London Bridge Incident

meanredspider

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British.

Like the Pope?

That would be a start

nickice

Alex99 wrote:

nickice wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

nickice wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

nickice wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

nickice wrote:

If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.

Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?

If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.

And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?

Well, we happily band about the term nutters...Anyone who is happy to commit these kinds of acts, mass murder in cold blood, would seem to have some kind of mental issue to me.

I'm not necessarily against internment. But again, it needs to be fully thought through, and we need balance in our reactions. If we start locking up masses of UK Muslims, we will inevitably start locking up some who are innocent. We will then feed more of the "us and them" mentality.

This isn't to mention the fact that our prisons are already quite full, and the prison service is near breaking point.

So there is no evidence they're mentally ill. Thinking that only a mentally ill person would do that kind of thing is not evidence of mental illness. Do you know how many completely normal Germans participated in the mass murder of Jews in WW2? The whole 'they're just mentally ill' argument is lazy and not supported by the evidence. We call them nutters in the same way we call hard guys nutters. We're not saying they're mentally ill.

The pitfalls of ideology. The murder of children can be 100% compatible with an ideology.

Of course it can. We refuse to believe them because WE can't believe that anyone could believe that. This is well worth watching-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e93rcFlMAA

Indeed, it is hard to believe. But the point keeps being made loud and clear. Also see "why we hate you and why we fight you".

Yep read that too. I wonder how many people on here who are desperate to ignore the problem actually know anything about it.

nickice

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British.

Like the Pope?

At times, Catholicism has been the most dangerous religion in the World. It would be difficult to say that's the case now though. I think the OP probably meant banning hate preachers but I'm not sure.

Alex99

meanredspider wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British.

Like the Pope?

That would be a start

There are probably some short term actions such as banning particular preachers. Eventually, we just need to do away with religion. Faith schools = indoctrination into cults

meanredspider

Alex99 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British.

Like the Pope?

That would be a start

There are probably some short term actions such as banning particular preachers. Eventually, we just need to do away with religion. Faith schools = indoctrination into cults

Local primary (when we lived near Cambridge) was CofE and Mrs MRS was at constant war with them over their preachings- especially because the local vicar (with whom the school had a lot of contact) was deeply homophobic.

city_boy

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

Alex99

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

imposter2.0

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You were doing so well, up to that point. So a democracy is fine, but only if it gives you the result you want? If my interpretation is wrong, then put it right.

A liberal democracy is one that ensures certain basic rights and freedoms not simply majority rules. It combines the concept of will of the people with respect for human rights and the existence of certain institutions - free press, independent judiciary etc - to ensure the outcomes broadly reflect public will whilst respecting those rights.

Being in the EU would generally not be seen as a fundamental right hence a narrow majority vote does not mean we aren't a liberal democracy.

Well you did ask.

All of which - in principle - can be over-turned democratically. All it needs is enough people to vote for it (ie 'the will of the people'). The word 'liberal' in that context is utterly meaningless.

kingstongraham

Imposter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You were doing so well, up to that point. So a democracy is fine, but only if it gives you the result you want? If my interpretation is wrong, then put it right.

A liberal democracy is one that ensures certain basic rights and freedoms not simply majority rules. It combines the concept of will of the people with respect for human rights and the existence of certain institutions - free press, independent judiciary etc - to ensure the outcomes broadly reflect public will whilst respecting those rights.

Being in the EU would generally not be seen as a fundamental right hence a narrow majority vote does not mean we aren't a liberal democracy.

Well you did ask.

All of which - in principle - can be over-turned democratically. All it needs is enough people to vote for it (ie 'the will of the people'). The word 'liberal' in that context is utterly meaningless.

The independent judiciary should prevent it being overturned. Hence some of Trump's problems, even with a majority in all elected bodies.

nickice

Alex99 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

And what hasn't been pointed out on here yet is that it's often small groups of friends and family becoming radicalised together. The chances of all being mentally ill is incredibly small.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You were doing so well, up to that point. So a democracy is fine, but only if it gives you the result you want? If my interpretation is wrong, then put it right.

