Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: stamper on March 22, 2017, 11:46:20 am
-
A major terrorist incident unfolding in London.
-
Houses of parliament have been attacked.
-
One shot, several injured in UK parliament 'terrorist incident':
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-photographer-idUSKBN16T1Y5
Cheers,
Bart
-
There seems to be two attacks. Situation fluid.
-
Deaths reported. Absolute chaos. Parliament on lock down.
-
Suspect package being investigated.
-
Several horrific injuries
-
Attacker drove down several people using a vehicle.
-
Two now dead. Dozens with bad injuries.
-
Policeman stabbed to death.
-
But England is practically "gun free." How can this be happening?
-
Use of a car to run down people on the bridge, and the stupidity of not having all the guards at the entrance to the H of P armed.
Four dead, including a policeman.
Rob
-
That's part of my point, Rob. A car can be more deadly than a gun. A truck can be more deadly still. But a gun can stop a car and a gun can stop a truck. If you don't have people around with guns -- they can be cops as long as you have enough tax money to pay that many cops -- nobody can stop a car or a truck with a gun.
-
But England is practically "gun free." How can this be happening?
Four people are dead. On behalf of everyone in Britain I would like to invite you over here so we can tell you to your stupid conceited face what we think of you and your post.
-
Four people are dead. On behalf of everyone in Britain I would like to invite you over here so we can tell you to your stupid conceited face what we think of you and your post.
+1
-
Four people are dead. On behalf of everyone in Britain I would like to invite you over here so we can tell you to your stupid conceited face what we think of you and your post.
Well, thanks Paul, for your intelligent, reasoned response.
-
But England is practically "gun free." How can this be happening?
Well thanks, Russ, for your intelligent, sensitive contribution.
-
I wouldn't normally bother with threads like this but I do agree with Jeremy's sentiments.
Mike
-
Funny old world; we, non-Americans, can say what we like about America and its guns, but heaven forbid we get any of the same logic back at us.
Our UK problem is that we don't have enough guns in the right hands; police ones. We probably don't even have enough of the right police: I have heard so many of them saying they'd quit if they had to carry arms. Dear effin' me, what a bunch of strange folks we employ: I thought that part of the duty of the police was to win confrontations. As has been shown quite often, that only works if you have superior weaponry and know how to use it. I'm an old guy and can see this to be perfectly obvious; what's wrong with those much younger who can't? Can't they even remember being in school and that being small won you no battles? It's exactly the same in the big bad world outside, only even more dangerous because the bad guys are bigger than they were in school.
The argument is made: if you arm the police then the criminals arm too. Man, the ones who can get arms are already armed.
Rob
-
The argument is made: if you arm the police then the criminals arm too. Man, the ones who can get arms are already armed.
Rob
In this case armed with what will probably turn out to be a kitchen knife or something anyone can buy quite legally.
Mike
-
Funny old world; we, non-Americans, can say what we like about America and its guns, but heaven forbid we get any of the same logic back at us....
Amen, Rob!
Within seconds of a terrorist or lunatic attack in the States, a new thread will pop up on this very site from abroad, where the first comment would be "OMG, when are you Americans going to come to your senses and ban all guns!?"
It seems that a moral outrage or righteous indignation is the standard knee-jerk reaction these days to inconvenient truths.
-
The guy with the knife was shot dead by police who were on the scene. So, what's the query about arming police at appropriate locations?
For those who just assume that there are no cops with guns in the UK, you need to do a little reading. Area cars, armed response units, SO19, and so on. The average beat cop isn't carrying a gun and historically (including now) has no need for one, but there are plenty of armed cops in the UK, particularly at sensitive locations.
Also note that there is no posse comitatus in the UK. UK military forces (i.e. SAS) can and are used to respond to serious incidents as required.
-
That's what happens when you elect a Muslim mayor, who's first order of business is to ban bikinis, and who said that such attack are normal and to better get used to it.
-
So the parliamentarians were hiding under their desks while the Muslim terrorist was killing people right outside. PM May who was there, had to be rushed backed under guard to the PM's residence. I wonder if any of them changed their mind about Trump's travel ban and strong vetting concept? Do they still call him a bigot? They all laughed at him and said they wouldn't let him come to parliament. Frankly, considering how secure the Brits keep the place, the Secret Service won't let him go.
