tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
If they are blocking the prosecution of murderers, and getting involved in plots that end up with women and kids being blown up here, the Courts should be getting them to tell everything.
Current Affairs How do we tackle terrorism?
- Thread starter Bungle
- Start date
- Status
If they are blocking the prosecution of murderers, and getting involved in plots that end up with women and kids being blown up here, the Courts should be getting them to tell everything.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
British policy with regards to Libya has been odd for years. Lets not forget we in effect kidnapped and renditioned someone who was of no threat to us, and then released the biggest mass murderer* in British history "on compassionate grounds", in order to improve trade links with someone who we then allied with takfiris to get rid of.
* though most people who have looked in that case in depth do not believe he did it.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
I didn't say detain, just use the resources they have.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
But what does that mean, follow him around for a bit ? There are 3000 known jihadists.....detention would have been a decent option......
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
I notice that the recent newspaper columns and pontifications by Blair and Campbell have gone quiet....
what's the over/under on how long it took pete to admit the Iraq War was a bad idea? ten years?
CahillsCornerFlag
Player Valuation: £70m
Nailed it. Each side is genuinely hysterical.
At times I wonder if the very essence of the Quran and its teachings is compatible with what we've established as Western civilization, or is it at odds with it. I'm not qualified to answer that, but it's a logical thing to bring up and have a genuine discussion about. Instead, I'd be shot down by many as a racist and (ironically) a bigot, even though you're genuinely trying to explore something and understand it.
Equally, there's tens of thousands of 'moderate' muslims who don't deserve tarring with the same brush as those who commit these atrocities, but to defend them gets a reaction from those on the other side.
Feel like genuine, useful discourse will never take place though sadly.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
No, it wouldn't. 3000 known jihadists would in a very short space of time become a rather larger number of unknown jihadists.
Intern people and all you do is drive the ones you didn't get underground, help recruit others appalled at the injustice of it all, and gather the people you do detain into a system where they can all talk, plot, train and scheme together in a much easier way than they could do at home.
We know this because its what happened in NI, and what played a massive role in the development of IS itself.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
We were lied to, and someone should be in prison, I've never made a secret of this......
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
The question you pose is best answered by a look at history.
Islam spread so quickly because it was a better, more honest, more tolerant and more effective religion and system of government than what it was up against - either Persian autocracy, Byzantine nonsense (they spent much of the eighth century killing and blinding each other over whether God allowed pictures of himself to be made) or the rule of sub-Roman barbarian tribes. It then expanded the number of worshippers that it had because there were clear advantages in learning Arabic and Islamic science (by the fourteenth century the great traveler Ibn Battuta could go from his home in Morocco all the way to China speaking the language and earning his living as an expert on sharia law). The early Arab empires prospered because they actively encouraged scientific learning, honesty in trade, a unified currency and promoted economic infrastructure development. If Islam had continued on the path it was on in its early years, we would all be speaking Arabic by now and would probably be several hundred years ahead of where we currently are technologically.
Obviously that didn't happen, the people who only are concerned with their definition of religion got hold of it and the end result is as we all see.
canuckblue
Player Valuation: £50m
That didn't get anywhere near the credit it deserved.
CahillsCornerFlag
Player Valuation: £70m
Interesting post, thanks for sharing. Sounds like historically it was very forward thinking and ahead of its time.
I do posit though, that times have moved on a lot since the 14th century, and wonder if its compatible with Western culture as we see and live in it today. How do their Sharia laws combine with our laws, can they coexist? Again, I know very little and I'm not prepared to be an internet warrior who googles stuff then holds a concrete opinion after half an hour.
The stories I've heard about their treatment of women points to it being oppressive in that regard, and not in line with how women are empowered in the West, that doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Travel to syria, Iraq, lybia and the like needs to be extremely closely monitored. I read earlier that more people in this country have had travel bans imposed on them for football related incidents than jihad. Not saying this is that meaningful, but it made me think.
Some interesting bits from The Times today in relation to Facebook, YouTube etc. and their role in promoting terrorism.
Online Anarchy
Social media companies are damning themselves by publishing bomb-making guides
Share
Save
YouTube added a black ribbon to its logo this week as a mark of respect to those killed and maimed in Monday’s gruesome attack. Yet as the site mourns today’s victims, it aids tomorrow’s terrorists. The Times reveals that YouTube, which is owned by Google, is publishing how-to guides for mass murderers, including video manuals for bomb-makers. Facebook publishes similar content. With every week that the internet giants continue to shirk their moral and legal responsibilities as publishers, the case for robust regulation grows stronger.