A liberal democracy is one that ensures certain basic rights and freedoms not simply majority rules. It combines the concept of will of the people with respect for human rights and the existence of certain institutions - free press, independent judiciary etc - to ensure the outcomes broadly reflect public will whilst respecting those rights.

Being in the EU would generally not be seen as a fundamental right hence a narrow majority vote does not mean we aren't a liberal democracy.

Well you did ask.

All of which - in principle - can be over-turned democratically. All it needs is enough people to vote for it (ie 'the will of the people'). The word 'liberal' in that context is utterly meaningless.

That's why countries have constitutions and separation of powers.

city_boy

nickice wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

And what hasn't been pointed out on here yet is that it's often small groups of friends and family becoming radicalised together. The chances of all being mentally ill is incredibly small.

Based on news reports surrounding the Manchester attack in particular, there seems to be a fairly sizeable, widespread and sophisticated network of people involved in the planning, support and execution of the attack. To put these things down to mental illness seems a tad naïve to me.

Alex99

City Boy wrote:

nickice wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

And what hasn't been pointed out on here yet is that it's often small groups of friends and family becoming radicalised together. The chances of all being mentally ill is incredibly small.

Based on news reports surrounding the Manchester attack in particular, there seems to be a fairly sizeable, widespread and sophisticated network of people involved in the planning, support and execution of the attack. To put these things down to mental illness seems a tad naïve to me.

Mental illness is perhaps not the most useful term. Perhaps a 'delusion' or 'indoctrination' is better. You would expect this to operate on close-knit groups. However, 'mad', or 'nutter' doesn't automatically mean diminished ability to carry out complex acts.

If one person has claims about the supernatural that they can't substantiate, many would say that they're mad. If a billion people do, they're religious and have to be respected. So it just depends on what you class as 'mad'.

rick_chasey

City Boy wrote:

nickice wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

And what hasn't been pointed out on here yet is that it's often small groups of friends and family becoming radicalised together. The chances of all being mentally ill is incredibly small.

Based on news reports surrounding the Manchester attack in particular, there seems to be a fairly sizeable, widespread and sophisticated network of people involved in the planning, support and execution of the attack. To put these things down to mental illness seems a tad naïve to me.

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

city_boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

nickice wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

And what hasn't been pointed out on here yet is that it's often small groups of friends and family becoming radicalised together. The chances of all being mentally ill is incredibly small.

Based on news reports surrounding the Manchester attack in particular, there seems to be a fairly sizeable, widespread and sophisticated network of people involved in the planning, support and execution of the attack. To put these things down to mental illness seems a tad naïve to me.

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

That's some question!

I would think that the factors and circumstances pertaining to a person or persons becoming radicalised are many, varied and often quite complex, I therefore assume that any solutions that would prevent radicalisation would be the same.

It's fairly well acknowledged that psychological conditioning and indoctrination during our formative years is incredibly powerful and can be nigh on irreversible in some instances. When a child is hard wired to believe a religious text is the perfect, irrefutable word of god (for example) then that creates the basis of a 'well of credulity' (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens) that the more insidiously manipulative in society would be negligent to not take advantage of!

rjsterry

This might be relevant. A discussion of the various factors that may make someone vulnerable to radicalisation.

http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/g ... -causes-2/

I think you are a bit off target with the childhood indoctrination theory. If anything in some cases it appears to be a reaction against a perceived abandonment of or lack of cultural and religious observance.

I was also reading something the other day about the number of converts involved in extremist groups and in particular converts from white supremacist ideology to Islamist ideology.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

I do not believe nonsense, if I read or see nonsense. Independent thought.

Pross

I see there's a petition on Change to deport people on watch lists and I think it has already reached its target. I can sort of understand the sentiment but a) how do you deport people born in the country and who are British citizens as many attackers have been and b) I'm pretty sure several Home Secretaries already tried doing this (maybe people are hoping that Human Rights law will change post-Brexit). That's without the whole ethical debate about whether being under suspicion is enough for such action.

rick_chasey

City Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

That's some question!

I would think that the factors and circumstances pertaining to a person or persons becoming radicalised are many, varied and often quite complex, I therefore assume that any solutions that would prevent radicalisation would be the same.

