Terrorist recruitment in prison has always been a thing. The residents can be violent, mentally ill and have a grudge against society if not before they go in then afterwards. Offer them a new set of rules that refuse the recognize the laws you broke to end up there, and the chance to be a "good" person through a terrorist act on release. Very tempting for a certain type of person, in a certain set of circumstances both of which prison provides.
General / Off-Topic Incident At Westminster
- Thread starter Lianachan
- Start date
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
Well I think sometimes the media doesn't make it clear what is actually going on in the minutes and hours after such an incident.
The police presumably have to assume worst case scenario. Therefore, if something like that happens, they:
- Assume that it is a terrorist incident.
- Assume that there are multiple perpetrators and that some may still be at large.
- Assume that there may be other attacks planned to coordinate with this one.
- Assume that different scenes nearby were committed by different attackers and no the same one.
This is obviously the only logical thing to do, otherwise if the above turned out to be true, they would be accused of incompetence later on.
Therefore they say that they are "treating this attack as a terrorist incident".
Later on, it may actually turn out that it wasn't really a terrorist incident but a lone person who had gone crazy. By the time that becomes clear, a lot of people will have moved on and will always forever think it was a terrorist attack.
There are more people in the world who are Muslim than any other religion, so it stands to reason that some of them would be criminals or violent people regardless of whether they are Muslim or not.
Also, if somebody who is mentally unstable and is probably going to commit a violent act, then goes out and attacks people, and also happens to have associated with religious extremists at one time or another, is that really a terrorist act? Possibly they would have done it anyway for some other reason. Unless you can show that they are actually taking instructions or being organized somehow by a terrorist organization, is it really a terrorist act or actually just an act of senseless murder?
The police presumably have to assume worst case scenario. Therefore, if something like that happens, they:
- Assume that it is a terrorist incident.
- Assume that there are multiple perpetrators and that some may still be at large.
- Assume that there may be other attacks planned to coordinate with this one.
- Assume that different scenes nearby were committed by different attackers and no the same one.
This is obviously the only logical thing to do, otherwise if the above turned out to be true, they would be accused of incompetence later on.
Therefore they say that they are "treating this attack as a terrorist incident".
Later on, it may actually turn out that it wasn't really a terrorist incident but a lone person who had gone crazy. By the time that becomes clear, a lot of people will have moved on and will always forever think it was a terrorist attack.
There are more people in the world who are Muslim than any other religion, so it stands to reason that some of them would be criminals or violent people regardless of whether they are Muslim or not.
Also, if somebody who is mentally unstable and is probably going to commit a violent act, then goes out and attacks people, and also happens to have associated with religious extremists at one time or another, is that really a terrorist act? Possibly they would have done it anyway for some other reason. Unless you can show that they are actually taking instructions or being organized somehow by a terrorist organization, is it really a terrorist act or actually just an act of senseless murder?
Christianity is the most popular religion.
Probably. It doesn't take much to make it a terrorist act.
What's the difference? Not all senseless murder is terrorism, but some or all terrorism I think qualifies as senseless murder. It doesn't seem to work. The goal is political; the means chosen to achieve it is causing fear by killing random innocent people, but it seems better at strengthening the resolve of people and causing their governments to fight harder. See the wars after 9/11, and ISIS is shrinking last I heard.
Frankly I have never noticed in the press and politics an amalgam between Muslims and terrorists
- - - Updated - - -
But the Germans must be kept under control, for the eternity. And they recently announced an increase of their military budget
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
And to say this was not a terrorist attack, while the attacker aim was clearly to massacre in a high shock value area, even murder in the parliament? Just stupid, and unbelievable.
No-bloody-body-going-to-belíve-it-was-not!
Last edited:
Most policemen and women in the UK are unarmed. It's a pretty safe country with brutal anti gun laws, so most of our police don't need to be armed.
Minonian
Banned
For Christ sake! How can be someone whom guarding a high value target with utmost importance can be unarmed, even in the middle of total peace? [rolleyes]
The British are out of their mind!?!?!?
For my part, i can't tell anything else just The Bobby who did this is a hero! But this not makes up his lack of gear, which is the consequence of the stupid laws, and work regulation, and with just one single taser? A lot of life can be spared in there. Including his!
Well... Not so safe seemingly, not anymore! And you can't take this kind of risk in case of a high value target like Westminster. In there you must be armed up to the teeth!
The British are out of their mind!?!?!?
For my part, i can't tell anything else just The Bobby who did this is a hero! But this not makes up his lack of gear, which is the consequence of the stupid laws, and work regulation, and with just one single taser? A lot of life can be spared in there. Including his!
Well... Not so safe seemingly, not anymore! And you can't take this kind of risk in case of a high value target like Westminster. In there you must be armed up to the teeth!
Last edited:
It is the anti-gun laws that have compelled ISIS to provide these instruction manuals that give directions on using vehicles and knives. They don't produce any of that for the US since it is so easy to pick up a a gun. Those they have radicalized in the US already know what to do and how to do it.
--Not an opinion on gun law in the US, I ain't touchin' that.
Minonian
Banned
The two end... Neither of it does any good.
I believe that you will find that there are probably more armed police around Westminster, than anywhere else in the country. They are clearly on display and not just armed with side arms, but powerful assault weapons, carried with both hands. They have been there for years and can also can be seen at airports etc. However: Walk down my local high street and all we see are 'pretend policemen', or enforcement officers, who bring in revenue for the local council, with fine for dropping buts and parking. Police can often be seen in cars, but that is about it. They do often have AMPR in big letters in the side of the cars, so we have been warned.
Yes the officer that died was not carrying a gun, (as far as we are aware) which is interesting, because he must have been accompanied by armed officers and one has to wonder, why the unarmed guy got there first. Sad really.
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
Seemingly not... Because where it mattered the only one present was unarmed. Firearm or at least a taser / shocker or baton, pepper spray? Did he had it?
You know what? I worked for years as guardsman. And altrough im good n hand to hand combat, i always carried with me a knife and short stick. + pepper spray. You just can't do this kind of work unarmed!
You know what? I worked for years as guardsman. And altrough im good n hand to hand combat, i always carried with me a knife and short stick. + pepper spray. You just can't do this kind of work unarmed!
Last edited:
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
The visible police presence at the gates were unarmed. However there were armed police nearby and at Westminster there are (unusually for the UK) both plain clothes and uniformed armed police. From what was talked about on the news yesterday, the perpetrator was shot by plain clothes protection officers within a very short time (not many seconds) of attacking the policeman.
The guards outside Buckingham palace are also unarmed (in the sense that even if they are carrying a weapon it's not loaded). However I'm sure there are armed police around the area very close by.
In general UK policing, most police are unarmed, but they are backed up by armed response units.
One thing to note here is that the perpetrator didn't have a gun either - I'm sure if he had been able to get one he would have done so.
People doing very naughty things indeed tend not to write it all down.
Minonian
Banned
Just as i said... The other end! Give everyone gun, and the safety only gets worst! But an area like the g Parliament must be protected, and it's protection must be taken more seriously.
Last edited:
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
No, but they would want to use electronic communications of some kind to coordinate their activities. The fact that recent attacks in Europe have tended to be done by a single person alone, with little to no knowledge or coordination from anywhere else, and often with a history of prior criminality unrelated to extremism and/or a history of mental health issues, seems to indicate that they are having some problems putting coordinated and organized groups which are capable of large scale attacks into place. These people don't seem to be organized and trained terrorist cells in the way that they were thought of in the past.
(And also, some of them do write it all down because they are not trained to avoid those things).