would appear none of the victims were known personally by the perpetrator this is an irrational act.

SECOND, the attacker held a view of the world moulded by an ideology, unknown at present, which inspired in him not only the desire to act the way he did but led him to believe such actions were acceptable and right.

Unless Mr Mahmood left a note or recorded his thoughts explaining his actions we'll never know which of the above applied and any speculation on the part of journalists or detectives won't be able to tell us with any certainty either.

Of course we can think that he may have been inspired to act in the way he did by taking on board the beliefs of warped individuals who propound the view that actions like this can be justified in some cause, but it is only speculation, nothing more.

And yes, there have been (and may be again) attempts by shadowy 'organisations' to claim so-called responsibility for his actions - but anyone can post a claim on a website, it doesn't make it true.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Latest on this geezer is Police announcing his motive 'may never be known'. One minute it is presented as a direct attack on our free democracy, next the action of a motiveless nutter.

Practically, in something like that, there will always be lots of 'motives' and emotions piling in on one head, playing off each other. Some stereotypical 'hating our freedoms' style thoughts, some not letting us disown responsibility (for say those 150 bombed in Raqqa and not considering being born Iraqi sufficient justification), some feelings of isolation from (White) Britain,some identification with (White) British uncertainty, some feelings of it being a hard day, some believing ISIS&Ukip's them and us narrative, some need to be known for something and be significant, (depending on when the decision was made), feeling claustrophobic in new house, some impatience at the traffic, and who knows what else...

(As you get nearer something like a Luftwaffe/RAF bomber pilot, in which case you have orders to some extent, and the decisions and emotions are more separated)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I wonder if what they mean is that they can't be absolutely sure if this guy had been in contact with IS or some other radical group via untraceable messaging services.

It seems plausible that this guy just admired IS from a distance and took it upon himself to be a martyr to the cause without any real contact, knowing that IS would use the event for their own ends.

Which is quite worrying, when you think about it. If there are directions and gangs, then you at least have a chance of finding them. If they're just individuals doing depraved acts on a random basis, then there is almost nothing that can be done.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, and, sadly, I wouldn't be surprised to see more 'copy-cat' attacks from those who are disturbed or deranged. In many ways that's what makes this form of 'lone actor' terrorism harder to deal with.

I'm sure sympathisers with one or other of the extremist groups on either side of the Northern Ireland 'Troubles' would have undertaken independent copy-cat acts of violence had those groups used similar tactics to ISIS.

As it was, the extremists on both sides relied on the bomb and the bullet rather than knife-attacks or using lorries, vans and cars to mow people down. It's the low-tech approach that makes this all the more chilling ...

And I'm sure that's the idea. 'We can stir people up and motivate them to carry out random attacks using what readily comes to hand ...'

[Disappointed] [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
.....
It seems plausible that this guy just admired IS from a distance and took it upon himself to be a martyr to the cause without any real contact, knowing that IS would use the event for their own ends.
.......

It does, except - do we know whether he called out anything? This would be expected if he was doing it in the name of someone else (GOD or otherwise). I heard a report of a man shouting hysterically but it wasn't clear to me who that man was.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Not sure what that shows. How is a man shouting hysterically any indication that he has a link to IS? That seems utterly illogical.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure what that shows. How is a man shouting hysterically any indication that he has a link to IS? That seems utterly illogical.

Agreed. It was a reporter of some sort who noted it and I don't know that he linked it to anything. It's not even clear who was shouting. I simply asked if anyone knows whether the attacker shouted anything because if he was doing it in the name of GOD or ISIS or whoever it might be expected that he would shout something. And if he did not shout he probably was not greatly infuenced by a terrorist organisation ISTM. (And if he did not shout perhaps that's the reason the police said we would never know his motive.)
Just asking.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, and, sadly, I wouldn't be surprised to see more 'copy-cat' attacks from those who are disturbed or deranged. In many ways that's what makes this form of 'lone actor' terrorism harder to deal with.

And, the copy-cat attacks do not need to be associated with the same cause. Or, the deranged individual only associates with a particular cause because it provides a means to justify (in his own mind, at least) the actions he goes on to take - not from belief in the cause, but just because he's disturbed.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And all manner of permutations of the same thing ...
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
I think there is an argument for impounding all Adrians. 33% of the Adrians I know can be quite annoying.
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
OI! I resemble that remark!

AG
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
if he was doing it in the name of GOD or ISIS or whoever it might be expected that he would shout something.

You're making a judgement about whether this man was a terrorist or a nutter based on how shouty he was?

Consider the IRA. They had a terror campaign for a long time, with basically no shouting. Bombs generally don't shout much, and are a well-known terror weapon.

Let's suppose for a while that he did intend an act of terror. Perhaps he thought shouting was superfluous, because he thought the press would draw the right conclusion given that he's a beardy man with an Islamic name. Perhaps he thought that uncertainty over whether this was "terror" or not was worse than knowing. Perhaps he was concentrating on killing people and not wasting time shouting. Perhaps he was just not very good at being a terrorist. Perhaps he did his shouting in the car and nobody heard him.

And does it matter? Everyone, AFAIK, agrees that he was a lone actor. That being the case, what difference does it make whether he thought he was a soldier of God making a strike against the infidel or whether he was an angry man irrationally upset because he'd just run out of milk?

Assuming that he thought he was doing God's work, can we learn anything new about how people like him are radicalized from his case? If not, does it matter?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Not making a judgement nor 'supposing' anything.
Just asking was all.
His being mentally disturbed was never in doubt ISTM.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think there is an argument for impounding all Adrians. 33% of the Adrians I know can be quite annoying.

One of Tony Blair's speech writers thought that he was too hardline on law and order and, towards the end of his stint, wrote a spoof paper suggesting that the Prime Minister ought to have the power to imprison at will anyone named 'Gordon' (Brown) or 'Ed' (Balls). The paper was returned to him with a note at the bottom, in the Prime Minister's hand saying: "this is the best thing that you have ever written".
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0