Terrorist Incidents In London

[Ashley]

I don't want to say this but I have to disagree. The people who committed the recent terror attacks believed that their version (their perverted version) of Islam was true and just. If people who follow this believe they are in a holy war then they will be rewarded with 72 virgins if they die through martyrdom. The people who believe in this don't care if it's Ramadan (note the Battle of Badr happened during Ramadan) or not, their goal in part is to split us up and turn against each other. Cue Tommy Robinson...

 

Oh yes they believe they are practising it as intended, but its a perversion. Sorry, didn't phrase that well.

 

Thanks for taking the time to make a considered reply. I agree there are problems with internment. Even so, I do believe some form of incarceration must play a part and (unfortunately) normal standards of criminality aren't enough for the problem we're facing. Locking up Germans, Italians and Japanese was deeply unfair, but it was a war tactic. In fact, it wasn't even as justified as the current situation, because there was no real reason to believe a German living in Britain sided with the Nazis. Here, though, we do have clear signs of loyalty to the enemy. I suppose this comes down to whether we (as a society) believe we are at war with radical Islam or not.

 

If flying an Islamic flag is not treason, for example, what is? And if it is not a criminal offence, surely it clearly marks the perpetrators out as traitors? We have had so many clues about who the enemy is, and our justice system has not been able to do anything about it.

 

I also do understand that Muslims have been the victims of Islamic terrorism more than anyone. It would indeed be irresponsible to send genuinely dangerous people abroad. Unfortunately, British-born terrorists are said to be amongst the worst. We have been too scared to clamp down on extremism because we don't honestly know the clear line between Islam and extremist Islam.

 

For clarity, the plan could be along these lines:

 

* The 3,000 considered most dangerous could be locked up in some fashion. Humane conditions - this is about gaining control, not punishment.

 

* The 20,000 considered "of interest" could be monitored with a combination of tags and control orders. Remember, many terrorists (although known to authorities) were not classified as amongst the most dangerous when they carried out their attacks (and were thus not being watched).

 

* Those who call for Sharia Law should be sent a clear message that it's never going to happen in the UK. These people (assuming they're not dangerous) could be offered repatriation, possibly with some sort of financial incentive. This is a cultural issue, rather than criminal, but we do need to draw the line between those who want to change Britain and those who don't.

 

* To those peaceful Muslims who just want to follow your chosen religion, you're very welcome, and the UK will be a better place when the distinction has been clearly set out between yourselves and extremists.

 

These are quite strong measures, but I don't think anything I've outlined above is as offensive as the idea that we do nothing, and just accept some of us will be slaughtered every now and then.

 

This completely flies in the face of the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights (specifically article 9, touches upon other parts too). You can't detain people you think might be dangerous unless you have proof they're going to commit an actual act (as opposed to "we think they might do in the future").

 

And why are we just doing it for those that are radical Islamists? What about other radicals? If I recall correctly, more terrorists attacks are committed in America by non-Muslims per year, they just don't tend to get labelled correctly (and I believe more Americans are killed by children with guns than terrorists because of course).

 

I get the notion, but it's a slippery slope (even ignoring the human rights issue).

Edited June 6, 2017 by Ashley

[Grazza]

This comply flies in the face of the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights (specifically article 9, touches upon other parts too). You can't detain people you think might be dangerous unless you have proof they're going to commit an actual act (as opposed to "we think they might do in the future").

 

I have to say, why not? What would actually happen?

 

As for what they "might do", I agree, but the criteria would be set more strictly than that. Flying Islamic flags, visiting jihadist websites, supporting jihad, engaging in jihadi conversations... all things that may be sub-criminal, but should be actionable offences.

 

British law evolved over centuries to suit the indigenous population. It's not enough to deal with the problem we now have - an uncomfortable fact, but the truth. These are unprecedented times that - just like war - cannot be limited by the usual process of law and order.

 

And why are we just doing it for those that are radical Islamists? What about other radicals? If I recall correctly, more terrorists attacks are committed in America by non-Muslims per year, they just don't tend to get labelled correctly (and I believe more Americans are killed by children with guns than terrorists because of course).

 

And that's terrible, but it's none of our business. Every nation state has the right to set its own levels of crime and punishment.

 

As for the other point, there is nothing non-Islamic that is motivating mass murder. Non-Muslim radicalism doesn't strain our resources.

[sumo73]

I worked in Southwark for many years and commuted to London Bridge and walked through Borough Market every day. Spent many lunchtimes and evenings in both the Barrowboy and the Globe It's weird but it feels a lot more personal because I know the area so well.

