How do we prevent terrorism?

I suspect if you look on Westboro Baptist Church members facebook, you'll find ludicrously inflammatory statements.

Reacting from the lunatic fringe serves no purpose other than to please and reinforce the lunatics.

What Islam could do with is Saudi Arabia and Iran not being at loggerheads permanently, not the west to steam in with "preventative measures", whatever that might be (I'm unsure, can such measures be measured in explosive power?)
By "preventative measures," I didn't think of military measures once. It means for the relevant agencies to assess the root of these mindsets and erase it without tip-toeing around it the whole time.

Westboro Baptist Church allegedly have 40 members they are not of any note outside of a local scale and it's potential to spread through the Christian world is also of no note. Dominant-Intent Islam is on an international, global-wide scale (bar the Americas and Europe where mindsets are at a community level, in larger numbers than one place of worship). This is what I mean by knocking our heads together and realising the reality of the situation and assessing it objectively. Look at this scale:

scales.gif


When the right scale is at the bottom, hate speech is too much and the counter-viewpoint is also at it's extreme. There you have a very tense situation nobody benefits from apart from the people with the agendas. Your post to me is a bit unbalanced, it's not objective and is more in-line with being overly cautious about accepting the realities (using your post merely as an example, not presuming your mindset). What I'm saying is we need both viewpoints to the issue balanced, then we are "on the money" about the problem and in a position to fix it. In complex issues like this, the average person will rarely be "on the money," so instead of a keenness to attack someone with a different viewpoint, people need to help rebalance their scale, but they can only do that by helpful and understanding influence, attacking them alienates them and stokes their views further. My point here is the kind of stance Colin Parry took with the IRA.

*It's important to note in these situations choice of words can easily be misinterpreted also and the wrong ones may be used (happens in any conversation but people pick up on it in these matters and tend to enhance meaning). E.G. By "dominant-intent Islam" I mean countries where Islamic beliefs dominate law and society (such as Saudi Arabia).
 
Last edited:
Europol has released its 2017 report based on data from 2016. If you follow the link to the full report (60 plus pages, so you have been warned), you'll see that the word in the thread title 'terrorism' seems to cover a multitude of different things. Indeed, it would appear that the UK government foiled many attacks in the previous year, but many don't appear to have been connected to the type of terrorism being discussed here. I only mention that because of how often the media seem to conflate jihadism/terrorism, and this perhaps distorts how the general public debates the issue.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsr...ted-attacks-1002-arrests-and-142-victims-died
 
I get you point in some way but in this instance and this instance along i think someone flouting an isis flag and taking about Jihad and other such crap merits what i am saying - why not make it a criminal offence to support ISIS opening in public. It is almost an act of treason? If it saved the life of those young girls at the concert that night it is worth it. I think supporting such wicked acts is not a hard fought right but a wicked abomination. I accept there has to be a line - but lets draw it so people know what is not acceptable.

Hate speech is already a crime but it's a problematic one.

The current thinking is that you can say whatever as long as you're not inciting violence. So saying all Muslims are twats is legal but saying all Muslims are twats who should be deported isn't. The second one can be interpreted as a wish of persecution so violence but the first is an opinion.

The Terrorism Act 2006 (passed by Blair, for the record), made glorifying terrorism a criminal offence. It also tried to implement powers to close mosques where known hate preachers were in resident but this was voted down under liberty concerns.

Our problem here doesn't seem to be the legislative framework which has the powers necessary but the implementation of it. What exactly constitutes glorifying terrorism? If the guy mentioned elsewhere who calls Westerners "Crusaders" and is wanting the ME to return to the Umayyad Caliphate borders, aswell as becoming more reclusive and inward at his mosque then most people would argue he needs to be looked at. But he's not actually glorified terrorism or committed a crime. So he's a candidate instead for Prevent.

It's a complicated area.
 
Hate speech is already a crime but it's a problematic one.

The current thinking is that you can say whatever as long as you're not inciting violence. So saying all Muslims are twats is legal but saying all Muslims are twats who should be deported isn't. The second one can be interpreted as a wish of persecution so violence but the first is an opinion.

