Looks like another terrorist attack on London Bridge

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Yes i thought that part was understood.

Quote:

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.

No, in the real world that's not what happens.

Most of the "Islamist terrorists" throughout Europe in recent years have been washed up and largely untalented career criminals that suddenly found religion. Driven by religious fervor yet still haunted by emotional baggage, they have found a new purpose in life that still manages to come up as unfulfilling. Ultimately, for one reason or another, "martyrdom" comes off as an increasingly appealing way to protest various perceived injustices in the society they live in and the broader world.

The fact that they feel a need to die as a necessary part of a successful terrorist attack is noteworthy and indicates that it's not just terrorism itself that motivates them. It's quite often an not-so-incidentally acceptable form of suicide, at least in their own religious extremist world-view.

These aren't hardened religious extremists that have been drilled to become warriors for their faith from childhood, it's petty criminal youths and young adults that have lived in social exclusion and quite often, while bored in prison, found what they were missing in their unfulfilling lives. That's why they don't actually use courts as a stage where they can propagate for their views: their whole worldview collapses when they are forced to come to terms with their actions.

Quote:

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

It's just like when your very own American Average Joe goes on a shooting rampage just because he lost his job. Of course he can't just shoot himself to death. He has to go on a killing spree as revenge for all the "injustice" that society has subject him to. Maybe the cops have to shoot him to death just put an end to him, but the best result would be for them to take them alive.

The reason, as with suicide terrorism, is to make "going on a rampage" as less an appealing decision. Not having to face the consequences of their actions is a key part of the appeal, and thus it's desirable if they can be held to account.

Quote:

Not if it risks more casualties.

Well duh.

[curious cat]

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.

Yep, sure. They will move from committing active physical attacks to radicalising others and supporting them. I don't have the official statistics, but from what I can see around myself: If one becomes brainwashed by this ideology, religion based especially, he rarely "ages out of it".

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by curious cat

Yep, sure. They will move from committing active physical attacks to radicalising others and supporting them. I don't have the official statistics, but from what I can see around myself: If one becomes brainwashed by this ideology, religion based especially, he rarely "ages out of it".

This can be mitigated if you keep Islamic radicals separate, or at least imprison them solely among inmates who are serving life without parole anyway.

There's a minor problem, EU prohibits life without parole and demands a parole hearing after 30 years and every 5 years hence. Of course it only demands a hearing, so that could still be workable.

McHrozni

[Worm]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What was notable, though, was how little effect this had on people's lives even a few hundred yards away.
...
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.

Sounds very similar to my experience back when I lived in London in the period just before the Good Friday Agreement. I've no idea if the mood now is the same, but back then there was very much an attitude of not allowing things to disrupt any more than necessary. I'm not sure this was all down to a overt decision, more a combination of a general social attitude, and also a certain level of ignorance - if it doesn't directly affect you, then just get on with things. Mostly all you had to know was which tube lines were affected. It was actually quite brutal.

To be honest I found it harder when I was no longer living in London, to hear - for instance - reports of the 7/7 attacks, and not know for a while if friends were safe.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

This can be mitigated if you keep Islamic radicals separate, or at least imprison them solely among inmates who are serving life without parole anyway.

There's a minor problem, EU prohibits life without parole and demands a parole hearing after 30 years and every 5 years hence. Of course it only demands a hearing, so that could still be workable.

McHrozni

Like Charlie Manson's applications for parole which legally had to be considered.

Which amounted to:

'We have to consider legally Manson's applications for parole. It has been considered. Denied".

[zooterkin]

Derail on ISIS, Al Qaeda, Western Imperialism, etc. split to here. Please keep to the topic of the recent London Bridge incident and closely related issues.

Posted By:zooterkin

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Why? I am retired police and I wondered why the police did not arrest. I had to do a bit of research to find out what the reasoning was. I did not know about Operation Kratos. Did you?

What is really sad is that yesterday twitter was full of police officers tweeting sarcastic and abusive comments and joining in with the trolling of those who did ask why the police did not arrest. I could not find a single police account that answered the question.

It is not an unreasonable question to ask, why did the police not formally arrest someone who citizens had already arrested?

I think it is very sad (and it certainly does the police no favours) to pour scorn on those who ask.

