He just stopped posting.
Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
He just stopped posting.
I can agree with that. We can all agree that attacks like this have an implication on the perception of Islam and Muslims across the world and with the frequency with which it has happened, I'd fully expect there to be a shared reaction within that community. I don't actually agree that it's worthwhile repeating that message but I can understand why it happens.
In any case, that's not quite what I was talking about. In fact you're saying what I'm saying - it's entirely appropriate to talk about the macro elements of the attack even in the immediate aftermath, because some things do need to be said and it's the most constructive thing we, as citizens, can do. We don't necessarily agree on what needs to be said and how, but the principle remains the same. I'm arguing against the suggestion that anything other than respectful silence is insensitive and inappropriate. Respectful silence on an internet forum directed towards a bunch of people we don't know is not a good use of anyone's time, in my view.
I don't believe I misunderstood the article or its message, but perhaps my point is more tangential to your point than I realised. What Fearless is doing is entirely his own thing, it's not representative of the tone of the thread. When Pogue posted the article, Fearless had stated one (slightly misleading) statistic while most of the other 800 posts were talking about the macro elements of the attack and the usual themes that follow off the back of it. My interpretation of Pogue's post was that discussing the macro elements of the attack is itself an issue as it underlines people's need to constantly voice their own thoughts on the tragedy and make sure their own, well prepared reactions are noticed. It's somehow impersonal and loses sight of the big picture. That's alluded to in the article.
If you are purely talking about what Fearless is doing, then yes I agree, I find it somewhat abhorrent. However if that is the case then I think you're doing exactly what you're criticising others of doing: misrepresenting the discussion and using the opinion of one person with extreme views to make a political point and advance your agenda.
You don't appear to be talking about an individual here as you refer to everyone wanting to get their cheap shots in. That's then characterised as appalling and pathetic. My interpretation is that you, like Pogue, were talking about people like himself (as he says) who talked about the facts, the context, the usual themes they fit into and then adding your own perspective to the matter. I can understand why that's seen as a bad thing - somehow cold and calculating, losing touch with reality and what really matters - but I don't personally agree. I think it's more beneficial than respectful silence and an outpouring of grief from a bunch of strangers on the internet. Firstly I think it's often sincere and self-serving and secondly I can't see how it's constructive.
Good points, well made.
It's a tricky one, working out the best way to react to an atrocity like this. My personal approach is to say nothing at all on social media (where I'm identifiable) as whatever approach you take (expressions of condemnation/remorse/outrage/solidarity or getting into debates about the causes and potential solutions) will strike someone, somewhere as crass. With an event so close, to home I could even end up annoying someone who has been directly affected. And the last thing I want to do in the context of a real human tragedy is come across as an attention-seeking prat. So I just keep shtum.
On here, I'm less fussed about how I'm perceived because of the anonymity. And my love of a good debate means I wade into whatever chat is going down, without near enough thought for the human cost of what has happened (if I'm honest) Obviously, I'm not proud about this. I should really make more of an effort to align the actions of my public and anonymous persona. If only to be a more consistent person.
It's a tricky one, working out the best way to react to an atrocity like this. My personal approach is to say nothing at all on social media (where I'm identifiable) as whatever approach you take (expressions of condemnation/remorse/outrage/solidarity or getting into debates about the causes and potential solutions) will strike someone, somewhere as crass. With an event so close, to home I could even end up annoying someone who has been directly affected. And the last thing I want to do in the context of a real human tragedy is come across as an attention-seeking prat. So I just keep shtum.
On here, I'm less fussed about how I'm perceived because of the anonymity. And my love of a good debate means I wade into whatever chat is going down, without near enough thought for the human cost of what has happened (if I'm honest) Obviously, I'm not proud about this. I should really make more of an effort to align the actions of my public and anonymous persona. If only to be a more consistent person.
I mostly handle it like you, but I generally don't argue/discuss anything in social media, so just ignoring these things is easy.
