Mass shooting in Utrecht

piplip87

Can we just not call those who kill innocent people scumbags and be done with it. That way we have less ****e trying to label everything.

It would mean:
The IRA are scum, not the Irish People.
ISIS are scum, not Muslims
UDA are scum, not Unionists.
Lone wolf attackers are scum, not the whole religion, nations or race.

This searching out to blame certain religions for the actions of a few is ****ing laughable.

Danzy

piplip87 wrote: »

Can we just not call those who kill innocent people scumbags and be done with it. That way we have less ****e trying to label everything.

It would mean:
The IRA are scum, not the Irish People.
ISIS are scum, not Muslims
UDA are scum, not Unionists.
Lone wolf attackers are scum, not the whole religion, nations or race.

This searching out to blame certain religions for the actions of a few is ****ing laughable.

Ideology, cultures, belief systems are motivations.

I fear you are taking the easy and safe option.

MrFresh

piplip87 wrote: »

Can we just not call those who kill innocent people scumbags and be done with it. That way we have less ****e trying to label everything.

It would mean:
The IRA are scum, not the Irish People.
ISIS are scum, not Muslims
UDA are scum, not Unionists.
Lone wolf attackers are scum, not the whole religion, nations or race.

This searching out to blame certain religions for the actions of a few is ****ing laughable.

It's important to understand motivations, tactics and triggers to avoid and mitigate future incidents. IRA violence wasn't stopped by just treating it as regular crime. If there had been no consideration of the motivations behind it there likely would have been no Good Friday Agreement.

piplip87

MrFresh wrote: »

It's important to understand motivations, tactics and triggers to avoid and mitigate future incidents. IRA violence wasn't stopped by just treating it as regular crime. If there had been no consideration of the motivations behind it there likely would have been no Good Friday Agreement.

Yes it is important to understand those things but also remember that not every Muslim is going to kill you and out of a population of 1.5 Billion very few are radicalised. It's time we start looking at the individual rather than the religion behind these attacks.

MrFresh

piplip87 wrote: »

Yes it is important to understand those things but also remember that not every Muslim is going to kill you and out of a population of 1.5 Billion very few are radicalised. It's time we start looking at the individual rather than the religion behind these attacks.

No, every Muslim won't kill you but it is important to find out what triggers those that will, whether they be radical preachers or internet recruiters, and try and block it. Same goes for social and political radicalisers.

Danzy

piplip87 wrote: »

Yes it is important to understand those things but also remember that not every Muslim is going to kill you and out of a population of 1.5 Billion very few are radicalised. It's time we start looking at the individual rather than the religion behind these attacks.

That is doomed to failure though.

One could find countless examples of the nicest, most decent of people doing the bloodiest things for ideological, cultural, religious or political reasons.

Danzy

MrFresh wrote: »

It's important to understand motivations, tactics and triggers to avoid and mitigate future incidents. IRA violence wasn't stopped by just treating it as regular crime. If there had been no consideration of the motivations behind it there likely would have been no Good Friday Agreement.

That my hackles bristled at the phrase regular crime, ironically backs your point.

MrFresh

Danzy wrote: »

That is doomed to failure though.

One could find countless examples of the nicest, most decent of people doing the bloodiest things for ideological, cultural, religious or political reasons.

You can't exclude the benefits of individual focus though. What makes one person more open to radicalisation than another? Is it the same thing that makes someone more likely to murder their family and then take their own life? Better mental health services and social welfare net makes for a happier population. Could that also make one less susceptible to negative influences? There's no reason you can't work both angles

jmayo

piplip87 wrote: »

Can we just not call those who kill innocent people scumbags and be done with it. That way we have less ****e trying to label everything.

It would mean:
The IRA are scum, not the Irish People.
ISIS are scum, not Muslims
UDA are scum, not Unionists.
Lone wolf attackers are scum, not the whole religion, nations or race.

This searching out to blame certain religions for the actions of a few is ****ing laughable.

Just trotting out bull**** about not all muslims is like saying not all Germans, not all Japanese.
No one is saying all muslims, but there is a scarily sizable amount who do support the fundamentalists and we are bloody well saying islam has huge problems that are not evident in any other religion, however fecked up they may be.

All of these attacks have one common thread, that is the adherence to a strain within a single religion.
They may of different races, different genders, different nationalities, different social classes, different backgrounds, but they have one thing in common, a believe in a very backwards bigoted form of islam.
So trying to claim it has nothing to do with islam is bullcr**.

And I am not talking about the right wing attacks as that is a more complex set of fooked up bigoted ideas, usually tied into pure racism.

You couldn't begin to cope with the IRA/PIRA unless you understand where they are coming from and what they are working towards.
Likewise with UDA/UVF.

