Israel

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly why have we not been more selective taking people from countries that we know statistically are much higher risk? Secondly when we see disgusting posts like his father's is he not then monitored with a view to possibly removing the threat back to Syria where he came from?

Exactly, as I said earlier it seems like a systematic failure from the police and intelligence services. I assume back in the day we'd take anyone if they are a surgeon/work in the NHS (and probably not look into them properly), but if people say things like this they need to be properly monitored and probably removed.

Edited yesterday at 16:02 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Exactly, as I said earlier it seems like a systematic failure from the police and intelligence services. I assume back in the day we'd take anyone if they are a surgeon/work in the NHS (and probably not look into them properly), but if people say things like this they need to be properly monitored and probably removed.

Agreed. We are and have been much too soft. Successive governments have put their citizens at risk and are a big reason for the rise of Reform.

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Literally no idea, it's why I'm asking. As I said earlier I have never read it.

Have you never wondered why there is a particular emnity towards Jews from some Muslims?

[Farmer Saint]

https://trueislam.co.uk/articles/does-islam-teach-hatred-of-jews/

Interesting article.

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Have you never wondered why there is a particular emnity towards Jews from some Muslims?

I assumed it was mainly due to Israel being formed. I would also say that anti-Semitism is not mainly a Muslim thing, is it?

Edited yesterday at 16:20 by Farmer Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

If this guy came to the UK from Syria as a child then he was most likely a genuine refugee. We can't be 'selective' about accepting those, and we have international accords to adhere to (and contrary to what most Farage fans would have us believe, we don't take more than the rest of Europe. Not by a loooong way).

As to why he didn't flag up on the radar of anti-terror units / MI5, the answer is most likely to be the same as it is for the failure of any public service - lack of funding and resources.

It's all very well saying we should choose more carefully who we let in and deport people with extreme views, but in reality it isn't that simple unfortunately.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

4 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

If this guy came to the UK from Syria as a child then he was most likely a genuine refugee. We can't be 'selective' about accepting those, and we have international accords to adhere to (and contrary to what most Farage fans would have us believe, we don't take more than the rest of Europe. Not by a loooong way).

As to why he didn't flag up on the radar of anti-terror units / MI5, the answer is most likely to be the same as it is for the failure of any public service - lack of funding and resources.

It's all very well saying we should choose more carefully who we let in and deport people with extreme views, but in reality it isn't that simple unfortunately.

I can just hear the conversation in the Home Office Interview......

....."and whats your lovely little boy called?"

"Jihad"

"ahh how sweet. Welcome to Britain"

 

 

[Farmer Saint]

It looks like the police killed one of the dead 😬

[inspectorfrost]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

My point was that your suggesting that atheist extremist ideology is leading to terror attacks at the same frequency as those committed in the name of extremist Islam which is clearly untrue. If we have Christian extremists murdering Jews and blowing themselves up at pop concerts or on the tube in the name of Jesus then I can assure you I'd be equally fixated on that particular group.

One factor is the number of Muslim dominated/Middle Eastern countries ourselves and other western countries have invaded or got involved in the politics of historically (compared to countries of other religions). The treatment of the Palestinians has been used as 'justification' for terrorist attacks for many decades (1993 world trade centre bombing being an example).

In the current climate there's no way that whilst Netanyahu and the extremists that currently prop him up continue what they are doing, the multi-culturalism of UK society these days means there is absolutely no way that no one will react to it, whether that's through peaceful protest or twisted ideology/terrorist acts. 

Netanyahu will defeat Hamas, the problem is the genocide against the Palestinians is meat and drink to extremist Islamic terror cells to make the problem far bigger than Hamas. It's exactly created Hamas in the 1980s in the first place.

I'd agree there is a fundamental problem with extremist Islam in this country and many other places, however the factors that breed it aren't just within Islam itself. Most Muslims want to live peaceful lives just like you and me.

[Sheaf Saint]

Turns out he was known to the police because he was out on bail for alleged rape.

https://news.sky.com/story/synagogue-stabbing-latest-police-at-scene-of-reported-attack-in-manchester-13442674

 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, inspectorfrost said:

One factor is the number of Muslim dominated/Middle Eastern countries ourselves and other western countries have invaded or got involved in the politics of historically (compared to countries of other religions). The treatment of the Palestinians has been used as 'justification' for terrorist attacks for many decades (1993 world trade centre bombing being an example).