Honest question: Does anyone really feel any empathy when these events happen (in the sense like you feel empathy when something happened to someone you know)? I certainly don’t and I don’t think it is desirable to do so. You’d just be miserable all the time. Additionally emotional attachment just clouds your judgment afterwards.
I frequently read theses condolences messages on social media (or even here in this forum) and find them cringe-worthy. I just don’t get it. What brings me back to the initial question: Whats the point? Does anyone really feel bad due to these incidence or is this just a way to show other people how morally aware you are?
Paul Bloom's Against Empathy is a good read that touches on the issue.
Haven't read it but heard him discuss some of the concepts on the Sam Harris podcast. Not sure I agree with him that empathy is actively problematic but agree it's not necessarily something we should constantly strive for.
Personally, I do sometimes feel empathy. Usually over some minor detail. A victim of a similar age. Or with kids similar ages to mine. It's fairly transient though. And private. Plus - as Paul Bloom says - once you go down that path, where does it end?
Yeah I agree with you both, @Pogue Mahone and @PedroMendez. Like Pedro I don't really say anything about these events and generally I don't say anything particularly political or personal on social media. It just doesn't feel like the right space for it. We all intuitively know that any kind of electronic communication adds an impersonal, unemotional element to it. You're taking the time to formulate a coherent thought and type it out, on a device, in silence, on your own. It'd be be weird if it didn't. I don't know much about the biology of the brain but I'm sure there's plenty of things you can talk about to explain that. All I know is I act differently when I'm surrounded by people vs. when I'm immersing myself in something solo, and I'm fairly certain that's been true throughout the ages. We just have a lot more opportunities to immerse ourselves in our own thing so how we're perceived and perceive ourselves has now seen a significant shift.
The impersonal element of it is partly down to how things are left much more open to interpretation at the other end of electronic communications, because you don't have all of the visual cues to tell the full story, but it's also partly due to how I communicate my message too. It is more fact-based, thoughtful and structured than if I was to communicate vaguely the same message in general conversation. The two combined do make it seem cold, but I don't think that's a reflection on society and how we react to things, I think it's just a reflection of the medium we use to voice our opinions and hear others'. It has a lot of benefits but it has its downsides too. As long as we're all conscious of the fact people act differently in different environments, I don't think it's something we need to worry about.
On the evening of the attack I went straight to Trafalgar Square in the hope of finding some human connection, some signs of solidarity and community and some emotional reassurance manifested in a physical form. I actively sought out somewhere to embrace that feeling among a group of people on the same page. I then came on here to talk about the topic for a very different reason. That doesn't make me concerned about how I compartmentalise my life because I don't think that's what I'm doing. We just seek out different experiences in different environments and behave according to the social norms associated with each of them. I suppose we're just a lot less sure about what the social norms are on the internet, particularly during a time of trauma and heightened emotions.
I do think it's slightly worrying how often we do take the opportunity to immerse ourselves in our own thing and engage in a largely impersonal, unemotional form of interaction, but that's another thing altogether. Once you're in that space I find it odd to complain about that being the end result. It's like choosing to live on your own in a Beduin cave for a week and then complaining about being lonely. Don't put yourself in that space and you won't find yourself feeling that way.
The impersonal element of it is partly down to how things are left much more open to interpretation at the other end of electronic communications, because you don't have all of the visual cues to tell the full story, but it's also partly due to how I communicate my message too. It is more fact-based, thoughtful and structured than if I was to communicate vaguely the same message in general conversation. The two combined do make it seem cold, but I don't think that's a reflection on society and how we react to things, I think it's just a reflection of the medium we use to voice our opinions and hear others'. It has a lot of benefits but it has its downsides too. As long as we're all conscious of the fact people act differently in different environments, I don't think it's something we need to worry about.
