Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge

africanspur said:
Thank you both.

I just hope now that no more people die from their injuries.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The word "catastrophic" was used to describe some of yesterday's injuries which doesn't sound good.

I hope your colleagues aren't traumatised by yesterdays events. It can't be easy for those that have to deal with the aftermath of the carnage caused by these incidents.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
this is your problem, assumptions and biases.

You're taking it to extremes that people should be allowed to express whatever they think (YOUR words). Paedophiles think they have a right to molest children, should we allow them to express what they think? That's one of many examples that makes your flawed reasoning irreconcilable with the reality.

in NO way did I say anywhere that people can't express what they think. All I said was that they should not be allowed to mentally or physically harm others.

How you came to any of your conclusions is beyond me. Post after post I have said the opposite of your claims. If you're not going to bother comprehending what I wrote or misrepresenting what I am saying then don't bother responding.
Click to expand...
I doubt that is true for most Paedophiles. From that Louis Theroux documentary, it seemed like many lived in a kind of haze when doing this stuff.

But who knows.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
You're taking it to extremes that people should be allowed to express whatever they think (YOUR words). Paedophiles think they have a right to molest children, should we allow them to express what they think?
Click to expand...

Yes I think Pedophiles should be allowed to say that sex with underage children is OK. And in fact they are allowed to express this, in America at least. What is illegal is acting upon the idea.

in NO way did I say anywhere that people can't express what they think. All I said was that they should not be allowed to mentally or physically harm others.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on physically harm. As for mentally harm, again that depends on circumstances. Who gets to decide? What if it is decided that denying the messianic mission of Ghulam Ahmad 'mentally harms' Ahmadis? Should it be made illegal to do so in that case?

This discussion started because another poster stated his belief that cartoons of Muhammad deemed offensive by some should be banned. You seem to agree. Those cartoons are an expression of the cartoonist's belief, so by banning them, which implies some sort of legal punishment in the event that the cartoonist continues publishing them, you are restricting his/her right to express what he/she thinks.

How you came to any of your conclusions is beyond me. Post after post I have said the opposite of your claims. If you're not going to bother comprehending what I wrote or misrepresenting what I am saying then don't bother responding.
Click to expand...

The feeling is absolutely mutual.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
yes, and you want to control how people feel when people offend them. the Irony is YOU don't get it.

Surely both can coexist without going to extremes?
Click to expand...
No, if someone claims to be offended by what someone else shares with me and demands we don't express thoughts and ideas freely, that's an extremist. I'm allright with not specifically targeting muslims to tell them in their face what a joke their prophet is, because that would be offensive. But the issue is not leaving them alone, the issue is whether muslims (or other religious people, or fascists or whatever) are allowed to control what's beeing said, written and drawn in general by claiming they're offended when they weren't even present and had to make an effort like buying an obscure magazine or going to a movie or comedian to take the offence they searched for.
 
This needs a seperate thread now, surely.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Interesting and makes a lot of sense. Although a little simplistic to exclusively blame Islamophobia for the way in which mentally ill (and you'd have to admit they're not all mentally ill, surely?) jihadists aren't forced to engage with the authorities by their community. I'm sure the majority of muslims in the UK wouldn't hesitate to act in that scenario. What makes them so resistant to Islamophobia?
Click to expand...

Well, there are not many of these people (prepared to kill themselves for the cause of ISIS). We are talking literally 100 people.

So yes, some form of mental illness or deep emotional trauma (e.g.: broken love relationships, long term unemployment, parental/spousal abuse etc, geographic displacement) is going to be present in all these people. This emotional issue provides the context which ISIS recruiters exploit. Indeed, these factors were listed in an ISIS recruitment playbook that we came across. It was also the same in other countries in Europe, Africa and Asia.

The families which these people belong too are normally unaware of the emotional issues and the individual's engagement with ISIS. Indeed, the ISIS recruiter coaches them on how to disguise their involvement. And some families who refuse to alert the authorities try to fix the problem themselves. They are sympathetic to the causes ISIS complain about, and have been victims to Islamaphobia. They themselves may not commit terrorist crimes, but they understand why there family member would.

Make sense?

Anyways, the plan we wrote was implemented by the security services 24 months ago, and has been very successful. I don't know the exact results which remain confidential, but there have been at least 20 arrests and many others are now on a 'watch list'. Was quite proud of myself :)
 
Akshay said:
Just to clarify, exactly what do you want banned? The comics, or any strong criticism of the life of Muhammed? What about an article that made fun of the Quran?
Click to expand...