It's fairly well acknowledged that psychological conditioning and indoctrination during our formative years is incredibly powerful and can be nigh on irreversible in some instances. When a child is hard wired to believe a religious text is the perfect, irrefutable word of god (for example) then that creates the basis of a 'well of credulity' (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens) that the more insidiously manipulative in society would be negligent to not take advantage of!

You didn't answer my question.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

I do not believe nonsense, if I read or see nonsense. Independent thought.

I'm sure nobody thinks they believe in nonsense.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

That's some question!

I would think that the factors and circumstances pertaining to a person or persons becoming radicalised are many, varied and often quite complex, I therefore assume that any solutions that would prevent radicalisation would be the same.

It's fairly well acknowledged that psychological conditioning and indoctrination during our formative years is incredibly powerful and can be nigh on irreversible in some instances. When a child is hard wired to believe a religious text is the perfect, irrefutable word of god (for example) then that creates the basis of a 'well of credulity' (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens) that the more insidiously manipulative in society would be negligent to not take advantage of!

You didn't answer my question.

TBF I doubt anyone could give an accurate answer.

city_boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

That's some question!

I would think that the factors and circumstances pertaining to a person or persons becoming radicalised are many, varied and often quite complex, I therefore assume that any solutions that would prevent radicalisation would be the same.

It's fairly well acknowledged that psychological conditioning and indoctrination during our formative years is incredibly powerful and can be nigh on irreversible in some instances. When a child is hard wired to believe a religious text is the perfect, irrefutable word of god (for example) then that creates the basis of a 'well of credulity' (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens) that the more insidiously manipulative in society would be negligent to not take advantage of!

You didn't answer my question.

Sorry Rick, I misread your question. I took the "you" as a general term rather than referring to me specifically.

I would say it's highly unlikely (I wouldn't go as far as saying impossible) for me to be radicalised as I don't have any deep seated religious or ideological beliefs or fears that can be played upon, I also try to take an open minded, rational and logical approach to things. I am also sceptical and don't believe everything I'm told as a matter of course. Taking all that into account I would think it would be very difficult for me to be driven or persuaded towards the more radical beliefs and extremist actions.

Human psychology is very interesting though and I am sure the capacity for such things lies within all of us. Thankfully, for most of us, it fairly benign and dormant.

I took my family to Auschwitz last year and can remember thinking, looking at the sheer scale of the operation, that at least some of the guards that oversaw and carried out the torture and murder must have once been ordinary, decent humans like you and me at one time in their lives. Something happened to move them towards an ideology containing such brutality and, most would agree, evil.

One might say - "there, but for the grace of God..."

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

nickice wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Here are the views of an educated, articulate, white middle class male who doesn't come across as a nutter or as someone with a mental illness, but who once thought as many of these terrorists do...

https://youtu.be/4e93rcFlMAA

He describes quite clearly the mindset of those indoctrinated into an ideology.

And what hasn't been pointed out on here yet is that it's often small groups of friends and family becoming radicalised together. The chances of all being mentally ill is incredibly small.

Based on news reports surrounding the Manchester attack in particular, there seems to be a fairly sizeable, widespread and sophisticated network of people involved in the planning, support and execution of the attack. To put these things down to mental illness seems a tad naïve to me.

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

You could also just ask what stops people from becoming religious. Nobody has the answer. No matter what you think about lack of education, poverty, unemployment, discrimination etc. There are always several cases of Islamic extremists with none of the above factors just as I'd the case with other religious people. Do we spend our days wondering what made Ben Carson a near Christian Fundamentalist?

rjsterry

I don't think 'nobody knows'. There is academic debate on the relative importance of the different factors but there seems to be consensus on what those factors are and that it is a question of 'risk factors' rather than a deterministic relationship.

Ben6899

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

I do not believe nonsense, if I read or see nonsense. Independent thought.

I'm honestly not picking holes here - and this is a question to the floor, not just PB - how do we define "being radicalised"? Because if believing everything you read and, as a result of that, hating anyone who happens to be different means you're radicalised, then I would argue that some of the awful t1ts that I have blocked on Facebook* ** (who were ticked as "Friend" in the early days because we went to school together) are, in fact, radicalised.