-
The guy with the knife was shot dead by police who were on the scene. So, what's the query about arming police at appropriate locations?
For those who just assume that there are no cops with guns in the UK, you need to do a little reading. Area cars, armed response units, SO19, and so on. The average beat cop isn't carrying a gun and historically (including now) has no need for one, but there are plenty of armed cops in the UK, particularly at sensitive locations.
Also note that there is no posse comitatus in the UK. UK military forces (i.e. SAS) can and are used to respond to serious incidents as required.
But the one cop who was killed by a man with a knife did not have a gun. Had he been armed, he might be alive today. What do you tell his family?
-
But the one cop who was killed by a man with a knife did not have a gun. Had he been armed, he might be alive today. What do you tell his family?
I'm wasting my time, I know, responding to this little bit of illogic, but what do YOU say to the thousands and thousands of americans killed by guns. It's a puzzle to me, because to listen to you, none of you sound like you ever feel safe, so what could is all the guns doing you? If anything, reading some of the stuff on these pages, americans sound positively paranoid about their safety. I hope things aren't really that bad.
-
So the parliamentarians were hiding under their desks while the Muslim terrorist was killing people right outside. PM May who was there, had to be rushed backed under guard to the PM's residence. I wonder if any of them changed their mind about Trump's travel ban and strong vetting concept? Do they still call him a bigot? They all laughed at him and said they wouldn't let him come to parliament. Frankly, considering how secure the Brits keep the place, the Secret Service won't let him go.
They were in lock down - not hiding. One MP on the street was providing first aid and trying to save the cop who was knifed - he had blood all over him. The PM was moved to a place of safety exactly as would happen to PotUS in such an event.
The security of the MPs and government wasn't breached any more than someone firing at the White House (which has happened more than once).
-
But the one cop who was killed by a man with a knife did not have a gun. Had he been armed, he might be alive today. What do you tell his family?
Having a gun means nothing - he pushed passed another member of the public and just launched with the knife. Having a gun doesn't stop someone doing that and doesn't make you prescient to know that someone is about to do that. The armed police then shot him.
If having guns stop attacks, how did 9/11 happen? How come more cops in the US die as a percentage than in the UK (but a massive amount)?
What a load of dribble.
-
Four people are dead. On behalf of everyone in Britain I would like to invite you over here so we can tell you to your stupid conceited face what we think of you and your post.
+1000
Please include almost every other country in the world.
30,000 Americans die each year shot by Americans, 10000 times more than died at Boston, but that's called freedom.
-
That's what happens when you elect a Muslim mayor, who's first order of business is to ban bikinis, and who said that such attack are normal and to better get used to it.
I think that's what we call "alternative facts" these days.
-
I think that's what we call "alternative facts" these days.
Indeed...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36516378
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html
-
That's what happens when you elect a Muslim mayor, who's first order of business is to ban bikinis, and who said that such attack are normal and to better get used to it.
I'm saddened that an intelligent, experienced man like yourself can come up with such a skewed interpretation of the mayor's comments. Maybe not so surprised as I understand the most commonly used source of UK news by US citizens is the Daily Mail, a dreadful rag if there ever was one.
Who remembers the IRA mainland bombing campaign? The fear was much worse then and our intelligence services learnt a lot from the troubles.
I think the real problem is dealing with weaponising the mundane and commonplace. It was a hire car I understand, not stolen but legally hired and legally driven to the attack site. Our network of cameras will no doubt be able to track its movements but which clairvoyant will advise of its threat and get armed police or indeed any police in place on the bridge?
This thread is once again in danger of consisting of entrenched views which is why I usually avoid them, but really some of the superficial Daily Mail (see, in the UK that's an insult) comments need to be called out.
As ever I am not trying to be gratuitously rude but just show dissent.
Mike
-
My sympathy to those that have lost a loved one or have been injured in this tragic incident
-
I'm saddened that an intelligent, experienced man like yourself can come up with such a skewed interpretation of the mayor's comments. Maybe not so surprised as I understand the most commonly used source of UK news by US citizens is the Daily Mail, a dreadful rag if there ever was one.
Apparently he was just re-hashing the words of Trump Junior:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/22/donald-trump-jr-tweet-london-mayor-sadiq-khan
-
I'll make a side bet with anyone that all cops around the Parliament building will be armed in the future.
