I read somewhere a while ago that the problem could be with the lifestyle Islam is creating. They are not allowed to do anything...No drinking, no dating, no sex, no parties...So you and up with a bunch of bored, unemployed, sexual frustrated young males to whom somebody then promises bunch of virgins if they kill.


Ad Muncher

I would argue that's just more pap from our culture's beat down of "personal responsibility". There's a vast array of shit holes in the world so it's pretty easy to test the theory of the causel link between living in a shithole and deciding that one should go murder lots of innocents. Only in the West do we look at a murderous asshole and start wringing our hands re. the difficult conditions the asshole faced. By far our favorite "difficult conditions" are those that we can connect to our own culture. Like "we don't try hard enough to reach" the islamic youth, therefore it shouldn't shock us when they become disaffected and violent.

Just like being outraged is lousy new hobby sweeping the West, so is "wringing our hands re. our own culpability".

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Hmmm, you really "observe" massive radicalization by 2nd-generation Mexican-Americans? My observation as a person who lives near extremely large Mexican-American communities is that you are astoundingly ill-informed. If you are trying to say that poor folks tend to be alienated, you "might" have a (small) point, but that point was buried by a steaming pile of shit, when you isolated a particular race/nationality that is in fact not particularly known for any significant level of extremist ideology or activity.

Hmmm, you really "observe" massive alienation by 2nd-generation Mexican-Americans? Hmmm, my observation is that you are astoundingly ill-informed. If you are trying to say that poor folks tend to be alienated, you "might" have a point, but that point was buried by a steaming pile of shit, when you isolated a particular race/nationality that is in fact not particularly known for any significant level of extremist ideology or activity.

The 2nd generation Mexicans have never taken part in extremist ideology but they have taken part in drug wars and gangs. 2nd generation Koreans also have an increased level of criminology when compared with their parents who immigrated. Similar increases in the crime rates are seen in almost every immigrant group.

In Europe, the 2nd generation Muslims are not assimilated and they are going through similar things except in their case it is with religious extremism. You can argue who is to blame for the lack of integration but if you look at the statistics across almost all nationalities, in almost every country, the 2nd generation rates of crime are far higher than the generation that came into the country as immigrants. Some of that is poverty, some of that is the host country not providing the best opportunities and some of that is due to the 2nd generation feeling alienated, not being part of the host country yet feeling alienated from their country of origin.

The first cop on the scene got stabbed for his troubles because all he had was a billy club. At least give them pepper spray. How many were killed because he didn't have a gun? I can't think of another police force that is unarmed.

Again, are actually observing a poverty effect, or an immigration effect? Your 2nd-generation "argument" looks really weak when you actually say that it is similar to inner-city issues which occur without any immigration aspects. Do you really find wealthy and middle-class 2nd-generation Mexican Americans radicalized or criminalized? Where do you live? Your observation is easily explained by various issues surrounding urbanization/segregation/poverty, rather than pulling immigration out of your ass.

I can't post them now but every single study I have ever seen shows that crime rates amongst 2nd generation immigrants is higher than 1st generation.

My comments are in general and they agree with numerous studies but of course there are lots of exceptions.

Are you trying to turn this into an NRA style 'well if the good guys had guns' thread? I think the citizens of the UK wear this lack of guns thing as a badge of honour. It's served them well for many years and good on them. I think it's something to be proud of; it's part of their identity. Armed cops and armed good guys doesn't stop this from happening, nor does it mean cops won't still die at the hands of bad guys. Let's not forget these bad guys were 'only' armed with knives and a van.

I agree that it seems unusual but I also think it gives the UK part of its charm.

It's also likely that innocent people were not harmed because regular beat police were not inaccurately firing at the bad guys. One innocent in London was caught by friendly fire. The Lindt siege in Sydney also showed that even tactical units don't always get it right.

I'd say you watch too many movies but you don't own a tv.

As I said earlier, the U.K. Have done a pretty damn good job of coping without guns in the hands of regular cops. Neither the USA (or Oz etc) have demonstrated superior capability of preventing deaths for all their guns.

Admiral Ackbar

As I said earlier, the U.K. Have done a pretty damn good job of coping without guns in the hands of regular cops.


