Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

zero chaance that was not intended and timed as such by accident.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't believe that ISIS are responsible for most of the things they claim, they are just opportunistic.

ISIS is a franchise, or a movement, not just an organisation. Anybody can call themselves ISIS really. A little like Gamergate in a sense.

(Edit: removed the emoticon. In hindsight it didn't feel appropriate).

Let's make sure we don't react to obvious bait people. Point at it on your screen and laugh, sure, but best not to waste your time responding to it

edit: This is referring to a since deleted post, not the user above. However I want to leave this here because it's a good thing to remember on a topic that can become quite heated.

 motyak wrote:
Let's make sure we don't react to obvious bait people. Point at it on your screen and laugh, sure, but best not to waste your time responding to it

Are you referring to me? I'm sorry, it wasn't intended to be bait. I deleted the emoticon after reflecting on it (before you posted).

I was just making the point that ISIS is a movement, not just an organisation, and as such anybody can claim to be a "member". Gamergate might not be the best comparison but the point is valid.

And so it came to be that my desire to tear johnny 2-posts a new orifice is tempered by the soothing words of motyak.

No no all good man, I decided to instead remove the post I was referring to rather than leave it, and just hadn't gotten around to editing my post because of what that involves. Don't sweat it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Let's make sure we don't react to obvious bait people. Point at it on your screen and laugh, sure, but best not to waste your time responding to it

Are you referring to me? I'm sorry, it wasn't intended to be bait. I deleted the emoticon after reflecting on it (before you posted).

I was just making the point that ISIS is a movement, not just an organisation, and as such anybody can claim to be a "member". Gamergate might not be the best comparison but the point is valid.

No, someone posted something completely ignorant and got their post deleted.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't believe that ISIS are responsible for most of the things they claim, they are just opportunistic.

ISIS is a franchise, or a movement, not just an organisation. Anybody can call themselves ISIS really. A little like Gamergate in a sense.

(Edit: removed the emoticon. In hindsight it didn't feel appropriate).

I know, but the implication when a terror group takes responsibility for something is that they were somehow involved in the planning, sponsorship and execution. Like Irish paramilitaries. When there was an attack claimed by them they had a very real, direct link. ISIS is more like football supporters talking about "our win". They will claim anything with little or no involvement. In some ways it makes them more dangerous, as you can't negotiate with them, and claims to take military action to stop them are delusional at best. In others they are more at risk to disruption to their recruitment and propagandize machines that keep the whole thing moving.

A little perspective if I may.

I don't wish to downplay the horror of this event, as any such attack is an affront to all right thinking people, but given ISIS claim to be on track to destroy the west, I can't help but look at this and think 'Is that all you've got?.

No bomb. No guns. A thankfully small death toll, given his actions.

From that, we can see that they're getting increasingly desperate. ISIS are (according to media reports, make of that what you choose) getting pasted in their 'home' lands. They're losing more ground than they're gaining. And since the Paris atrocity, the attacks they lay claim to in Europe aren't anything that any mentally disturbed person couldn't carry out.

And I say hats off to our collective security services. They have to be lucky all the time. The mentally disturbed? Just need to be lucky once.

London has suffered far, far worse in it's not terribly distant past. Indeed, I work very near the location of the IRA's Docklands Bombing. In fact, had I been sitting where I am when that went off, I'd very likely been horribly injured, if not killed.

ISIS? ISIS are nothing. Give it a year or so and they'll just be another bad memory. There is very little to fear from them - again, thanks largely to our security and intelligence services doing an absolutely stellar job.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A little perspective if I may.

I don't wish to downplay the horror of this event, as any such attack is an affront to all right thinking people, but given ISIS claim to be on track to destroy the west, I can't help but look at this and think 'Is that all you've got?.

No bomb. No guns. A thankfully small death toll, given his actions.

From that, we can see that they're getting increasingly desperate. ISIS are (according to media reports, make of that what you choose) getting pasted in their 'home' lands. They're losing more ground than they're gaining. And since the Paris atrocity, the attacks they lay claim to in Europe aren't anything that any mentally disturbed person couldn't carry out.

And I say hats off to our collective security services. They have to be lucky all the time. The mentally disturbed? Just need to be lucky once.

London has suffered far, far worse in it's not terribly distant past. Indeed, I work very near the location of the IRA's Docklands Bombing. In fact, had I been sitting where I am when that went off, I'd very likely been horribly injured, if not killed.

ISIS? ISIS are nothing. Give it a year or so and they'll just be another bad memory. There is very little to fear from them - again, thanks largely to our security and intelligence services doing an absolutely stellar job.

