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

Brwned said:
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.
Click to expand...

True.

However, in this report which I posted above.

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
 
Sultan said:
True.

However, in this report which I posted above.

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
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's interesting. So 29% of of the 58 individuals linked to 32 ISIS-related plots in the West between July 2014 and August 2015 were converts, but more than double that proportion (67%) are involved in at least the planning phase (at least in America)? The way I'm reading that is the converts are particularly susceptible to buy into the ideology of it all but they're significantly less likely than the non-converts to commit the attacks, once they've bought into it. I suppose one way of reading this is if a non-convert is brought over the the dark side they're much more likely to be all in, while a convert doesn't have quite the same grounding so he can be swayed in a subtler way.

That still to me suggests that the convert issue seems like a distraction from a larger issue, which doesn't chime with what much of the media is reporting. There must be something I'm missing. All I've seen is:

a) the majority of ISIS-related attackers are non-converts
b) among those that do seem to buy into the ideology, non-converts are significantly more like to step past the planning stage to actually commit the attack
 
In the last few terror attacks on UK soil IIRC there was one convert involved in 7/7 bombings. Both Lee Rigby killers were converts and last weeks attack was also carried out by a convert.
 
Brwned said:
Yeah, that's interesting. So 29% of of the 58 individuals linked to 32 ISIS-related plots in the West between July 2014 and August 2015 were converts, but more than double that proportion (67%) are involved in at least the planning phase (at least in America)? The way I'm reading that is the converts are particularly susceptible to buy into the ideology of it all but they're significantly less likely than the non-converts to commit the attacks, once they've bought into it. I suppose one way of reading this is if a non-convert is brought over the the dark side they're much more likely to be all in, while a convert doesn't have quite the same grounding so he can be swayed in a subtler way.

That still to me suggests that the convert issue seems like a distraction from a larger issue, which doesn't chime with what much of the media is reporting. There must be something I'm missing. All I've seen is:

a) the majority of ISIS-related attackers are non-converts
b) among those that do seem to buy into the ideology, non-converts are significantly more like to step past the planning stage to actually commit the attack
Click to expand...
The media and I are only trying to reason why out of a pool of over a Billion Muslims why are there such a high proportion of converts getting sucked into this murderous ideology?
 
Last edited:
Sultan said:
The media and I'm trying to reason out of a pool of over a Billion Muslims why are there such a high proportion of converts getting sucked into this murderous ideology?
Click to expand...

I do get that they are disproportionately represented, and I think the Guardian's suggestions that they possibly "have have something to prove", and are likely to be "more vulnerable to extremist interpretations of key teachings and texts" due to their superficial cultural and religious knowledge intuitively make sense. I just think that's not necessarily something that should be a major focus. Rather than splitting them out by converts vs. non-converts, I'd suggest there are other variables at play that have a stronger correlation. It's much harder to establish a robust metric that looks at social exclusion, political disenfranchisement etc. so I appreciate why people are looking at something more tangible, but they (from what I can tell) are the key drivers - conversion isn't.

However the reality is that in spite of a disproprortionate number of converts buying into the ideology, there are still a substantial amount of non-converts in there - by most reports they're the majority group. A narrow focus on a minority group might allow you to allow to glean a bit more qualitative information from their individual cases but I'm not convinced it wouldn't obscure the big picture. 96% of the British muslim population are non-converts, and 88% of "Homegrown Jihadis" are non-converts (if we take the Guardian's figures as correct). They're proportionately less likely to get sucked into it, and the % difference is statistically significant, but it seems dangerous to focus in on another group when the absolute numbers are still that high.
 
Basically, extremism is a by-product of ignorance (exception when you're mentally disturbed). We as individuals find ourselves being pulled in so many directions by many internal and external forces. Our total well-being requires finding the path of moderation (middle road) in all aspects of life. Some simply cannot grasp this simple life lesson.
 
Brwned said:
I do get that they are disproportionately represented, and I think the Guardian's suggestions that they possibly "have have something to prove", and are likely to be "more vulnerable to extremist interpretations of key teachings and texts" due to their superficial cultural and religious knowledge intuitively make sense. I just think that's not necessarily something that should be a major focus. Rather than splitting them out by converts vs. non-converts, I'd suggest there are other variables at play that have a stronger correlation. It's much harder to establish a robust metric that looks at social exclusion, political disenfranchisement etc. so I appreciate why people are looking at something more tangible, but they (from what I can tell) are the key drivers - conversion isn't.