I've read your posts and understood your attitude to this subject so I wont be replying to any of your posts.
 
berbatrick said:
@sammsky1

I don't agree about your restrictions on free speech at all. Look at the clusterfeck in my country (India). This restrictions on freedom of speech are used to stop any portrayal of any religion (even smaller groups like Sikhs and Christians manage to censor things) that isn't positive. A film criticising old customs. A god not depicted in the traditional reverential way. Some random teenager criticising a political leader after his death (and some while they're alive). An author who criticises the misogyny of religions. A book talking about the various interpretations of a religious text. Many of these people were arrested, some were lucky in that the courts soon found the case has no merit. But the law is a tool in the hands of politicians and police to harass and arrest anyone they don't like. Mobs go down the street every time someone manages to get them angry enough about a book or movie. And having seen a previous ban for something offending another religion, they will cry about discrimination if they don't get their way. And each new ban or withdrawal of publication means more incentive for the next mob.

The west isn't perfect, but on the subject of religion they moved from having continent-wide witchhunts and murders a few centuries ago, and reached a point where absolute mockery of Christianity was fine. Not everyone liked it, but it was on national TV. And I've always looked at that in amazement and wonder. And I do believe that people who have chosen to come to the west (in general, I'm sure there are exceptions) need to accept that. And I hope that the world generally moves towards that, I don't see it happening though.
Click to expand...

@Sultan perfectly answered your point. I don't think humanity is capable of using freedom of speech respectfully. That's true in Europe and its certainly true in Asia's sub continent. We've had numerous posts above that state that we should rely on people to use their discretion: That blatantly does not work as those with agenda's are extremely manipulative in their use of free speech with regards to Islam.

You may disagree with Muslims becoming violent because they feel emotionally injured. I'd ask everyone to provide a solution to the problem instead of just mocking. Because until you do that, we are stuck in this current status quo and right now, that means accepting collateral damage for in exchange for this principle.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Attacker named as Khalid Masood. 52 years old.
Click to expand...
Most importantly, while he was multiple times convicted between 1983 (if I understood correctly) and 2003, since 2003 he didn't commit anything 'convictable' (is that a word?). In 2003 he was convicted for possession of a type of knife.
Apparently he wasn't on any list of suspects possibly planing or committing an attack.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Attacker named as Khalid Masood. 52 years old.
Click to expand...

ISIS have claimed responsibility for the attack, but some sources are saying he was a lone wolf. Are ISIS lying for the publicity, or does this just mean he acted without accomplices regardless of his agenda?
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Attacker named as Khalid Masood. 52 years old.
Click to expand...

Khalid Masood was known to police but not subject of surveillance
Masood, 52, was born in Kent and detectives believe he was most recently living in the West Midlands. Masood was also known by a number of aliases, police said in a statement.

Scotland Yard said Masood was not the subject of any current investigations and there was no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack.

However, he was known to police and had a range of previous convictions for assaults, including GBH, possession of offensive weapons and public order offences.

His first conviction was in November 1983 for criminal damage and his last conviction was in December 2003 for possession of a knife.

He had not been convicted for any terrorism offences.

Anyone with any information about Masood can call the anti-terrorist hotline 0800 789 321.
 
sammsky1 said:
@Sultan perfectly answered your point. I don't think humanity is capable of using freedom of speech respectfully. That's true in Europe and its certainly true in Asia's sub continent. We've had numerous posts above that state that we should rely on people to use their discretion: That blatantly does not work as those with agenda's are extremely manipulative in their use of free speech with regards to Islam.

You may disagree with Muslims becoming violent because they feel emotionally injured. I'd ask everyone to provide a solution to the problem instead of just mocking. Because until you do that, we are stuck in this current status quo and right now, that means accepting collateral damage for in exchange for this principle.
Click to expand...
So we either give up the principle of free speech or accept 'collateral damage' as a consequence? :wenger:
 
2 Man Midfield said:
ISIS have claimed responsibility for the attack, but some sources are saying he was a lone wolf. Are ISIS lying for the publicity, or does this just mean he acted without accomplices regardless of his agenda?
Click to expand...
Hopefully we'll know but it is difficult where to draw the line. For these kind of 'low-tech' attacks, ISIS was sometimes in brief contact with attackers via smartphone just some days before they committed the attack.

