Topic: Terrorism Incident outside UK Parliament

[TepidT2O]

Anyone wanting to read about why people get radicalised should 'radical' by Maajid Nawaz..

A remarkable account.. all the more remarkable that he had the ability to deradicalize himself..

[kcbworth]

A friend of a friend was radicalised and made the national news after he was arrested (along with a few pthers, but he was the leader) for an attempted terrorist plot where the plan was nail bombs or something.

My friend said the guy was always very academic, got top grades from school to university, had a normal family who just wanted him to get a good career and had a very normal child hood, free of any major issues like bullying or anything that would cause trauma.

However he said that the guy always wanted to be with the 'In' crowd. He was concious about his weight at school and wasnt easy going enough to not care. He would want to be part of the group of boys taking the piss out of people and not have the piss taken out of him and  was  insecure in that regard.

Clearly whoever radicalised him was aware of such a personality and were able to 'turn' him. The sense of identity and the offer of being part of a group or a cause is a strong tool in recruiting people with even small levels of insecurity.

Makes a lot of sense

[Cliff Bastin]

I totally get your points, but people in those countries also need to help themselves, there was a time when we burnt witches, and cheered on public executions in the streets. Incidentally in that time, Muslims were travelling, trading, writing books and building libraries. We have moved forward. they have gone backwards. They should not rely on our interventions or lack of, they slaughter a lot of their own people in the name of religion and in pursuit of power. At some stage they started to blame the west as a form of denial to their own failure. There are no checks and balances systems in those countries, if you have the power, you enslave your people. These countries have money, the worlds natural resources, they once held all the education centres, scientific advances, arts, they were civilised when Europe was barbaric. They should be showing the way forward in democracy, not blaming the west just to absolve themselves from how they ruined a once rich civilisation.
While there is a degree of greed in how the west chooses it's interventions, nearly every place that got invaded was a hell hole where one group were slaughtering another, and something had to be done.

Islam has been spread by the sword for centuries, the very founder of it is testament to that. This idea that Islam at the time of say Henry VIII was peaceful and enlightened is odd. Islam never went through the enlightenment.

[Redman0151]

Islam has been spread by the sword for centuries, the very founder of it is testament to that. This idea that Islam at the time of say Henry VIII was peaceful and enlightened is odd. Islam never went through the enlightenment.

The excuse making and deflections for Islam are incredibly weak, usually involve mentioning the Crusades or George Bush.

Islam is a horrible religion as the human rights atrocities occurring in Muslim countries should show you, it removes freedom and teaches violence as the answer.

[J_Kopite]

And the achievements of those people in Islamic societies back then, especially with regards to mathematics, astronomy etc were done in spite of religion not because of it.

[Cliff Bastin]

The excuse making and deflections for Islam are incredibly weak, usually involve mentioning the Crusades or George Bush.

Islam is a horrible religion as the human rights atrocities occurring in Muslim countries should show you, it removes freedom and teaches violence as the answer.

I don't believe in any religion. But the countries which have Islam as the driving force behind them in law and ideology, they are horrible countries looking at it from a liberal perspective. The persecution of homosexuals, horrendous treatment of women is pretty damning.

Even when you look at the time of the Crusades, a horrific period in history full of religious fervor but the perception from a lot of people is Christianity in Europe one day woke up and decided to Crusade to the Holy land without mentioning the fact that Christianity had dominated Europe for much of late antiquity until the 8th century when the caliphate conquered regions from the Byzantine Empire and attacks on other parts of Europe including Italy.

[TepidT2O]

And the achievements of those people in Islamic societies back then, especially with regards to mathematics, astronomy etc were done in spite of religion not because of it.

Not sure I agree...

Back in the Middle Ages, religious scholars (monks etcetc) were pretty much the only 'learned' people in the world... religion supported their studies...