In the current climate there's no way that whilst Netanyahu and the extremists that currently prop him up continue what they are doing, the multi-culturalism of UK society these days means there is absolutely no way that no one will react to it, whether that's through peaceful protest or twisted ideology/terrorist acts. 

Netanyahu will defeat Hamas, the problem is the genocide against the Palestinians is meat and drink to extremist Islamic terror cells to make the problem far bigger than Hamas. It's exactly created Hamas in the 1980s in the first place.

I'd agree there is a fundamental problem with extremist Islam in this country and many other places, however the factors that breed it aren't just within Islam itself. Most Muslims want to live peaceful lives just like you and me.

 I get that it's common to cite foreign policy and Palestine as “reasons,” but let’s be honest: that doesn’t explain why the vast majority of terror attack in the UK over the past 20 years has been linked to extremist Islam, not atheists, not Christians, not Buddhists. If this was just about Western interventions, you’d see Hindus or Sikhs blowing themselves up too, given Britain’s history in India. But you don’t.

The truth is that the ideology matters. It’s not just “foreign policy blowback,” it’s a very specific interpretation of Islam that’s driving this. Pretending otherwise is just dodging the obvious. Most Muslims are peaceful and want to get on with their lives — although some of them hold objectionable views-but that doesn’t change the fact that the terror threat here overwhelmingly comes from Islamist extremists, not anyone else.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Turns out he was known to the police because he was out on bail for alleged rape.

https://news.sky.com/story/synagogue-stabbing-latest-police-at-scene-of-reported-attack-in-manchester-13442674

 

Sounds like it's time to start doing a bit of looking back in anger.

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Turns out he was known to the police because he was out on bail for alleged rape.

https://news.sky.com/story/synagogue-stabbing-latest-police-at-scene-of-reported-attack-in-manchester-13442674

 

Allah loves a good old rapist

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Sounds like it's time to start doing a bit of looking back in anger.

Wow, Oasis puns? Classy.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Wow, Oasis puns? Classy.

I'm not sure any class is called for when mocking an Islamic extremist murderer. 

Seriously though, a man of Syrian ethnicity with a father who has openly expressed anti semitic sentiments online, is out on bail for an alleged rape and has multiple other criminal convictions and not even on the radar of counter terrorism? It's an utter failure of the system.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure any class is called for when mocking an Islamic extremist murderer. 

Seriously though, a man of Syrian ethnicity with a father who has openly expressed anti semitic sentiments online, is out on bail for an alleged rape and has multiple other criminal convictions and not even on the radar of counter terrorism? It's an utter failure of the system.

We can’t possibly deport them, lessons must be learned, must stand with the Jewish community and we can’t let hate divide us.

and the cycle continues 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure any class is called for when mocking an Islamic extremist murderer. 

Seriously though, a man of Syrian ethnicity with a father who has openly expressed anti semitic sentiments online, is out on bail for an alleged rape and has multiple other criminal convictions and not even on the radar of counter terrorism? It's an utter failure of the system.

When dealing with the atrocity as a whole I would suggest a little decorum.

But yes, it is.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We can’t possibly deport them, lessons must be learned, must stand with the Jewish community and we can’t let hate divide us.

and the cycle continues 

Well, are they classed as British now, or are they still Syrian Nationals?

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, are they classed as British now, or are they still Syrian Nationals?

Personally I think if you come here as an adult as the dad has done and you spout stuff like he has done and clearly brought up a terrorist then for me a piece of paper doesn't make you British. There should be more than that in my opinion. Shamima begum was stripped of her citizenship for good reason and that power should be used more frequently.I accept that's just my personal view.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Personally I think if you come here as an adult as the dad has done and you spout stuff like he has done and clearly brought up a terrorist then for me a piece of paper doesn't make you British. There should be more than that in my opinion. Shamima begum was stripped of her citizenship for good reason and that power should be used more frequently.I accept that's just my personal view.

I'm talking more about the son as he perpetrated the attacks.

[Sheaf Saint]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure any class is called for when mocking an Islamic extremist murderer. 

Seriously though, a man of Syrian ethnicity with a father who has openly expressed anti semitic sentiments online, is out on bail for an alleged rape and has multiple other criminal convictions and not even on the radar of counter terrorism? It's an utter failure of the system.

To which I refer you back to my earlier point...

