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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Yes, BBC said one suspect remains at large. This isn't over yet.

From what I'm seeing the gunmen from the supermarket and warehouse are dead. So that would leave the girlfriend of the supermarket guy who helped kill the policewoman?

I thought there were 4 terrorists. The brother and the couple. One from the couple escaped/is at large. There's only three dead terrorists right now right?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

I thought there were 4 terrorists. The brother and the couple. One from the couple escaped/is at large. There's only three dead terrorists right now right?

That is what it seems. The 4th one is supposedly a women that was involved in the shooting of the Policewoman yesterday but apparently was not in the supermarket where her partner was killed.

And also, it seems like everyone has forgotten about the driver of the getaway car for the two brothers... Or did I miss anything?

Yes. The fourth left, a woman, is seen as an accomplice to the third terrorist, the one who killed the policewoman and made a hit at the supermarket.

Driver was safe.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Do_I_Not_Like_That - I totally agree. I'm not all for immigration, but there needs to be a clear distinction set between innocent peaceful Muslims (The majority I suspect) and these savages. Religion really has little to do with it - it's simply a convenient vehicle to accumulate power and wealth. There needs to be calm analysis - NOT vigilante reprisals.

Agreed. There's no easy answers to this problem. The British bombers on July 7th were all British born and bred, and by all accounts, these terrorists were born and raised in France. It's a big problem that Western society will have to answer. And to be honest, I don't know what that answer is...

It's not the Western societies problem, it's Islams problem with the West.

But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.

It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT

Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.

SHining a spotlight on these nutters does not:

Prevent them from killing a dozen folks.

Prevent the leaders using madrassas and other platforms from recruiting a new crop of nutters to kill more folks.

Does not protect those exercising their free speech from being killed.

Not everyone is willing to die to exercise their rights, many in fact are not, and are willing to trade away those rights for 'protection'. Even that protection does not always protect because the nutters are still out there, and the numbers of them seems to be growing (look at the 20+nations with major islamist insurgent groups or even gov't enabling).

It is a much bigger issue than free speech.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

They don't. They spend their lives living in western nations but they are being taught Islamic values, not Western values.

That is why the places that do that type of teaching, that is completely anathema to western values, need to be shut down.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

It is hard for me not to think that the "something goes wrong" part is that they are convinced by the empty promises of charismatic lunatics. If this kid (the one we know most about through the media) had never met a radical nutjob, he'd likely still be smoking pot, getting laid, and delivering pepperoni pizzas.

Same goes for Christianity. If an abortion clinic bomber wasn't raised in or converted to the dubious promises of Christianity, they'd likely have lived "normal lives"...the kind of lives that don't involve murdering innocent civilians.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.

It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT

Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.

SHining a spotlight on these nutters does not:

Prevent them from killing a dozen folks.

Prevent the leaders using madrassas and other platforms from recruiting a new crop of nutters to kill more folks.

Does not protect those exercising their free speech from being killed.

Not everyone is willing to die to exercise their rights, many in fact are not, and are willing to trade away those rights for 'protection'. Even that protection does not always protect because the nutters are still out there, and the numbers of them seems to be growing (look at the 20+nations with major islamist insurgent groups or even gov't enabling).

It is a much bigger issue than free speech.

I totally agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, there are tough questions ahead, and I'm not sure the West has the answers. As I mentioned a few posts ago, how do you explain that American officer who murdered those people at that Fort? By all accounts, he was American through and through, and then...

What makes people who are born in France/UK/USA and raised with that countries values, and then for them to act like they did? Tough questions ahead...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I totally agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, there are tough questions ahead, and I'm not sure the West has the answers. As I mentioned a few posts ago, how do you explain that American officer who murdered those people at that Fort? By all accounts, he was American through and through, and then...

What makes people who are born in France/UK/USA and raised with that countries values, and then for them to act like they did? Tough questions ahead...

I'm going to make a wild stab here (not so wild really)....he saw the atrocities at Abu Graib, Guantanimo, etc, as atrocities against himself, since he shares a mutual race or religion with those victims.

It is certainly incumbent on the West to cease and desist institutionalized torture. Our government's actions are probable more effective recruitment tools for terrorism than the imams themselves. We need to demand better from our institutions.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

It is hard for me not to think that the "something goes wrong" part is that they are convinced by the empty promises of charismatic lunatics. If this kid (the one we know most about through the media) had never met a radical nutjob, he'd likely still be smoking pot, getting laid, and delivering pepperoni pizzas.

Same goes for Christianity. If an abortion clinic bomber wasn't raised in or converted to the dubious promises of Christianity, they'd likely have lived "normal lives"...the kind of lives that don't involve murdering innocent civilians.

Slightly OT here, but it's not that long ago when your nation had the Oklahoma bomber and the fear that militia groups would start a war against the federal government. Religion can't be blamed all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

They don't. They spend their lives living in western nations but they are being taught Islamic values, not Western values.