[J_Kopite]

Maybe you're right made, but scientific findings didn't always please the mullahs. This is from  The Athiest Muslim by Ali Rizvi (a terrific read):

[TepidT2O]

Maybe you're right made, but scientific findings didn't always please the mullahs. This is from  The Athiest Muslim by Ali Rizvi (a terrific read):

Oh yes, I totally agree

[jason67]

We invaded Iraq, which represented absolutely no threat to us, and which had never acted in aggression directly against 'the West'. Indeed, we installed and armed Saddam Hussein in the first place.


Now let me give you both another example - Saudi Arabia. They are the principle financial sponsors (as in individuals from within the country) of Islamic terrorism. They are one of the World's most brutal theocracies - yet we support them, arm them, are supporting them in their bombing campaign on Yemen and, of course, we fund their entire system by buying their oil - something we are making no attempt to find alternatives to, guns which we are making no attempt to stop selling even as children in Yemen starve.

In what way does that support equate with either a desire for peace, or a serious effort at allowing independent development?

It suits the west to have an Islamic bogeyman in order to prop up corporate and state power in our own nations, keep our population scared, and keep the oil flowing. Development and democracy don't come into it - facts which are repeatedly made clear from our own declassified files.

Good post that, it's a pity that none on here were able to reply to it.

[Alan_X]

Not sure I agree...

Back in the Middle Ages, religious scholars (monks etcetc) were pretty much the only 'learned' people in the world... religion supported their studies...

The middle ages, when science stood still for centuries - fucking around with mistaken and backwards ideas about the nature of the world around  us. It was the enlightenment that finally saw off he oppression of church and state, when science and reason unrestrained by religion allowed real advances in understanding and quality of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

[Alan_X]

...It suits the west to have an Islamic bogeyman in order to prop up corporate and state power in our own nations, keep our population scared, and keep the oil flowing. Development and democracy don't come into it - facts which are repeatedly made clear from our own declassified files.

What a load of bollocks. There are numbskulls around the world that might fear an islamic bogeyman, and shit politicians like Trump, Frottage and Le Pen who play on it, but most normal people aren't 'scared' as you suggest. No one in London has changed their habits because of Wednesday. There are sensible protections at aiports, stations and major targets, but I travelled through London as normal today, went for a walk in the park and  went to the pub for a few beers. Not one single person was 'scared' of terrorism.

[redbyrdz]

What a load of bollocks. There are numbskulls around the world that might fear an islamic bogeyman, and shit politicians like Trump, Frottage and Le Pen who play on it, but most normal people aren't 'scared' as you suggest. No one in London has changed their habits because of Wednesday. There are sensible protections at aiports, stations and major targets, but I travelled through London as normal today, went for a walk in the park and  went to the pub for a few beers. Not one single person was 'scared' of terrorism.

I think he means it suits those in power, not individuals.  Governments, companies, banks etc. The spectre of terrorism is being used to erode privacy laws and civil rights. 

[jason67]

Your not honestly suggesting the USA should impose sanctions while Bin Ladens Taliban train terrorists.
maybe am wrong but weren't the USA bombing these camps well before 9/11?
Sadam gassed his own people, we had reason to believe he did have weapons of mass destruction.
To be honest am confused over this Weapons of mass destruction argument, as they did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they are not in good condition but they are still intended to kill. Sarin for one. I assume ive got the wrong end of the stick and wonder why people claim they found nothing.
[b]Well I dont know how old you are or whether you followed events as they unfolded after 9/11 but Sadam misjudged the USA badly. Bush addressed the nation days after 9/11 he said they will go after anyone wherever they may be who was involved in 9/11.he warned every country not to harbour these terrorists otherwise they will be viewed as enemy's of the USA. this doesn't seem to get mentioned now but there was a lot of talk about this at the time, Sadam was harbouring terrorists as well.[/b]
Ive always put the USA decision to invade Iraq down to this more than anything else.
This was no time to piss the USA off he should have gone out of his way to help the USA. as I say he misjudged the situation badly.

