Incident outside UK Parliament

[johnnytodd]

It seems the lefty sympathizers have jumped to conclusions once again.

 

[Jockney]

The shifting of the goalposts in the aftermath of attacks like these are interesting. You see the depth of the racism of a society. Trace it back far enough and you see if some people are brave enough to say what you suspect they're thinking: something along the lines of Enoch Was Right. Unpack it all further and it's nothing better than pure ethno-nationalism.

 

[Alty]

The shifting of the goalposts in the aftermath of attacks like these are interesting. You see the depth of the racism of a society. Trace it back far enough and you see if some people are brave enough to say what you suspect they're thinking: something along the lines of Enoch Was Right. Unpack it all further and it's nothing better than pure ethno-nationalism.

Hardly. You'll find a handful of racists making disgraceful comments. The rest of us try to get our heads around actions of a murderous madman representing the fringe element of a religion, while admiring the bravery and decency of everyone trying to stop the perpetrator and help the victims.

Strikes me as quite amazing that the day after a man launches an attack designed to kill our elected representatives, security personnel and ordinary civilians, we'd start shitting on our own society and beat ourselves up about how racist we are.

 

[smat]

Hardly. You'll find a handful of racists making disgraceful comments. The rest of us try to get our heads around actions of a murderous madman representing the fringe element of a religion, while admiring the bravery and decency of everyone trying to stop the perpetrator and help the victims.

Strikes me as quite amazing that the day after a man launches an attack designed to kill our elected representatives, security personnel and ordinary civilians, we'd start shitting on our own society and beat ourselves up about how racist we are.

"markwwfc1992 likes this"

 

[markwwfc1992]

And your point being?

You certainly are an odd fellow aren't you?

 

[St. Juste]

Whats wrong with wanting to deport all terrorists ?

Would you have deported Martin McGuinness?

The UKs most successful terrorist of the last 50 years, incidents such as yesterday hardly compare.

Not that I'm criticising McGuinness here, but those spitting blind about terrorism may be surprised to know that even the most serious attacks hardly compare to those masterminded by, very recently, a senior British politician.

 

[sl1k]

Just for the sake of clarification, my posts aren't an attempt to shit on our society.

More to add balance to the conversation and pre-empt the actual racists - which there are a few.

Maybe even a hint of tiredness; from the expectation to come out and denounce stuff. To be made feel like I'm not doing enough. That I have to go out of my way to prove to people my heart beats like theirs and my thoughts are not particularly dissimilar.

While the hatred of people that look like me grows in this very society.

 

[Magic]

Where would we have deported yesterday's perpetrator to?

 

[Alty]

Would you have deported Martin McGuinness?

The UKs most successful terrorist of the last 50 years, incidents such as yesterday hardly compare.

Not that I'm criticising McGuinness here, but those spitting blind about terrorism may be surprised to know that even the most serious attacks hardly compare to those masterminded by, very recently, a senior British politician.

Complete side issue, but in the "armalite and ballot box" days McGuinness was actually banned from entering Great Britain.

 

[smat]

And your point being?

 

[markwwfc1992]

Yes... very odd...

 

[TheMinsterman]

What can we do about homegrown terrorists?

Well, I'd wager it'd be quite useful to tone down the anti-Islamic rhetoric that is intrinsic to the "no more refugees" debates that completely dehumanise vast swathes of people and the circular back and forths that happen after EVERY single attack that do about as much for religious relations as the St Bartholomew's Day massacre did. Fostering division and hate is exactly what marginalises the people who these groups target, making people feel loathed, hated, unwanted and despised based on being Muslims (not terrorists... yet) is what drives people into these ideologies. This constant attack on a large part of their identity makes rhetoric that allows them to defend that sense of self seem appealing.

It's no different to people who feel pride in being British, the more they're told their identity is under threat and attacked, the more appealing more radical retaliatory ideologies become.

As much as dropping a bomb on an impoverished Middle Eastern family killing half of them is doing their recruitment a favour, so is this constant vitriol and bile that builds up in the debates surrounding resident Muslims in Europe. Many have been here for years and they weren't getting in cars and mowing people down, but I can't remember a time in recent memory where Muslims were demonised so heavily, varying from the soft propaganda of "No more ham in Subway" to the harder variety spouted by the right. When you feel marginalised, hated, unwanted and looked down upon in the country of your own birth simply for your religious beliefs, striking back becomes appealing.

Does it excuse anybody who does it?

No. Yet, sometimes we need to start to accept uncomfortable facts to understand why it keeps happening and we're certainly complicit in driving these people into these radicals hands when we continue to foster hatred and division.

 

[Abertawe]

One for the historians please. Is it too simplistic to say the British actually caused this mess by backing Ibn Saud?

 

[TheMinsterman]

One for the historians please. Is it too simplistic to say the British actually caused this mess by backing Ibn Saud?

We've been handling Wahhabism with safety gloves for centuries, you only need to look at how we handled the Al-Qasimi in the early nineteenth century to see that, British officers actively avoided any conflict with the Wahhabi's (and were instructed to do so no less, despite them expanding rapidly) because they were worried about being drawn into a conflict when Napoleon was still a problem.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Strikes me as quite amazing that the day after a man launches an attack designed to kill our elected representatives, security personnel and ordinary civilians, we'd start shitting on our own society and beat ourselves up about how racist we are.