-
Your point being? Armed guards at the gates would have in no way helped on the bridge where most of the carnage took place.
I'm not sure you're right, it will be interesting to see how it works out. We Brits do like our police to be as nonthreatening as possible so having a nice friendly Bobby is seen as important even if his mates nearby are armed to the teeth.
It's just different cultural norms, neither better nor worse just different.
-
What changes will the Brits make to protect themselves from further attacks?
-
I'll make a side bet with anyone that all cops around the Parliament building will be armed in the future.
Don't bet: you could easily lose because to some minds, arming could appear to be submitting to threats! Britain, and London in particular, have had decades of violence and different forms of terrorism aimed their way; it's hardly new and yet the lessons remain doggedly "unlearned" not because they are not understood, but because of political dogma associated with the John Bull way of handling things.
(Partly, it might be associated with the observance of international rules, which is something that the Brits tend to do as governments, much to the surprise and even amusement of fellow Europeans who agree to every European rule but do their own thing regardless. Had the UK been as pragmatic, it might never have thought about Brexit and suicide. As the captains of industry tried to tell the lemmings, diving off the White Cliffs of Dover is not good for you. Did they listen? But now a huge number of City jobs is already on the move even before the red button has been touched. Anyone thinking that means only a few thousand highly-paid individuals is a little bit mistaken.)
I think that armed policemen should come in different stages: an initial lot with pistols that can be quickly pulled and discharged at close quarters - which might have saved that policeman's life - and the other type of weaponry, long-range stuff, that requires room to move, raise and aim, which strikes me as being about as useful for close combat as a rocket launcher. Not that I have a rocket launcher, of course. Carrying both arms seems silly, too, for I think being a quick-draw artist saddled with even an additional light burp gun on a strap isn't going to make you very responsive any day soon. (Just think of yourself as carrying two cameras, one hanging in front of your chest with a long lens on it, the other in a pouch at your belt, and the picture comes into focus, even if you miss making the once-in-your-lifetime shot, if you see what I mean.) As for the attack being uexpected, all people in the vicinity where a policeman is required should be viewed as possible attackers. Dozing on the job and complacency run hand in hand, if they run at all, that is; no, I am not stating the poor guy who was stabbed was dozing on the job.
But something in training is clearly wrong: it happens every day in Israel where armed security is attacked by knife and even by women; the level and reality of threat seems to be being overlooked in some way: are they all trained to be on the watch for people who resemble the targets on the range? Is the first flash of a diced headcloth key? I wonder if Texas border guards are trained to identify targets with black sombreros and moustaches?
-
What changes will the Brits make to protect themselves from further attacks?
Isn't that the point of such terrorist methods, there's little you can do apart from the obvious of being vigilant, improve your intelligence and encourage the whole community/population to assist and bring suspicious activity to the authorities or community leaders? I doubt you'd achieve that by arming the police to the teeth and scapegoating minorities.
I just once again remind everyone of the IRA campaign - in the long run how effective was that?
-
A sad and tragic event.
This is just one more reminder that terrorism cannot be stopped from happening, so the best we can do is try and prevent it as much from happening as reasonably possible without sacrificing our liberties. Its foundation is from nurturing hatred, by whatever radical ideology. So we should try and prevent the nurturing.
Too little is known at this point in time to be sure about the motivations of the assailant, but things like a Muslim ban on traveling to the USA certainly do not help, on the contrary (it only helps to stigmatize, nurture resentment, and recruit new terrorists, often homegrown).
Guns do not prevent terrorist attacks either, although they may stop one already in action. That's why armed and trained security personnel is unfortunately required. Arming the public is never a good idea, because it only leads to more casualties (like yesterday in Rothschild/Wisconsin, where 4 people were killed in a domestic disturbance, one of whom also a police officer, who was obviously armed. Sad).
My thoughts go out to the victims and their loved ones.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's what happens when you elect a Muslim mayor, who's first order of business is to ban bikinis, and who said that such attack are normal and to better get used to it.
It seems that he was concerned not so much with bikinis per say, but with ads promoting "unhealthy or unrealistic" body images, clad in bikinis. In other words, the ads should show more corpulent models.
-
I'll make a side bet with anyone that all cops around the Parliament building will be armed in the future.
Most of them already are.
I did a fashion photo-shoot in the Houses of Parliament recently. I wasn't sure where to go and asked directions, but had to phrase my question to the police very carefully.
