Terrorist attack on British parliament

[Basil II the B.S]

Theresa May gave a vague description saying he was known to secret services for his views.

[humvee2800]

I really must say that is extremely intellectually dishonest, as their is a huge cross section of people that make up these attacks. Realistically most people who are willing to strap on a vest , or cover themselves in knives and drive through a crowded area are not going to be the most mentally sound. Painting them as sad troubled youth is deliberately avoiding the core of the issue. When you have thousands of british muslims downloading and reading manifestos printed by Al qaeda, and see people cheering on al jazeera as attacks like this happen you start to see there is a global issue with this.

An issue that never should have been imported to England.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I do apologize to any British [or anybody for that matter] who took offense to my rhetoric, although I do not apologize for the general sentiment as I believe that weakness tends to invite attack or at least creates an environment that makes attacks more likely.

Perhaps I should have phrased my thoughts in a more specific and precise manner. I did not mean to suggest that the British people deserved to suffer or that they should be the targets of violence, if some people interpreted my remarks to mean that.

[Condottiere 40K]

People can go off their rocker for any number of reasons.

The question would be if it's genetic, environmental or nurtured, or a combination of all three, that triggers them.

Most people are at their most vulnerable in their teens to early twenties to ideology. You could include childhood, but you tend to believe what you're told, whereas later you make up your own rationalizations, which tend to be more convincing.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

People can go off their rocker for any number of reasons.

The question would be if it's genetic, environmental or nurtured, or a combination of all three, that triggers them.

Most people are at their most vulnerable in their teens to early twenties to ideology. You could include childhood, but you tend to believe what you're told, whereas later you make up your own rationalizations, which tend to be more convincing.

Upon reflection of my own life and the development of my ideology, I was most radical and eager for revolution/violence between ages 15/16 and about 23-24.

Now I would rather not see a civil war, revolution, etc., although if revolution comes it might be preferred to a perpetual negative peace and certainly to be preferred to enforced servitude to an increasingly tyrannical government that has made lawful commerce incredibly difficult and burdensome.

A revolution might be justified simply due to the insane regulations placed upon our ability to engage in financial transactions and the absurd tax code.

[Roma_Victrix]

I do apologize to any British [or anybody for that matter] who took offense to my rhetoric, although I do not apologize for the general sentiment as I believe that weakness tends to invite attack or at least creates an environment that makes attacks more likely.

Perhaps I should have phrased my thoughts in a more specific and precise manner. I did not mean to suggest that the British people deserved to suffer or that they should be the targets of violence, if some people interpreted my remarks to mean that.

Can we divorce the whole gun rights issue from this topic, please? Sure, I'm a pro-2nd-Amendment Murican and shooting stuff in your backyard in your own free time is super fun. But it has no bearing on the situation here. These aren't acts by common criminals we're talking about here, or people breaking into your house to steal your TV who will be deterred by the sight of a shotgun. Islamist terrorists are people willing to commit suicide through an act of terrorism if only to become martyrs for their particular faith and receive righteous rewards in the afterlife. And they don't need firearms to achieve that. The US has very lax gun laws, but did privately-held firearms stop the Tsarnaev brothers from bombing the 2013 Boston marathon using low-tech homemade bombs? Hell, look at 9/11, the greatest terrorist attack of all time, and how it was achieved by yahoos wielding box-cutter knives. Besides, as Setekh has mentioned, short of a bazooka round flipping the car over, how is a simple firearm supposed to stop a speeding motor vehicle in the heat of the moment? You're more likely to accidentally shoot a nearby pedestrian with a stray bullet than take a crack shot at one of the wheels. Even then that's liable to cause roughly as many casualties when the car spins out of control. If it was a high speed chase scenario the cops could use classic tactics like the pit maneuver or set up spike strips and road blocks, but there's not much you can do about a sudden surprise attack on a crowded bridge.