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

As to why he didn't flag up on the radar of anti-terror units / MI5, the answer is most likely to be the same as it is for the failure of any public service - lack of funding and resources.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm talking more about the son as he perpetrated the attacks.

I understand it's more complex as he was younger when he moved here so I understand there would be a debate on that but to me you don't just become a citizen on a piece of paper. If you commit terrorist acts and you have claims to multiple countries then stripping you of British citizenship should at the very least be explored.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

To which I refer you back to my earlier point...

If we need more funding and resources concentrated on rooting out Islamist extremism which takes up the majority of existing resources then that should happen immediately. I expect a policy of that nature would be popular with the general public. Labour should implement it now.

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If we need more funding and resources concentrated on rooting out Islamist extremism which takes up the majority of existing resources then that should happen immediately. I expect a policy of that nature would be popular with the general public. Labour should implement it now.

Agreed. It would be a vote winner.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Agreed. It would be a vote winner.

I'm not convinced that's the sole reason but if that is a factor then it needs rectifying immediately. Frankly bizarre that something like that wouldn't be funded in full. Obviously you need to combine it with measures to remove some of the problem alongside monitoring.

[Gloucester Saint]

17 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

To which I refer you back to my earlier point...

Frustrating that the anti-Semitic rantings of the father were in plain sight online as well, no dark web mining or hacking knowledge required seemingly. The son carried out the attack but in future the offspring of extremists need to be monitored as well. Innocent of anything until proven guilty but there are times when brought up in a toxic environment of hate, the apple can fall close to the tree.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Frustrating that the anti-Semitic rantings of the father were in plain sight online as well, no dark web mining or hacking knowledge required seemingly. The son carried out the attack but in future the offspring of extremists need to be monitored as well. Innocent of anything until proven guilty but there are times when brought up in a toxic environment of hate, the apple can fall close to the tree.

There needs to be an understanding of the increased risk the offspring of foreign parents pose, particularly from certain countries and definitely if their parents are spouting extremism. It's a balance because you don't want to start picking on innocent people but it should certainly be taken into account when deciding on the risk of someone committing something like that.

[Sheaf Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not convinced that's the sole reason but if that is a factor then it needs rectifying immediately. Frankly bizarre that something like that wouldn't be funded in full. Obviously you need to combine it with measures to remove some of the problem alongside monitoring.

How much funding does it need? A million pounds a year? A billion? A trillion? What sort of manpower and infrastructure would it need? Whose budget would that come from? How would the funding be distributed spatially? What other services would you cut even further to make it affordable?

You come across generally as an intelligent bloke, but on this you seem to be falling into the populist trap of expecting overly simplistic solutions to complex problems.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

How much funding does it need? A million pounds a year? A billion? A trillion? What sort of manpower and infrastructure would it need? Whose budget would that come from? How would the funding be distributed spatially? What other services would you cut even further to make it affordable?

You come across generally as an intelligent bloke, but on this you seem to be falling into the populist trap of expecting overly simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Why are you acting like funding for counter terrorism would be an impossible thing to estimate? What you'd do is look at the existing threat or get people who know what they are talking about to look at the threat and then increase the funding to a level so that more people are monitored and more potential terrorists are dealt with. How do we estimate funding for healthcare or education? How is this different? Obviously the types of threat and the severity of the threat would change and you're not going to be able to prevent every terror attack but you'd change things as the facts change.

[egg]

Just catching up with the thread and noting the exchanges re counter terrorism funding. Is there actually a suggestion that there's a funding gap? 

 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Just catching up with the thread and noting the exchanges re counter terrorism funding. Is there actually a suggestion that there's a funding gap? 

 

That's the suggestion @Sheaf Saint has made. I am taking it at face value for the sake of the discussion.

Edited yesterday at 18:29 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Frustrating that the anti-Semitic rantings of the father were in plain sight online as well, no dark web mining or hacking knowledge required seemingly. The son carried out the attack but in future the offspring of extremists need to be monitored as well. Innocent of anything until proven guilty but there are times when brought up in a toxic environment of hate, the apple can fall close to the tree.

I would be be very surprised if it wasn’t already a factor in deciding who to monitor, the problem is probably resources, as usual. 

Also, it doesn’t appear clear at this stage wether his motivation behind the attack was an ISIS style ideology or more political. His antisemitism may have been born more though his hatred of Israel than his religious beliefs, in which case he might have been considered less of a risk.

