You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Islamic Terrorism: is religion/belief no matter how misguided, the main motivator?
- Thread starter Magicpole
- Start date
UK home to 23.000 Jihadis, The Times
There's literally no way in the world to estimate this that is statistically sound. Wouldn't mind posting the source would you? Would like to see their methodology
Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
You are a cheerful poster aren't you. Did they count them or something?UK home to 23.000 Jihadis, The Times
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
There's literally no way in the world to estimate this that is statistically sound. Wouldn't mind posting the source would you? Would like to see their methodology
Source - UK security Services.
Source - UK security Services.
To quote the article itself, "about 3,000 are judged to pose a threat". Still a fairly alarming figure, but not quite as disingenuous eh.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
What does that figure mean? 23,000 who are known to have fought in Libya, Syria etc? Or does it mean 23,000 people notified to MI5 as potential leads, which is a very different thing?UK home to 23.000 Jihadis, The Times
What does that figure mean? 23,000 who are known to have fought in Libya, Syria etc? Or does it mean 23,000 people notified to MI5 as potential leads, which is a very different thing?
I suspect Xiphos isn't too bothered about such technicalities, and will treat the 23.000 (sic) figure as gospel.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
To quote the article itself, "about 3,000 are judged to pose a threat". Still a fairly alarming figure, but not quite as disingenuous eh.
Ric - i know - 3000 or 23,000 it does not matter as long as we can stop another attack happening. I spoke to my Muslim mate tonight and he is as baffled as us. Said he had been visiting mosques for 30 odd years and had never seen an extremist and as he said that could have been my daughter at that concert. I do not understand where it is coming from? Is it radicalisation over the net? Would control over the internet help combat it?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Even that figure may not be wholly accurate in the context it's being reported. These are probably what are known as a "Subject of Interest" (SoI) who MI5 believe may be worthy of keeping tabs on in some way. When they add them to the watch-list they grade them as Priority 1-4 (with two sub-categories in 1 and 2) depending on the perceived risk and in Tiers 1-3, depending on how important they are seen to be. So the head of a network, a financier or a recruiter may be Priority 1/Tier 1 but may be a lower priority if they're not seen as posing an immediate risk. Where they are in the list will determine what resources are applied to investigating them and how intrusive the surveillance needs to be.To quote the article itself, "about 3,000 are judged to pose a threat". Still a fairly alarming figure, but not quite as disingenuous eh.
So there may be 3,000 on that list in all, including P4/T3 leads or it may be that there are 3,000 in higher risk categories (P1-2/T1 say).
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Even that figure may not be wholly accurate in the context it's being reported. These are probably what are known as a "Subject of Interest" (SoI) who MI5 believe may be worthy of keeping tabs on in some way. When they add them to the watch-list they grade them as Priority 1-4 (with two sub-categories in 1 and 2) depending on the perceived risk and in Tiers 1-3, depending on how important they are seen to be. So the head of a network, a financier or a recruiter may be Priority 1/Tier 1 but may be a lower priority if they're not seen as posing an immediate risk. Where they are in the list will determine what resources are applied to investigating them and how intrusive the surveillance needs to be.
So there may be 3,000 on that list in all, including P4/T3 leads or it may be that there are 3,000 in higher risk categories (P1-2/T1 say).
Can i ask you what you would do with the 3000?
Ric - i know - 3000 or 23,000 it does not matter
Well, it probably does matter, as it's a reduction of about 85% straight away. A good job, given the swingeing police cuts under the current government.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Well, it probably does matter, as it's a reduction of about 85% straight away. A good job, given the swingeing police cuts under the current government.
Well it says 23,000 potential Jihadis the article i have read. Totally agree in these times we cannot cope with less police.
balotelli's back pocket
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 9,504
Its a mixture of culture, lack of oppurtunity and lack of happiness that leads to radicalisation of vulnerable individuals. Religion is just a radicals tool, the sick bastards actually believe they are going to heaven...
Well it says 23,000 potential Jihadis the article i have read. Totally agree in these times we cannot cope with less police.
I think The Times' sub-ed neglected to mention the word "potential" in their front page headline. An accident, I'm sure.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Well there's no simple answer to that obviously. We don't know what that number represents, as I said. We don't know what factors make them SoI's. But we live in a society that respects the rule of law so unless we have evidence that would stand up in court, we may not be able to arrest and charge them. And even if we did have evidence, it may be that we want to leave some of them free to lead us to others or to uncover more intelligence. So I'm quite happy to let the Security Services manage things the way they see fit because they're the experts.Can i ask you what you would do with the 3000?
To quote the article itself, "about 3,000 are judged to pose a threat". Still a fairly alarming figure, but not quite as disingenuous eh.
So their knowledge list is 23000 strong.
I'm genuinely shocked it's that low.
kinkyisno.1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2017
- Messages
- 140
Pleased someone tell me what is wrong about what TR says here.