As for letting others handle security for you, I agree that if you live in a shady neighborhood or don't feel safe, a privately-owned (and properly registered) firearm can be useful. But the police in most first world nations are capable of doing their jobs and safeguarding the public. It is often said that firearms are a deterrent against a tyrannical government even in this day and age. Sure. If you're organized into guerilla units and militias, but even then modern military hardware and drone capabilities pretty much nullify that. It's not exactly musket against musket anymore. Most governments aren't deterred by the threat of a well-armed populace; they would be deterred by the stupidity of trying to lord over a wealthy, well-informed, Internet-savvy populace that would easily go on strike and show widespread civil disobedience if a true tyranny or coup tried to take over (good luck maintaining your coup if there's no functioning economy to support it). That applies to a hypothetical fascist nationalist right-wing dictatorship as much as it would a hypothetical Islamist theocratic regime attempting to conquer the West.

[Copperknickers II]

Those who outsource the responsibility for their personal security to others, will not receive personal security and will not deserve any.

The British people allowed their government to largely disarm them and to totally strip them of their natural right to carry weapons for their own personal defense. The laws of nature provide that they will get what they deserve and deserve what they get.

Good to know. So by that logic we clearly deserve a lower murder rate than the USA and a very low rate of terrorism, and terror attacks which only kill 4 people rather than dozens of people as in the USA in Orlando and LA. That is the fruits of our despicable gun laws - a better and safer country. I can live with that.

If 'weakness' is what leads to terror attacks then it seems the UK is one of the strongest countries in the Western world since we've had barely any and aside from 7/7 none of them have been mass fatality events. It's the system in other countries which is broken. The only fault I can see with security in this attack is that the police officer at the gates of Westminster doesn't seem to have been armed. It's obviously got nothing to do with immigration as the guy has been confirmed as British born. As for gun laws, I think gun control is less relevant than general police strategy on firearms, including illegal firearms. Firstly, it's much more difficult to get assault weapons into the UK, not just because they're illegal but also because the arms trafficking routes which provided the French and Belgian attackers with illegal AKs from former Yugoslavia have little penetration here. It obviously helps we are an island with only a handful of points of ingress, but we also have a more effective policing strategy as regards organised crime and community liaison and that seems to be more useful in preventing attacks.

[Telamon]

I really must say that is extremely intellectually dishonest, as their is a huge cross section of people that make up these attacks. Realistically most people who are willing to strap on a vest , or cover themselves in knives and drive through a crowded area are not going to be the most mentally sound. Painting them as sad troubled youth is deliberately avoiding the core of the issue. When you have thousands of british muslims downloading and reading manifestos printed by Al qaeda, and see people cheering on al jazeera as attacks like this happen you start to see there is a global issue with this.

An issue that never should have been imported to England.

I meant poor economically, I'm not trying to elicit sympathy for these idiots. The fact is that the majority of British Muslims are not crazed, ISIS loving psychopaths. I don't really know what you're suggesting the 'core issue' is but as I've already mentioned while there does need to be a progressive dialogue within Islam, these people often are from disadvantaged backgrounds, where there aren't many opportunities for the future and where it is easy for them to be manipulated and given 'purpose', based on real or perceived grievances against them and/or Islam. I know it's nice and easy to think they're terrorists because they're Muslims but the reality is often a little more difficult to understand.

[caratacus]

If 'weakness' is what leads to terror attacks then it seems the UK is one of the strongest countries in the Western world since we've had barely any and aside from 7/7 none of them have been mass fatality events.

Yes, and how many people from the UK have traveled to Syria to perform violence and atrocities on the Syrian people, or don’t these count. With IS loosing ground against Assad, these people will no longer be able to have their violent holidays and may seek closer targets. This guy used a knife not a gun because it is difficult to get hold of such a weapon in the UK than other countries. But did you see the knife crime statistics recently, especially in cities like London, its appalling.

Would it be not true to say, that those who undertake or even consider doing these murderous acts are the tip of a very large iceberg of opinion amongst the Muslim community in Britain, who do not identify with what are commonly referred to as "British values". After every attack like this you here voices saying that these people don't represent Muslims in British society. But why are these same voices I wonder not expressing that opinion amongst their own community when radicalism is seen, before acts of terrorism are perpetrated. The answer perhaps is the nature of religious practices, which sees Imams from outside the UK becoming leading figures within those communities and who's opinions are beyond reproach.