On the evening of the attack I went straight to Trafalgar Square in the hope of finding some human connection, some signs of solidarity and community and some emotional reassurance manifested in a physical form. I actively sought out somewhere to embrace that feeling among a group of people on the same page. I then came on here to talk about the topic for a very different reason. That doesn't make me concerned about how I compartmentalise my life because I don't think that's what I'm doing. We just seek out different experiences in different environments and behave according to the social norms associated with each of them. I suppose we're just a lot less sure about what the social norms are on the internet, particularly during a time of trauma and heightened emotions.
I do think it's slightly worrying how often we do take the opportunity to immerse ourselves in our own thing and engage in a largely impersonal, unemotional form of interaction, but that's another thing altogether. Once you're in that space I find it odd to complain about that being the end result. It's like choosing to live on your own in a Beduin cave for a week and then complaining about being lonely. Don't put yourself in that space and you won't find yourself feeling that way.
I think you can feel a degree of empathy with people killed horribly, particularly if it's in a place you know well or frequent. If only on a selfish level, ie it could've been me.
I think you miss the point some what. 3 other cops were hospitalised, 2 apparently quite serious from being ran over on the bridge.
It's not because of his job he's been seemingly elevated above the others it's what he did. Very brave.
Not questioning their bravery for a second and I'm delighted that the widow has financial security, albeit her life has still been devastated and it probably means very little right now.
Untied's point just made me think about whether the others are a bit relatively forgotten- that's taking nothing away from the loss of Keith Palmer.
Police, medics and teachers among others are all professions I have respect for- they are crucial services and there's no way I could do those jobs.
My point is if someone else had tackled the murderer and lost their life I'm positive they would have the same recognition as Keith Palmer. Forget his occupation.
I get the personal empathy, particularly when they release photos and details of those who died and the nameless victims suddenly become a teacher or a tourist on a wedding anniversary trip. What I conpletely fail to understand is the #pray for [insert this week's tragedy/atrocity] stuff. It just comes across as incredibly superficial and "look at me". It may be that I am the wrong generation to fully understand social media but I also cringed at all the very public Diana grief 20 years ago. For me, you reserve that for friends and family and you don't broadcast it.
I guess so. Through £600k now.
Yeah that's the only part that I find particularly odd, but that's possibly just because I'm an atheist grump.
Big donations after shocking events like this aren't really out of the ordinary - the Jo Cox Memorial Fund was well over £1m (albeit going to charities rather than the family), and today's a day when tens of millions are going to be raised for humanitarian efforts worldwide.
The man police say was responsible for the Westminster attack has been formally identified as 52-year-old Khalid Masood.
He is believed to have had at least three children.
The Metropolitan Police says he was born as Adrian Russell Ajao - but the story appears to be more confusing still, because of a string of alternative names or aliases he used.
He was entered onto the birth registry in the Dartford district of Kent as Adrian Russell Elms, in the weeks after he was born on Christmas Day 1964.
Elms was his mother's maiden name, but two years after he was born she married a man with the name Ajao.
The future killer used the surnames interchangeably before he converted to Islam and became Masood.
'Ostracised in village'
His mother and her husband lived for a long time in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, where the young Masood, then called Adrian, attended Huntleys School for Boys, before moving to Wales.
Their Carmarthenshire home has been searched by detectives from the Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit. Neither of them have been treated as suspects.
Police say that Masood was known to them, and had a string of previous convictions, including grievous bodily harm and public order offences.
Masood's first conviction came when he was 18 years old, in November 1983, for criminal damage.
Courtesy: BBC
A good proportion of these criminals tend to be converts.
He is believed to have had at least three children.
The Metropolitan Police says he was born as Adrian Russell Ajao - but the story appears to be more confusing still, because of a string of alternative names or aliases he used.
He was entered onto the birth registry in the Dartford district of Kent as Adrian Russell Elms, in the weeks after he was born on Christmas Day 1964.
Elms was his mother's maiden name, but two years after he was born she married a man with the name Ajao.