Edited yesterday at 19:59 by aintforever

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

That's the suggestion @Sheaf Saint has made. I am taking it at face value for the sake of the discussion.

Every provider of public services will tell you that they don't have enough funding and resources to do everything they want to do. And the police and security services are no exception.

You seemed horrified at the idea that counter-terrorism policing isn't fully funded, and insist that it absolutely should be. Well of course, in an ideal world it should be, but we don't live in an ideal world and you know that full well. And even if it was fully funded, what implications would that have for our society? Would other services need to be cut or abolished completely to pay for it? Would it mean that we live in a totalitarian state where everybody's movements are recorded and monitored in minute detail? 

Like I said - just demanding that it be fully funded is a ridiculous over-simplification of what is in reality a very complex problem. That's what populists like Farage and Trump offer, because they know it's exactly what people of low intelligence want to hear, and because they also know they never actually have to be held to account for failing to follow through on such promises.

Edited yesterday at 19:44 by Sheaf Saint

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Every provider of public services will tell you that they don't have enough funding and resources to do everything they want to do. And the police and security services are no exception.

You seemed horrified at the idea that counter-terrorism policing isn't fully funded, and insist that it absolutely should be. Well of course, in an ideal world it should be, but we don't live in an ideal world and you know that full well. And even if it was fully funded, what implications would that have for our society? Would other services need to be cut or abolished completely to pay for it? Would it mean that we live in a totalitarian state where everybody's movements are recorded and monitored in minute detail? 

Like I said - just demanding that it be fully funded is a ridiculous over-simplification of what is in reality a very complex problem. That's what populists like Farage and Trump offer, because they know it's exactly what people of low intelligence want to hear, and because they also know they never actually have to be held to account for failing to follow through on such promises.

I think you’ve slightly misread my point. I wasn’t arguing that we should throw unlimited money at counter-terrorism or create some dystopian surveillance state. I was saying that it’s possible to estimate the additional funding that would be needed for the police/security services to deliver what they themselves or other experts say is necessary to deliver a better service. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with the spending or that you think it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere, but pretending the question is unanswerable or that it’s “populist” to ask it is just ducking the issue.

Every area of government has competing priorities, of course — but unless we actually quantify the gap or get someone who knows what they're talking about to estimate it, we can’t even have a sensible discussion about whether extra funding should come from reprioritisation, new taxation, or not at all. Just dismissing it as “too complex” is exactly the kind of vague hand-waving that ensures the debate never goes anywhere. Yes it's more complex than just funding it but it's also not as complex as you're making it sound. We can certainly create a better funded and more effective service, even MI5 themselves say they need more resources to tackle it more effectively.

[Sheaf Saint]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think you’ve slightly misread my point. I wasn’t arguing that we should throw unlimited money at counter-terrorism or create some dystopian surveillance state. I was saying that it’s possible to estimate the additional funding that would be needed for the police/security services to deliver what they themselves or other experts say is necessary to deliver a better service. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with the spending or that you think it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere, but pretending the question is unanswerable or that it’s “populist” to ask it is just ducking the issue.

Every area of government has competing priorities, of course — but unless we actually quantify the gap or get someone who knows what they're talking about to estimate it, we can’t even have a sensible discussion about whether extra funding should come from reprioritisation, new taxation, or not at all. Just dismissing it as “too complex” is exactly the kind of vague hand-waving that ensures the debate never goes anywhere. Yes it's more complex than just funding it but it's also not as complex as you're making it sound. We can certainly create a better funded and more effective service, even MI5 themselves say they need more resources to tackle it more effectively.

Acknowledged. But the same can be said of literally every public service in the UK (or any other country, for that matter). Some people think the NHS should have more money to protect the lives of British citizens. Others argue that the armed forces need more to do the same. We simply can't afford it all, so it's a balancing act that weighs up the amount of investment against the overall benefit to the country. 

Your post said: "If we need more funding and resources concentrated on rooting out Islamist extremism which takes up the majority of existing resources then that should happen immediately".

What's that if not an over simplistic demand for more funding?

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Acknowledged. But the same can be said of literally every public service in the UK (or any other country, for that matter). Some people think the NHS should have more money to protect the lives of British citizens. Others argue that the armed forces need more to do the same. We simply can't afford it all, so it's a balancing act that weighs up the amount of investment against the overall benefit to the country. 