What happened yesterday was the murderous act of a crazed individual. But the silence of the many who don't categorically condemn this action should be of even greater concern.

[Kraut]

Dear Terrorists,

so as you are trying to pound the Londoners into submission, please take this hint from Germany:
Been there, tried that, doesn´t work.

(and believe me, we tried harder and better than you amateurs could ever hope for)

[caratacus]

Dear Terrorists,

so as you are trying to pound the Londoners into submission, please take this hint from Germany:
Been there, tried that, doesn´t work.

(and believe me, we tried harder and better than you amateurs could ever hope for)

I am sure the welcome the sentiment is welcomed. But not a good comparison, as we actually hit back a good deal harder. Ever heard of "Bomber Harris"?

[Telamon]

What happened yesterday was the murderous act of a crazed individual. But the silence of the many who don't categorically condemn this action should be of even greater concern.

I've got the BBC live feed open and there's literally been multilple condemnations and acts of support by Muslims already:

'Depraved' attack - says Muslim Council

The Muslim Council of Britain has condemned the attack and said its secretary general, Harun Khan, will join thousands of Londoners, including Muslims, at Trafalgar Square this evening.
"This attack was cowardly and depraved," Mr Khan said: "There is no justification for this act whatsoever.
"The best response to this outrage is to make sure we come together in solidarity and not allow the terrorists to divide us.
"My condolences, thoughts and prayers go to the families of the victims.
"I hope my Muslim brothers and sisters will reach out to fellow Londoners and Britons in solidarity to demonstrate that such hatred will not defeat our way of life."


Muslims crowdfund £7,400 for victims

A Muslim-led crowdfunding website for victims has raised more than £7,000 within hours of being set up.

Muddassar Ahmed, who witnessed Wednesday's attack, set up the website with Akeela Ahmed on Thursday morning to help victims and their families and "lessen their burden in some way".
He called on "British Muslims, mosques, Imams, leaders, and groups to endorse and promote this initiative".


Muslim MP: Extremists 'don't speak for me'

"The person who did this is not a true Muslim" @TulipSiddiq on yesterday's terrorist attack on #Westminster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39355505

[Copperknickers II]

Would it be not true to say, that those who undertake or even consider doing these murderous acts are the tip of a very large iceberg of opinion amongst the Muslim community in Britain, who do not identify with what are commonly referred to as "British values". After every attack like this you here voices saying that these people don't represent Muslims in British society. But why are these same voices I wonder not expressing that opinion amongst their own community when radicalism is seen, before acts of terrorism are perpetrated. The answer perhaps is the nature of religious practices, which sees Imams from outside the UK becoming leading figures within those communities and who's opinions are beyond reproach.

The British Muslim community is rather diverse. It's true that you can switch on any Muslim tv channel right now and there's some likelihood that there will be a foreign preacher on there who is promoting a type of Islam that is not entirely compatible with British values, but there are also a great number of mosques in the UK which actively preach against violence. The Muslim Council of Great Britain put out a strong statement condemning this attack and many Muslims have over the last 24 hours raised funds to support victims and expressed their disgust. So I think one must distinguish between the large number of Muslims who have very conservative values and the very small number of Muslims who support terror attacks on innocent civilians.

What happened yesterday was the murderous act of a crazed individual. But the silence of the many who don't categorically condemn this action should be of even greater concern.

There have been all sorts of Muslims categorically condemning this action since yesterday, if you look for them. Islam is a very diverse religion and it has no real system of centralisation, so there isn't some 'Leader of the Muslims' who can get his voice easily heard amongst the maelstrom. But the best equivalent for that, the Muslim Council, has condemned the attack and if you look around you will find many others doing so as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7645396.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7646201.html
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/...arliament.html

[caratacus]

I've got the BBC live feed open and there's literally been multilple condemnations and acts of support by Muslims already:[

This does not negate the fact that there lies within the Muslim community a large number of radicals and it only takes one to create the incident that happened yesterday. Without them there would be no incident.