As a retired police officer in Canada I have experience in being a part of, then commanding, and then training Emergency Response Teams (ERT).
Calling a police officer "lazy" who has just gone into close quarters with a person who has an explosive device who - as you yourself stated - could be just waiting for police officers to arrive to detonate his explosive vest is anything but lazy and is a direct insult. That is what I was hoping was a joke because the alternative would be just too outrageous for words.

What you are calling "Operation Kratos" is pretty much SOP in the world when dealing with terrorists who are thought, or seen, or are claiming to have, explosive devices. Most places don't have fancy names for it but if giving something a fancy name makes you think you have created something special that's your issue to deal with - not mine.
As far as asking questions - I would have thought that the 2005 killing of Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes would have cleared up any confusion over the fact that headshots are the accepted SOP in Britain no matter how much the public whines. It was an egregious error in that an innocent man was killed - but the leadership stood behind the policy of headshots for suspected terrorists with bombs.

I think it is very sad and does the questioner no favours when they scorn brave and dedicated people who knowingly put their own lives in danger in order to protect the public under incredibly dangerous circumstances.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

I think it is very sad and does the questioner no favours when they scorn brave and dedicated people who knowingly put their own lives in danger in order to protect the public under incredibly dangerous circumstances.

Okay, lazy may not have been the right word to use but i couldn't come up with a better term to describe someone who willingly comes close to someone who (supposedly) has a bomb on them that could explode at any point and potentially kill or seriously injure them. I mean i am assuming at this point that they knew he had what looked like a bomb vest on him when they went after him. The bomb could explode at any time, since the fuse could have been lit or the triggering mechanism activated but with an intentional or unintentional delayed effect, yet shooting him is apparently treated as if it would prevent that from occurring.

If they were really brave, instead of pulling away the civilians who were on top of him and then shooting the assailant, they should've just piled on-top of him, since their lives were already potentially forfeit no matter what they did after they approached a presumed suicide bomber. Again, if they had wanted to kill as many people as possible with their bomb they would've presumably already done so during this lecture where they first attacked people with knives. The fact that the bomb had not detonated would suggest it was fake, that it was faulty or was delayed.

[curious cat]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

........................................
If they were really brave, instead of pulling away the civilians who were on top of him and then shooting the assailant, they should've just piled on-top of him,.........................................

Oh dear...The definition of "bravery" is being pushed further and further .

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by curious cat

Oh dear...The definition of "bravery" is being pushed further and further .

I really don't get it. Bravery for its own sake has no purpose. It's only admirable to take risks if it's for the sake of something worth that risk, taking a risk just to take it is stupid.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by curious cat

Oh dear...The definition of "bravery" is being pushed further and further .

ACAB I guess?

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

ACAB I guess?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doilum/14016200035

Personally I've always thought that All Cats Are Beautiful...

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Okay, lazy may not have been the right word to use but i couldn't come up with a better term to describe someone who willingly comes close to someone who (supposedly) has a bomb on them that could explode at any point and potentially kill or seriously injure them. I mean i am assuming at this point that they knew he had what looked like a bomb vest on him when they went after him. The bomb could explode at any time, since the fuse could have been lit or the triggering mechanism activated but with an intentional or unintentional delayed effect, yet shooting him is apparently treated as if it would prevent that from occurring.

If they were really brave, instead of pulling away the civilians who were on top of him and then shooting the assailant, they should've just piled on-top of him, since their lives were already potentially forfeit no matter what they did after they approached a presumed suicide bomber. Again, if they had wanted to kill as many people as possible with their bomb they would've presumably already done so during this lecture where they first attacked people with knives. The fact that the bomb had not detonated would suggest it was fake, that it was faulty or was delayed.

I think that it could have been either faulty, fake or delayed is sufficient reason to shoot. You would need to know 100% that it is a fake and it cannot explode under any circumstance before an arrest should be made.

I cannot think of a single circumstance where it could be reasonably established that a vest is 100% fake, during an ongoing attack.

Even a case where the attack stops and the attacker claims the vest is fake (so as to potentially avoid being shot) could be a trap.

There could be a dead man's trigger. The vest could also be timed to go off, so it explodes at a certain time, whether or not the attack has ended or the attacker is dead.

I do not see how that can be accounted for and so the police who go in close to shoot are being incredibly brave.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Okay, lazy may not have been the right word to use but i couldn't come up with a better term to describe someone who willingly comes close to someone who (supposedly) has a bomb on them that could explode at any point and potentially kill or seriously injure them. I mean i am assuming at this point that they knew he had what looked like a bomb vest on him when they went after him. The bomb could explode at any time, since the fuse could have been lit or the triggering mechanism activated but with an intentional or unintentional delayed effect, yet shooting him is apparently treated as if it would prevent that from occurring.

