Looks like another terrorist attack on London Bridge

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by casebro

Or will the zero tolerance policies we are using on raising our children mean fewer heroes in the future?

You've already acknowledged that you're talking about what is supposedly happening in the US, so it has sod all to do with events in the UK.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Narwhal tusk man was a Polish kitchen worker - not a delegate - identified only as 'Lukasz'.


Bloody EU citizen confronting our terrorists.

Bloody foreigners coming over here and spearing our yobs.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

If my toaster caught fire, ISIS would claim responsibility.

This seems a little bit exaggerated to me. Usman Khan, the perpetrator of the London Bridge attack, had recently been jailed because of terrorism-related offenses (for which he had pleaded guilty), he was said to have beeen inspired by Al-Qaeda. In addition, he was wearing a fake suicide belt when he was shot by police.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usman_Khan_(militant), https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-from-prison

I do not know if there was any actual contact or relation between the Islamic State and Khan (perhaps not). Nevertheless, it seems to me Western policies based on expansionism, illegal invasions, sanctions, censorship and massive killing of militants are perhaps not exactly the best method to make many friends in the Islamic world. Perhaps there was indeed some kind of relationship between these policies and Khan's undoubtedly violent action.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This seems a little bit exaggerated to me.

[curious cat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The police IMV were clearly extremely well-trained, prompt and effective. They immediately pulled the 'hero' attackers away from the perp and had him surrounded. They warned him. They feared a gun. They saw the contraption around his body. Their response was exactly correct and absolutely unavoidable having put themselves in harm's way.

Leaving alone the undeniable professionalism and efficiency of the police, let's look at it from the taxpayer point of view: ammunition is cheap, lawyers are expensive. As far as I am concerned, at the point it becomes obvious we are dealing with a terrorist, all humanitarian perspectives should go aside and only practical and safety measures should be implemented. I believe that is what happened here. Thumps up!

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

They want the same crap that they didn't get on all the previous occasions. They never learn.

Not the knife guys, but on 9/11 Americans were turned into a cowardly nation of terrorists themselves.
Sometimes it does work

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

The attacks in Western Europe in recent years have echoed what has happened elsewhere for a long time. Soft targets like markets, shopping centres or places of entertainment where large crowds are gathered and which are lightly defended are far easier to be successful than targeting a military base or political establishment, and generate lots of publicity.

Terrorism is by definition attacks on soft targets

[Darat]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

The attacks in Western Europe in recent years have echoed what has happened elsewhere for a long time. Soft targets like markets, shopping centres or places of entertainment where large crowds are gathered and which are lightly defended are far easier to be successful than targeting a military base or political establishment, and generate lots of publicity.

Aren't the likes of Spain and the UK part of western europe?

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

You must be joking.

These people want to die. They want to become "martyrs". That's why they have fake bomb vests. They don't want to be shot and arrested, or worse: just pummeled to the floor and arrested. They want the cops to shoot to kill.

The best response, that's most demoralizing to these terrorists, is by capturing them alive and holding them to account in court. That subjects them to the things that they wanted to avoid by dying. Just shooting them plays into the "martyrdom" notion that ideologically justifies what is quite often little more than a suicide by cop attack.

Thus taking them alive is preferable to killing them.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

These people want to die. They want to become "martyrs". That's why they have fake bomb vests. They don't want to be shot and arrested, or worse: just pummeled to the floor and arrested. They want the cops to shoot to kill.

The best response, that's most demoralizing to these terrorists, is by capturing them alive and holding them to account in court. That subjects them to the things that they wanted to avoid by dying. Just shooting them plays into the "martyrdom" notion that ideologically justifies what is quite often little more than a suicide by cop attack.

Thus taking them alive is preferable to killing them.

Yes, this is all correct (IMO), but your final sentence - while idealistically true - is extremely impractical in practice. If armed police move in on a man who purports to be wearing an explosive vest (and especially if he announces that he's wearing such a vest and intends to use it (as this London Bridge offender may well have been doing)), then police really do have little option but to shoot to kill.