In any case, for the victims and those the ones who die leave behind, I assume it doesn't matter.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
ISIS have claimed responsibility for the attack, but some sources are saying he was a lone wolf. Are ISIS lying for the publicity, or does this just mean he acted without accomplices regardless of his agenda?
Click to expand...
ISIS have basically said that he answered their call to attack.
 
lewwoo said:
So we either give up the principle of free speech or accept 'collateral damage' as a consequence? :wenger:
Click to expand...
pls give me a solution instead of your pathetic ridicule? Do you have one??? And what have you done about it?
 
sammsky1 said:
I've read your posts and understood your attitude to this subject so I wont be replying to any of your posts.
Click to expand...
Think you're mixing up the posters, @Akshay is the cool one. :D
 
sammsky1 said:
@Sultan perfectly answered your point. I don't think humanity is capable of using freedom of speech respectfully. That's true in Europe and its certainly true in Asia's sub continent. We've had numerous posts above that state that we should rely on people to use their discretion: That blatantly does not work as those with agenda's are extremely manipulative in their use of free speech with regards to Islam.

You may disagree with Muslims becoming violent because they feel emotionally injured. I'd ask everyone to provide a solution to the problem instead of just mocking. Because until you do that, we are stuck in this current status quo and right now, that means accepting collateral damage for in exchange for this principle.
Click to expand...

Almost seems like you are justifying violent reaction of extemists to cartoonists. Poor form. If Muslims can't live in a free speech culture the west has fought over centuries for, perhaps they should rethink their decision to live in liberal societies. Better off in regressive societies in Asia and Middle East.
 
Attila said:
My whole family is Muslim (I don't believe in God) and their reaction was to hope the terrorist in question wasn't from the same country as them so they could avoid the backlash.

I think it sucks how Muslims are now seen as extremists as most are normal. Reading some of the posts in this thread.....depressing
Click to expand...
Depressing, tiring, quite sad. Every time, we have to trot out the same stuff, re-educating idiots that its not about Islam, its about a tiny few idiots who, mostly likely mentally ill, who commit these crimes through a distorted interpretation.

Actually I was very heartened by PM May and many MPs is how they specifically expressed this in PM's questions this lunchtime. But yeah, getting some redcafe members to understand that is much harder given the level of there IQ!
 
Attila said:
My whole family is Muslim (I don't believe in God) and their reaction was to hope the terrorist in question wasn't from the same country as them so they could avoid the backlash.

I think it sucks how Muslims are now seen as extremists as most are normal. Reading some of the posts in this thread.....depressing
Click to expand...

Have you seen the article exposing the funding of Islamaphobic bigots and groups for profit? It's a business now my friend. It shows where they get their funding from and to the individuals who get it IIRC. I can dig it up if you like...
 
sammsky1 said:
pls give me a solution instead of your pathetic ridicule? Do you have one???
Click to expand...
I would never pretend to have a solution. I'm just an average Joe. Threats of violence for mocking any religion certainly isn't an answer though I'd hope you'd agree?
 
crappycraperson said:
Almost seems like you are justifying violent reaction of extemists to cartoonists. Poor form. If Muslims can't live in a free speech culture the west has fought over centuries for, perhaps they should rethink their decision to live in liberal societies. Better off in regressive societies in Asia and Middle East and The Bible Belt.
Click to expand...

Could not resist adding that.
 
sammsky1 said:
pls give me a solution instead of your pathetic ridicule? Do you have one??? And what have you done about it?
Click to expand...

There is a fairly simple solution. Stick to freedom of speech. Anyone who can’t handle it and breaks the law because of it gets prosecuted according to the law. It is not that hard.
 
VidaRed said:
Im of the belief that western ideals ought not to be applied exactly in India. The histories/context of both are different. Its the same with secularism, there it is separation of state and religion while in India the state panders to every religion equally more or less while maintaining it is not discriminating. I believe this copying trend has caused more troubles, ours is a religious society, theirs isnt, ours is a diverse society, theirs isnt.
Click to expand...