First, where do you think the weapons to gas his own people came from? One of those factories that were producing WMD that were never found? They were supplied by the west (us) to use against Iran in the '80s. You can't produce and sell something like that, then put it in the hand of some guy to use for your advantage, then turn around 30 years later and use it as a secondary excuse wage war.
They used this bullshit story long after the invasion along with the 'liberation of Iraq' when they didn't find WMD.

As for your second point I'm not quite sure how many Iraqis were involved in 911, but I seemed to remember that there were a couple of Saudis involved weren't there? Why didn't we go over there and invade them?

[oldfordie]

First, where do you think the weapons to gas his own people came from? One of those factories that were producing WMD that were never found? They were supplied by the west (us) to use against Iran in the '80s. You can't produce and sell something like that, then put it in the hand of some guy to use for your advantage, then turn around 30 years later and use it as a secondary excuse wage war.
They used this bullshit story long after the invasion along with the 'liberation of Iraq' when they didn't find WMD.

As for your second point I'm not quite sure how many Iraqis were involved in 911, but I seemed to remember that there were a couple of Saudis involved weren't there? Why didn't we go over there and invade them?

Yeah they do say the USA supplied WMD to Iraq yrs before and it stinks but the fact still remains Sarin and other chemical weapons were found after the invasion and it mystifys me why people say no WMD were ever found.
Do you remember the tension during this period? the USA were ready to march into Pakistan to stop the rioting, the world was scared fanatics would take over nuclear plants. Pakistan reacted to sort out the problem.
Saudi Arabia supported the invasion of Iraq was there any reason to believe they were harbouring terrorists.
If I remember right the USA pointed out areas of Iraq were Al-Qaeda were coming and going as they please. I do know the USA warned every country in the world not to give a safe haven to these terrorists. the Russians stood back and let the USA get on with it, shame Sadam didn't have the common sense to do the same.

[puroresu_kid]

Wanna make people hate you. Just keep dropping bombs.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-mosul-civilians-airstrike-20170324-story.html

[jason67]

Saudi Arabia supported the invasion of Iraq was there any reason to believe they were harbouring terrorists.
If I remember right the USA pointed out areas of Iraq were Al-Qaeda were coming and going as they please. I do know the USA warned every country in the world not to give a safe haven to these terrorists. the Russians stood back and let the USA get on with it, shame Sadam didn't have the common sense to do the same.

I'd say there were 15 reasons, wouldn't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

[oldfordie]

I'd say there were 15 reasons, wouldn't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

What's your point? why would the USA have invaded Saudi Arabia.

[jDJ]

The invasion of Iraq was about regime change, not hunting down terrorists.

[jDJ]

And if you want a lesson in why supporting corrupt Middle East dictators who oppress their own people is a solid strategy - take a look at the fucking hell holes which have been left in the wake of the Arab spring.

[The North Bank]

And if you want a lesson in why supporting corrupt Middle East dictators who oppress their own people is a solid strategy - take a look at the fucking hell holes which have been left in the wake of the Arab spring.

Its a solid strategy, unless you're the one getting oppressed. .
9/11 happened while all the tyrants were in power, its not as if terrorism didnt exist before the Arab spring.
The problem is not having a post tyrant plan, the plan was always to get rid of the tyrant, very little thought to what happens next, so we end up here.

[oldfordie]

The invasion of Iraq was about regime change, not hunting down terrorists.

Of course it was, why did the USA want a change of regime.

[oldfordie]

Its a solid strategy, unless you're the one getting oppressed. .
9/11 happened while all the tyrants were in power, its not as if terrorism didnt exist before the Arab spring.
The problem is not having a post tyrant plan, the plan was always to get rid of the tyrant, very little thought to what happens next, so we end up here.

The no plan mistake apply's to Afghanistan, they pulled troops out far to quickly, this led to anarchy, it led to a small group of gangsters forming the Taliban.
The USA learned from this so there was a plan for Iraq, no pull out of troops until Iraq had a government of their own choosing, no anarchy.