-
Most of them already are.
I did a fashion photo-shoot in the Houses of Parliament recently. I wasn't sure where to go and asked directions, but had to phrase my question to the police very carefully.
that's interesting. So you talk and feel differently when you talk to an armed cop vs. an unarmed cop? Can you explain that?
-
Thursday morning: Police in the northern Belgian city of Antwerp said a man in camouflage tried to enter the main pedestrianised shopping street in a car at high speed.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/23/man-arrested-for-trying-to-drive-into-crowd-in-antwerp-6529347/#ixzz4c9oZDI6r
-
So the parliamentarians were hiding under their desks while the Muslim terrorist was killing people right outside. PM May who was there, had to be rushed backed under guard to the PM's residence. I wonder if any of them changed their mind about Trump's travel ban and strong vetting concept? Do they still call him a bigot? They all laughed at him and said they wouldn't let him come to parliament. Frankly, considering how secure the Brits keep the place, the Secret Service won't let him go.
Some alternative questions:
What do the millions of Muslim immigrants (in the UK or the US/Canada) think about the attack? The ones who are productive, enterprising citizens (or hopeful citizens). The ones who fled violence and intolerance and want nothing more than to leave all that behind and to give their children a better life. What did they think about 9/11?
What did the millions of Irish Catholics living and working in England (or the US or anywhere) think about the London IRA bombings?
What did most American citizens who distrust the federal government (as many "drain the swamp" Trump supporters might be) think about Timothy McVeigh killing 168 people (including 19 children) and injuring 650 others?
What did most American citizens think about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam?
What do most Christian Americans think about the recent desecrations of Jewish cemeteries, or other anti-Semitic attacks?
What do most Americans (of any religion) think about the Orlando nightclub attack?
What do most Black Americans think about the killing of white police officers in Dallas?
Most people are horrified by such events. I would hope that no one ever thinks "they had it coming", but I know it's not true. So the question is, do you want to foster those thoughts? Do you want to feed the intolerance? Should the US/UK have banned Irish Catholic immigrants because of the IRA (or Timothy McVeigh for that matter -- his parents were Irish Catholic)? Should they have banned all Balkan immigrants because of the horrific war crimes committed there?
IMO, the US could have tightened its already tight security without the executive order, without all the bloody fanfare and self-serving rhetoric, without the inference by the EO that border security and immigration officials weren't up to the job of keeping America safe, without the inference that Trump and Bannon knew better than the US intelligence community and Homeland Security about what threats exist and what needs to be done, without the attacks on the judiciary that set aside the travel ban, and without the continuing discussion about a Muslim threat/ban and whether or not the President is a bigot.
-
First of all, I wish to express my condolences to the families of the victims.
Secondly, terrorism is nothing new, we can do all we can to prevent it, but it will continue to happen. As it happened in Nice and London, no one can prevent a decided person to drive a vehicle into a crowd. As it happened in Istanbul and Brussels, no one can prevent a bomb from going off at the entrance to an airport.
Thirdly, I hope events like these do not prevent people to receive, and treat well, refugees coming from war troubled zones, that wish to be a part of the community in the countries that receive them. The other day, here in Lisbon, I went to a new Syrian restaurant, that was opened by Syrian refugees. Lovely family.
It is easy to build stereotypes, lets avoid that.
-
That's what happens when you elect a Muslim mayor, who's first order of business is to ban bikinis, and who said that such attack are normal and to better get used to it.
Do you think it would not have happened if Boris was still the mayor? I don't think it would have made any difference, but everybody is entitled to their opinion of course.
-
Do you think it would not have happened if Boris was still the mayor? I don't think so, but everybody is entitled to their opinion of course.
I'm pretty sure any Brit would find that a ridiculous assertion. How does the mayor of London affect how some deranged individual living in Birmingham behave? You seem to have some very odd ideas about how much anyone in the UK cares that Sadiq is a muslim. They are far more concerned about how he will tackle housing, keeping the schools on track and transport flowing. Of course far right crackpots of which we have a tiny number excepted, and please be assured I am no way suggesting you are far right still less a crackpot.
Mike
-
that's interesting. So you talk and feel differently when you talk to an armed cop vs. an unarmed cop? Can you explain that?