But I am tired of lumping in the likes of PIRA/IRA and even UDA/UVF, ETA, etc with al qaeda and especially now ISIS.
If anything it is used as whataboutery tactic.

For a start the likes of our Irish/Northern Ireland/Spanish terrorists had clear discernible goals, that actually were way more realistic than some of the ones spouted by likes of ISIS, and this crackpot in NZ.

The Irish/Spanish wanted to get independence or remain within a state.

They didn't just want everyone everywhere to convert to their view of the world and how we should all live.

Also, and this is why I think it is bullshyte comparing our past history of monitoring terrorists to what we are up against today, a lot of the islamist and modern right winger terrorists are often never a member of any organised group and may only be ever loosely affiliated with any particular group.

They are not part of a structured organisation with rules and hierarchies.
They have often just posted on some website, viewed some videos and then they are out killing people.
The most one can pick up on is their attempt to say reach Syria, their attendance at certain mosques, their sharing of a wing in a jail with a fundamentalist.
With neo nazis it may be a bit easier to track their links to right wing organisations, but again how many of those members end up slaughtering dozens of people and how many are just jerks.

MrFresh

Why should political and religious ideology be treated differently? Both can make a person just as volatile. Both have radicals. Both are generally forced on children when they are young. Both can be changed at will. If anything, political ideology should be judged more harshly because it's often less ingrained and easier to move away from.

James Brown

jmayo wrote: »

Just trotting out bull**** about not all muslims is like saying not all Germans, not all Japanese.
No one is saying all muslims, but there is a scarily sizable amount who do support the fundamentalists and we are bloody well saying islam has huge problems that are not evident in any other religion, however fecked up they may be.
........

How many? It was my understanding it was quite the opposite. Also if it was as clear cut as you describe it the religion would be outlawed, no?

Like the NZ attack, we've another waster who found a cause to get behind that suited his mental state.

jmayo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many? It was my understanding it was quite the opposite. Also if it was as clear cut as you describe it the religion would be outlawed, no?

Like the NZ attack, we've another waster who found a cause to get behind that suited his mental state.

Too many people just trot out the line "not all muslims" and refuse to acknowledge that there is tacit support for hardline fundamentalist ideas from a fair chunk of people within the muslim community.
There are 23,000 odd jihadists in the UK.

Now out of a muslim community of however many million (2.8 million I think) it is still scary to think that there could be 23,000 people in the UK that might see nothing wrong with Manchester Arena attack.

one of the Pairs attackers hid out in Molenbeek and there were actual disturbances form some of the natives when he was eventually arrested. :rolleyes:

And the issues facing our western way of life is even more scary when you step back from fundamentalist terrorist ideals and just look at conservative attitudes within the muslim communities that are now totally at odds with the secular societies we have created over the last quarter century.

Over 50% of muslims surveyed in UK thought homosexuality should be outlawed.

And the same people who downplay this are forever lecturing us how the catholic church speaks about homosexuals and how they were in the past in Ireland.

Danzy

28% of British Muslims supported killing those who insult Mohamed in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo.

It is not all Muslims but the % of supporters is very high.

inforfun

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1108679957256028160

Danzy

inforfun wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1108679957256028160

It is already an old story, just another random Islamic attack in Europe.

Wait for the next one to get through.

Boggles

Danzy wrote: »

28% of British Muslims supported killing those who insult Mohamed in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo.

It is not all Muslims but the % of supporters is very high.

Link?

Danzy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

Boggles

Danzy wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

So this isn't correct is it?

Danzy wrote: »

28% of British Muslims supported killing those who insult Mohamed in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo.

But 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

So this isn't correct is it?



But 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.

Also, I'm trying to find the actual survey. The article doesn't have a link to it.

James Brown

jmayo wrote: »

Too many people just trot out the line "not all muslims" and refuse to acknowledge that there is tacit support for hardline fundamentalist ideas from a fair chunk of people within the muslim community.
There are 23,000 odd jihadists in the UK.

Now out of a muslim community of however many million (2.8 million I think) it is still scary to think that there could be 23,000 people in the UK that might see nothing wrong with Manchester Arena attack.

one of the Pairs attackers hid out in Molenbeek and there were actual disturbances form some of the natives when he was eventually arrested. :rolleyes:

And the issues facing our western way of life is even more scary when you step back from fundamentalist terrorist ideals and just look at conservative attitudes within the muslim communities that are now totally at odds with the secular societies we have created over the last quarter century.

Over 50% of muslims surveyed in UK thought homosexuality should be outlawed.

And the same people who downplay this are forever lecturing us how the catholic church speaks about homosexuals and how they were in the past in Ireland.

Because it's a fact. You suggest we criminalise them all? Oh, a 'fair chunk'? :rolleyes:

Where would you have been when the IRA had bombing campaigns in England, on here giving out about not all RC paddy's, but a fair chunk? Get up the yard.