The future killer used the surnames interchangeably before he converted to Islam and became Masood.
'Ostracised in village'
His mother and her husband lived for a long time in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, where the young Masood, then called Adrian, attended Huntleys School for Boys, before moving to Wales.
Their Carmarthenshire home has been searched by detectives from the Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit. Neither of them have been treated as suspects.
Police say that Masood was known to them, and had a string of previous convictions, including grievous bodily harm and public order offences.
Masood's first conviction came when he was 18 years old, in November 1983, for criminal damage.
Courtesy: BBC
A good proportion of these criminals tend to be converts.
Donations are fine - that actually involves contributing something beyond a cut and paste on your Twitter account.
That is fantastic for the policemans family, but what about the other victims families?
They've been affected just as much and won't get anything.
Crowd funding should have been set up for all or none imo.
Set up a fund for them then?
Looks like there are other funds set up already.
I hope you didn't misconstrue my post mate. I think it's utterly fantastic that nearly a million pounds has been raised for that policemans family (not that the money will ease their pain). The guy was a real hero and the money raised shows just how much people appreciate what he did.
I just found it odd that there had been no mention of crowdfunding for the other families affected seeing as they are all mourning a lost loved one.
No course not pal.
I just think he's had the most attention given what he actually did, not just what happened to him.
AS I posted earlier, did you have a look at who set up the fundraising for this particular victim? The Metro Police Force, it was set up by them for one of their own. In fact that is usually the way many of these fundraisers work, people connected to the person in need set them up. Not that difficult of a concept to grasp. Most likely people connected to the other victims have set up similar efforts.
My daughter did one for a friend of hers who had cancer and needed help with the bills. She did not set one up for everyone who has cancer and needs helps with their bills, and it is understandable why she didn't.
Ok, no need to get shirty love
I hadn't re-read all of the pages, so apologies for this.
I think it's great that this guys family are being taken care of. I didn't know that it was set up by the metro police either, just thought it was done by random strangers, which is why i wondered why it hadn't been done for all of the victims families at the same time.
And there is a reason for this: children born into UK Muslim family's belong to supportive Muslim communities who teach Islamic principles during the entirety of a child's upbringing. There are checks and balances in place to monitor progress: parents and relatives, siblings and friends, religious teachers and mosques - its relatively easy to spot if a child becomes radicalised and an entire eco-system in place to deal with it if it happens.
The teaching is a gradual process til adulthood: a combination of learning rituals like the Ramadan fast, as well as core human values like kindness, don't kill, steal or lie etc. Its very similar to how religion would be introduced to a child from a Christian/Jewish/other religion family. Most practice a diluted version when they become adults, others become agnostic and a minority totally reject Islam. A tiny few may get radicalised by Islamists, but the vast majority of 'waywards' are identified and rectified.
ISIS has a specific recruitment playbook and converts are a key target. Converts join Islam during adulthood mainly because they have feel some kind of deficit in their lives. When they convert, they often lack any community support and have to learn Islam in a much shorter period of time. They are zealous in their consumption of information, often don't understand the relativity of certain concepts, and don't posses any 'road map' to knowledge that born Muslims had. Critically, this makes converts susceptible to manipulation by expert Islamist recruiters who offer them the positive affirmation and emotional support that 'the muslim community' provides a child. Very soon, the convert is emotionally dependent on their recruiter who then takes them through the process to terrorism and self sacrifice.
Sadly, the UK authorities did not spot Adrian Russell Ajao aka Adrian Russell Elms aka Khaled Masood despite this being common knowledge amongst counter terrorism experts around the world.
Last edited:
One ting I really don't like about this incident is the media reaction.