Also the troops on ground are hammering thr hell put of em.
Iraq is finaly driving them backwards. Kurds are proving successful.
Syria drove them from palmyra again.
Us and allied air power has far as I rough remember got quite a few senior members.
Money man, propoganda, wounded or killed top man, and others including the evil "stars" like jihadi john and thr bulldozer.

 Steve steveson wrote:

I know, but the implication when a terror group takes responsibility for something is that they were somehow involved in the planning, sponsorship and execution. Like Irish paramilitaries. When there was an attack claimed by them they had a very real, direct link. ISIS is more like football supporters talking about "our win". They will claim anything with little or no involvement. In some ways it makes them more dangerous, as you can't negotiate with them, and claims to take military action to stop them are delusional at best. In others they are more at risk to disruption to their recruitment and propagandize machines that keep the whole thing moving.

That was the implication in a different time when terrorist organizations functioned much differently.

The IRA didn't reach out across the globe and entice others to commit acts in their name. They sent their guys. DaIsh, and other groups function in a new way aided by the internet/social media and supplemented with like minded leaders in communities which help guide radicalization (though direct contact in the community is not necessary) . They know exactly what they are doing. If they provide guidance on how to attack, propaganda as to why to attack and guidance in target selection, provide moral/religious motivation and actually get folks to take a pledge before committing their acts they are at least partially responsible in my opinion. Just because they recruit via social media does not make the recruited person any less a member if that recruited person is willing to commit acts for the group.

 CptJake wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

I know, but the implication when a terror group takes responsibility for something is that they were somehow involved in the planning, sponsorship and execution. Like Irish paramilitaries. When there was an attack claimed by them they had a very real, direct link. ISIS is more like football supporters talking about "our win". They will claim anything with little or no involvement. In some ways it makes them more dangerous, as you can't negotiate with them, and claims to take military action to stop them are delusional at best. In others they are more at risk to disruption to their recruitment and propagandize machines that keep the whole thing moving.

That was the implication in a different time when terrorist organizations functioned much differently.

The IRA didn't reach out across the globe and entice others to commit acts in their name. They sent their guys. DaIsh, and other groups function in a new way aided by the internet/social media and supplemented with like minded leaders in communities which help guide radicalization (though direct contact in the community is not necessary) . They know exactly what they are doing. If they provide guidance on how to attack, propaganda as to why to attack and guidance in target selection, provide moral/religious motivation and actually get folks to take a pledge before committing their acts they are at least partially responsible in my opinion. Just because they recruit via social media does not make the recruited person any less a member if that recruited person is willing to commit acts for the group.

Good post and unfortunately, you are correct in what you are saying, because from what I've been reading, ISIL have been putting info out there for people, a dummies guide to terrorism, for want of a better expression.

They have been offering guidance on how to encrypt communications, how to set up a cell, info on indoctrination etc etc

Like I said earlier, this is very hard to stop, and how do you go about stopping it? Better foreign policy? More help for intelligence services? Reaching out to the communities? All three?

IMO, even an armed populace is not effective in every situation, because even if you're armed, you can't stop or be aware of bombs going off, or if you're walking on a street with you back to traffic and a car mounts the sidewalk/pavement, then what can a gun do if you're taken by surprise?

There are no easy answers to this...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


IMO, even an armed populace is not effective in every situation, because even if you're armed, you can't stop or be aware of bombs going off, or if you're walking on a street with you back to traffic and a car mounts the sidewalk/pavement, then what can a gun do if you're taken by surprise?

You get arrested or maybe shot when anti-terror police or the military show up and see a civilian with a gun walking aimlessly around the place.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


IMO, even an armed populace is not effective in every situation, because even if you're armed, you can't stop or be aware of bombs going off, or if you're walking on a street with you back to traffic and a car mounts the sidewalk/pavement, then what can a gun do if you're taken by surprise?

You get arrested or maybe shot when anti-terror police or the military show up and see a civilian with a gun walking aimlessly around the place.

There is always a risk of that, I suppose.

In general, your average British policeman or woman, tends to be unarmed. The British public don't want your average policeman armed, and the police themselves are against having every officer armed. The officers that are armed, tend to be specialists who undergo intensive training, and IMO, I think that's a better system.

Do we need to do more? I agree with Grotsnik. Whilst this attack is heinous and deplorable, when it comes down to it, the current system has minimised total casualties to 5 since 7/7, 6 if counting the attacker. In that same timespan, far more people have been killed by cars mounting curbs and stabbings due to other reasons. I don't think there is anything to be gained from increasing the power of security services.

Targetting the communities and mechanisms of radicalisation, that would be effective. Better foreign policy is also a good idea.

That's an interesting point, I wonder if it's just ideological differences between US and UK police or if there is a substantial enough difference in violent/organized crime in the U.S. to justify fully armed police.