*there's a difference between being angry at what's happening, at the hands of an extreme minority of a minority, and actively spouting hate for all the world (or your "Friends list") to see.

**I now mainly use Facebook to look at funny cat pictures or sometimes I watch the odd classic Goal of the Month video...

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think 'nobody knows'. There is academic debate on the relative importance of the different factors but there seems to be consensus on what those factors are and that it is a question of 'risk factors' rather than a deterministic relationship.

I'might pretty well read on this subject. I've read Scott Attran's stuff but where I disagree with most research is that commonly cited factors for radicalisation are present in all societies on Earth and always will be. So, yes, nobody knows what drives someone to believe in any religion. I have seen patterns but nothing close to conclusive There is only one common factor in why someone becomes an Islamic extremist but we refuse to believe it.

nickice

Pross wrote:

I see there's a petition on Change to deport people on watch lists and I think it has already reached its target. I can sort of understand the sentiment but a) how do you deport people born in the country and who are British citizens as many attackers have been and b) I'm pretty sure several Home Secretaries already tried doing this (maybe people are hoping that Human Rights law will change post-Brexit). That's without the whole ethical debate about whether being under suspicion is enough for such action.

Even non-citizens can't be deported if they are at risk of being mistreated. It's called the Chahal principle and government's tried to get round it by seeking diplomatic assurances from states like Jordan that deportees would not be mistreated. So, we have Islamic extremists in the UK wanted for crimes in the ME but there's not much we can do about it.

pblakeney

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

I see there's a petition on Change to deport people on watch lists and I think it has already reached its target. I can sort of understand the sentiment but a) how do you deport people born in the country and who are British citizens as many attackers have been and b) I'm pretty sure several Home Secretaries already tried doing this (maybe people are hoping that Human Rights law will change post-Brexit). That's without the whole ethical debate about whether being under suspicion is enough for such action.

Even non-citizens can't be deported if they are at risk of being mistreated. It's called the Chahal principle and government's tried to get round it by seeking diplomatic assurances from states like Jordan that deportees would not be mistreated. So, we have Islamic extremists in the UK wanted for crimes in the ME but there's not much we can do about it.

Rumour has it that Italy is doing it right now.
Not fact checked though as supposedly busy at work.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think 'nobody knows'. There is academic debate on the relative importance of the different factors but there seems to be consensus on what those factors are and that it is a question of 'risk factors' rather than a deterministic relationship.

I'might pretty well read on this subject. I've read Scott Attran's stuff but where I disagree with most research is that commonly cited factors for radicalisation are present in all societies on Earth and always will be. So, yes, nobody knows what drives someone to believe in any religion. I have seen patterns but nothing close to conclusive There is only one common factor in why someone becomes an Islamic extremist but we refuse to believe it.

And radicalisation of one sort or another is present in all societies and throughout history. Islamist extremism is just the most prominent example at the moment. In the '70s and '80s it was violent nationalist groups. Religious belief isn't the 'magic ingredient' any more than poverty or any of the other factors. Obviously a belief in a perverted form of Islam is a common factor in Islamist radicalisation but that is how we categorise that kind of radicalisation so it's a circular argument.

pblakeney

Ben6899 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's turn it on its head: what do you think stops you from becoming radicalised?

I do not believe nonsense, if I read or see nonsense. Independent thought.

I'm honestly not picking holes here - and this is a question to the floor, not just PB - how do we define "being radicalised"? Because if believing everything you read and, as a result of that, hating anyone who happens to be different means you're radicalised, then I would argue that some of the awful t1ts that I have blocked on Facebook* ** (who were ticked as "Friend" in the early days because we went to school together) are, in fact, radicalised.

*there's a difference between being angry at what's happening, at the hands of an extreme minority of a minority, and actively spouting hate for all the world (or your "Friends list") to see.

**I now mainly use Facebook to look at funny cat pictures or sometimes I watch the odd classic Goal of the Month video...

It's a fair point. My point is that all these people do not thoroughly question things.
Whether that is the afterlife or who belongs here. They accept what they are told because it suits their view. That is why they are radicalised while others aren't.
Solution? Not a clue.