[The North Bank]

The no plan mistake apply's to Afghanistan, they pulled troops out far to quickly, this led to anarchy, it led to a small group of gangsters forming the Taliban.
The USA learned from this so there was a plan for Iraq, no pull out of troops until Iraq had a government of their own choosing, no anarchy.

The first thing the new iraqi government did was settle scores and avenge decades of brutality by Saddams supporters, so they started executing people in their thousands, those people ended up forming the basis of Isis, an even more brutal group than anything seen before. So while the Americans did put in a government, it wasnt a government which represented or protected all Iraqis, as governments ought to do, to legitimize themselves.
Having a plan doomed to failure is not too different from not having a plan.

[oldfordie]

The first thing the new iraqi government did was settle scores and avenge decades of brutality by Saddams supporters, so they started executing people in their thousands, those people ended up forming the basis of Isis, an even more brutal group than anything seen before. So while the Americans did put in a government, it wasnt a government which represented or protected all Iraqis, as governments ought to do, to legitimize themselves.
Having a plan doomed to failure is not too different from not having a plan.

Your talking about Sadams Republican guard.they were the regime. their military leaders did go on to form ISIS.

[The North Bank]

Your talking about Sadams Republican guard.they were the regime. their military leaders did go on to form ISIS.

Yes, they're also Iraqis, and have families, and are the leaders of a large Sunni community, the Americans sentenced them all to death by letting the new government exact revenge for decades of oppression. Isis were inevitable in such a climate. They just moved around the deck chairs so the oppressed became the oppressor, its hardly democracy.

[Cliff Bastin]

The invasion of Iraq was about regime change, not hunting down terrorists.

Invasion of Iraq is the worst decision of my lifetime.

[oldfordie]

Yes, they're also Iraqis, and have families, and are the leaders of a large Sunni community, the Americans sentenced them all to death by letting the new government exact revenge for decades of oppression. Isis were inevitable in such a climate. They just moved around the deck chairs so the oppressed became the oppressor, its hardly democracy.

Ahh poor republican guard,all they did was imprison.torture and kill any opposition to Sadam. they then fought to keep power over Iraq.am sure their were many old scores to settle and ive no problem with it but this was about keeping power over Iraq. these people did go on to form ISIS, it's a shame they didn't wipe them all out.
An oppressive government doesn't fight for democratic elections. the people who fought to stop this happening are the oppressors.

[jDJ]

Of course it was, why did the USA want a change of regime.

They wanted to create a beacon of Western liberal democracy in the heart of the middle east which would eventually influence the rest of the region.

Invasion of Iraq is the worst decision of my lifetime.

I agree, I was against the invasion of Iraq but it's pretty obvious what it was trying to achieve.  The invasion of Afghanistan was about 9/11 revenge and seeking out terrorists, Iraq was a completely different endeavour.  Invading Afghanistan actually made even less sense than invading Iraq but in the wake of 9/11 it felt inevitable.

[oldfordie]

They wanted to create a beacon of Western liberal democracy in the heart of the middle east which would eventually influence the rest of the region.

Well,no. the USA made of point of allowing Iraq to hold elections for the government the people wanted not a beacon of western liberal democracy.
I think we need to stop and think about what is being argued here. are we pro democracy or are we supporting the people who wanted a vicious dictatorship.

[jDJ]

I think we need to stop and think about what is being argued here. are we pro democracy or are we supporting the people who wanted a vicious dictatorship.

The last 15 years or so in that region has taught me the question is nowhere near as simple as that.

[The North Bank]

Ahh poor republican guard,all they did was imprison.torture and kill any opposition to Sadam. they then fought to keep power over Iraq.am sure their were many old scores to settle and ive no problem with it but this was about keeping power over Iraq. these people did go on to form ISIS, it's a shame they didn't wipe them all out.
An oppressive government doesn't fight for democratic elections. the people who fought to stop this happening are the oppressors.