Any other option could end in catastrophe. The man might elect to detonate the vest at any time, potentially killing or injuring anyone reasonably close to him (including the police officers themselves). Or the man might say he's giving himself up peacefully, but when the police move in to seize and restrain him, he detonates the vest, almost certainly killing the police officer(s) who were restraining him, plus potentially killing or wounding others as well.

In respect of this London Bridge incident, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) will investigate the circumstances and actions around the police's killing of this man (they automatically investigate every instance of deadly use of a firearm by a police officer). But I'm highly confident that in respect of this particular case, the IOPC will find that the decisions and actions of the police at the scene in shooting this man dead were appropriate, proportionate, justified and lawful.

[curious cat]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

These people want to die. They want to become "martyrs". That's why they have fake bomb vests. They don't want to be shot and arrested, or worse: just pummeled to the floor and arrested. They want the cops to shoot to kill.

The best response, that's most demoralizing to these terrorists, is by capturing them alive and holding them to account in court. That subjects them to the things that they wanted to avoid by dying. Just shooting them plays into the "martyrdom" notion that ideologically justifies what is quite often little more than a suicide by cop attack.

Thus taking them alive is preferable to killing them.

While I agree with you about the psychology of these freaks, I find your solution rather impractical and leading to theatrical multi-million dollars lawsuits with uncertain outcomes. And worse: often gives the perpetrators chance to reoffend - exactly like in this case. I would tend to be generous and give them what they want - as quickly and cleanly as possible. As this method also in most cases reduces the number of innocent victims, I believe the "victory" they achieve by getting killed will look rather pathetic and hopefully discourage followers. Just saying ;-).

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

These people want to die. They want to become "martyrs".

Yes, but in order to satisfy that desire, they need to die accomplishing something they find meaningful. Dying isn't enough by itself. For example, if they try to kill a bunch of kafir but fail to even injure anyone, then their death would be a failure, not a success.

Quote:

The best response, that's most demoralizing to these terrorists, is by capturing them alive and holding them to account in court.

No, actually, it isn't. Having their day in court gives them a chance to posture in front of the whole world, to show off their faith. It may be second best to martyrdom, but they'll still happily exploit the opportunity for publicity.

Quote:

Just shooting them plays into the "martyrdom" notion that ideologically justifies what is quite often little more than a suicide by cop attack.

The guy wanted to kill lots of people. That's a lot more than suicide by cop.

Quote:

Thus taking them alive is preferable to killing them.

Not if it risks more casualties.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

These people want to die. They want to become "martyrs". That's why they have fake bomb vests. They don't want to be shot and arrested, or worse: just pummeled to the floor and arrested. They want the cops to shoot to kill.

The best response, that's most demoralizing to these terrorists, is by capturing them alive and holding them to account in court.

And sentencing them to a couple years in jail.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And sentencing them to a couple years in jail.

Deconvert them. Make them into atheists.

[LondonJohn]

And on the subject of terrorism, "martyrdom" and motivation.... it's well worth at least attempting to understand the processes and underlying causation which ends up with people (predominantly men between the ages of 18 and 35) electing to perform illegal acts such as the one under discussion in this thread.

When it comes to the UK in particular, it's not hard to put the pieces of the jigsaw together, when it comes to the indoctrination of these categories of men with Islamist extremism, and the consequent link to terrorist offences. The men carrying out these offences are almost always disaffected and hostile to the society in which they live. In the case of Islamist extremists, more often than not they are young men who have felt rejected by society (for example, they may have failed in their work lives or their relationships), and they have either directly or indirectly experienced racist behaviour aimed at Muslims.

And then, in an attempt to search for meaning and identity, and in a quest to "be somebody", they turn to the more extreme interpreters of the Quran. These teachings ratchet up the idea that Muslims are being persecuted by "Western" governments and majority populations, and that it is the duty of all good Muslims to rise up and correct these injustices. This gives these young men two crucial things: 1) a rationale for extreme violence against society (and "permission" to engage in such violent offending); and 2) an opportunity to do something of (perceived) real worth and importance in their lives.

