London Bridge/Borough Market Terror Incidents

[homeforsummer]

Why should I have to be prepared? Why should terrorism be part of my life?

People shouldn't have to experience terrorism. But it does happen, and London is one of the world's major economic and cultural centres which makes it (along with places like Paris and New York and less so Reykjavik or Budapest) more of a target for people who believe our way of life is inherently wrong.

That being the case, Khan is saying that it's wise to be vigilant - which is true. That said, it's mainly just reassurance. Vigilance is fine, but as discussed a few pages back, people probably shouldn't be too worried, since terrorism is rare.

90 people died from terrorism in the UK between 2000-2015. More than 6000 people died in 2015 alone in the UK from suicide, so as an average human being you're considerably more likely to take your own life than for a bloke with a bomb strapped around his chest to do it for you.

Now obviously, terrorism can theoretically affect anyone indiscriminately and certain circumstances usually precede suicide, but the risk is low, in London or otherwise.

Incidentally, Tokyo is no stranger to terrorist attacks, and Melbourne was probably a poor choice of location if you were trying to choose cities where these things don't take place.

 

[Exorcet]

Why should terrorism be part of my life?

I'm not sure if that's a helpful question. You're always at risk of being harmed by someone else and you can't eliminate that risk completely. We already have agencies for our own protection and they will on occasion fail because they aren't perfect.

It's not a matter of should or shouldn't, risk simple fact of life. There is always risk. I don't think it's wise to pretend that risk can be eliminated. Instead, realize that it's there and take steps to reduce the risk to acceptable levels for yourself.

Are the people of Tokyo, Melbourne, Sydney, Budapest, Reykjavik thinking it's "part and parcel" of living in those cities to be vigilant for terrorism?

What they think won't change reality, so why does it matter?

 

[huskeR32]

They did something to get on the list...

Yes, in most cases, they've had a certain skin color and traveled to a certain country. Maybe dared to wear clothing that fits with a religion that the majority of their neighbors don't subscribe to.

Are you ready to say any of that constitutes a crime? That it justifies locking them up?

EDIT: treed by @Conformation

 

[Famine]

They did something to get on the list...

On the watch list, yes. For watching more closely.

There's about 700,000 people on the watch list and until comparatively recently no-one outside the security services had any idea how you got on or off it. Nobody will be confirmed or denied as being on the watchlist. Nobel Laureate and President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela was on it until an act of congress in 2008.

Fortunately you can now read the criteria here, albeit from March 2013. I like the bits about social media postings and travel.

However, I believe that your nation - as mine - operates on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Locking people up and killing them because 'they must have done something to get on the watch list' is precisely no steps away from locking people up and killing them because they must have done something to get arrested. The notion is as unconstitutional as it gets, and your Constitution exists to protect citizens from over-powerful government, but you'd happily suspend it because 'they must have done something to get on the watch list'...

There's a dissimilarity between the two. You acknowledge that it is for a large city to do this just as it is for an airline, but his statement was for the general public.

A couple of minor points there.

Firstly, the general public is also the people told to plan for a plane crash. The aircraft manufacturer (to the required statutes) creates the contingencies and escape plans, the airline is legally obligated to explain it to the public and the public carry it out under direction, in the rare event it's required.

Secondly, I can't see the words 'general public' in Sadiq Khan's statement.

If Trump or anyone else thinks that US cities or the Federal government don't have emergency planning for terrorist attacks, he should probably watch some tapes of 9/11.

Tokyo

I saw this one on Twitter earlier and struggled to comprehend how anyone could have forgotten the sarin gas attack. At least you have company, I guess.

Does anyone find it a tad ironic that the people "liking" the opposing argument are the same people who "liked" posts saying they didn't want to know more about the Manchester bomber and his histories.

Ignorance it seems, truly is bliss

You never did answer the question about how knowing the Manchester dick's name would help you, personally, prevent an act of terrorism.

It's unsurprising that you have such difficulty understanding that the authorities' contingency planning for terrorism and not wanting to know a thing about the terrorists personally are not two conflicting arguments, when you can't reconcile how knowing having everyone told a dead terrorist's name will help them, personally, prevent terrorism.

 

[polysmut]

Now obviously, terrorism can theoretically affect anyone indiscriminately and certain circumstances usually precede suicide, but the risk is low, in London or otherwise.

So can depression which is more prevalent than terrorism. It helps to watch out for that vigilantly too even nobody should have to deal with it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In my opinion the word terrorist can fit a number of groups. Terrorism comes in many forms.

If my opinion was that "cheese" could also define certain types of red cabbage it would be no more relevant to the actual definition.

 

[ExigeEvan]

In my opinion the word terrorist can fit a number of groups. Terrorism comes in many forms.

It starts with a loose definition of a monster, it ends with mass incarceration and genocide.