Alan, most of us probably got it, but for those who didn't:
Officer, I have 'to shoot some people' in this location, could you show me where I can do it best?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Amen, Rob!
Within seconds of a terrorist or lunatic attack in the States, a new thread will pop up on this very site from abroad, where the first comment would be "OMG, when are you Americans going to come to your senses and ban all guns!?"
It seems that a moral outrage or righteous indignation is the standard knee-jerk reaction these days to inconvenient truths.
Every non-American gets a bucket-load of opposition from the pro gun supporters if he or she suggest any change in US gun laws. So why are you surprised if the reverse happens when Americans do the same and hint at changing the gun laws over here?
I think the conclusion from the thread on gun control was to agree to disagree, and that every country gets the laws that the majority of the population there supports. So I think re-hashing the theme or trying to make snark remarks after every incident is quite useless (and childish)
-
I'm pretty sure any Brit would find that a ridiculous assertion. How does the mayor of London affect how some deranged individual living in Birmingham behave? You seem to have some very odd ideas about how much anyone in the UK cares that Sadiq is a muslim. They are far more concerned about how he will tackle housing, keeping the schools on track and transport flowing. Of course far right crackpots of which we have a tiny number excepted, and please be assured I am no way suggesting you are far right still less a crackpot.
Mike
Sorry Mike, I now see my original post could be explained both ways. I changed it to make it more clear and fully agree with you that the religion of the mayor of London has no influence on yesterday's incident happening or not.
-
Sorry Mike, I now see my post could be explained both ways. I changed it to make it more clear and fully agree with you that the religion of the mayor of London has no influence on yesterday's incident happening or not.
There's little point in pursuing this but do you really believe Sadiq banned bikinis or ever suggested anything like that?
I'm not that keen on posts to which I have replied being edited either as that's just plain confusing.
I'm no fan of Sadiq but I am quite certain that he wants London to thrive and grow under his watch. I'm certain he has no sub plot. I'm certain his religion is almost irrelevant although it may have won him some votes from a minority group and hopefully encouraged part muslim population in London that felt excluded to feel that UK politics has some relevance to them whereas frankly Boris for all his bonhomie would not do.
However, as you suggested agreeing to differ is our best policy as I will clearly never persuade you that you have an unusual view of the UK and London at least from my perspective.
-
There's little point in pursuing this but do you really believe Sadiq banned bikinis or ever suggested anything like that?
I'm not that keen on posts to which I have replied being edited either as that's just plain confusing.
I'm no fan of Sadiq but I am quite certain that he wants London to thrive and grow under his watch. I'm certain he has no sub plot. I'm certain his religion is almost irrelevant although it may have won him some votes from a minority group and hopefully encouraged part muslim population in London that felt excluded to feel that UK politics has some relevance to them whereas frankly Boris for all his bonhomie would not do.
However, as you suggested agreeing to differ is our best policy as I will clearly never persuade you that you have an unusual view of the UK and London at least from my perspective.
Mike, I think you're opposing Slobodan's original post. Read my post and think again before trying to preach to the converted ;)
-
I beg your pardon, I got confused. I'm doing this in between trying to earn a living :)
-
I'm pretty sure any Brit would find that a ridiculous assertion. How does the mayor of London affect how some deranged individual living in Birmingham behave? You seem to have some very odd ideas about how much anyone in the UK cares that Sadiq is a muslim. They are far more concerned about how he will tackle housing, keeping the schools on track and transport flowing. Of course far right crackpots of which we have a tiny number excepted, and please be assured I am no way suggesting you are far right still less a crackpot.
Mike
I can vouch for Slobodan. He's no more a crackpot than I am.
-
... there's little you can do...
Short of not letting the likely perps in in the first place, and monitoring those already in?
-
Do you think it would not have happened if Boris was still the mayor? I don't think it would have made any difference...
I think Londoners would be still able to enjoy bikinis ;)
-
... I'm certain his religion is almost irrelevant although it may have won him some votes from a minority group and hopefully encouraged part muslim population in London that felt excluded to feel that UK politics has some relevance to them ...
Well, that obviously worked well.
-
Short of not letting the likely perps in in the first place, and monitoring those already in?
The perpetrator was born 52 years ago in the UK.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-idUSKBN16U0M0
Cheers,
Bart
-
I can vouch for Slobodan. He's no more a crackpot than I am.