I think we had a historic opportunity to go much further with these things in 1947, especially since
a. Nehru, and not Gandhi, was the leader at that time, and had a genuine mass base
b. Religious politicians from both sections had between them split the country, started massive riots, and killed Gandhi

There was a divide on many issues during the drafting of the constitution, but even if we kept that section, it should have been used in a more selective way. Of course it wasn't a single fall from 47 to today, there was the defeat of the UCC introduced by Ambedkar, passing the Hindu Code Bill in bits and not passing the Muslim bill at all (at which point he resigned), votebank politics of the "secular" party protecting their Muslim base from the Sangh while not actually addressing education/development among Muslims*, the whole appeasement debacle with Shah Bano by Rajiv, and then Babri Masjid also by Rajiv, since our politics is so damn secular we appease bigots of every side! Every such action empowers them.
At the same time, we have had a reform movement for more than a century now. In TN we had a mass leader who actively hated religions (Periyar), his legacy is now destroyed but even today Karunanidhi said:
Who is this Raman (as Lord Ram is referred to in Tamil)? In which engineering college did he study and become a civil engineer? When did he build this so-called bridge? Is there any evidence for this?
Click to expand...
The bhakti movement while very religious, was also an open challenge to organised religion 500 years ago.

In short, I don't think there's anything special about us that means we can never be free of religious repression.


*The 1992-97 Shiv Sena govt in MH actually gained a little Muslim support in Mumbai just a few years after Sena members killed hundreds of Muslims, because they did small things like making sure ambulance services go to Muslim areas too.


SteveJ said:
It is, sadly, human nature to react badly when one is contradicted or when one's opinions are challenged; yet we're supposed to believe that it's noble, selfless and progressive to deliberately provoke others because of their beliefs? This is fighting conviction with immaturity, a battle no-one wins; worse, it smacks of vanity.
Click to expand...

Agreed, all I'm saying is that the reaction is utterly unjustified and should not be rewarded with restrictions on the tasteless "humour."


@sammsky1

I'm not an expert on why people turn to ISIS etc. but I'd imagine there are may reasons. I think part of the reason is that for many immigrants, including 2nd generation, religion is the defining feature of their identity (maybe the only one). And I think that this gets reinforced by the rise of the right (who are then reinforced by the rise of ISIS). I don't know the solution, and I can see why in a situation like that cartoons become inflammatory. But I don't think that is enough reason to ban them. (I don;t support absolute freedom of expression in general, but non-violent satire shouldn't be banned)
 
crappycraperson said:
Almost seems like you are justifying violent reaction of extemists to cartoonists. Poor form. If Muslims can't live in a free speech culture the west has fought over centuries for, perhaps they should rethink their decision to live in liberal societies. Better off in regressive societies in Asia and Middle East.
Click to expand...

if that's what you got from it then there is no hope for the world. Too many people jumping to the worst possible conclusion because the feel it adds to their paradigm.

Ok that was definitely my last post in this thread. Promise.
 
lewwoo said:
I would never pretend to have a solution. I'm just an average Joe. Threats of violence for mocking any religion certainly isn't an answer though I'd hope you'd agree?
Click to expand...
I dont see a viable alternative. Happy to be persuaded otherwise, but Ive been involved in this subject for several years and Im yet to see one.
 
Is there a thread on here discussing ways to stop terrorism? I'd be very intrigued to read exclusively what solutions people have.
 
crappycraperson said:
Almost seems like you are justifying violent reaction of extemists to cartoonists. Poor form. If Muslims can't live in a free speech culture the west has fought over centuries for, perhaps they should rethink their decision to live in liberal societies. Better off in regressive societies in Asia and Middle East.
Click to expand...

Didn't we already establish this is not about Muslims at all? Is if fair that 2 million muslims pay this price for the crimes of 10 people?

So you propose mass forced displacement of all UK muslims into Muslim Majority countries? Is that your recommendation? How do you propose to implement that?

Get off your bullshit philosophical horses and give me some viable solutions.

Also wrt to your first sentence: don't misrepresent what I wrote. I never ever came close to saying that.
 
Last edited:
lewwoo said:
Wow ok. Not sure where we can go from here so im bowing out.
Click to expand...
So you can huff and puff your ideological ideals but the moment you're asked to be part of the solution you run a mile. Fascinating.
 
predator said:
Is there a thread on here discussing ways to stop terrorism? I'd be very intrigued to read exclusively what solutions people have.
Click to expand...

Terrorism in general or terrorism motivated by something in particular like religion? If you are thinking about the former, there is no solutions.
 
sammsky1 said:
So you can huff and puff your ideological ideals but the moment you're asked to be part of the solution you run a mile. Fascinating.
Click to expand...
Not that fascinating. There isn't really anywhere a debate can go with someone who sees no viable alternative but threats of violence. We will never agree so I will wish you well and leave you to debate with others. For the record my step father is Turkish Muslim and I have no ideological ideals. I merely believe strongly in free speech and not having any one group protected within that. Good day sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.