 

[ryzno]

You should meet Mr. Kim.

Nice to meet you. I assume you're talking about Kim Jong Un? Don't get me started on him...

Nelson Mandela

The Mandela situation was stupid and un-called for. Which is why I said.

None if they do their job right.

If my opinion was that "cheese" could also define certain types of red cabbage it would be no more relevant to the actual definition.

Really Ten? Terrorism comes in many forms and you know it...

It starts with a loose definition of a monster, it ends with mass incarceration and genocide.

Yep, of the monster...

This is getting off of the current attack. I've said what I think, I'm done.

 

[Famine]

The Mandela situation was stupid and un-called for

Actually, he did fit all of the required definitions of a terrorist back when he was an ANC activist. He founded the armed MK wing of the ANC which carried out bombings on infrastructure in an anti-government insurgency. He travelled to many sympathetic African countries where he participated in insurgency training camps, raising funds for the MK paramilitary.

When he was arrested, there were calls for the death sentence, but instead he was locked up for life. After all, he did something to get on the watchlist.


But of course all of that is irrelevant, because he was on the FBI's watchlist and, as you say, anyone on it must have done something to be on it and should be locked up and killed...

Yep, of the monster...

That isn't what the word 'mass' means. Nor 'genocide'.

 

[polysmut]

Nice to meet you. I assume you're talking about Kim Jong Un? Don't get me started on him

I am. He's a recognisable face of a regime which offers little freedom to its citizens.

Incarceration or execution (I would be against that one) of criminals after a non-secretive trial in which guilt is demonstrated seems preferable to what you're suggesting. The route you're saying you'd prefer sounds a lot more like the kind of thing one reads about North Korea.

 

[Scaff]

All I'll say is my theory is open to more than actual terrorists like Dylan Roof.
Street gangs terrorize their communities everyday. We have a new trend of a few people waiting at gas stations ironically in stolen cars, waiting for unsuspecting people, to either steal something out of their car or the whole car. We just had a lady get run over by her own stolen car, not to long ago.
In my opinion the word terrorist can fit a number of groups. Terrorism comes in many forms.

I wish I could post The Von Haessler Doctorines Facebook Live pod cast here(he's a libertarian if you care). They touched on the subject of simply deporting/kicking people out on watch lists.

So you are calling for pretty much anybody who could be breaking the law to be arrested and executed.

Seems a bit, well like a totalitarian regime that would end up a but Kamher Rouge to me.

How long do you think it would be before you managed to fit a profile.

 

[Scaff]

Does anyone find it a tad ironic that the people "liking" the opposing argument are the same people who "liked" posts saying they didn't want to know more about the Manchester bomber and his histories.

Ignorance it seems, truly is bliss

No.

As most people are able to see the difference between knowing what in general to be vigilant about and the exact details of someone who has committed an act.

Not the same things you see.

Honestly it's really not difficult.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Touring Mars post 174 makes great points

While I agree and appreciate his stance, I feel trying to explain to people's knee jerk reactions is falling on deaf ears. Because in reality there is no possible way to stop it every time it comes up, which means no amount of trying will be fully acknowledged by all. What's even more funny and I suppose alarming is that the mass data mining and other border line acts of constitutional law bending in the U.S., is already done and molded supposedly because of the war on terror. Now I don't want to sound like certain resident fringe but it's not always easy to accept it is done for one specific reason, rather then preemptive measure to be able to control any situation, even against ones own citizens.

So I get confused because many of those people yet again angered by this like personal freedoms, but yet want Orwellian like control for others because they're under watch. I think people one don't understand that being on a watch list isn't akin to being guilty of a crime. Two they obviously think that only a certain type of person ends up on watch lists and that they themselves couldn't possibly be on one for a variety of reasons.

Also what about those who perform these acts, and aren't on a list, don't have a criminal record. All there is in the wake of things to gleam is a search history of radicalized speeches, how to construct bombs, and other smaller things. So how do you stop a person from breaking the law, when there is no warnings.

So what is the fix, for those who want massive gov't control to stop these acts?

 

[ryzno]

So you are calling for pretty much anybody who could be breaking the law to be arrested and executed.

No. More along the lines of murderers and theft crime rings and pedos and rapists.

 

[polysmut]

No. More along the lines of murderers and theft crime rings and pedos and rapists etc...

For the accused or for the guilty?

 

[Scaff]

No. More along the lines of murderers and theft crime rings and pedos and rapists etc...

Etc is a fairly wide net.

 

[ryzno]

For the accused or for the guilty?

The guilty. That's why I said lock them up.
I'm all for a fair trial.
If they are on a list and it can be proven they have terrorist ties they should dealt with not wandering our streets till the switch flips in their head.

I had a job/economy joke but I'll leave it alone.