 

I used to work in Southwark Bridge Road and commute to and from London Bridge every day as well but that's largely irreverent for me here. I feel bad about what happened in London but also in Manchester and I've never been to Manchester before. I do realise people feel a connection to a place but the real issues are the lost of life due to these attacks and how do we stop these attacks from happening again wherever that is. People don't want to hear excuses or more talking from politicians, they want to see something being done about this but as I said before it can't be some kind of knee jerk reaction to things.

 

My girlfriend has already been told where she works is a possible future terror attack spot in London and as I said my friend which I talked about earlier is already worried about possible reprisals against him and his family because they are Muslim. And I'm sure there are other people who can give similar stories. We either hide in our houses or continue with our lives and we will continue through this.

 

Every single time this happens, they are known to the police.

Regarding the attack just one of the attackers was known to police so how do you police someone that is off radar that you don't know about?

 

Pestneb already mentioned previously about the minority report but the idea behind it is arresting someone before they might commit a crime which they may or may never do. We have serious overcrowding in prisons here and some prisons are places where people become radicalised, so the whole thing is a mess.

 

We have had so many clues about who the enemy is, and our justice system has not been able to do anything about it.

 

Cutting police numbers plus under funding prisons in the UK has been a mistake and I blame the government in part for this mess. If you have less police you are less able to enforce the law, collect intelligence... Saving money is one thing but it often results in a poorer service overall. The government and others also need to look into programmes like Channel, Prevent... and see how they can be improved.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by sumo73

[Ashley]

I have to say, why not? What would actually happen?

 

As for what they "might do", I agree, but the criteria would be set more strictly than that. Flying Islamic flags, visiting jihadist websites, supporting jihad, engaging in jihadi conversations... all things that may be sub-criminal, but should be actionable offences.

 

British law evolved over centuries to suit the indigenous population. It's not enough to deal with the problem we now have - an uncomfortable fact, but the truth. These are unprecedented times that - just like war - cannot be limited by the usual process of law and order.

 

And that's terrible, but it's none of our business. Every nation state has the right to set its own levels of crime and punishment.

 

As for the other point, there is nothing non-Islamic that is motivating mass murder. Non-Muslim radicalism doesn't strain our resources.

 

D'oh typo. Meant to say "completely" not "comply".

 

Well it would depend on how sustained it is, but could lead to sanctions etc the same way we put them on places like North Korea.

 

All the things you list are "actionable" in the sense they are things that we can say "that has been done", but unto themselves they're not criminal (but obviously result in being watched by MI5). Although May certainly wants to (blindly) restrict access to the web. What exactly do you mean by "engaging in jihadi conversations"?

 

America was just an example, but Jo Cox and Mohammed Saleem prove non-Muslim radicalism do strain our resources. Not as much, sure, but you're getting into a territory where our civil liberties are being taken away with potentially little if any benefit.

 

Edit

 

For what it's worth, May's latest speech seems to suggest she'd look to giving more power to detain based on suspicion. On the other hand, we've certainly had a lot of Terrorism-rated legislation in the last 17 years. It seems collective governments have legislated a lot, but done little to actually make a difference. See thread:

 

[tweet]871426882385870848[/tweet]

Edited June 6, 2017 by Ashley

[Grazza]

Well it would depend on how sustained it is, but could lead to sanctions etc the same way we put them on places like North Korea.

 

That's a good point. On the other hand (and I admit this is optimistic), the Western world may be waiting for someone to show them how we can deal with this shared problem.

 

All the things you list are "actionable" in the sense they are things that we can say "that has been done", but unto themselves they're not criminal (but obviously result in being watched by MI5). Although May certainly wants to (blindly) restrict access to the web. What exactly do you mean by "engaging in jihadi conversations"?

 

If you have said in email conversations, for example, that you support an international caliphate. Any clear declaration that you support the other side.

 

Just to clarify, when I said "actionable" I meant sub-criminal offences that nonetheless warrant action.

 

America was just an example, but Jo Cox and Mohammed Saleem prove non-Muslim radicalism do strain our resources. Not as much, sure, but you're getting into a territory where our civil liberties are being taken away with potentially little if any benefit.

 

They were awful, but we've always had to cope with single acts of crime. We can't achieve perfection, but we do our best. I'd argue it is even more difficult for police to have a handle on non-Muslim extremism when they are so occupied with Islamism. We cannot afford to follow as many people as we need to, which is the heart of the issue.

 

As for the second point, this is precisely why we need new laws that do just target Islamic extremism. Clamping down specifically on radical Islam won't infringe on our human rights. It will mean that you can still criticise the government, but you can't rally support for jihad. Any new laws need to be specifically for that, not vaguely worded so as to trap us all in the net.