Could more lightly armed law enforcement be a contributing factor to why there have been so many more attacks claimed by ISIS in European countries than the U.S.? Perhaps it's more lax border-crossing policies? Simply the fact that Europe is geographically much closer to the conflict zones where ISIS thrives?

Changing those things sadly probably does little to solve the issue. I think it comes down to individuals, especially those who match attackers' demographics, to be wary of potential influences and resist radicalization efforts. Far easier said than done, of course, but still.

What would be interesting is to hear what the security and intelligence services feel they need.

Is it more power? Discretionary or outright? Perhaps just more funding? If it is more powers, what sort? Stop and Search? Detain without Charge? What if all they need is court greenlit methods to force the likes of Apple and Google to do specific things (remember when Apple refused to unlock that killer's phone, because reasons? That seemed utterly ridiculous to me)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it's also worth noting that more young, white males have been referred to Channel than anyone else, because of the British Far Right. Kids as young as ten.

As Skunk Anansie said in 'Little Baby Swastika' - So small, so innocent so young, so delicately done, you rope 'em in young.

Seriously. We need our gutter press to stop pretending this is a one sided issue.

Remember Jo Cox? Murdered by a Right Wing Terrorist who shouted 'Britain First'? Wasn't much said in the press about him actually being Terrorist despite him being a Terrorist...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What would be interesting is to hear what the security and intelligence services feel they need.

Is it more power? Discretionary or outright? Perhaps just more funding? If it is more powers, what sort? Stop and Search? Detain without Charge? What if all they need is court greenlit methods to force the likes of Apple and Google to do specific things (remember when Apple refused to unlock that killer's phone, because reasons? That seemed utterly ridiculous to me)

In that case (Apple) as I remember it there was no pressing need to circumvent Apples security, Law enforcement had what they needed, it was an excuse by security services to try and create precedent and to get into that backdoor.

Remember that our laws actually aid the majority of us to live as peacefully as we do. They can be abused, but any abuse is magnified by headlines and political spin, look at examples of seeming lenient sentencing of criminals or criminals not being charged. These laws make sure that you are not wrongfully accused or given a harsh sentence for something which may have mitigating factors.

Any change to how security services operate needs to be very carefully considered. It's no good saying the innocent have nothing to fear, they have more to fear than those who seek to do harm.

 KommissarKiln wrote:


Could more lightly armed law enforcement be a contributing factor to why there have been so many more attacks claimed by ISIS in European countries than the U.S.? Perhaps it's more lax border-crossing policies? Simply the fact that Europe is geographically much closer to the conflict zones where ISIS thrives?

Unarmed police is a uniquely British phenomenon.

Every police officer in France, Belgium or Germany (to name recently terror-stricken countries) carry firearms just like US law enforcement, there are paramilitary gendarmeries and actual military with heavier equipment doing the rounds in sensitive places.

So I'd say no. Location, location, location.

 Haighus wrote:
Do we need to do more? I agree with Grotsnik. Whilst this attack is heinous and deplorable, when it comes down to it, the current system has minimised total casualties to 5 since 7/7, 6 if counting the attacker. In that same timespan, far more people have been killed by cars mounting curbs and stabbings due to other reasons. I don't think there is anything to be gained from increasing the power of security services.

Targetting the communities and mechanisms of radicalisation, that would be effective. Better foreign policy is also a good idea.

Aye. We have managed to in the UK defend effectively for years and yes we have had threats, raids and there's has been plots this I first in a while to claim lives. As far as it goes our systems are more robust it seems that some of the European nations in contrast.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
That's an interesting point, I wonder if it's just ideological differences between US and UK police or if there is a substantial enough difference in violent/organized crime in the U.S. to justify fully armed police.

Could more lightly armed law enforcement be a contributing factor to why there have been so many more attacks claimed by ISIS in European countries than the U.S.? Perhaps it's more lax border-crossing policies? Simply the fact that Europe is geographically much closer to the conflict zones where ISIS thrives?

Changing those things sadly probably does little to solve the issue. I think it comes down to individuals, especially those who match attackers' demographics, to be wary of potential influences and resist radicalization efforts. Far easier said than done, of course, but still.

It's probably easier for extremist salafist/wahhabist extremist movements to groom individuals who share a language and ethnic/cultural background with those in the movement. Western Europe has a problem with alienated second generation migrants from countries that were affected by the Arab spring. There is no equivalent socio-economic problem for migrants from that area in the US, who are also far fewer in number, which makes the number of potential ISIS recruits far smaller.

I don't see the logic of how armed police cause more terrorist attacks inspired by ISIL.

The reason France has had several bad attacks is that

1. There is a substantial population of Islamic people from former North African colonies.

2. The youngsters among these have become disaffected due to a mixture of (IMO) forced secularism, racism and poor economic outcomes.