However the reality is that in spite of a disproprortionate number of converts buying into the ideology, there are still a substantial amount of non-converts in there - by most reports they're the majority group. A narrow focus on a minority group might allow you to allow to glean a bit more qualitative information from their individual cases but I'm not convinced it wouldn't obscure the big picture. 96% of the British muslim population are non-converts, and 88% of "Homegrown Jihadis" are non-converts (if we take the Guardian's figures as correct). They're proportionately less likely to get sucked into it, and the % difference is statistically significant, but it seems dangerous to focus in on another group when the absolute numbers are still that high.
Click to expand...
I'm in no way suggesting we focus on any one group. These converts or born Muslims who become radicalised and cause issues still represent the same faith.
 
Brwned said:
I do get that they are disproportionately represented, and I think the Guardian's suggestions that they possibly "have have something to prove", and are likely to be "more vulnerable to extremist interpretations of key teachings and texts" due to their superficial cultural and religious knowledge intuitively make sense. I just think that's not necessarily something that should be a major focus. Rather than splitting them out by converts vs. non-converts, I'd suggest there are other variables at play that have a stronger correlation. It's much harder to establish a robust metric that looks at social exclusion, political disenfranchisement etc. so I appreciate why people are looking at something more tangible, but they (from what I can tell) are the key drivers - conversion isn't.

However the reality is that in spite of a disproprortionate number of converts buying into the ideology, there are still a substantial amount of non-converts in there - by most reports they're the majority group. A narrow focus on a minority group might allow you to allow to glean a bit more qualitative information from their individual cases but I'm not convinced it wouldn't obscure the big picture. 96% of the British muslim population are non-converts, and 88% of "Homegrown Jihadis" are non-converts (if we take the Guardian's figures as correct). They're proportionately less likely to get sucked into it, and the % difference is statistically significant, but it seems dangerous to focus in on another group when the absolute numbers are still that high.
Click to expand...
Considering the life that alot of those born muslims used to lead before becoming radicalised I'd consider them "converts" as well.
 
The conspiracy theories have started in the newbies.

Thugmann said:
the attacker was used as a dummy to see how quick security reacted, we need to end the Muslim extremists before we see a real life "London has fallen" happen.
Click to expand...
 
Brwned said:
I do get that they are disproportionately represented, and I think the Guardian's suggestions that they possibly "have have something to prove", and are likely to be "more vulnerable to extremist interpretations of key teachings and texts" due to their superficial cultural and religious knowledge intuitively make sense. I just think that's not necessarily something that should be a major focus. Rather than splitting them out by converts vs. non-converts, I'd suggest there are other variables at play that have a stronger correlation. It's much harder to establish a robust metric that looks at social exclusion, political disenfranchisement etc. so I appreciate why people are looking at something more tangible, but they (from what I can tell) are the key drivers - conversion isn't.
Click to expand...

This was also the hypothesis in Muslim countries affected by ISIS terrorism: eg: that children from poor families (many being orphans) attending Islamist leaning madrasah's were most susceptible to radicalisation.

And yet 4 of 5 young men (aged 20-24) who committed the recent Bangladesh cafe attack were 'homegrown'; born into relatively wealthy upper middle class, moderately muslim practicing families. They had good lives and bright futures: graduates from top local universities (equivalent to LSE or UCL), one of them had even worked at the local equivalent of Vodafone. And yet they killed 25 people, injured 50 more, before killing themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2016_Dhaka_attack

Regardless of being born a Muslim or being a convert, it makes no sense to me unless a person is mentally imbalanced or traumatised.

I get that a few Muslim's will get so angered by Western crimes towards Muslim societies (Palestine, Iraq war etc), they become soldiers of war just like a British or American solider.

But to consider civilian targets as fair game is not sanctioned by any mainstream Islamic doctrine. So I cant fathom how any 'muslim' can commit these acts and kill themselves in expectation of heavenly rewards; especially given the comprehensive narrative from Islamic institutions all around the globe that 'Islam totally denounces such acts'.
 
Last edited:
Jippy said:
The conspiracy theories have started in the newbies.
Click to expand...
Im not suggesting any conspiracy but one part of this attack doesn't make complete sense to me:

Why was this man willing to end his life in exchange for a 'relatively low' number of deaths: attacking the British parliament in broad daylight with a knife is always going to be overcome without too many casualties.

Either he had a strategic intention to cause mass psychological terror from the expected hysterical media coverage or he was mentally imbalanced or .... (insert conspiracy theory)
 
sammsky1 said:
Im not suggesting any conspiracy but one part of this attack doesn't make complete sense to me:

Why was this man willing to end his life in exchange for a 'relatively low' number of deaths: attacking the British parliament in broad daylight with a knife is always going to be overcome without too many casualties.