[Copperknickers II]

This does not negate the fact that there lies within the Muslim community a large number of radicals and it only takes one to create the incident that happened yesterday. Without them there would be no incident.

It does however negate the idea that British Muslims as a group are our enemies. Most of them are on our side, not least because radicals cause a huge amount of damage to ordinary Muslims by increasing islamophobic abuse and assaults.

[Telamon]

This does not negate the fact that there lies within the Muslim community a large number of radicals and it only takes one to create the incident that happened yesterday. Without them there would be no incident.

Indeed it does only take one, but what's your point, that we should take the actions of one to label the many?

[caratacus]

It does however negate the idea that British Muslims as a group are our enemies. Most of them are on our side, not least because radicals cause a huge amount of damage to ordinary Muslims by increasing islamophobic abuse and assaults.

In Islamic countries radicalism is tackled very hard by the authorities. In the West there is a fear of upsetting or victimizing the Muslim community and unless it tackled head on within those communities, it will continue to flourish unchallenged.

Police announce the identity of the attacker, a 52 year old man living in the West Midlands. Hardly the crazy mixed up kid on drugs that some were thinking it was likely to be.

London attack: Police name Westminster attacker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39372154

[Kraut]

Ever heard of "Bomber Harris"?

Yeah, that guy also tried really, really hard

[IronBrig4]

Police announce the identity of the attacker, a 52 year old man living in the West Midlands. Hardly the crazy mixed up kid on drugs that some were thinking it was likely to be.

So he was a middle-aged, native-born, British Muslim who had a history of petty crime. Most terrorists are young men in their late teens to mid-twenties so this is unusual.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

As for letting others handle security for you, I agree that if you live in a shady neighborhood or don't feel safe, a privately-owned (and properly registered) firearm can be useful. But the police in most first world nations are capable of doing their jobs and safeguarding the public. It is often said that firearms are a deterrent against a tyrannical government even in this day and age. Sure. If you're organized into guerilla units and militias, but even then modern military hardware and drone capabilities pretty much nullify that. It's not exactly musket against musket anymore. Most governments aren't deterred by the threat of a well-armed populace; they would be deterred by the stupidity of trying to lord over a wealthy, well-informed, Internet-savvy populace that would easily go on strike and show widespread civil disobedience if a true tyranny or coup tried to take over (good luck maintaining your coup if there's no functioning economy to support it). That applies to a hypothetical fascist nationalist right-wing dictatorship as much as it would a hypothetical Islamist theocratic regime attempting to conquer the West.

The Taliban in Afghanistan have done a fairly decent job staying largely intact, maintaining influence/cohesion, and harassing US forces, despite their total lack of any air power and the overwhelming firepower advantages enjoyed by the US military. Small arms and light weapons can be extremely effective in the hands of those with proper motivation. All the armor in the world isn't any good against an enemy that stays in terrain where armor simply cannot operate. All of the artillery in the world isn't any good against an enemy that isn't in the open or in a clearly defined/known area, and that strikes quickly before vanishing in a matter of minutes.


Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d. 1, (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), police do not owe any duty to protect any specific citizen and cannot be held liable for even their complete failure to respond to a call for assistance.


I also object to the registration of firearms on a number of practical and philosophical grounds. I would not a live in a state that required the registration of handguns, rifles, or shotguns. Indeed the state I live in only requires the registration of "dangerous ordnance" which essentially means fully-automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, dynamite, TNT, other explosive weapons, mortars, mortar bombs, artillery pieces, artillery shells, anti-tank weapons, etc. The basic requirement is that it is registered with a state/local authority and if it is an explosive item you generally have an obligation to store it in such a manner that it won't blow up the neighborhood. I find those requirements essentially reasonable. [note- flamethrowers are not restricted in any manner in my state, you can buy them via mail order if you so desire]

I am glad we are able to own artillery pieces, explosives, mortars, grenades, etc., but I believe many of the burdens associated with legal ownership are unduly burdensome to the point of being unconstitutional