It's actually a pretty good argument for the lack of guns. The terrorists could have caused infinitely more damage if they had guns instead of knives. Also, for the police to arrive and kill them within 8 minutes is incredible. They should come here to show everyone how it's done.

8 minutes is fantastic, but I don't consider it a good argument for the lack of guns. 8 minutes is still a hell of a long time for someone unconcerned with their own continued life to do incredible damage.


Also, Terry Gilliam is a prophet.

That was a total cluster fuck.
From the fact he was on bail to the fact the cops waited more than 10 minutes after he executed Tori Johnson to go in after him.

Just proved how little threat we perceived terrorism to be up until that day.

Where did you get 10 minutes from? As soon as the snipers over the road made the hostage down call reports here indicated they got the green light to go in and they did. Sure it wasn't 10 minutes after he fired at the half dozen or so that fled when he went in the kitchen?

Sorry, you're right,it was ten minutes after he fired at escaping hostages and Tori was killed in that time before the cops stormed the building.
Edit : Cops policy was to try and wait him out and that they would not storm the building unless he killed a hostage. WTF?

Certainly the terrorists would have caused more damage with guns and I agree it aligns with the argument that less guns in general distribution makes it harder for bad guys to cause mass carnage. I'll clarify by distinguishing between real underworld types (who I think can get their hands on guns regardless of how many are around) and wannabe jihadis and crazies who mass kill (and IMO would have more problems getting a gun in the UK than the States).

As for the cops, in fairness these guys did encounter their demise at the hands of tactical cops with guns. Bit of a catch 22. Yes they may have been brought down sooner (by guns) but also could have caused more carnage with them.

I can see a day when regular cops do have them there but for now if I was a citizen I'd be proud of showing the world that they're every bit as efficient at dealing with scenarios without them.

Yeah there needs to be a change in law that allows such people to be taken out prior (to innocents dying) without being charged with murder. Perhaps something where it requires the green light from the Minister, the Commissioner and the head of the unit in charge (at the scene) to jointly green light it. Don't really know.

At the end of the day the snipers could have ended it much earlier had they not positioned themselves behind that thick glass in the renovated tv studio, effectively becoming nothing more than spotters.

A) that is almost certainly true

B) it takes no account if every other situation where a policeman if they did have a gun might kill someone innocent or inadvertenly or inappropriately

I have been pondering the gun issue and whilst i almost certainly agree had he been armed some of those killed may not have been e.g. the ones killed on the bridge by the van would have still been and i understand that was the majority. It would or might have prevented some or all of the stabbings

BUT

The problem is that we would almost certainly have more people killed by police than were killed as a result of the police not being armed

Wr have had jean charles de menedez at kennington mistaken for a terrorist. We have had shootings in tottenham

I simply dont trust the police "in total" to not fuck up.

So the choice is possibly preventing less than half of the seven deaths and many of the stabbings on sat night OR having all police armed and many more families with membets of families killed due to incompetence, accident or some other reason.

At present i do not think there is any overwhelming public desire to see all police armed because you are using this in isolation, where as there are many instances of police getting it wrong and on balance some people might have been saved and their families incensed that they were not armed, and i can give you examples where innocents have been killed.

Do the people in London support the idea that police are unarmed? Is there ever a request from the police to be armed?

traditionally, detectives could carry a weapon if they wished; beat cops/uniforms/traffic cops were unarmed by default.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

The chief of the met police has repeated today she does not believe arming all is the solution

The only people who can carry them are fire arm trained officers which includes dip protection service

  Without looking it up, there was a headline that said the cops shot 50 times to kill the three guys. Anything said about that?

At this point. I think the best solution is to bring in more, i mean a lot more refugees especially the young males from countries that are always at war with each other. We can give them tons of free shit, housing, schooling, food, pray time...

With all this love it will convince these devout warriors of Islam how great the west is and they will drop their radical ways. Or maybe we can actually learn great stuff from them. Who is to say we are always right?

One thing we should absolutely never do is vet people! Open borders for all, bring them in! Our compassionate politicians got it all under control. Love people! It is all about love and compassion!

Thats what i'd heard

From what i have read they cleared everyone out and then killed them