Either he had a strategic intention to cause mass psychological terror from the expected hysterical media coverage or he was mentally imbalanced or .... (insert conspiracy theory)
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but if you factor in the injuries, many serious, it does add up to quite a lot of victims. Thank god he didn't have a bomb or a gun.
You have to be pretty unhinged to do that, so that has to be a leading candidate for an explanation.
 
sammsky1 said:
Im not suggesting any conspiracy but one part of this attack doesn't make complete sense to me:

Why was this man willing to end his life in exchange for a 'relatively low' number of deaths: attacking the British parliament in broad daylight with a knife is always going to be overcome without too many casualties.

Either he had a strategic intention to cause mass psychological terror from the expected hysterical media coverage or he was mentally imbalanced or .... (insert conspiracy theory)
Click to expand...

He probably hoped to kill 10 on the bridge and take out an MP and he got close to doing that.
 
Might've been a variation of 'suicide by cop'.
 
Fearless said:
The context is Islam.

And calling me a racist/troll doesn't change that I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Fearless said:
How you cannot see the connection between Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism?
Click to expand...

Sorry where was the Islamic terrorism here?

Wasn't the guy in prison 3 times for multiple GBH charges and on drugs???

The police have reported they could not find any links with groups or contact with others.

I'm surprised someone didn't use the old "ISIS claim responsibility" party piece. They would claim the putting down of a pet in batersea dogs home to gain any notoriety.
 
sammsky1 said:
UK Muslims have a connection and will be affected by this event, despite having nothing to do with it. Along with sadness and shock, there is always collective sigh when a terrorist attack happens, we all know whats coming.

Before, we kept quiet not knowing how to respond, but we've understood we have to state we have nothing to do with such events as some desire to ostracise all Muslims as somehow supporting it. Its pathetic that British muslim MPs like Tulip Siddique and Rushanara Ali still feel they need to state that terrorists do not speak for them or Islam.
Click to expand...

I agree, This is grating and counterproductive but I can understand that with the media with its agenda and its owners why some public figures feel the need to say something.
 
RedTiger said:
Considering the life that alot of those born muslims used to lead before becoming radicalised I'd consider them "converts" as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think religious commitment probably has quite a strong inverse relationship to it. It'd actually be quite an interesting thing to see as it'd be a useful tool in tackling Islamophobia if you can prove the attacks are typically committed by those of least attached to the religion and its teachings.
 
Brwned said:
Agreed. I think religious commitment probably has quite a strong inverse relationship to it. It'd actually be quite an interesting thing to see as it'd be a useful tool in tackling Islamophobia if you can prove the attacks are typically committed by those of least attached to the religion and its teachings.
Click to expand...
I've posted this report a number of times. This for the benefit of our new members.

MI5 Report

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
 
Brwned said:
Agreed. I think religious commitment probably has quite a strong inverse relationship to it. It'd actually be quite an interesting thing to see as it'd be a useful tool in tackling Islamophobia if you can prove the attacks are typically committed by those of least attached to the religion and its teachings.
Click to expand...
"They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices."

MI5 report.
 
sammsky1 said:
Im not suggesting any conspiracy but one part of this attack doesn't make complete sense to me:

Why was this man willing to end his life in exchange for a 'relatively low' number of deaths: attacking the British parliament in broad daylight with a knife is always going to be overcome without too many casualties.

Either he had a strategic intention to cause mass psychological terror from the expected hysterical media coverage or he was mentally imbalanced or .... (insert conspiracy theory)
Click to expand...

There's a word for that. Begins with "t", ends in "ism".
 
Sultan said:
"They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices."

MI5 report.
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely falls in line with the majority of attacks since that report too. Makes complete sense given how much of the religious teachings refer back to compassion and mercy.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
He converted to Islam in prison.
Changed his name to an Islamic name.
Lived in Saudi Arabia.
Known to authorities as an extremist.
Murdered people in an attack style that has recently been encouraged by ISIS.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask the question again. Where is the Islamic terrorism here?

Try to understand my question this time.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Are you trying to say that 'terrorism' cannot be 'Islamic' by definition?
Click to expand...

Yes. Don't you think that?

Just like I would say that his previous crimes and attempted murders and psychopathic behaviour was not Chrisitan terrorism.

Even the police came out with any link to him and ISIS/Daesh/ISIL it would not make it Islamic. And the fact that he was raised a Christian and read the bible does not make him a Christian terrorist?

It is clear from the police reports and interviews friends/relatives he was disturbed because of feeling racially discriminated against and lashing out when he felt this was being done to him. Should we call him a black terrorist?
 