 

[polysmut]

The guilty. That's why I said lock them up.
I'm all for a fair trial.
If they are on a list and it can be proven they have terrorist ties they should dealt with not wandering our streets till the switch flips in their head.

The way I read your posts earlier, I thought you were going down a line of locking up & executing anybody who seemed vaguely suspicious.
Reserving punishment for those who are legitimately convicted is certainly a step I can agree with.

 

[Famine]

If they are on a list and it can be proven they have terrorist ties they should dealt with not wandering our streets till the switch flips in their head.

And not watched to find out other people who might also be terrorists?

Only that's literally what the watch list (or rather the 'Terrorist Screening Database') is and what it's for, alongside stopping people from holding certain jobs, buying guns and flying places, depending on other detail.

 

[MeanElf]

...Actually yes, but not at what I would consider an acceptable rate. And I think they should be dealt with too...

I think it's a bigger problem than many are willing to accept from what I see, what with the 144th incident this year occurring earlier today. I won't go as far as some and call them all mass shootings, but they certainly involve more than one victim and continue to be a threat to normal, civilised society.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

Two of the three attackers have been named, one of whom, Kharun Butt, was very well known to the Police and security services and even featured in a documentary on Channel 4 last year called The Jihadi Next Door....

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think it's a bigger problem than many are willing to accept from what I see

Nope, you're reacting to the importance given to such events by the news. Non-terrorism murders continue to far outweigh terrorism murders, for example. So do choking deaths (sexual or otherwise), cancer, road accidents and death trumps*. At fewer than 4,000 deaths globally this year terrorists have a long way to go before they actually become dangerous to the point that the headlines suggest. Carry on letting them win by living in fear if you like, I shan't be doing so.


*I made that one up

 

[prisonermonkeys]

For any group that be considered a terrorist group, including street gangs.

Sounds an awful lot like tyranny to me. What's to stop somebody from arbitrarily declaring a person or group that they don't like to be a terrorist and then cracking down on them?

 

[Dotini]

Is there an Islamic or Muslim political party in the UK? If not, which existing party is closest to representing Muslim/Islamic interests?

 

[polysmut]

Is there an Islamic or Muslim political party in the UK? If not, which existing party is closest to representing Muslim/Islamic interests?

I've never seen such a party run a candidate in any constituency I've lived in nor seen such a party on national TV. I like to think I pay attention so I'd call it an educated guess when I say I don't think there is.
Edit:

Nope, you're reacting to the importance given to such events by the news. Non-terrorism murders continue to far outweigh terrorism murders, for example. So do choking deaths (sexual or otherwise), cancer, road accidents and death trumps*. At fewer than 4,000 deaths globally this year terrorists have a long way to go before they actually become dangerous to the point that the headlines suggest. Carry on letting them win by living in fear if you like, I shan't be doing so.


*I made that one up

In terms of overall danger, yes it's statistically insignificant.
In terms of terrorism & the reactions we sometimes see towards Islam, it's important to point out that it's not always brown faces behind the (yes, rare) violence.

 

[Tornado]

I'd probably be a terrorist too if my legal last name was Butt.

 

[mister dog]

What I also got from the amateur footage I saw was that these 3 nutjobs were moving around in group. So it's almost impossible to engage them as you might get one to the ground but then his 'brothers' would be there to stab you.

 

[Dotini]

I've never seen such a party run a candidate in any constituency I've lived in nor seen such a party on national TV. I like to think I pay attention so I'd call it an educated guess when I say I don't think there is.

In checking wikipedia, I find references to the Islamic Party of Britain and the Respect party. Both seem defunct. Which current party is picking up their former adherents? I would guess Labour.

 

[polysmut]

What I also got from the amateur footage I saw was that these 3 nutjobs were moving around in group. So it's almost impossible to engage them as you might get one to the ground but then his 'brothers' would be there to stab you.

And yet the police were able to remove the threat within minutes.
Edit:

In checking wikipedia, I find references to the Islamic Party of Britain and the Respect party. Both seem defunct. Which current party is picking up their former adherents?

I've never heard of the first.
The second was led by George Galloway (As a figurehead at least if he wasn't the actual leader). He was the Member of Parliament for Bradford West (or East?) until he lost that seat in the last General Election to, I think, Naz Shah of the Labour Party.
That's from memory, I may be corrected by someone better informed.

 

[polysmut]

New information so I don't think double posting is an issue?

I've just met somebody who says he works for ShowSec. A security company I've heard of because I've worked on events where they were present. He said his uncle worked for the same company & was killed at the MEN last week. I had a pint with him & felt his grief, tried to reassure him that the entire world isn't about to be killed by terrorists & was generally sympathetic.
Obviously he wasn't in a position to hear statistics & I'm not insensitive.