Firstly, the daft speculation and just blatant making stuff up to try and make it all more dramatic and scary. At one point it was "confirmed" that there were two attackers. ITV news "confirmed" a fifth person had died and then the next morning it had gone back down to 4 people, so someone magically came back to life. Pretending the attacker was some guy MI5 were aware of who it turned out was known to still be in jail. Reporters and the like all over twitter acting like complete bellends posting or reporting unfabricated nonsense. Taking pictures of people on the tube then pretending they were "silent with fear", etc. These people are supposed to be professional journalists. They're supposed to investigate things intelligently. Yet they act like a bunch of excitable childish dickheads who are gossiping about the latest episode of TOWIE. Not a hint of integrity or actual informative or subjective reporting to be seen. It's absolutely pathetic really.
Secondly, due in no small part to the above, the media seem to do more than half of ISIS's job for them. They instantly report it as terror, they instantly turn it into part of some war. They instantly give the attacker some kind of meaning, or cause, or vindication, by acting like he's achieved something by his actions. They instantly give people who want to use it to fuel racial agendas, exactly what they need. They do it every time. Suddenly ITV and BBC have specail news coverage and act as if World War 3 has broken out.
Why not just report it as being some random nutter? Give the incident the grievance it deserves, but don't link it to Islam, or "terror" or ISIS and their cause, or make out like the country or democracy has been punched in the face or suffered some kind of defeat. In reality, ISIS haven''t become stronger because of this incident. The country hasn't become weaker. So just report it as what it is...a single lunatic doing a lunatic thing. Make it so that when these people do these things, they aren't seen as fighting a cause or being some kind of martyr to anything...they're just seen as pointless fecking idiots who kill innocent people and themselves for absolutely no real reason...because, you know, that's exactly what they are?
People who are "radicalised" into carrying out these acts might be insane, despicable scumbags. They might have been led astray and brainwashed, but they still do what they do for a reason. They do it for the reaction it gets...because they think they are fighting a war and striking some kind of blow by their actions. If you take that away from them, their actions have no power. The "I'm not a racist but" brigade also lose their ammunition.
What annoys me is our media seem to actively do the opposite of this. It is llike they want it to be a war.
Firstly, the daft speculation and just blatant making stuff up to try and make it all more dramatic and scary. At one point it was "confirmed" that there were two attackers. ITV news "confirmed" a fifth person had died and then the next morning it had gone back down to 4 people, so someone magically came back to life. Pretending the attacker was some guy MI5 were aware of who it turned out was known to still be in jail. Reporters and the like all over twitter acting like complete bellends posting or reporting unfabricated nonsense. Taking pictures of people on the tube then pretending they were "silent with fear", etc. These people are supposed to be professional journalists. They're supposed to investigate things intelligently. Yet they act like a bunch of excitable childish dickheads who are gossiping about the latest episode of TOWIE. Not a hint of integrity or actual informative or subjective reporting to be seen. It's absolutely pathetic really.
Secondly, due in no small part to the above, the media seem to do more than half of ISIS's job for them. They instantly report it as terror, they instantly turn it into part of some war. They instantly give the attacker some kind of meaning, or cause, or vindication, by acting like he's achieved something by his actions. They instantly give people who want to use it to fuel racial agendas, exactly what they need. They do it every time. Suddenly ITV and BBC have specail news coverage and act as if World War 3 has broken out.
Why not just report it as being some random nutter? Give the incident the grievance it deserves, but don't link it to Islam, or "terror" or ISIS and their cause, or make out like the country or democracy has been punched in the face or suffered some kind of defeat. In reality, ISIS haven''t become stronger because of this incident. The country hasn't become weaker. So just report it as what it is...a single lunatic doing a lunatic thing. Make it so that when these people do these things, they aren't seen as fighting a cause or being some kind of martyr to anything...they're just seen as pointless fecking idiots who kill innocent people and themselves for absolutely no real reason...because, you know, that's exactly what they are?
People who are "radicalised" into carrying out these acts might be insane, despicable scumbags. They might have been led astray and brainwashed, but they still do what they do for a reason. They do it for the reaction it gets...because they think they are fighting a war and striking some kind of blow by their actions. If you take that away from them, their actions have no power. The "I'm not a racist but" brigade also lose their ammunition.