EyeInTheSky said:
Yes. Don't you think that?

Just like I would say that his previous crimes and attempted murders and psychopathic behaviour was not Chrisitan terrorism.

Even the police came out with any link to him and ISIS/Daesh/ISIL it would not make it Islamic. And the fact that he was raised a Christian and read the bible does not make him a Christian terrorist?

It is clear from the police reports and interviews friends/relatives he was disturbed because of feeling racially discriminated against and lashing out when he felt this was being done to him. Should we call him a black terrorist?
Click to expand...

Islam is open to interpretation. There is no central authority or defined accepted linear practice. Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam. What constitutes an enemy and holy war is again subjective.

I do believe that the majority of the terrorist attacks we see are carried out with religious sincerity.
 
The fact they never leave messages is the thing that i find disconcerting and makes me lean towards these attackers being mentally challenged individuals that grasp on to a clause. If you want to terrorise wouldn't you leave a video that would get played over and over.

Not only that but he's knocked the US civilian bombing scandal off the news which should be huge but is now barely reported.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
There is no central authority or defined accepted linear practice. Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam
Click to expand...
The same could be said for Christianity, could it not?
denominations_family_tree_truthforsaints.png

Also, many of those denominations above ended up fighting "holy wars" among one another, in addition to fighting "holy wars" against people of different religions.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Islam is open to interpretation. There is no central authority or defined accepted linear practice. Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam. What constitutes an enemy and holy war is again subjective.

I do believe that the majority of the terrorist attacks we see are carried out with religious sincerity.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from. There is a central authority imo and its called the Quran also the hadith. Also in every country, the ruling power does not advocate for terrorist acts. There is and has been a deliberate and insidious attempt by certain parties to hijack the word Jihad.

Jihad means the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin. So in an accidental way you are right in that "Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam". The linguistic meaning is as follows:

  • The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word "jihad" means struggling or striving.
  • The arabic word for war is: "al-harb"
These are 2 different words. You see the fallacy of trying to attribute that word "Jihad" to anything to do with "holy" or "war" or any other narrative?


if someone decided to use the word "struggle" in the context of a horrendous act despite being told explicitly and implicitly with grave warnings, both by his Spiritual and Legal Authority does that mean the Authority legitimises the very act it warns gravely against?

In no other sphere of existence would someone use this argument against any peoples unless it was a double standard or a deliberate misinformation campaign based on an aggressive agenda. We would all be rolling on the floor laughing if the shoe was on the other foot and someone tried to equivocate secularism or democracy or even Christianity with war because certain groups plan/plot and make up demonstrable and proven lies about countries in order to invade and steal their resources whilst killing millions across the globe yet it happens.

The problem I have is that people are jumping to the most negative possible interpretation despite the actual facts of any aspect of Islam which is due to both an inner dislike or hate for it and the constant and deliberate legitimisation of that ill will via propaganda from elements in places of power. Just because someone saw a bbc news clip or read a website and saw the word "Jihad" on it suddenly they are an expert in The Arabic language and what Islam teaches.

Thankfully there are a good and steadily rising number of people who actually use their reasoning and rationale to investigate the subjects pertinent to the topic and don't rely on the manipulated mainstream media owned by the very parties that seek to spread these lies and hate. There are others who are just misinformed and can't really be blamed for being lost in the myriad of BS.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It is a problem with religious philosophy in general.
Click to expand...
Agreed, which leads to this...

Are they Christians who call themselves terrorists or are they terrorists who call themselves Christians?

Are they Muslims who call themselves terrorists or are they terrorists who call themselves Muslims?

I believe it to be the latter, and just because you call yourself something, it doesn't make it true.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
yep that much is clear (Your opinion of it) But you should not loose your reasoning as a result of it.
Click to expand...

What reasoning have I lost?

Carolina Red said:
Agreed, which leads to this...

Are they Christians who call themselves terrorists or are they terrorists who call themselves Christians?

Are they Muslims who call themselves terrorists or are they terrorists who call themselves Muslims?

I believe it to be the latter, and just because you call yourself something, it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

I think they would call themselves freedom fighters, or something in that vein.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What reasoning have I lost?



I think they would call themselves freedom fighters, or something in that vein.
Click to expand...


Just consistency with logic around the things I wrote. It is easy to get slack when there is an obvious bias against something as a whole when dealing with specifics if that makes sense?

not meant as an insult.

And yes on your second sentence. Thats what they would call themselves.

@Carolina Red what you say is true. I thought I was the best footballer of all time in my youth :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.