Now you've gone on to bashing their religion in general. Thank f*** people like you aren't put in charge of any counter terrorism.

Odhinn

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because it's a fact. You suggest we criminalise them all? Oh, a 'fair chunk'? :rolleyes:

Where would you have been when the IRA had bombing campaigns in England, on here giving out about not all RC paddy's, but a fair chunk? Get up the yard.

Now you've gone on to bashing their religion in general. Thank f*** people like you aren't put in charge of any counter terrorism.

I can think of a non-smoking, no drinking, no dancing anti-gay, anti abortion party on this island, and they sure as fuck aren't muslims.

Sand

inforfun wrote: »

Elections in The Netherlands today so this is already pushed to the background anyway.

However....


(Used google translate, too much text otherwise)

WHAT DO WE KNOW

- He is the main suspect in the case, but a co-suspect is currently being held
- He is 37 years old and born in Turkey, but has been living in the Netherlands for quite some time
- In 2011 he was in this video (the one i posted earlier)
- In 2014 he was acquitted of attempted homicide
- He was then convicted of illegal possession of weapons and attempted theft
- On August 25, 2017, he was taken into pre-trial detention for a rape
- He was released on September 21, 2017
- On January 4, 2019, it turned out that he had not adhered to the conditions of his release, and he was again taken into custody
- His release request was rejected on January 31, 2019.
- On February 27, 2019, he promised to the court that he would cooperate in a personality investigation
- He was released on March 1, 2019, the president of the court said today in the Telegraaf: "purely legally objectively, we would make the same decision today"
- The PPS takes serious account of a terrorist motive, among other things because of a letter found in the red Renault Clio in which he fled
- Other motives are not excluded
- The investigation has not shown any relationship between Tanis and the victims so far
- On March 4, 2019, he was sentenced to 2 weeks in prison for bicycle theft
- On March 5, 2019, he was sentenced to 4 months in prison for a burglary

What we don't know
- WHY THE **** WAS HE OUTSIDE?

The bigger question is why was he not deported? In 2015-17, while millions of undocumented men were illegally crossing European borders open border advocates assured critics that they would all be evaluated, processed and those who were not genuine or who were unsafe would be returned whence they came.

Can they still claim that when such an open and shut case as the perpetrator of this atrocity is let free? When European courts and security services are seemingly so powerless to remove someone who is clearly a danger to others why should we believe they are anymore effective in the more ambiguous cases?

In the same way as the New Zealand case led to reform of gun laws, the Dutch (and other European states) need to get serious about reforming their security systems so people like this guy are deported. Keeping guns out of their hands is one angle to preserve public safety, keeping them out of Europe is another angle.

enricoh

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because it's a fact. You suggest we criminalise them all? Oh, a 'fair chunk'? :rolleyes:

Where would you have been when the IRA had bombing campaigns in England, on here giving out about not all RC paddy's, but a fair chunk? Get up the yard.

Now you've gone on to bashing their religion in general. Thank f*** people like you aren't put in charge of any counter terrorism.

Yeah, nothing to see here jmayo, only 20% of Muslims surveyed in the uk had some sympathy with isis jihadists.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-34967994.

only if its 100% will matt have some concerns then!! We need people like you matt in charge of mi5.
How many isis plots did they stop in the uk the last few years? Ah sure, they probably made them up for the bit of overtime, ala our drink driving figures here!

jmayo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because it's a fact. You suggest we criminalise them all? Oh, a 'fair chunk'? :rolleyes:

You see this is where you go with your hyperbole.
I never said criminalise all of anything, but I don't expect any less twisting of my words by someone like you.

But I am saying that there are very serious issues within muslim communities, particular those that adhere to sunni islam and the wahhabist doctrine.

You can try dress it up anyway you like, but the facts are there.
And I am talking abut 23,000 hardline fundamentalists that are viewed as possible jihadists.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Where would you have been when the IRA had bombing campaigns in England, on here giving out about not all RC paddy's, but a fair chunk? Get up the yard.

Now you've gone on to bashing their religion in general. Thank f*** people like you aren't put in charge of any counter terrorism.

BTW were there ever 23,000 hardcore supporters of PIRA in Britain ?

And these aren't like the old provo supporters, they don't just want Britain out of Ireland, they don't just want to blow up British soldiers, politicians, police.
They want to slaughter anyone that is not the same as them.

Well we would be truly fooked if people like you were put in charge.

Ever hear the famous quote attributed to Orwell/Churchill ?
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

You don't go looking for jihadists down the Sikh or Hindu communities, much like you don't go looking for white supremacists in the West Indian or African immigrant communities.

I guess you would be looking for terrorists down the Salvation Army.

inforfun

The terrorist attack took its 4th life.
A 74 year old man died today.

RIP