What annoys me is our media seem to actively do the opposite of this. It is llike they want it to be a war.
Apparently JustGiving will make around £30k from the Keith Palmer appeal.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/31759...dministration-fee-for-pc-keith-palmer-appeal/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/31759...dministration-fee-for-pc-keith-palmer-appeal/
I agree with all of that, it is like the spree shooting in the US. At what point is the media responsible for increasing these incidents through the way they report them?
At the moment the terrorist aims and the 24-hour news agenda align perfectly.
Like this story today from USA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39397938 Similar-ish level of injuries and casualties, but not a high profile venue and in a 3rd tier city.
But San Bernadino was of similar profile. This story won't prompt anywhere close to that kind of coverage and wont get any engagement in a redcafe CE thread because its seems as though its not a muslim who committed the murder.
The mystery of Khalid Masood’s journey into violence and terror
'Police experts will study every aspect of the life of the 52-year-old who wreaked havoc at parliament. But his motives are a conundrum that may never be solved'
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...alid-masoods-journey-into-violence-and-terror
Around Christmas, neighbours saw a van outside a small but comfortable home in the Winson Green neighbourhood of Birmingham. Khalid Masood, his partner and two children were moving out. Their new home was close by, but infinitely less salubrious. Their canalside terrace house had been swapped for a tiny bedsit above a restaurant on a busy road.
This and many other details will be picked over by analysts seeking to reconstitute the life of the man who killed four people with a 4x4 vehicle and knives before being shot dead outside the Houses of Parliament last week. The official aim will be to build up a comprehensive picture of the man responsible for the most lethal terrorist attack in Britain since 2005, in order to understand how he could have been stopped. Another aim will be simply to understand what turns someone into a terrorist killer.
“Clearly the main line of our investigation is what led him to be radicalised,” said Mark Rowley, Scotland Yard’s top counter-terrorism officer, on Friday.
Yet even such a seemingly banal objective is problematic. Many experts now question the whole concept of radicalisation. The FBI talks of “pathways to violence”, stressing that every individual’s journey to extremist murder is unique. There are fierce debates over the role of ideology, social circumstances, individual personality traits, and mental illness. Analysts prefer to talk of “risk factors” rather than “root causes”.
But some trends are evident. One is age. Masood, 52, was an outlier. Ten years ago, the average age of attackers in the west was around 29. Now it is nearer 25. In France almost 2,000 teenagers have been radicalised by Islamic State, officials say, with a 121% increase between 2015 and 2016.
One possible reason for this is demographic – large numbers of adult second-generation immigrants. Another is intensive social media use on now ubiquitous smartphones, and consequent exposure to propaganda. A third is the specific appeal of Isis, which offers adventure, camaraderie, cash rewards and even sexual opportunity in a way that contrasts dramatically with the asceticism of previous militant groups like al-Qaida.
This also helps explain why the proportion of Islamic militants with criminal backgrounds has risen too. Former Isis militants in Europe have described the attraction of the group as like that of a gang – yet one in which violence and misogyny become transformed into “resistance” and “redemption” for erring sinners. The group’s debased message, stripped of all but the most simplistic and distorted theological or political argument, appeals too to those who have neither the intellectual equipment nor inclination to debate, argue or learn.
Masood was convicted of a series of violent offences – the most recent in 2003. He appears to have converted to Islam around then. A disproportionately high number of militants involved in plots in the west have been converts.
In the UK between 2001 and 2013, 12% of “homegrown jihadis” were converts, but less than 4% of the overall Muslim population were. In the US, the total in 2015 was 40%, against an overall level of 23%. Do converts have something to prove? Are they, with superficial cultural and theological knowledge, more vulnerable to extremist interpretations of key teachings and texts?