In order to at least attempt to address all of this, governments really need to dig right down to these sorts of underlying fundamentals and try to "break the chain". Certainly much more education (and effective education) is desperately required within Muslim communities. I'd also suggest that moderate clerics, teachers and other respected "elders" within the Muslim communities need to be persuaded to take a far more active role in looking out for these sorts of disaffected and disillusioned young men, in order to attempt to steer them in a direction which does not end up in extremism and violence. There also needs to be a different, and far more proactive, approach to tackling the problem of fomentation of extremist ideas and "solutions" among young male Muslims - most especially in prisons. And finally, I'd like to see existing legislation used far, far more proactively in taking extremist Islamic clerics out of circulation; this would also (necessarily) include multinational law enforcement cooperation to expose and eradicate internet-based extremist rhetoric and iinstruction.

And while aggressive prosecution and harsh sentencing for the young male offenders themselves has its merits, it most certainly is not the answer in and of itself.


(And yes, I realise that the perpetrator of this latest London Bridge attack doesn't quite fit into all of the categories I outlined above, since he was only 16 (IIRC) when he was convicted of plotting terrorism, and only released last year. But I'd say there's a high probability that he fomented and cultivated extremist Islamist ideas within a group of likeminded men while in prison, and that he was further influenced by radical Islamist teaching and rhetoric - whether in real life or online - in the time between his release and his attack)

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Venom

Deconvert them. Make them into atheists.

We don’t seem to be able to even deradicalize them.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And while aggressive prosecution and harsh sentencing for the young male offenders themselves has its merits, it most certainly is not the answer in and of itself.

Harsh persecution has two factors, one is deterrence and this doesn't work on suicide fanatics. The second factor is removing them from society for long enough not to be a threat any more. Prison indoctrination counteracts that to a significant extent.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is in Islam, either in the texts or how it is practiced. Given the results we observe Islam badly needs a reform that will establish a central authority for spiritualist matters and decry one set of the many self-contradictory beliefs that form Islam as heretical. Hopefully they'd pick the violent ones.

Before anyone attacks me with the standard "but what about Christians?!" deflection, I'll say the same thing about Christians if and when Christian youths start sacrificing their lives for the sake of killing random unbelievers globally and for the sake of their god and faith. Until that happens this line of reasoning is just a pathetic non sequitur.

McHrozni

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Something like 30% of Guantanamo inmates who have been released returned to combat. Percentages of Brits convicted domestically who will reoffend may be different, but this certainly suggests recidivism is a major problem with terrorists. Which shouldn't surprise anyone.

Not true.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This seems a little bit exaggerated to me. Usman Khan, the perpetrator of the London Bridge attack, had recently been jailed because of terrorism-related offenses (for which he had pleaded guilty), he was said to have beeen inspired by Al-Qaeda. In addition, he was wearing a fake suicide belt when he was shot by police.

Not true.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We don’t seem to be able to even deradicalize them.

Actually trying, by supporting the programmes to manage this would be a useful start.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Not true.

What exactly is not true in that statement, according to you? (see the links I gave in that post).

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Not true.

Here, let me put it in a way that's entirely true:

Up to 30% of Guantanamo inmates who have been released returned to combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...d_to_terrorism

We know ~17% have and that's about one in six. That's hardly a small number. Another one in eight are suspected to have done the same, I'm sure at least some of the reports on those are accurate.

McHrozni

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Michel H

What exactly is not true in that statement, according to you? (see the links I gave in that post).

The bit I highlighted. Hint the conviction was not "recent".

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Here, let me put it in a way that's entirely true:

Up to 30% of Guantanamo inmates who have been released returned to combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...d_to_terrorism

We know ~17% have and that's about one in six. That's hardly a small number. Another one in eight are suspected to have done the same, I'm sure at least some of the reports on those are accurate.

McHrozni

Those numbers are recycled from the Post piece; the more detailed study, by the New America Foundation, compiled from DoD reports, news stories and other public information gives a figure of 54 out of 620, or ~8.7%.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Those numbers are recycled from the Post piece; the more detailed study, by the New America Foundation, compiled from DoD reports, news stories and other public information gives a figure of 54 out of 620, or ~8.7%.