The Terrorism Act 2006 (passed by Blair, for the record), made glorifying terrorism a criminal offence. It also tried to implement powers to close mosques where known hate preachers were in resident but this was voted down under liberty concerns.

Our problem here doesn't seem to be the legislative framework which has the powers necessary but the implementation of it. What exactly constitutes glorifying terrorism? If the guy mentioned elsewhere who calls Westerners "Crusaders" and is wanting the ME to return to the Umayyad Caliphate borders, aswell as becoming more reclusive and inward at his mosque then most people would argue he needs to be looked at. But he's not actually glorified terrorism or committed a crime. So he's a candidate instead for Prevent.

It's a complicated area.

I was really tempted to put hang the bastads - just to lower the debate but i wont. Sounds like Teressa will be upping the anti a bit anyway. Just lets hope and pray there are no more attacks.
 
In addition to my previous post. Just want to make the point that a lot of muslims view other muslims as muslim first, rather than nationality. This is different to the West - how many of us see a kinship with France over any other country in our every day mindset?

it's similar to that of race, where Neo-Nazis view white people as white first, rather than nationality. In this case it's religion rather than skin colour though. Western Europe did share a christian "kinship" for much of our history, but it's non-existent now on any level worth taking note.
 
Can do it online mate. The bods in counter terrorism will give it a once over and if it's nothing then it's nothing. They aren't exactly lacking resources so it's not a time waster.

The Met Police run the service for the whole country.

https://beta.met.police.uk/tell-us-...-activity/report-possible-terrorist-activity/
Thanks Damo, this last case appears to live in Pakistan though I've just seen. Nothing I can do there more than Facebook report (apparently it's been reviewed already)? More their worrying mindset that would be worth having someone look over if they were in the UK.
 
You should calm down. You don't know that he believes any of that stuff.
Either that, or write to the Daily Star. I expect they have page for this type of thing!

He does because that's what literal interpretation means. The clues in the name.

What shall I say to the Daily Star?

Bloody Cultist, coming over here, trying to be our PM, believes in talking snakes and dragons in the olden days. Is this what in paying my taxes for?

Along those general lines?
 
By "preventative measures," I didn't think of military measures once. It means for the relevant agencies to assess the root of these mindsets and erase it without tip-toeing around it the whole time.

Westboro Baptist Church allegedly have 40 members they are not of any note outside of a local scale and it's potential to spread through the Christian world is also of no note. Dominant-Intent Islam is on an international, global-wide scale (bar the Americas and Europe where mindsets are at a community level, in larger numbers than one place of worship). This is what I mean by knocking our heads together and realising the reality of the situation and assessing it objectively. Look at this scale:

scales.gif


When the right scale is at the bottom, hate speech is too much and the counter-viewpoint is also at it's extreme. There you have a very tense situation nobody benefits from apart from the people with the agendas. Your post to me is a bit unbalanced, it's not objective and is more in-line with being overly cautious about accepting the realities (using your post merely as an example, not presuming your mindset). What I'm saying is we need both viewpoints to the issue balanced, then we are "on the money" about the problem and in a position to fix it. In complex issues like this, the average person will rarely be "on the money," so instead of a keenness to attack someone with a different viewpoint, people need to help rebalance their scale, but they can only do that by helpful and understanding influence, attacking them alienates them and stokes their views further. My point here is the kind of stance Colin Parry took with the IRA.

*It's important to note in these situations choice of words can easily be misinterpreted also and the wrong ones may be used (happens in any conversation but people pick up on it in these matters and tend to enhance meaning). E.G. By "dominant-intent Islam" I mean countries where Islamic beliefs dominate law and society (such as Saudi Arabia).

I doubt that security agencies and associated organisations are not looking for ways of reducing things.
Unfortunately the options are you can talk to them or try bullying/bankrupting them. The trouble is you have to start at the top to do anything by talk, and only then if it's connected to the orthodox religion, and any independent sect will be completely untouchable; the latter are the ones that cause the problems with interpretations of the religion that suit their aims and nothing more.

The two countries that matter are Saudi Arabia and Iran. I suspect (I don't know) that their governments are directed by the more radical religious leaders as much as ours are by Dacre/Murdoch and their ilk. Stop backing them, and they'll be out of power.

Change has to be wanted, or you have to force it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.