One Facebook page contains an 11,000-word guide to making bombs. The guide explains how to maximise devastation with household items. Another page tells readers how to manufacture explosives with a highly unstable chemical compound. YouTube publishes video guides on how to make an explosive belt, weave incendiary devices into clothing and make ball-bearing bombs. “Our blood is a fuel for Sharia,” one video says.
This is only the latest in a string of investigations which show social media companies publishing and profiting from hateful and sometimes illegal content. This newspaper has found child abuse images on Facebook, terrorist propaganda on Twitter, genocidal rants on YouTube and much else.
After months of prevarication, social media companies are inching towards a response. Facebook has hired 3,000 extra staff to respond to reports of hate speech and child abuse. They are still doing too little, however. This content is not difficult to find, a simple search is often enough, but the companies refuse to look for it. Instead they remain passive. They do not even consider whether hateful or dangerous content should be taken down until a user has reported it.
In any case the guidelines that frame moderators’ decisions are often perverse. Facebook’s internal rulebook, recently leaked, says that staff should remove some death threats, but not others. The home affairs select committee said in a recent report that YouTube had refused to take down a video espousing far-right extremist propaganda because it did not breach “community guidelines”.
Politicians are increasingly aware of these hazards. The Conservative manifesto promises to give regulators the ability to fine companies that fail in their legal duties and order the removal of content that clearly breaches British law. Likewise Labour says that it will “oblige technology companies to take measures that further protect children and tackle online abuse”. In Brussels, EU officials are working on laws to make social media companies block videos containing hate speech.
The internet is rarely the sole means of indoctrination or training for terrorists-in- waiting, and no new regulation will prevent future attacks on its own. The bomber responsible for Monday night’s atrocity, for example, is thought to have travelled to Libya, suggesting that some of his radicalisation took place offline. Too often, however, social media provides a safe space in which extremists can plot their bloodshed, and a virtual soapbox for anyone seeking to spread their poisonous ideology. It is a scandal that these companies should be able to disseminate bomb-making guides with impunity. No normal publisher could get away with this. The internet companies must seek this content out and take it down. If not, the authorities should intervene.
Facebook and YouTube publish DIY terror guides on how to make bombs
Alexi Mostrous, Head of Investigations
May 25 2017, 12:01am, The Times
One 22-minute video described in detail how to create a ball-bearing bomb using acetone peroxide
Share
Save
Detailed guides showing how to make nail bombs, ricin poison and other terrorist devices are freely available on Facebook and YouTube, an investigation by The Times has found.
Slickly produced videos and manuals on turning everyday products into weapons of slaughter, like the shrapnel-filled rucksack bomb used by the Manchester attacker, are available on the publishing giants’ platforms at the click of a button.
One bombmaking guide on Facebook recommended soaking nails in rat poison and vinegar to increase their effectiveness. Facebook’s moderators refused to remove the page, which has a masked jihadist as its profile picture, saying that it did not violate “community standards”. Material that shows how to make a bomb is likely to breach British terrorism legislation. As Facebook allowed such content to remain online it could be at risk of committing a criminal offence, lawyers said. The company took down the page only after its press office was contacted.
Bombmaking manuals have been available online for years, but recent months have brought a proliferation of high-definition videos with easy-to-follow guides to creating devices at home.
Dozens of such videos are hosted on YouTube. One 22-minute piece of footage provided step-by-step instructions on building a ball-bearing bomb using acetone peroxide, or TATP, the explosive used by Islamic State in the Paris and Brussels attacks. A second, published in November last year but still available on YouTube this week, showed a French jihadist in a kitchen explaining how to make bombs. Last night YouTube removed the video but kept online other bombmaking guides posted by the same user. When the links were forwarded to the press office, the user’s account was closed.
YouTube said: “We take these issues extremely seriously and work in partnership with the government and NGOs to tackle these challenging and complex problems. We employ thou- sands of people and invest hundreds of millions of pounds to fight abuse.”
Facebook said: “There is no place for terrorists or content that promotes terrorism on Facebook and we remove it as soon as we become aware of it.”