DNI has 21% as definitely rejoining the fight and another 14% suspected.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170801...17-Release.pdf

The report was done just before Trump was inaugurated so it was compiled under Obama. A significant portion of detainees released from GTMO rejoined the ranks, that much is clear.

McHrozni

[Dave Rogers]

I was quite close to this one. I met up with my daughter on Friday for a trip round HMS Belfast, then we both met my son for lunch afterwards. I walked over London Bridge on the way there, and HMS Belfast is about a quarter of a mile away with a good view of the full length of the bridge. We were below decks when the attack happened, and came up to the sound of sirens, helicopters and river police boats, and could see all the blue lights flashing and traffic stationary on the bridge. We had a vague idea of what was going on from news reports on people's phones, but not much detail. What was notable, though, was how little effect this had on people's lives even a few hundred yards away. After lunch we decided to head back to Liverpool Street via Tower Bridge because anybody could see that nobody was crossing London Bridge that afternoon without a badge, and there were a few police cars cutting through the traffic and officers directing cars away from the scene, but people were still going about their business - I bought a couple of Christmas presents from a market stall by the river, and the afternoon's Extinction Rebellion protest went ahead undisturbed. If this sort of thing is supposed to disrupt the life of the city and make everyone live in fear, it seems to be doing a pretty crap job of it.

Dave

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by curious cat

While I agree with you about the psychology of these freaks, I find your solution rather impractical and leading to theatrical multi-million dollars lawsuits with uncertain outcomes.

Er... what?!

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And sentencing them to a couple years in jail.

They wouldn't get "a couple of years in jail."

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We don’t seem to be able to even deradicalize them.

Is that one of those "100% or nothing" arguments? If deradicalisation was not possible, we would be knee-deep in attacks by previously-released prisoners, which we obviously aren't.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Is that one of those "100% or nothing" arguments?

No. It's an argument for extra caution when considering releasing convicted terrorists early.

Quote:

If deradicalisation was not possible, we would be knee-deep in attacks by previously-released prisoners, which we obviously aren't.

That doesn't actually follow. Just as not all radicals commit terrorism, a terrorist might cease to commit terrorism while still being a radical. But radicals who don't themselves commit terrorism can still be a problem.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Here, let me put it in a way that's entirely true:

Up to 30% of Guantanamo inmates who have been released returned to combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_...d_to_terrorism

We know ~17% have and that's about one in six. That's hardly a small number. Another one in eight are suspected to have done the same, I'm sure at least some of the reports on those are accurate.

McHrozni

From the wikipedia reference. "National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, stated that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released at that time."

So being critical of US foreign policy may be enough to get you labelled as a terrorist. Certainly the US has assassinated people whose speach they found unfriendly. The right to free speach only extends to US citizens.

I would also question whether participating in a civil war or resisting foreign occupying forces is terrorism, if so then all the US 'founding fathers' would probably meet the definition of terrorist used in these documents. The same people doing the same thing when the Russians were in Afghanistan were called liberation fighters. I think it is telling the use of the term 'returned to the battlefield', the battlefield is not where you find terrorists*.

ETA I would not define this act as terrorism this is a typical 'special forces ' action against military materiel, and would be regarded as a legitimate military action. 'Taliban military commander for Afghanistan; Organizaed an assault on U.S. military aircraft in Afghanistan'.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Planigale

From the wikipedia reference. "National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, stated that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released at that time."

You should also note this is as of 2009. The report cited is from 2017. I don't even dispute the 2009 report as inaccurate, it could well be spot on - just eight to ten years out of date.

Quote:

I would also question whether participating in a civil war or resisting foreign occupying forces is terrorism, if so then all the US 'founding fathers' would probably meet the definition of terrorist used in these documents. The same people doing the same thing when the Russians were in Afghanistan were called liberation fighters. I think it is telling the use of the term 'returned to the battlefield', the battlefield is not where you find terrorists*.

ETA I would not define this act as terrorism this is a typical 'special forces ' action against military materiel, and would be regarded as a legitimate military action. 'Taliban military commander for Afghanistan; Organizaed an assault on U.S. military aircraft in Afghanistan'.