That is why the places that do that type of teaching, that is completely anathema to western values, need to be shut down.

I refer you to that case of the American officer who killed all those people.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The best recourse is to shine a spotlight on those nutters, and re-emphasize what "freedom of speech/expression" truly means.

It's a very fine line, though, whembley. As disgusting and repulsive as it is, people should be free to mock dead servicemen and women, burn the UK/USA flags, burn poppies on remembrance day, because living in a democracy means putting up with things you don't like. But that's getting OT

Tough questions will be asked in the days ahead. My fear is fear and knee-jerk responses will result in more freedoms being eroded.

SHining a spotlight on these nutters does not:

Prevent them from killing a dozen folks.

Prevent the leaders using madrassas and other platforms from recruiting a new crop of nutters to kill more folks.

Does not protect those exercising their free speech from being killed.

Not everyone is willing to die to exercise their rights, many in fact are not, and are willing to trade away those rights for 'protection'. Even that protection does not always protect because the nutters are still out there, and the numbers of them seems to be growing (look at the 20+nations with major islamist insurgent groups or even gov't enabling).

It is a much bigger issue than free speech.

I totally agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, there are tough questions ahead, and I'm not sure the West has the answers. As I mentioned a few posts ago, how do you explain that American officer who murdered those people at that Fort? By all accounts, he was American through and through, and then...

What makes people who are born in France/UK/USA and raised with that countries values, and then for them to act like they did? Tough questions ahead...

Hassan was not 'American through and through'. Not by any means. He would explain his actions (and has explained them) pretty adequately. He was on jihad against those who would kill Muslims. I don;t think he was lying about that. He showed signs of leaning towards that brand if Islam well before he went on his shooting spree.

What I don't get is why people move into a country and culture that they actively hate and insist that all the pre-existing customs change to their benefit.

If you are a muslim that highly disagrees with western culture, why the hell would you move to europe and expect them to change for you?

Same goes for Christans, Hindus, Buhddist, etc, why would you go to a place where you feel you are greatly at odds with the culture and people already living there and try to enforce your views on them?

Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

It is hard for me not to think that the "something goes wrong" part is that they are convinced by the empty promises of charismatic lunatics. If this kid (the one we know most about through the media) had never met a radical nutjob, he'd likely still be smoking pot, getting laid, and delivering pepperoni pizzas.

Same goes for Christianity. If an abortion clinic bomber wasn't raised in or converted to the dubious promises of Christianity, they'd likely have lived "normal lives"...the kind of lives that don't involve murdering innocent civilians.

Slightly OT here, but it's not that long ago when your nation had the Oklahoma bomber and the fear that militia groups would start a war against the federal government. Religion can't be blamed all the time.

Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the extremist "Christian Identity" movement.

But I don't disagree with you entirely. I'm not purporting that religion is always the root cause, and I doubt it is ever the only cause, of terrorism.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But increasingly, these Terrorists are born and raised in their respective nations, they spent their whole lives living in that culture, living with its values and then something goes wrong.

Disenfranchisement from society.
They fall for the cliched hyperbole of the West's so called "Crusade" on Islam.
Drugs.
Mental Health Issues.
Reading the Koran and failing to ignore the wacky violent bits (which DO exist, and are used to inspire and encourage acts of violence) like the average, sane, peaceful Muslim or Christian.

Any or all of the above.

Ultimately, its Muslims themselves, the peaceful mainstream ones (who are of course in the majority of Muslims living in the West) who will have to hold the nut jobs in their communities in check. PhantomViper's suggestion (the German method) is crucial. Shut down all radical Mosques ASAP. If local Muslims don't want their Mosques shut down and banned, they need to help Police weed out the radicals and take an active role themselves in policing their own communities.

That is a dangerous path though, because then you are regulating thought, not action...

That is a slippery slope that no one should want to go down.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I refer you to that case of the American officer who killed all those people.

He was a muslim that had become increasingly radical and again, had ties with known Islamic radicals in Yemen. He had even been referenced for it in the US intelligence agencies. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Why did he do it? I don't know and frankly I don't care, I don't think that we need to understand the reasons behind all these cases, we only need to identify the common points and use them to excise these people from our societies.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.

I think we do need to take a look at what we deem 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we should have our rights to speak freely, but since when has it become acceptable to dispense with common courtesy. I'm talking in the sense that Charlie Hebdo published pictures of Mohammed that these extremists found offensive - fair enough, we want to offend them and belittle them. But we should show a degree of respect towards those Muslims who aren't extremists and simply worship peacefully with no radicalisation. Is it fair to offend them as well, or should we at least have a modicum of respect. I'm simply advocating that we should go all out to undermine, offend and deconstruct Terrorists but the images Charlie Hebdo published also offend peaceful Muslims - can we say this is alright?