YouTube and Facebook awash with slick bomb making films
Alexi Mostrous, Head of Investigations
May 25 2017, 12:01am, The Times
If it weren’t for the sinister balaclava, the easy-to-follow videos showing how to make a range of bombs, with ingredients such as ricin, could almost be part of a cookery show, but jihadists are urged to use them to kill as many people as possibleYOUTUBE
Share
Save
At first glance it could be a cooking show. The YouTube video shows two gloved hands shelling castor seeds and grinding them in a pestle and mortar.
Except that in this case the cook is making ricin poison, designed to kill as many people as possible. The slick video had been watched almost 5,000 times and was removed only after YouTube was alerted by The Times.
It is one of dozens of “how to” terrorism guides on Google’s video platform. Although bomb-making instructions have been published online for years, the videos appear to be relatively new. In the past six months, videos have been posted showing how to prepare a ball-bearing bomb and a suicide belt, how to extract cyanide from almonds and chlorine salt and how to put a bomb in a book.
In one YouTube series a chemist demonstrates how to make acetone
Salman Abedi, the Manchester suicide bomber, killed 22 people using a bomb filled with shrapnel. Police are investigating whether he used the internet to build the device.
In the ricin video, produced by Ibn Taymiyyah, a group that supports Isis, jihadists are told to coat their knives with the powder, mixed with anti-allergy cream, “so that it is poisonous every time against an enemy”. The video then suggests that the ricin should be “placed into a plastic bottle and then exploded in a restaurant, club or bar”.
“The poison spreads everywhere as dust and everyone will inhale it and die in three to 36 hours,” it says. Another video in the same series, called Jihadi Ideas for Lone Lions, is a 22-minute guide on making a shrapnel bomb using items such as a funnel and a coffee filter.
The video shows how to place steel ball-bearings into a container full of chemicals and tells followers to use the bomb “in closed places like restaurants or buses” and then “enter the place and eliminate those who are still alive”.
In another YouTube series, a chemist draws diagrams on a whiteboard showing viewers how to make acetone, a key bomb ingredient. YouTube’s algorithms suggest further videos in the series to users who watch the first ones. The company removed them last night.
On Facebook, a page gives instructions on how to make explosives using TATP, a volatile substance used in the Brussels attacks last year.
Facebook documents show that in a single month moderators identified more than 1,300 posts as “credible terrorist threats”.
Investigations by The Times have revealed that they continued to host extremist content despite notification.
This week European Union officials are working on laws to make social media companies block videos containing hate speech. Germany is considering fining them up to €50 million if they fail to remove criminal posts.
A spokeswoman for YouTube said: “We act quickly to remove flagged content that incites violence and terminate accounts run by terrorist organisations.” Facebook said: “We have reviewed the posts sent to us by The Times and removed them as they break our standards.”
Conspiracy theorists given free rein on YouTube
Videos by conspiracy theorists claiming that the Manchester Arena bombing was a hoax have been watched 600,000 times on Google’s video platform (Mark Bridge writes).
The Times found scores of clips on YouTube claiming that the attack was either a hoax or a “false flag” attack, staged by the US or British government, Freemasons or Zionists.
Some clips claim there was no explosion and that the wounded were actors. They say that Georgina Callendar, an 18-year-old who was killed, could not have died because a girl with a passing resemblance to her was interviewed on TV in the US as a survivor. The clips falsely claim they are the same person.
Many of the videos are categorised as “news and politics” or “education” and feature narrators who back their outlandish claims with false “evidence”. Although Facebook has introduced measures to mark fake news as “disputed”, no such option exists on YouTube.
The most-watched of the clips on the site, with 96,000 views, is titled “Manchester Arena Bombing: Just More Government Terrorism.”
The narrator scrolls through media reports. Looking at an image of an injured teenage girl, he says: “Here she is. Pants are cut open so they can bandage her knee but there’s no blood. Here we go . . . Lights. Camera. Action.”
Some viewers left favourable comments, others were disgusted. One wrote: “Video made by the scum of the earth, for the scum of the earth.”
YouTube indicated that conspiracy videos did not infringe its policies and would not be removed.
