Woolwich killing

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Dazdon is talking about hate preachers only interested in hate preachers

The thread is about the Woolwich murder and the radicalisation of the killers by political Islam.

Which is why the emphasis is on Muslim preachers.

Yes it is.
I left out some wording there it should read "talking about hate preachers only interested in being hate preachers (not commissioning violence or acting as figureheads)" How do you address my point that is counterproductive to get tough on Choudry. He should be treated with ridicule and the mainstream press should cease giving him wide exposure just because it attracts viewers/ sells newspapers.

 

[Chris in London]

If people are to be arrested and charged treat them as criminals, don't label the laws under "terrorism" and don't "legitimise" their cause by making them appear to be "a prisoner of conscience" to their followers.

Why? Terrorism is essentially an attempt to achieve a political objective through the use of extreme criminal means such as mass murder and large scale criminal damage. Terrorism is an extreme form of criminality, nothing more, nothing less.

Normally with terrorism the problem is not with the underlying cause - the suggestion that Britain should not have troops in Afghanistan is a legitimate political stance whether you agree with it or not, just as the objective of a unified Ireland is a legitimate stance. What is not legitimate is the use of mass murder or large scale destruction of property to precipitate this sort of political objective.

Some people will always hero-worship the people that others see as the scum of the earth. Irish republican prisoners were not gaoled because they wanted a united Ireland, they were gaoled for possessing weapons, or attempted murder, or for blowing up cars. They may have been seen as prisoners of conscience by their followers but that is a bit like saying that other paedophiles look at Ian Huntley as a prisoner of conscience.

They are, however, when all is said and done, simply criminals. The monsters who murdered Drummer Rigby are not prisoners of conscience, and they are not essentially any different from the monster who murdered little April West.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Terrorism is essentially an attempt to achieve a political objective through the use of extreme criminal means such as mass murder and large scale criminal damage. Terrorism is an extreme form of criminality, nothing more, nothing less.

That sounds remarkably similar to what Margaret Thatcher used to say on the subject ;-)

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

If people are to be arrested and charged treat them as criminals, don't label the laws under "terrorism" and don't "legitimise" their cause by making them appear to be "a prisoner of conscience" to their followers.

Why? Terrorism is essentially an attempt to achieve a political objective through the use of extreme criminal means such as mass murder and large scale criminal damage. Terrorism is an extreme form of criminality, nothing more, nothing less.

Normally with terrorism the problem is not with the underlying cause - the suggestion that Britain should not have troops in Afghanistan is a legitimate political stance whether you agree with it or not, just as the objective of a unified Ireland is a legitimate stance. What is not legitimate is the use of mass murder or large scale destruction of property to precipitate this sort of political objective.

Some people will always hero-worship the people that others see as the scum of the earth. Irish republican prisoners were not gaoled because they wanted a united Ireland, they were gaoled for possessing weapons, or attempted murder, or for blowing up cars. They may have been seen as prisoners of conscience by their followers but that is a bit like saying that other paedophiles look at Ian Huntley as a prisoner of conscience.

They are, however, when all is said and done, simply criminals. The monsters who murdered Drummer Rigby are not prisoners of conscience, and they are not essentially any different from the monster who murdered little April West.

That is my point treat them as criminals just like any other offender. You are right they are not prisoners of conscience, that is why I put it in inverted commas. Some oddballs are always attracted to scum like women fighting over the affections of convicted serial killer Richard "the Nightstalker" Ramirez but Jihadists love the idea of being subject to different rules (no matter how nuanced) because it serves their persecution complex and their sympathisers may share that stance .

People who carry out or plan to carry out murders for ideological purposes should be charged with murder and conspiracy to murder (as I imagine they are) if you have to treat them differently there must be a practical purpose behind it.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

They are, however, when all is said and done, simply criminals. The monsters who murdered Drummer Rigby are not prisoners of conscience, and they are not essentially any different from the monster who murdered little April West.

That is pretty much what Obama said last week in a quite amazing speech(in terms of opening this question up to the normal media) that the US were going to do from now on. He also admitted that you can never win the war on terror, that all drone attacks and the USA's recent foreign policy is creating more problems than it is solving and that boots on the ground in the middle east is a great recruiting tool for these radical extremists.

 

[dazdon]

Dazdon is talking about hate preachers only interested in hate preachers

The thread is about the Woolwich murder and the radicalisation of the killers by political Islam.

Which is why the emphasis is on Muslim preachers.

Yes it is.
I left out some wording there it should read "talking about hate preachers only interested in being hate preachers (not commissioning violence or acting as figureheads)" How do you address my point that is counterproductive to get tough on Choudry. He should be treated with ridicule and the mainstream press should cease giving him wide exposure just because it attracts viewers/ sells newspapers.

I don't agree with the coverage he gets either...but he shouldn't be ignored either specially by the people we employ to either bring him to book or monitor him.

Making him a martyr isn't a concern of mine....simply because either way he's going to be thought of as one in some way or other by his disciples.

I don't care for the EDL and I don't care for radical Islam but I will concern myself with other radical organisations when they start killing people in the name of their cause.

Drawing the line at death threats should be the norm.

 

[Chris in London]

Terrorism is essentially an attempt to achieve a political objective through the use of extreme criminal means such as mass murder and large scale criminal damage. Terrorism is an extreme form of criminality, nothing more, nothing less.

That sounds remarkably similar to what Margaret Thatcher used to say on the subject ;-)

You know what they say about a broken clock, Gordon...

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Terrorism is essentially an attempt to achieve a political objective through the use of extreme criminal means such as mass murder and large scale criminal damage. Terrorism is an extreme form of criminality, nothing more, nothing less.

That sounds remarkably similar to what Margaret Thatcher used to say on the subject ;-)

You know what they say about a broken clock, Gordon...

I'm not sure the Iron Lady was ever right twice a day.
Unless finally forgetting to inhale and exhale counts.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

The thread is about the Woolwich murder and the radicalisation of the killers by political Islam.

Which is why the emphasis is on Muslim preachers.

Yes it is.
I left out some wording there it should read "talking about hate preachers only interested in being hate preachers (not commissioning violence or acting as figureheads)" How do you address my point that is counterproductive to get tough on Choudry. He should be treated with ridicule and the mainstream press should cease giving him wide exposure just because it attracts viewers/ sells newspapers.

I don't agree with the coverage he gets either...but he shouldn't be ignored either specially by the people we employ to either bring him to book or monitor him.

Making him a martyr isn't a concern of mine....simply because either way he's going to be thought of as one in some way or other by his disciples.

I don't care for the EDL and I don't care for radical Islam but I will concern myself with other radical organisations when they start killing people in the name of their cause.

Drawing the line at death threats should be the norm.

He won't be, but it has to be in the public interest to prosecute him and I don't believe it is because it would only serve to alienate and radicalise more people.
Attack the movement not the man, there will always be nutters of all different persuasions religious or otherwise; the tragic irony of "atheist" death cults like the one led by Jim Jones.What we need to do is establish a counter narrative, destroy organisational infrastructure of terrorist cells and monitor and arrest those who cross over the line. However there will always be the threat of attack and events like this one are almost impossible to stop.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

That sounds remarkably similar to what Margaret Thatcher used to say on the subject ;-)

You know what they say about a broken clock, Gordon...

I'm not sure the Iron Lady was ever right twice a day.
Unless finally forgetting to inhale and exhale counts.

I think she only forgot to do one of those things tbf.