Your post said: "If we need more funding and resources concentrated on rooting out Islamist extremism which takes up the majority of existing resources then that should happen immediately".

What's that if not an over simplistic demand for more funding?

You’re misrepresenting what I said. Pointing out that Islamist extremism currently consumes most counter-terrorism resources and therefore IN MY OPINION should be a top funding priority is not the same as demanding “unlimited” funding. It’s just basic logic: if the main threat is underfunded, that’s where the danger lies.

Dismissing that as “over-simplistic” is a lazy dodge. Everything in public spending involves trade-offs, obviously that doesn't need saying, but pretending it’s impossible to quantify or prioritise just lets politicians off the hook from ever making hard decisions. Calling it “populism” doesn’t make it less valid — it just makes it sound like you’d rather sneer at the argument than actually engage with it.

[egg]

In actual Israel related news, Hamas have agreed in principle to release the hostages. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxq7zp7002o

 

[Sheaf Saint]

33 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You’re misrepresenting what I said. Pointing out that Islamist extremism currently consumes most counter-terrorism resources and therefore IN MY OPINION should be a top funding priority is not the same as demanding “unlimited” funding. It’s just basic logic: if the main threat is underfunded, that’s where the danger lies.

Dismissing that as “over-simplistic” is a lazy dodge. Everything in public spending involves trade-offs, obviously that doesn't need saying, but pretending it’s impossible to quantify or prioritise just lets politicians off the hook from ever making hard decisions. Calling it “populism” doesn’t make it less valid — it just makes it sound like you’d rather sneer at the argument than actually engage with it.

Ok I take your point, but your original post was badly worded at best. It came across like someone who doesn't have even the slightest understanding of public finances expecting what they want money to be spent on take higher priority than anything else, and it surprised me because I know you're not that dim.

The general point I made, and on which I think we are probably in agreement, is that some people are slipping through the security net because current resources don't allow for the level of monitoring that could have prevented yesterday's horrific event. The fact that this attacker was already on police bail and whose father has openly expressed some heinous views is surely testament to that.

 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Ok I take your point, but your original post was badly worded at best. It came across like someone who doesn't have even the slightest understanding of public finances expecting what they want money to be spent on take higher priority than anything else, and it surprised me because I know you're not that dim.

The general point I made, and on which I think we are probably in agreement, is that some people are slipping through the security net because current resources don't allow for the level of monitoring that could have prevented yesterday's horrific event. The fact that this attacker was already on police bail and whose father has openly expressed some heinous views is surely testament to that.

 

Of course what I consider to be the most important priorities is what I would want our money to be spent on first. That applies to everyone who has an opinion on public finances. Your second point I entirely agree. We will find out more in due course but it sounds like he slipped through the net for whatever reason in a similar fashion to Rudakubana. It's not just monitoring, there's a lot more we can do in prisons, faith schools, mosques, clubs outside of schools and particularly with Islamic radicalisation of youths but like you said that's going to require more resources to make positive changes.

[egg]

Trump: Israel, stop bombing, now. Hamas want peace. 

IDF then kill 20 in 3 air strikes, and tell people to move south as Gaza city is still in active combat zone. 

[Farmer Saint]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

Trump: Israel, stop bombing, now. Hamas want peace. 

IDF then kill 20 in 3 air strikes, and tell people to move south as Gaza city is still in active combat zone. 

Insatiable thirst for human life. Bet the Israeli's are happy that Netanyahu has put them, and their children, and the global Jewish community as a whole back even further than they were.

The mad thing is that because of the way they've dealt with this, Hamas has won. Even if they get completely wiped out, they've won. 

[hypochondriac]

Why is there not unprecedented international pressure on Hamas to sign the peace deal and put an end to the genocide immediately? They have the power to end things now.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why is there not unprecedented international pressure on Hamas to sign the peace deal and put an end to the genocide immediately? They have the power to end things now.

Perhaps read the deal. 

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why is there not unprecedented international pressure on Hamas to sign the peace deal and put an end to the genocide immediately? They have the power to end things now.

The far right propping up Netanyahu's Government reject the plan and are threatening to bring down the Government if it goes ahead. It takes two to tango.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The far right propping up Netanyahu's Government reject the plan and are threatening to bring down the Government if it goes ahead. It takes two to tango.

Indeed, and I suspect nobody would be calling for Israel to sign a pretty poor deal negotiated behind their back.