Online Anarchy
Social media companies are damning themselves by publishing bomb-making guides
Share
Save
YouTube added a black ribbon to its logo this week as a mark of respect to those killed and maimed in Monday’s gruesome attack. Yet as the site mourns today’s victims, it aids tomorrow’s terrorists. The Times reveals that YouTube, which is owned by Google, is publishing how-to guides for mass murderers, including video manuals for bomb-makers. Facebook publishes similar content. With every week that the internet giants continue to shirk their moral and legal responsibilities as publishers, the case for robust regulation grows stronger.
One Facebook page contains an 11,000-word guide to making bombs. The guide explains how to maximise devastation with household items. Another page tells readers how to manufacture explosives with a highly unstable chemical compound. YouTube publishes video guides on how to make an explosive belt, weave incendiary devices into clothing and make ball-bearing bombs. “Our blood is a fuel for Sharia,” one video says.
This is only the latest in a string of investigations which show social media companies publishing and profiting from hateful and sometimes illegal content. This newspaper has found child abuse images on Facebook, terrorist propaganda on Twitter, genocidal rants on YouTube and much else.
After months of prevarication, social media companies are inching towards a response. Facebook has hired 3,000 extra staff to respond to reports of hate speech and child abuse. They are still doing too little, however. This content is not difficult to find, a simple search is often enough, but the companies refuse to look for it. Instead they remain passive. They do not even consider whether hateful or dangerous content should be taken down until a user has reported it.
In any case the guidelines that frame moderators’ decisions are often perverse. Facebook’s internal rulebook, recently leaked, says that staff should remove some death threats, but not others. The home affairs select committee said in a recent report that YouTube had refused to take down a video espousing far-right extremist propaganda because it did not breach “community guidelines”.
Politicians are increasingly aware of these hazards. The Conservative manifesto promises to give regulators the ability to fine companies that fail in their legal duties and order the removal of content that clearly breaches British law. Likewise Labour says that it will “oblige technology companies to take measures that further protect children and tackle online abuse”. In Brussels, EU officials are working on laws to make social media companies block videos containing hate speech.
The internet is rarely the sole means of indoctrination or training for terrorists-in- waiting, and no new regulation will prevent future attacks on its own. The bomber responsible for Monday night’s atrocity, for example, is thought to have travelled to Libya, suggesting that some of his radicalisation took place offline. Too often, however, social media provides a safe space in which extremists can plot their bloodshed, and a virtual soapbox for anyone seeking to spread their poisonous ideology. It is a scandal that these companies should be able to disseminate bomb-making guides with impunity. No normal publisher could get away with this. The internet companies must seek this content out and take it down. If not, the authorities should intervene.
Facebook and YouTube publish DIY terror guides on how to make bombs
Alexi Mostrous, Head of Investigations
May 25 2017, 12:01am, The Times
One 22-minute video described in detail how to create a ball-bearing bomb using acetone peroxide
Share
Save
Detailed guides showing how to make nail bombs, ricin poison and other terrorist devices are freely available on Facebook and YouTube, an investigation by The Times has found.
Slickly produced videos and manuals on turning everyday products into weapons of slaughter, like the shrapnel-filled rucksack bomb used by the Manchester attacker, are available on the publishing giants’ platforms at the click of a button.
One bombmaking guide on Facebook recommended soaking nails in rat poison and vinegar to increase their effectiveness. Facebook’s moderators refused to remove the page, which has a masked jihadist as its profile picture, saying that it did not violate “community standards”. Material that shows how to make a bomb is likely to breach British terrorism legislation. As Facebook allowed such content to remain online it could be at risk of committing a criminal offence, lawyers said. The company took down the page only after its press office was contacted.
Bombmaking manuals have been available online for years, but recent months have brought a proliferation of high-definition videos with easy-to-follow guides to creating devices at home.
Dozens of such videos are hosted on YouTube. One 22-minute piece of footage provided step-by-step instructions on building a ball-bearing bomb using acetone peroxide, or TATP, the explosive used by Islamic State in the Paris and Brussels attacks. A second, published in November last year but still available on YouTube this week, showed a French jihadist in a kitchen explaining how to make bombs. Last night YouTube removed the video but kept online other bombmaking guides posted by the same user. When the links were forwarded to the press office, the user’s account was closed.
YouTube said: “We take these issues extremely seriously and work in partnership with the government and NGOs to tackle these challenging and complex problems. We employ thou- sands of people and invest hundreds of millions of pounds to fight abuse.”