Err....
-
I think Londoners would be still able to enjoy bikinis ;)
As a Londoner, let me reassure you that I still very much enjoy bikinis - at least as much as the weather allows.
-
I have to write that this thread has saddened me. Much of it seems to be comments about how to have prevented this happening or how to stop it happening in the future, made by people who in most cases are either from USA or GB. I was in Westminster yesterday and saw the response to the 'incident', though did not see the actual carnage because the area and Parliament was very quickly put into lockdown; nobody was hiding. The emergency services responded very quickly in great numbers and we have to praise their work in saving life and getting people quickly to hospital, as well as have sympathy for those involved.
Of course, nobody wants tragedies like this and nobody wants them occurring in the future. The USA and GB seem to have different approaches, mostly to do with the level of arms carried by the police. Neither works as well as it should - the stats prove this. Comments about the other country's approach smack of the old adage about people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. Let's stop just criticising, recognise that very determined people will always be difficult to stop, and try to think about tackling the causes. This was a crime in the eyes of many countries, and we have to try to reduce all crimes of violence. I am sure there are many people in the States who are concerned about the level of multiple murder there, just as there are in GB.
The best thing we can do for all those who have been affected by any tragedy like this is to work to understand why people do such acts, and to show that there is another way to live in harmony and understanding without treating violence with violence.
Jonathan
-
I have to write that this thread has saddened me. Much of it seems to be comments about how to have prevented this happening or how to stop it happening in the future, made by people who in most cases are either from USA or GB. I was in Westminster yesterday and saw the response to the 'incident', though did not see the actual carnage because the area and Parliament was very quickly put into lockdown; nobody was hiding. The emergency services responded very quickly in great numbers and we have to praise their work in saving life and getting people quickly to hospital, as well as have sympathy for those involved.
Of course, nobody wants tragedies like this and nobody wants them occurring in the future. The USA and GB seem to have different approaches, mostly to do with the level of arms carried by the police. Neither works as well as it should - the stats prove this. Comments about the other country's approach smack of the old adage about people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. Let's stop just criticising, recognise that very determined people will always be difficult to stop, and try to think about tackling the causes. This was a crime in the eyes of many countries, and we have to try to reduce all crimes of violence. I am sure there are many people in the States who are concerned about the level of multiple murder there, just as there are in GB.
The best thing we can do for all those who have been affected by any tragedy like this is to work to understand why people do such acts, and to show that there is another way to live in harmony and understanding without treating violence with violence.
Jonathan
Really?
And how many released offenders end up straight back in prison? How do you communicate with a guy who wants to kill you because his God tells him it's the thing to do?
Considering so many people are so dumb that all they can understand is their own language - violence - why speak to them in what they see as riddles or, at best, something coming from weakness?
You are not dealing with rational humans when you deal with religious terrorism, you are dealing with head cases or even masochists: witness the females that embrace the fundamentalist cause, that condemns them to a life of serfdom, and ask where rationality comes into the equation.
-
Really?
And how many released offenders end up straight back in prison? How do you communicate with a guy who wants to kill you because his God tells him it's the thing to do?
Considering so many people are so dumb that all they can understand is their own language - violence - why speak to them in what they see as riddles or, at best, something coming from weakness?
You are not dealing with rational humans when you deal with religious terrorism, you are dealing with head cases or even masochists: witness the females that embrace the fundamentalist cause, that condemns them to a life of serfdom, and ask where rationality comes into the equation.
Understanding what causes behaviour like this might be useful in determining broad policies that a society can enact. The longitudinal studies from Dunedin New Zealand (Dunedin (http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/humans/article/2016/05/24/exceptional-scientific-study-thats-been-going-over-40-years)), about which I learned through an excellent BBC documentary, shows how that might happen and now useful it can be.
You're right in pointing out that all the studies in the world won't help prevent the actions of this one particular wacko in question. And it's turning out that he was not a "terrorist", whatever that word means anymore, but just another screwball. But what else is new? Bad people do all kinds of bad things every day. They decide to drink too much and cause awful traffic accidents that kill and maim innocent people, every day. They go nuts and beat their wives and kids to a pulp. Happens all the time, and I never read about any forum threads about how we should deal with them. So let's keep this in perspective. Public mass killings are the wacko's favourite crime-du-jour at the moment, or seem to be. It's ugly and nasty but it's not even close to being the end of the world as we know it. There are plenty of worse things going on all the time, we just don't dwell on them much, even though the carnage from them is as nasty.