40% of Iraq are Sunnis, if you wipe them all out to create a state that is friendly to the west, you are committing genocide, and that is before you look and see an Iraq and Iran united by religion creating the biggest power broker in the region, and your allies in Saudi Arabia and Israel quaking in their boots at the prospect, so you declare the new shia alliance as terrorism and we go again. Keep throwing fuel on it and wonder why the fire is burning.
Where I do agree is that its a dammed if you do and dammed if you dont scenario, had they left Saddam and the likes in place, you'd be sitting back watching genocides take place.
In the end peace has to happen from within, no western power can create or enforce it.

[Alan_X]

I agree, I was against the invasion of Iraq but it's pretty obvious what it was trying to achieve... 

I'm not sure it is. Mainly because I don't think there was one coherent aim. As you so rightly say:

The last 15 years or so in that region has taught me the question is nowhere near as simple as that.

[oldfordie]

The last 15 years or so in that region has taught me the question is nowhere near as simple as that.

We learned how complicated Iraq is at the end of the Gulf war 26 yrs ago, everyone was shocked when the coalition won the war but decided to pull back from overthrowing Sadam. the explanation for this was he may be a tyrant but the country will go into civil war if he's deposed.

[puroresu_kid]

Anyone who think the batthists were the only targets in Iraq is crazy.  As soon as Saddam went Shia death squads were taking out sunnis however they wanted.

Having the name Umar or Abu Bakri wasn't safe in Iraq.

Oh look the Government see last weeks tragedy as another reason to snoop on people:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/whatsapp-encryption-is-totally-unacceptable-says-home-secretary-amber-rudd-a3499416.html

Encryption of messages on services such as WhatsApp is “completely unacceptable” in the fight against terror, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said.

Intelligence agencies most have access to the messages and social media sites must do more to police extremist material, she said.

The call comes amid reports that Westminster terrorist Khalid Masood used WhatsApp seconds before launching Wednesday's attack, but agencies are unable to see what was communicated.

Ms Rudd also insisted the likes of Google, which runs the social video sharing platform YouTube, and other smaller sites such as WordPress must realise that they are now publishing - rather than technology - companies and take more responsibility for taking down extreme material.

[Cliff Bastin]

The UK should not be near those countries. Let them be and mind our own business.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Mate I don't know, take to the street in the thousands as a show of unity against hate?

Not quite thousands (I dont think - the article doesn't give numbers) but great to see a show of unity against hate by ordinary Muslims to go with the condemnation from high profile Muslims like Khan and the MCB.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39404606

[jDJ]

The UK should not be near those countries. Let them be and mind our own business.

That's a perfectly acceptable approach but don't think it's necessarily the most humanitarian. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if the west had intervened sooner in Syria.

[puroresu_kid]

That's a perfectly acceptable approach but don't think it's necessarily the most humanitarian. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if the west had intervened sooner in Syria.

That I agree with but the problem is the UK and West didn't want Assad gone.  They would rather a brutal dictator stays if they have no control of what comes next.

Same happened in Egypt.  Muslim brotherhood win an election and then Sisi a couple years later stages a military coup to gain power and the reaction from the west was a joke.  They wouldn't even call it a coup as Sisi was there guy and a guy they can control so nevermind a return to dictatorship.  The hypocrisy is laughable.

[classycarra]

That I agree with but the problem is the UK and West didn't want Assad gone.  They would rather a brutal dictator stays if they have no control of what comes next.

Same happened in Egypt.  Muslim brotherhood win an election and then Sisi a couple years later stages a military coup to gain power and the reaction from the west was a joke.  They wouldn't even call it a coup as Sisi was there guy and a guy they can control so nevermind a return to dictatorship.  The hypocrisy is laughable.

That's a lot of responsibility you're placing on 'the west', for someone who has been arguing that 'the west' needs to stop meddling in the middle east/muslim majority countries.

Can you give an indication of the just right, Goldilocks, amount of meddling you would like from 'the west'?

And what you believe the responsibility of Egypt, Syria and their neighbours are.

Sidenote - I think you are confusing the UK and West with Russia and Iran, with regards to preferring a brutal dictator