The Political Thread

[SuperSurfer]

True enough. Hiwever, if there's truth to the suggestion that the Manchester shithead was part of an anti-Gaddafi Libyan faction covertly encouraged and supported by the UK, it does seem like the problem starts at a policy level well beyond police resources.

The destabilisation of countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria by outside forces to bring about regime change of course allowed/encouraged violent extremist elements, previously kept in check, to assert themselves.

But let's not ignore the seething, hateful, intolerant ideology that fuels the blind hatred that some have of Western society. Foreign policy or not.

[TordelBack]

But let's not ignore the seething, hateful, intolerant ideology that fuels the blind hatred that some have of Western society.

No need to bring Trump into this (again).

No, you're absolutely right, there's a loathsome ideology at the root of all this, and there's no excusing it or the actions of its adherents, but it's an ideology that finds expression in the ruins that western meddling, enabling, political expediency and proxy wars have had a huge hand in creating. That's by way of an explanation, not an excuse.

[Tjm86]

But equally I laugh with despair that the former Home Secretary and incumbent PM,

Completely read that as 'incompetent PM'...

Interesting and wholly accurate Freudian slip there.

[Steven Denton]

I thought the terrorist attack was caused by the terrorists.

Terrorist attacks are carried out by terrorists.

What causes terrorism is a far more complicated question. You could mean what caused a specific attack or what the rout to violence for a specific attacker was. When thinking about a specific attack you could look at the practicalities, breaking it down into what opportunities the terrorist took and what planning the attack involved. When looking at the philosophy you could ask how these people convinced themselves they were justified in doing what they did and what they think there is to gain.

You could mean what causes terrorism in any form. Or what kind of social structure has to exist before an act of violence can be considered terrorism.

I have a feeling the original post was attempting to draw a line between the level of policing and the opportunities that offered. As Jim said, The culpable negligence argument.

[Professor Bear]

The original post was actually about pedantry as a means of deflection, so the willful misreading of the kind that put Tankie in my ignore file years ago has arguably been a bit of a gift.

[JOE SOAP]

The destabilisation of countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria by outside forces to bring about regime change of course allowed/encouraged violent extremist elements, previously kept in check, to assert themselves.

But let's not ignore the seething, hateful, intolerant ideology that fuels the blind hatred that some have of Western society. Foreign policy or not.

2 sides of the same coin but attacks committed by homegrown terrorists may also point to an underlying socio-cultural malaise among radicalised individuals.

In his recent book "Jihad and Death: The Global Appeal of Islamic State," Roy argues that about 70 percent of these young people have scant knowledge of Islam, and suggests they are "radical" before even choosing Islam. He dubs them "born again Muslims" who lead libertine lives before their sudden conversion to violent fundamentalism.

"It's the Islamification of radicalism that we need to investigate, not the radicalization of Islam," Roy says, begging the question of why radical youths would choose violent fundamentalist Islam over other destructive creeds to engage in terrorism.

These "new radicals" embrace the Islamic State's narrative as it's the only radical narrative available in the "global market of fundamentalist ideologies," Roy says. "In the past they would have been drawn, for example, to far-left political extremism." Half of violent jihadis in France, Germany and the United States also have criminal records for petty crime, just like Abedi, who appears to have been radicalized without the involvement of the local mosque or religious community, an element that mirrors patterns in the rest of Europe.

It's Not Islam That Drives Young Europeans to Jihad, France's Top Terrorism Expert Explains

[sheridan]

When it comes to the police numbers, terrorism should be a minor part of the argument. While it is current (and not to take anything away from any of the victims or their family's) the bigger issue in regards to police numbers should be the national murder rate (which sits at 500+ yearly and is on the rise), rape and domestic violence figures.

Yes terrorism is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but stopping it is going to require better intelligence, data gathering and data analysis, not having more police on the streets.

What will lower the crime stats is having more police on the streets who are able to respond to the crimes taking place every day in the U.K

Stopping terrorism should be a minor point in the argument of police numbers, not the whole argument.

What particularly worries me about the current van-driving tactic is that there's no way to differentiate them from the usual red-light-jumping, speeding, pavement-mounting drivers that you see multiple times every day.  The only difference is what happens after they hit somebody.

[Old Tankie]

The police and the security services knew about some of the scum bags, yet the attacks still happened, how would more bobbys on beat have changed that?

[Jim_Campbell]

The police and the security services knew about some of the scum bags, yet the attacks still happened, how would more bobbys on beat have changed that?

Your obtuseness continually borders on trolling.

Still, probably pointlessly: slashing of police numbers is across the board. Armed officers are down, street police are down, detectives are down. Fewer police means less time for policing; means you have to make judgements about which scumbags to prioritise and which not to. Sometimes those judgements are wrong. The more often you have to do it, the more likely that you will make the wrong call. The fewer the police numbers, the more scumbags move from the 'actively keep an eye on list' to the 'worry about them when you have time' list.

It's true that there is no optimum number of police that will make us 100% safe, but as the number decreases, the more compromises have to be made in terms of what the police can actively deal with, and what has to be left on the backburner with a quiet hope that it turns out to be the right call.

[Steven Denton]

The police and the security services knew about some of the scum bags, yet the attacks still happened, how would more bobbys on beat have changed that?

Who said 'bobbies on the beat' would have stopped the attacks? Some have said the cuts severely hindered the polices ability to gathers process and react to intelligence. Police on patrol is just one of many aspects of policing and although it has a effect when it comes to reassuring the public with a visible face it is far from the only thing the police do.

[TordelBack]

2 sides of the same coin but attacks committed by homegrown terrorists may also point to an underlying socio-cultural malaise among radicalised individuals.
It's Not Islam That Drives Young Europeans to Jihad, France's Top Terrorism Expert Explains

Great read Joe, thanks. I've always suspected this to be the case, judging from chats over the years with people peripherally involved in our own terrorist communit(ies): there are those who justify doing terrible things for a cause they believe in, and those who join a cause to justify doing terrible things.

[Old Tankie]

Why is it Jim, when I make a point it's trolling but when someone else makes a very similar point it's not? 
We live in a free society, it doesn't matter how many people you are tracking if after a while they haven't broken the law you have to back off, which appears to have happened with at least one of the terrorists.

The other route would be internment, as some have suggested. But as someone who spent many a long hour up in the towers at Long Kesh, I can confirm that would be madness.

[Jim_Campbell]

Why is it Jim, when I make a point it's trolling but when someone else makes a very similar point it's not?

I didn't mention your point. I mentioned your obtuseness. I'm not the only one who's mentioned it, so maybe, just maybe, it's not me, it's you. I have, BTW, explained more than once how easy it is to quote the post you're replying to, which would be a start.

The other route would be internment, as some have suggested. But as someone who spent many a long hour up in the towers at Long Kesh, I can confirm that would be madness.

And that's the only other option is it? Cutting 20K police officers, including about 1500 firearms officers, has had no effect? Why not get rid of the police entirely if the absolute numbers make no difference?

There's no shortage of stories from frontline officers absolutely in despair because the lack of manpower and resources means they simply can't do their jobs. You know, a lot like the doctors, and nurses, and prison officers... are you starting to see a pattern here?

[CalHab]

Why is it Jim, when I make a point it's trolling but when someone else makes a very similar point it's not? 

Perhaps because your posts often appear to be intended to provoke and goad others, rather than debate.

Jim isn't the only the person to make this point.

[Old Tankie]

Well sir, you and Jim and any others who think the same are mistaken, I am just posting my opinion, absolutely no offence is intended.