Then there is identity. Masood, born Adrian Russell Elms, grew up one of two black men in a village in Kent, son of a single teenage white mother. Much of his life appears to have been marked by racial tensions. This too may help explain the appeal of not just conversion to Islam, but of extremism.
As early as 2008, French security services were stressing “split identities” as a key factor behind extremism. Isis has made efforts to project its so-called caliphate as blind to colour, ethnicity and nationality – in deliberate opposition to the discrimination it claims exists in the west. Isis followers have focused social media activity on incidents of racial violence or injustice in the west. “I am not British or Indian but a Muslim,” said one British teacher, son of south Asian-born parents, shortly before his death fighting with Islamic militants in Syria in 2015.
Masood does not appear to have tried to leave the UK to fight for the cause at any stage. But from 2004 to 2009 he seems to have been in Saudi Arabia, teaching English. A trip to the Islamic world is another common feature of the background of extremist attackers. Most spend a few months studying, rather than teaching, Islam and Arabic. Many, probably including Masood, are simply steeped in the more rigorous, intolerant and puritanical strains of the faith which, with their limited previous knowledge of Islam, they often do not question. Such strands facilitate, though do not guarantee, a later commitment to more aggressive ideologies. Some are clearly exposed to violent tendencies in establishments linked to extremists.
One factor that has emerged from recent research and reporting of extremist violence is the role of peers, associates and the family. Terrorism is a social activity, not one undertaken by crazed loners. Research last year found that 45% of Islamic militant cases talked about their inspiration and possible actions with family and friends.
Brothers are often involved – in Paris in November 2015, and Boston in 2013. A married couple launched an attack together in California. Close friends team up – such as the pair of converts who killed off-duty soldier Lee Rigby in London four years ago. A 2009 FBI study found an average of three, and as many as 14, “bystanders” in every attack. These were people who knew what was likely to happen but failed to stop it. Most were relatives or friends. Police investigating the Westminster attack will be aiming to find such “bystanders”.
Finally there is the speed at which the “pathway to violence” is travelled. British officials have spoken of “fast turnaround” radicalisation. Many experts are dubious. But fast or slow, few of those who end up as extremists wake up one day and decide they want to be Isis killers. The process is gradual, if sometimes rapid. Didar Mohammed, a would-be suicide bomber in Kurdistan, told me of “waking up from a nightmare” when he failed to trip his bomb. A 19-year-old Belgian Isis recruit who at the last moment escaped travelling to Syria, described how she “was no longer herself”. Again and again, former militants describe how they barely imagined their eventual destination when their journey to violence began.
This is important. When on Monday or Tuesday Masood hired the vehicle he used for the attack, had he made up his mind days, or weeks or months before? Could the humiliation of having to give up a family home have been the final element that tipped him into action? What was he saying on WhatsApp, the messaging service, minutes before he launched his attack? And to whom?
It is human nature to try to construct stories, to simplify chaos into linear narratives which provide answers, solutions, explanations. This is what the search for the key to Masood’s radicalisation hopes to find. But we know that we do not experience our own lives in this way. Masood, for all his violent tendencies and criminality was, like most murderers, an ordinary man. We will have some answers to our questions. But anyone hoping to definitively resolve the puzzle of how a 52-year-old from Kent came to kill and be killed in the centre of our capital city will be disappointed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...alid-masoods-journey-into-violence-and-terror
Last edited:
@sammsky1 the way I'm reading that is 88% of "homegrown jihadis" in the UK are people who have grown up within those Muslim communities with those checks and balances in place, which doesn't seem to chime with what you and @Sultan are saying? I appreciate that converts are a particularly susceptible group but the reality is, based on those figures, they only represent a small proportion and thus are only a small part of the problem. The UK authorities would find it hard to justify focusing their resources on a group that only represents 12% of the threat.
Can I see the source for that 88%?