3. France is a large, open country compared to the UK, which makes it a lot easier to move in, out, around and to hide. (Remember that several of the French attackers based themselves in Belgium.)

4. The various French security services do not have as good a record of cooperation and sharing information as the UK services.

As far a isis capability to carry out attacks go, this would worry me most.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/661374/IRA-and-ISIS-working-together-to-launch-CAR-BOMB-CAMPAIGN-on-Britain/amp

The IRA have a history of working closely with other terrorist groups. The IRAs mantra has always been England difficulties are Irelands opportunities. So brexit, Scottish devolution are all creating an ideal climate for them to stoke the flames in anyway they can.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/world/colombia-arrests-3-as-ira-bomb-experts.html

The recent horrific attack is terrible but I don't think it shows any degree of coordination. That said Berln has shown us that one man on his own can do alot of damage.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Do we need to do more? I agree with Grotsnik. Whilst this attack is heinous and deplorable, when it comes down to it, the current system has minimised total casualties to 5 since 7/7, 6 if counting the attacker. In that same timespan, far more people have been killed by cars mounting curbs and stabbings due to other reasons. I don't think there is anything to be gained from increasing the power of security services.

Targetting the communities and mechanisms of radicalisation, that would be effective. Better foreign policy is also a good idea.

Aye. We have managed to in the UK defend effectively for years and yes we have had threats, raids and there's has been plots this I first in a while to claim lives. As far as it goes our systems are more robust it seems that some of the European nations in contrast.

Well, the Lee Rigby murder wasn't that long ago.

Incidentally also by Muslim converts just like this last attack.

jouso wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Do we need to do more? I agree with Grotsnik. Whilst this attack is heinous and deplorable, when it comes down to it, the current system has minimised total casualties to 5 since 7/7, 6 if counting the attacker. In that same timespan, far more people have been killed by cars mounting curbs and stabbings due to other reasons. I don't think there is anything to be gained from increasing the power of security services.

Targetting the communities and mechanisms of radicalisation, that would be effective. Better foreign policy is also a good idea.

Aye. We have managed to in the UK defend effectively for years and yes we have had threats, raids and there's has been plots this I first in a while to claim lives. As far as it goes our systems are more robust it seems that some of the European nations in contrast.

Well, the Lee Rigby murder wasn't that long ago.

Incidentally also by Muslim converts just like this last attack.

True. But we still managed to greatly reduce thr number of effective attacks.
Our security services have managed to prevent alot of deaths.

Enemies foreign seems to be well covered.
Enemies domestic seems to be our problem.

jouso wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:


Could more lightly armed law enforcement be a contributing factor to why there have been so many more attacks claimed by ISIS in European countries than the U.S.? Perhaps it's more lax border-crossing policies? Simply the fact that Europe is geographically much closer to the conflict zones where ISIS thrives?

Unarmed police is a uniquely British phenomenon.

Every police officer in France, Belgium or Germany (to name recently terror-stricken countries) carry firearms just like US law enforcement, there are paramilitary gendarmeries and actual military with heavier equipment doing the rounds in sensitive places.

So I'd say no. Location, location, location.

In italy not every cop carries weapons. Municipal police doesn't have guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see the logic of how armed police cause more terrorist attacks inspired by ISIL.

The reason France has had several bad attacks is that

1. There is a substantial population of Islamic people from former North African colonies.

2. The youngsters among these have become disaffected due to a mixture of (IMO) forced secularism, racism and poor economic outcomes.

3. France is a large, open country compared to the UK, which makes it a lot easier to move in, out, around and to hide. (Remember that several of the French attackers based themselves in Belgium.)

4. The various French security services do not have as good a record of cooperation and sharing information as the UK services.

I don't think anyone is saying armed police makes terrorist attacks more likely- we are just arguing that there is no need to arm all UK police to reduce any further attacks. In other words, having a police force with everyone armed makes no difference compared to one where most coppers are not armed. So we'd rather keep our largely unarmed police.

How long can the rest of the UK maintain its unarmed police in this day and age? I say it like that because I'm from Northern Ireland were the police are armed.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
How long can the rest of the UK maintain its unarmed police in this day and age?

I'd say a long time. Extremely rare events like those terror attacks are statistically insignificant, and they are rare because methods much more effective than a posteriori reaction are being made behind the scene to prevent terror attacks. So really, it's up to them but it would definitely make sense to keep things as they are imo.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
How long can the rest of the UK maintain its unarmed police in this day and age? I say it like that because I'm from Northern Ireland were the police are armed.

Our armed police unit are extremely well trained. And carefully selected.
They are there, and if things get too bad the UK has a record of deploying units like the SAS to take on those who need to be stopped and stopped hard in a emergency.

And in general if alot of guns are needed we still have some of a Army left to take that role.