Afganistan is not under foreign occupation. The country is ruled by an internationally recognized Afghani government, assisted by foreign forces to fight a domestic insurrection of Islamic supremacists.

Afghan government and the world at large consider them terrorists, thanks to all the terrorist attacks they do. Not all of their actions may be recognized as such, but this is senmantics.

McHrozni

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Planigale

I would also question whether participating in a civil war or resisting foreign occupying forces is terrorism

He said "returned to combat". Participating in a civil war or attacking foreign military presence certainly count as returning to combat. And yes, it might not be terrorism per se, but it's still a bad thing, and can lead rather directly to people getting killed.

When we talk about criminal recidivism rates, we don't generally care exactly what crime they commit. If a convicted burglar commits grand theft auto after being released from prison, the fact that he committed a different crime than he was first convicted of isn't exactly a consolation.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by catsmate

The bit I highlighted. Hint the conviction was not "recent".

Actually, I didn't say he was convicted recently, I said he was jailed recently:

Originally Posted by Michel H

Usman Khan, the perpetrator of the London Bridge attack, had recently been jailed because of terrorism-related offenses (for which he had pleaded guilty)

Nevertheless, I could probably have expressed myself better, by saying for example "Usman Khan has been in jail until one year ago". In addition, I see now there are two other problems in my post #83; an incorrect wikipedia link (missing parenthesis), and I typed "beeen" instead of "been". So, I replace this post by:

This seems a little bit exaggerated to me. Usman Khan, the perpetrator of the London Bridge attack, has been jailed until one year ago because of terrorism-related offenses (for which he had pleaded guilty), he was said to have been inspired by Al-Qaeda. In addition, he was wearing a fake suicide belt when he was shot by police.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usman_Khan_(militant), https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-from-prison

I do not know if there was any actual contact or relation between the Islamic State and Khan (perhaps not). Nevertheless, it seems to me Western policies based on expansionism, illegal invasions, sanctions, censorship and massive killing of militants are perhaps not exactly the best method to make many friends in the Islamic world. Perhaps there was indeed some kind of relationship between these policies and Khan's undoubtedly violent action.

Feel free to let me know if you feel there are further problems with that post.

[ceptimus]

It's a shame our politicians just can't be honest about their policies. They should say that all convicted terrorists can't be kept in prison forever, and that everyone must accept that a small proportion of those released will subsequently commit atrocities. The politicians are prepared to accept what they hope will be only a small number of murders for the sake of expediency.

The only alternatives are capital punishment or whole life imprisonment - and the latter would likely mean increased funding for bigger, better, or more, prisons.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The only alternatives are capital punishment or whole life imprisonment

No, those aren't the only alternatives. Longer prison sentences are also an option. This would still increase expenses, of course. But terrorism is mostly a young man's game. Hold them for a few decades, and they may age out of it.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, those aren't the only alternatives. Longer prison sentences are also an option. This would still increase expenses, of course. But terrorism is mostly a young man's game. Hold them for a few decades, and they may age out of it.

Yes. Tricky to decide exactly when a prisoner becomes 'safe' though, and it would likely be a very different age for different individuals. For politicians making the laws, they would likely have to leave such decisions to parole boards or similar.

There might still be rare examples of released prisoners committing murder again. Such a policy would still leave (honest) politicians having to say, "We accept there is a (very) small chance that some people will be killed by released terrorists." In principle, no different to what politicians should be saying right now.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Actually trying, by supporting the programmes to manage this would be a useful start.

Would cost money, Tories have cut funding to all areas of the prison service and the probation service for the last 10 years. There is no money for research or rehabilitation, all we are doing is warehousing prisoners.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's a shame our politicians just can't be honest about their policies. They should say that all convicted terrorists can't be kept in prison forever, and that everyone must accept that a small proportion of those released will subsequently commit atrocities. The politicians are prepared to accept what they hope will be only a small number of murders for the sake of expediency.

The only alternatives are capital punishment or whole life imprisonment - and the latter would likely mean increased funding for bigger, better, or more, prisons.

Or spend money on creating deradicalism programmes that work.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Or spend money on creating deradicalism programmes that work.

Is that even possible? I suspect it is not.