A good question to ask might be why we react this way when we should know better.
-
Understanding what causes behaviour like this might be useful in determining broad policies that a society can enact. The longitudinal studies from Dunedin New Zealand (Dunedin (http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/humans/article/2016/05/24/exceptional-scientific-study-thats-been-going-over-40-years)), about which I learned through an excellent BBC documentary, shows how that might happen and now useful it can be.
You're right in pointing out that all the studies in the world won't help prevent the actions of this one particular wacko in question. And it's turning out that he was not a "terrorist", whatever that word means anymore, but just another screwball. But what else is new? Bad people do all kinds of bad things every day. They decide to drink too much and cause awful traffic accidents that kill and maim innocent people, every day. They go nuts and beat their wives and kids to a pulp. Happens all the time, and I never read about any forum threads about how we should deal with them. So let's keep this in perspective. Public mass killings are the wacko's favourite crime-du-jour at the moment, or seem to be. It's ugly and nasty but it's not even close to being the end of the world as we know it. There are plenty of worse things going on all the time, we just don't dwell on them much, even though the carnage from them is as nasty.
A good question to ask might be why we react this way when we should know better.
Indeed, things like this, and much worse, happens every day in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, sometimes India, Afghanistan, you name it. I don't see those events, where thousands are killed every year, being given the same news time as when similar things happen in the West.
Prevention, and sharing of information, is critical in avoiding these acts; but some will go through the sieves of intelligence. And treating these terrorists as "wackos" is negligence, often they are well educated people that were taken to extremes for several reasons: one of such reasons might well be that foreigners have invaded their country based on lies.
-
Short of not letting the likely perps in in the first place, and monitoring those already in?
How do you classify the "likely"? Based on: religion, colour of skin, turban around their heads? As someone already said, the guy was born in the UK 52 years ago... how do you monitor him? He had some charges and police record already, should the UK have thrown him out?
-
Indeed, things like this, and much worse, happens every day in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, sometimes India, Afghanistan, you name it. I don't see those events, where thousands are killed every year, being1.. given the same news time as when similar things happen in the West.
Prevention, and sharing of information, is critical in avoiding these acts; but some will go through the sieves of intelligence. And treating these terrorists as "wackos" is negligence, often they are well educated people that were taken to extremes for several reasons: 2. . one of such reasons might well be that foreigners have invaded their country based on lies.
1. Well of course not; broadly, we receive news of more 'western' orientation. That's what regional tv is for: Scotland constantly bitches about not getting the same news coverage as does England; with about ten percent of the population, why would it?
I'm sure local disasters get plenty or air in India, Pakistan et al. or perhaps not: censorship.
2. Could be true for some, but mainly I'd suggest it's about radical Islamist teachings that non-believes are fair game - no, essential, prescribed targets, in fact. And don't forget: more Islamists are killed by fellow Islamists than anyone else. Go figure. Just like the Christian factions used to behave, then. In fact, it strkes me that the notion of 'country' is becoming less and less valid in Moslem culture, and it's all about faiths. Wasn't that the concept of the new ISIS caliphate? A new empire based not on geographical/political demarcation lines but upon an enforced religious unity?
-
Could be true for some, but mainly I'd suggest it's about radical Islamist teachings that non-believes are fair game - no, essential, prescribed targets, in fact. And don't forget: more Islamists are killed by fellow Islamists than anyone else. Go figure. Just like the Christian factions used to behave, then. In fact, it strkes me that the notion of 'country' is becoming less and less valid in Moslem culture, and it's all about faiths. Wasn't that the concept of the new ISIS caliphate? A new empire based not on geographical/political demarcation lines but upon an enforced religious unity?
There are 1.2 billion muslims throughout the world. Assigning broad motivations to them based on ISIS rantings is a little like claiming that the KKK in the US represented the worldwide beliefs of Christianity. So ISIS uses a few passages from some book to declare war on non-believers. So what. Pretty much every group of people on earth throughout history have used that excuse. It's how European settlers in North America justified the genocide of native populations.