Facebook said: “There is no place for terrorists or content that promotes terrorism on Facebook and we remove it as soon as we become aware of it.”
YouTube and Facebook awash with slick bomb making films
Alexi Mostrous, Head of Investigations
May 25 2017, 12:01am, The Times
If it weren’t for the sinister balaclava, the easy-to-follow videos showing how to make a range of bombs, with ingredients such as ricin, could almost be part of a cookery show, but jihadists are urged to use them to kill as many people as possibleYOUTUBE
Share
Save
At first glance it could be a cooking show. The YouTube video shows two gloved hands shelling castor seeds and grinding them in a pestle and mortar.
Except that in this case the cook is making ricin poison, designed to kill as many people as possible. The slick video had been watched almost 5,000 times and was removed only after YouTube was alerted by The Times.
It is one of dozens of “how to” terrorism guides on Google’s video platform. Although bomb-making instructions have been published online for years, the videos appear to be relatively new. In the past six months, videos have been posted showing how to prepare a ball-bearing bomb and a suicide belt, how to extract cyanide from almonds and chlorine salt and how to put a bomb in a book.
In one YouTube series a chemist demonstrates how to make acetone
Salman Abedi, the Manchester suicide bomber, killed 22 people using a bomb filled with shrapnel. Police are investigating whether he used the internet to build the device.
In the ricin video, produced by Ibn Taymiyyah, a group that supports Isis, jihadists are told to coat their knives with the powder, mixed with anti-allergy cream, “so that it is poisonous every time against an enemy”. The video then suggests that the ricin should be “placed into a plastic bottle and then exploded in a restaurant, club or bar”.
“The poison spreads everywhere as dust and everyone will inhale it and die in three to 36 hours,” it says. Another video in the same series, called Jihadi Ideas for Lone Lions, is a 22-minute guide on making a shrapnel bomb using items such as a funnel and a coffee filter.
The video shows how to place steel ball-bearings into a container full of chemicals and tells followers to use the bomb “in closed places like restaurants or buses” and then “enter the place and eliminate those who are still alive”.
In another YouTube series, a chemist draws diagrams on a whiteboard showing viewers how to make acetone, a key bomb ingredient. YouTube’s algorithms suggest further videos in the series to users who watch the first ones. The company removed them last night.
On Facebook, a page gives instructions on how to make explosives using TATP, a volatile substance used in the Brussels attacks last year.
Facebook documents show that in a single month moderators identified more than 1,300 posts as “credible terrorist threats”.
Investigations by The Times have revealed that they continued to host extremist content despite notification.
This week European Union officials are working on laws to make social media companies block videos containing hate speech. Germany is considering fining them up to €50 million if they fail to remove criminal posts.
A spokeswoman for YouTube said: “We act quickly to remove flagged content that incites violence and terminate accounts run by terrorist organisations.” Facebook said: “We have reviewed the posts sent to us by The Times and removed them as they break our standards.”
Conspiracy theorists given free rein on YouTube
Videos by conspiracy theorists claiming that the Manchester Arena bombing was a hoax have been watched 600,000 times on Google’s video platform (Mark Bridge writes).
The Times found scores of clips on YouTube claiming that the attack was either a hoax or a “false flag” attack, staged by the US or British government, Freemasons or Zionists.
Some clips claim there was no explosion and that the wounded were actors. They say that Georgina Callendar, an 18-year-old who was killed, could not have died because a girl with a passing resemblance to her was interviewed on TV in the US as a survivor. The clips falsely claim they are the same person.
Many of the videos are categorised as “news and politics” or “education” and feature narrators who back their outlandish claims with false “evidence”. Although Facebook has introduced measures to mark fake news as “disputed”, no such option exists on YouTube.
The most-watched of the clips on the site, with 96,000 views, is titled “Manchester Arena Bombing: Just More Government Terrorism.”
The narrator scrolls through media reports. Looking at an image of an injured teenage girl, he says: “Here she is. Pants are cut open so they can bandage her knee but there’s no blood. Here we go . . . Lights. Camera. Action.”
Some viewers left favourable comments, others were disgusted. One wrote: “Video made by the scum of the earth, for the scum of the earth.”
YouTube indicated that conspiracy videos did not infringe its policies and would not be removed.
- Status