I'm not suggesting counter terrorism authorities focus all their resources tracking converts to Islam. Just pointing out the nuance in the converts view of Islam and how it can be skilfully manipulated by ISIS recruiters. Its reassuring that authorities have gained true empathy into the subject, and this attack will only increase insight into this group.
What I find really concerning is there is no muslim in UK who has not heard a message that Islam denounces terrorist actions. Its been a dominant narrative since 9/11 and 7/7 and comes directly from mosques and the muslim community as well as from broader society. And yet despite that knowledge, a few people are convinced through ISIS propaganda to believe an alternative reality and commit mass murder through self sacrifice.
Last edited:
I'm just using your source. If 12% are converts then 88% aren't. I don't know what their definition of a "homegrown jihadi" is but that's what the figures are saying. The way I read it is:
- There are 3.1m Muslims, of which 4% are converts
- Of those ~125k converts, ~15k are "homegrown jihadis"
- Which means ~110k aren't converts
My view is the religion is just a tool to help motivate people to commit the atrocities, and the real motivation comes from something much deeper. I personally think there is more that could be done to make Islam a more blunt tool than it currently is, and the religion being challenged at a broad level is of benefit to society and its followers, but I don't think it would come close to addressing the problem of terrorism.
Ah. Got it. Good point and agree with you. But your actual numbers are not accurate:
- they did not state how many 'homegrown jihadi's' there are in UK, only that 12% of them were converts.
- as opposed to 4% of 3.1 muslims in UK being converts.
The actual numbers are minute.
Last edited:
It means that 110k aren't jihadis.
I can see where you think I've gone wrong - the numbers for "homegrown jihadis" and Muslim converts just happen to be quite similar.
If the 15k represent 12% of "homegrown jihadis", then overall numbers are 125k. Which just happens to be the overall number of Muslim converts too.
However yes, 110k of the 125k converts and 2.9m of the 3m non-converts* aren't jihadis.
*obviously not the official term...but I've no idea what it is
- they did not state how many 'homegrown jihadi's' there are in UK, only that 12% of homegrown jihadi's are converts.
- as opposed to 4% of 3.1 muslims in UK being converts.
In reality the numbers are tiny, barely a few thousand went to join ISIS in Syria and a only handful are prepared to commit UK based attacks.
Last edited:
Oh I see what you mean, I didn't read it that way.
Yeah you're right, those population figures are definitely not right...the point remains the same though. The majority of jihadis arent converts according to the article.
According to figures from Charles Kurzman at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 35 percent of those charged for jihadist terrorist plots in the U.S. since Sept. 11 were converts to Islam.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rding-to-a-top-expert/?utm_term=.4c07dbaea8d6
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rding-to-a-top-expert/?utm_term=.4c07dbaea8d6
Simcox also found that 29 percent of these individuals were converts to Islam. Converts, he reported, accounted for 67 percent of American Muslims involved in committing or planning an ISIS-related attack—“a significantly disproportionate percentage, considering that they comprise only 20% of Muslims throughout the entire United States.” Converts are similarly overrepresented among convicted British jihadists. According to Scott Kleinman and Scott Flower, converts constitute an estimated 2 to 3 percent of Britain’s 2.8 million Muslims, yet “converts have been involved in 31% of jihadist terrorism convictions in the UK from 2001 to 2010.”
What is it about ISIS, and militant Islamist groups in general, that makes them attractive both to criminals and to converts or born-again Muslims?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/isis-criminals-converts/426822/
What is it about ISIS, and militant Islamist groups in general, that makes them attractive both to criminals and to converts or born-again Muslims?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/isis-criminals-converts/426822/
That still leaves a solid majority of jihadis (65%) as non-converts, though? The Guardian suggests that 23% of the American Muslim population are converts so it's not a huge jump from 1/4 to 1/3. Undoubtedly they're a target group and have proven to be susceptible but evidently they're not the core group. If the majority come from Muslim families then I'd suggest the socioeconomic variables have a higher correlation with the propensity to become a jihadi than anything religious-based.