If they were really brave, instead of pulling away the civilians who were on top of him and then shooting the assailant, they should've just piled on-top of him, since their lives were already potentially forfeit no matter what they did after they approached a presumed suicide bomber. Again, if they had wanted to kill as many people as possible with their bomb they would've presumably already done so during this lecture where they first attacked people with knives. The fact that the bomb had not detonated would suggest it was fake, that it was faulty or was delayed.

Police aren't trained to 'pile on top' of people. Whilst membes o the pubic might do this using their gut reflexes and initiative, police are trained in a set reaction. This is something they will have rehearsed many times in training sessions.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

ACAB I guess?

Only if you'e a villain.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Okay, lazy may not have been the right word to use but i couldn't come up with a better term to describe someone who willingly comes close to someone who (supposedly) has a bomb on them that could explode at any point and potentially kill or seriously injure them. I mean i am assuming at this point that they knew he had what looked like a bomb vest on him when they went after him. The bomb could explode at any time, since the fuse could have been lit or the triggering mechanism activated but with an intentional or unintentional delayed effect, yet shooting him is apparently treated as if it would prevent that from occurring.

If they were really brave, instead of pulling away the civilians who were on top of him and then shooting the assailant, they should've just piled on-top of him, since their lives were already potentially forfeit no matter what they did after they approached a presumed suicide bomber. Again, if they had wanted to kill as many people as possible with their bomb they would've presumably already done so during this lecture where they first attacked people with knives.

As already mentioned, they often target the police or other security services, so wait until they arrive.

Quote:

The fact that the bomb had not detonated would suggest it was fake, that it was faulty or was delayed.

Those are possibilities, but there are others, such as the terrorist is waiting for a better moment, or is having second thoughts. In the latter case, maybe they could be apprehended alive, but I can understand why the police tactics don't allow for this, once a suicide vest is apparent.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Okay, lazy may not have been the right word to use but i couldn't come up with a better term to describe someone who willingly comes close to someone who (supposedly) has a bomb on them that could explode at any point and potentially kill or seriously injure them. I mean i am assuming at this point that they knew he had what looked like a bomb vest on him when they went after him. The bomb could explode at any time, since the fuse could have been lit or the triggering mechanism activated but with an intentional or unintentional delayed effect, yet shooting him is apparently treated as if it would prevent that from occurring.

If they were really brave, instead of pulling away the civilians who were on top of him and then shooting the assailant, they should've just piled on-top of him, since their lives were already potentially forfeit no matter what they did after they approached a presumed suicide bomber. Again, if they had wanted to kill as many people as possible with their bomb they would've presumably already done so during this lecture where they first attacked people with knives. The fact that the bomb had not detonated would suggest it was fake, that it was faulty or was delayed.

So you weren't joking in your previous post.
Are you joking in this post?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

So you weren't joking in your previous post.
Are you joking in this post?

It's a pertinent question to ask as it is not within the police's remit to mete out justice.

We can then look at the circumstances and the chronology. Most people cannot see the police had any alternative here, unlike in the Charles de Mendez case.

In any case, it will automatically go to the IPCC, as all deaths caused by the police or in police custody do.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It's a pertinent question to ask as it is not within the police's remit to mete out justice.

We can then look at the circumstances and the chronology. Most people cannot see the police had any alternative here, unlike in the Charles de Mendez case.

In any case, it will automatically go to the IPCC, as all deaths caused by the police or in police custody do.

The police were not meting out justice. That is called vigilantism. Using fatal force in order to stop the detonation of a bomb designed to kill and/or main people is not vigilantism.

If they were acting as vigilantes - as you purport - then you would have to have evidence that the thoughts going through the police officer's minds before they pulled the trigger was: "I have decided that this person needs to be punished for this crime and I will shoot them in the head as punishment."
Please provide your evidence.

[Matthew Best]

And stop calling him "Mendez".

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It's a pertinent question to ask as it is not within the police's remit to mete out justice.

We can then look at the circumstances and the chronology. Most people cannot see the police had any alternative here, unlike in the Charles de Mendez case.

Jean Charles de Menezes.

Quote:

In any case, it will automatically go to the IPCC, as all deaths caused by the police or in police custody do.

IOPC.