If I can draw the analogy, when Emma Watson (Of Harry Potter fame) had crude allegations of sex tapes, there was public outrage against the perpetrators. However, this very same public now supports to offending of all Muslims with crude Mohammed images. Double standards in a sense. Degrade, humiliate, undermine and offend the terrorists in all manners (Post crude imagery of the IS leader by all means) , but courteous to the legitimate views of others is all I'm saying.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.

Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
I think we do need to take a look at what we deem 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we should have our rights to speak freely, but since when has it become acceptable to dispense with common courtesy. I'm talking in the sense that Charlie Hebdo published pictures of Mohammed that these extremists found offensive - fair enough, we want to offend them and belittle them. But we should show a degree of respect towards those Muslims who aren't extremists and simply worship peacefully with no radicalisation. Is it fair to offend them as well, or should we at least have a modicum of respect. I'm simply advocating that we should go all out to undermine, offend and deconstruct Terrorists but the images Charlie Hebdo published also offend peaceful Muslims - can we say this is alright?

If I can draw the analogy, when Emma Watson (Of Harry Potter fame) had crude allegations of sex tapes, there was public outrage against the perpetrators. However, this very same public now supports to offending of all Muslims with crude Mohammed images. Double standards in a sense. Degrade, humiliate, undermine and offend the terrorists in all manners (Post crude imagery of the IS leader by all means) , but courteous to the legitimate views of others is all I'm saying.

If we can't safely make fun of any Relgion, View Points, or your Government, they you don't have "freedom of speech/expression".

It's as simple as that.

Now, that doesn't give you "protection" from opposite viewpoints.

ALL ideas/speech is fair game. Just don't expect many to send you a Christmas Card.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
I think we do need to take a look at what we deem 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we should have our rights to speak freely, but since when has it become acceptable to dispense with common courtesy. I'm talking in the sense that Charlie Hebdo published pictures of Mohammed that these extremists found offensive - fair enough, we want to offend them and belittle them. But we should show a degree of respect towards those Muslims who aren't extremists and simply worship peacefully with no radicalisation. Is it fair to offend them as well, or should we at least have a modicum of respect. I'm simply advocating that we should go all out to undermine, offend and deconstruct Terrorists but the images Charlie Hebdo published also offend peaceful Muslims - can we say this is alright?

There was at least one Muslim working in Charlie Hebdo, he was a proof editor and he was killed by the terrorists, his name was Mustapha Ourrad.

So if you could please stop with that appeasement discourse it would be greatly appreciated because you are doing exactly what the muslim extremists wan't, you wan't us to put limits in our freedom of expression because we might offend someone, that is unacceptable.

Some reports about yet another hostage situation in the south of France. Not yet known if its related to "The Jihad" or not.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.

Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.

Could be reaching I guess. But there is ample evidence of forced conversions and persecution of heathens. It happened, and its an example.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.

Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.

It also happened more than 500 years ago, so it is a bit of a strawman.

 stanman wrote:
What I don't get is why people move into a country and culture that they actively hate and insist that all the pre-existing customs change to their benefit.

If you are a muslim that highly disagrees with western culture, why the hell would you move to europe and expect them to change for you?

Same goes for Christans, Hindus, Buhddist, etc, why would you go to a place where you feel you are greatly at odds with the culture and people already living there and try to enforce your views on them?

I've said this exact same thing about Californians moving to Austin....

Havent seen it noted yet, but french media reports four critically injured in addition to the four reported killed

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when do Christians, Hindus, or Buhddists move to a place with different beliefs and demand them to be changed?

Genuinely curious because I never hear about anything like that. Its only Muslims demanding changes that I see.

You can start with Europeans anywhere in the New World.

Thats reaching. Everyone knows that the primary motivation for everything done during the Age of Colonialism was wealth and profit. Religion was the thin veil of PR that everybody knew, but would never admit, was not the real reason.

It also happened more than 500 years ago, so it is a bit of a strawman.

Right. It happened before Christianity was effectively domesticated. Kind of like Islam today.

Anyways, I just saw the question, and though t of that as an example, that's all.

@whembly - So, by the same token, I imagine we should all dispense with any and all forms of respect. 'Salute an officer, ah well I don't feel like it today so - freedom of expression!' - because freedom of speech/expression/action handwaves it all away. I appreciate the need for freedom of speech, but we should appreciate the need for restraint, respect and manners. That's all...

EDIT: @PhantomViper - I highly doubt I'm an appeaser. In fact, I'm quite vehement in my desire to curb immigration in the UK. I'm simply advocating a bit of respect for others.

 djones520 wrote:
That is a dangerous path though, because then you are regulating thought, not action...

That is a slippery slope that no one should want to go down.

Speech is not thought.

If radical Muslims are preaching and inciting violence at their Mosques, its up to the rest of the congregation to turn them in and alert authorities before that person chooses to act on their beliefs, or persuade others to do so (Anjem Choudhary, who IIRC had connections with the Woolwich murderors of the Drummer Lee Rigby)

The alternative to a self policing community cooperating with authorities, would probably be (given our Governments' penchants for this sort of thing) mass surveillance.