Would ISIS exist if the west had kept its nose out of middle eastern affairs, or at least not been so ham-handed in its handling of the situation there? There was no ISIS not so long ago. Why is there one now? At first glance, the situation seems like a pretty case study for what NOT to do. If we don't take the time to understand that, in 10 years there will be another group that's even worse than ISIS. In the meantime we're stuck defending ourselves. So I ask you, if we keep what we're doing, do you think you will feel any safer in 10 years time?
But we keep blundering on with knee-jerk reactions to everything because emotion rules the day. We even elect clowns and morons based on emotion. And we are reverting to tribal affiliations for peace of mind. Do you think that will work?
-
"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature
ejaculation evacuation?
-
1. Well of course not; broadly, we receive news of more 'western' orientation. That's what regional tv is for: Scotland constantly bitches about not getting the same news coverage as does England; with about ten percent of the population, why would it?
I'm sure local disasters get plenty or air in India, Pakistan et al. or perhaps not: censorship.
2. Could be true for some, but mainly I'd suggest it's about radical Islamist teachings that non-believes are fair game - no, essential, prescribed targets, in fact. And don't forget: more Islamists are killed by fellow Islamists than anyone else. Go figure. Just like the Christian factions used to behave, then. In fact, it strkes me that the notion of 'country' is becoming less and less valid in Moslem culture, and it's all about faiths. Wasn't that the concept of the new ISIS caliphate? A new empire based not on geographical/political demarcation lines but upon an enforced religious unity?
1. A bomb goes off in Baghdad and kills 50 or 100 local people: gets maybe a footnote on the Western news, and for sure no vigils with candles and such. A few people get killed in a Western city and... I am not being facetious here, but to me, human life is worth the same regardless of where it is lost.
2. Some would argue that Islam, or part of it, is still in the "Middle Ages". Portuguese and Spanish Empires were built largely on religious premises, 500 years ago.
-
"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?
If you keep doing the same thing, you will get the same result.
-
If you keep doing the same thing, you will get the same result.
Exactly. This part of the forum might as well be called Fruitcake Corner, the place where the same handful of wackos ride their mad ideas round and round expecting a different result each time - but the outcome never changes.
-
"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?
The seeds for the birth of ISIS in Iraq were first sown by Bush's 'sabre rattling' about WMD. Sensing an American invasion, Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who ran paramilitary camps in Afghanistan, arrived in Iraq in 2002 and started setting up sleeper cells. Then came the occupation of Iraq in 2003, disbanding of the Baath party and the Iraqi Army, destruction of Saddam’s secular state machinery, and its replacement by a predominantly Shiite regime. It was Zarqawi who first spoke about establishing a Caliphate, and who used Sunni anger and hatred of the US/coalition to organize and terrorize. After he was killed, his successors rebranded Al-Qaeda as ISIS.
Yes, Obama mishandled things. But that cannot be entirely laid at his feet. The US public lost its taste for the conflict as WMD did not appear, as abuses to prisoners came to light, and as the ravages of war (such as PTSD) began to manifest. Many Americans felt they had been 'duped' into a war. The 'isolationists' in the US wanted out as much as the anti-war liberals.
Saddam's regime was brutal. And nothing excuses ISIS and its atrocities. But it is instructive to note what could have been done differently, rather than simply assigning blame.
-
"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?
I think Bush having a premature penetration was the underlying root cause.
-
Moderator's Note: This comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
....
My 2 cents,
Don Bryant
Truly deranged, but unfortunately this seems to be rapidly becoming the norm across parts of Lula. Is providing a space for people calling for mass murder, indeed offering to do the murdering themselves, really what the founder of this site had in mind? It makes me want to donate my membership fee Medecins Sans Frontiers and walk away.
-
Truly deranged, but unfortunately this seems to be rapidly becoming the norm across parts of Lula. Is providing a space for people calling for mass murder, indeed offering to do the murdering themselves, really what the founder of this site had in mind? It makes me want to donate my membership fee Medecins Sans Frontiers and walk away.
Amen to that. Let's hope that the site owners step in to restore something approaching sanity. Ranting about conspiracy theories is nutty, but at least harmless - advocating violence is not acceptable.
-
I think I see a gigantic tongue-in-cheek become as invisible as the elephants in the tiny toilet.
Or not.
But mecrox, forget the medics without frontiers and just donate the price of entry to me! In a year, it'll be big enough a deal to buy me lunch! Now that should make you feel good again!
Rob C