Current Affairs How do we tackle terrorism?

[Seanjd]

I've already explained young man. Read my posts. I'm watching the match

I have, which is why I'm confused. You refer to the 'cult' as being all religions, but most specifically Islam because it's the most dangerous and most powerful, but in your above post you've written that the 'cult' are 'mainly underground and are spreading like a cancer all over secular Europe'.

So, by 'cult', do you mean Islam, or in fact just a a very small minority of people who are considered fundamentalist radical Muslims?

And I can't find where you've mentioned about how you think it can be stopped.

 

[Seanjd]

That is almost certainly an impossibility though - for a start, if human history tells us anything its that men can be persuaded to do anything, however horrific, if they think what they are doing is right.

Absolutely, they can and will continue to be persuaded to do things. The vulnerable are easy pickings for those doing the radicalisation.

Do you not think more effort could be applied to getting to these vulnerable people first?

 

[tsubaki]

Absolutely, they can and will continue to be persuaded to do things. The vulnerable are easy pickings for those doing the radicalisation.

Do you not think more effort could be applied to getting to these vulnerable people first?

Sort of - though rather than go after them, I'd look to solve the issues that radicalize those people in the first place.

 

[Seanjd]

Sort of - though rather than go after them, I'd look to solve the issues that radicalize those people in the first place.

Yeah, that's what I meant really. The issues are socio-economical.

 

[peteblue]

Yeah, that's what I meant really. The issues are socio-economical.

Ye gods and little fishes.........

 

[peteblue]

Militants linked to Islamic State swept through a southern Philippine city, beheading a police chief, burning buildings, seizing a Roman Catholic priest and his worshippers and raising the black flag of Isis, regional authorities have said....

 

[Seanjd]

Ye gods and little fishes.........

Care to expand?

 

[ilikecheese]

Militants linked to Islamic State swept through a southern Philippine city, beheading a police chief, burning buildings, seizing a Roman Catholic priest and his worshippers and raising the black flag of Isis, regional authorities have said....

Duterte declared Martial Law on the island of Mindanao.

 

[peteblue]

And some of you reacted with horror when I suggested arresting people........

The militants called for reinforcements and about 100 gunmen entered Marawi, a mostly Muslim city of 200,000 people on the southern island of Mindanao, according to the defence secretary, Delfin Lorenzana said.

“We are in a state of emergency,” Duterte said on Wednesday after he cut short a trip to Moscow and flew back to Manila, the Philippine capital. “I have a serious problem in Mindanao and the Isis footprints are everywhere.”

He declared martial law for 60 days in Mindanao, home to 22 million people, and vowed to be “harsh”.

“If I think that you should die, you will die,” he said. “If you fight us, you will die. If there is open defiance, you will die. And if it means many people dying, so be it.”

But Duterte said he would not allow abuses and law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Yeah, that's what I meant really. The issues are socio-economical.

No its not. It's dangerous people radicalising young Muslims to do their bidding for them. Cowards who incite violence.

 

[tadao]

Yes. If the 'establishment' wanted to influence the election, there are a thousand and one things they could do that would be more effective and less politically explosive.

Glad to see last nights condescending replies, were replaced this morning by a mellower tone.
Whilst my comment might have been a 'throwaway' line, there is always room for cynicism, unless we just accept everything gov't (of whatever party) tells us.

Today's Guardian -
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...itical-5000-troops-streets-operation-temperer

"The announcement of the move to a critical threat level on Tuesday night was unusual. In recent years changes in the threat level have been announced by the home secretary alone on a recommendation from the “independent” Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC).
The decision was also unusual in that MI5’s definition of a critical threat is that an attack is expected imminently."

"For both May and Amber Rudd one major reason for their anxiety will be that the sight of armed troops on the streets will provoke accusations of moves towards a French-style “militarised police state” and inevitable speculation that in the middle of a general election campaign the decision comes with political overtones as well as from operational necessity."

"The decision to increase the threat level was taken by JTAC, which analyses and assesses all intelligence relating to international terrorism in Britain and overseas. It brings together counter-terrorism experts from the police, security services and Whitehall departments. They include Charles Farr, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, and Mark Sedwill, national security adviser, who both worked very closely with May at the Home Office."

That article doesn't state anything untoward has happened (I haven't either) but, the inference is there that we at least question how decisions are arrived at.

 

[Seanjd]

No its not. It's dangerous people radicalising young Muslims to do their bidding for them. Cowards who incite violence.

Not just any young Muslims. Young Muslims with problems. If these young people didn't have these problems, they wouldn't be radicalised.

It's no coincidence that the attacks on Britain have been carried out by young men of ethnic groups from disadvantaged areas, most of whom have been previously involved with crime.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Yeah, that's what I meant really. The issues are socio-economical.

No its not. It's dangerous people radicalising young Muslims to do their bidding for them. Cowards who incite violence.

I think it's really too complex to be and "either/or" in respect of either of these things.

The religious/ideological aspect is not the only element, but certainly it plays a role. It is what gives terrorists what they crave - something to believe in, something which they can dedicate themselves to, something which may have brainwashed them.

The socio-economic issues are also there - these are people who have clearly turned their back on society for whatever reason. The mental issue is also prevalent as you clearly need to be very mentally unstable to blow up a load of young innocent kids (and yourself) up.

When you combine all of those things (and there are other factors at play as well), the result is a horribly lethal situation which is very difficult to tackle. I think the only place to start is by challenging the extremist ideology behind it.

 

[peteblue]

Not just any young Muslims. Young Muslims with problems. If these young people didn't have these problems, they wouldn't be radicalised.

It's no coincidence that the attacks on Britain have been carried out by young men of ethnic groups from disadvantaged areas, most of whom have been previously involved with crime.

And you asked me to explain, "ye gods and little fishes"...........

 

[bring the ghost on]

Also, it's worth making the distinction between those who are carrying out atrocities having been manipulated into thinking that they are doing something "right", and those that are doing the manipulation and brainwashing (the latter group are the more dangerous) and how those two groups have different reasons, motives and aims.