Given that we know that these sorts of incidents inevitably generate a racist backlash, it's probably more important in these moments to analyse the role that racism plays in characterising and framing atrocities like these. When people say "we yet don't know if this is a terrorist incident" as code for "we don't know the suspect's ethnicity yet", for example - the way terms such as terrorist versus troubled used; allows for the construction of narratives that are deeply influenced by racism.

 

[smat]

Given that we know that these sorts of incidents inevitably generate a racist backlash, it's probably more important in these moments to analyse the role that racism plays in characterising and framing atrocities like these. When people say "we yet don't know if this is a terrorist incident" as code for "we don't know the suspect's ethnicity yet", for example - the way terms such as terrorist versus troubled used; allows for the construction of narratives that are deeply influenced by racism.

Also several news outlets were calling this "the first terrorist attack in the UK since Lee Rigby's killing" or somesuch... so despite Thomas Mair's attack on Jo Cox being described by the CPO as a "terrorist murder", that was somehow different to some media orgs. WONDER WHY. (I don't.)

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Where would we have deported yesterday's perpetrator to?

Scotland.

 

[mistermagic]

This exemplifies how democracy is flawed. Fuckwits like this shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a referendum ballot box.

I find those type of comments (eg how you be racist in this day and age?) very annoying. Everyone is allowed to vote. Why should JT not be allowed near a ballot? Because he disagrees with you?

 

[johnnytodd]

Where would we have deported yesterday's perpetrator to?

Frontline at mosul would be a start the fuckin shithouse.

 

[johnnytodd]

This exemplifies how democracy is flawed. Fuckwits like this shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a referendum ballot box.

We are the people we chose to leave to get away from terrorist riddled Europe.

U could always move to be with your muslim brothers .

 

[Alty]

Given that we know that these sorts of incidents inevitably generate a racist backlash, it's probably more important in these moments to analyse the role that racism plays in characterising and framing atrocities like these. When people say "we yet don't know if this is a terrorist incident" as code for "we don't know the suspect's ethnicity yet", for example - the way terms such as terrorist versus troubled used; allows for the construction of narratives that are deeply influenced by racism.

We can have a discussion about far-right or other types of terrorism if you want, but I don't think the most important thing is deciding how to frame these events. It's stopping them happening in the first place. Unfortunately, deciding to murder innocent people in the name of Islam is a plausible interpretation of what it says in the Koran. There's a battle of ideas that needs to be won within Islam, led by the likes of Majid Nawaz (who gets a depressing lack of support from the liberal left). I don't think we do the reformers any favours when atrocity after atrocity is followed by talk of racism/Islamophobia/lack of opportunity being the main cause of this stuff.

I agree that some people hate Muslims "just because". We can all (with the probable exception of johnnytodd) agree these people are arseholes. But that certainly doesn't explain the concern about radical Islam in wider British society. People are right to be concerned. It's certainly no indication of widespread racism throughout British society.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

I find those type of comments (eg how you be racist in this day and age?) very annoying. Everyone is allowed to vote. Why should JT not be allowed near a ballot? Because he disagrees with you?

I agree with that, people seem pretty eager to dismiss all contrary opinions as racist and all racists as not worth listening to. It's a slippery slope, what opinions should be absolutely shut down with no discourse whatsoever (see Holocaust denial in Germany), which can we paint in broad strokes and deny public forum (see all the blacklisting and stuff that goes down with contentious speakers in university) and which are the 'ok' opinions we can debate with each other. I dunno, man. They all seem pretty arbitrary distinctions really, just in line with our interests. Human rights issues get the passions flaring and we use incendiary language to address it, but economic issues (which are probably far more important ultimately) are above the layman's understanding so we just kick back and say 'hey debate away', and we nod and we umm and ahhh, and embrace the discourse. I don't think much should be undetectable, and I don't think humans are absolute caricatures of Racist and Not Racist. We're all just scared little men trying to make sense of the violence, and hateful responses to hate (see sl1k calling someone a 'motherfucker') just beget more hate, surely?

On the other-hand, to use Godwin's law (apologies), how bad would things have to theoretically get before you say polite debate isn't enough and action is required? Surely that is the exact situation we have now with Islamist terrorists just in reverse? They're all arbitrary distinctions really, unique to each individual and culture. And I dunno to be honest.

 

[TheMinsterman]

I find those type of comments (eg how you be racist in this day and age?) very annoying. Everyone is allowed to vote. Why should JT not be allowed near a ballot? Because he disagrees with you?

No.

Because he supports Everton.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

We can have a discussion about far-right or other types of terrorism if you want, but I don't think the most important thing is deciding how to frame these events. It's stopping them happening in the first place. Unfortunately, deciding to murder innocent people in the name of Islam is a plausible interpretation of what it says in the Koran. There's a battle of ideas that needs to be won within Islam, led by the likes of Majid Nawaz (who gets a depressing lack of support from the liberal left). I don't think we do the reformers any favours when atrocity after atrocity is followed by talk of racism/Islamophobia/lack of opportunity being the main cause of this stuff.

Majid Nawaz is a hack and an opportunist though. I don't really think he has anything interesting to say. His links to the security services tarnish his credibility and his willingness to pal about with the extreme-right suggest that his political judgement is far from sound. I mean, in whose world are the likes of Sam Harris and Tommy Robinson any less repugnant than the Hizb-ut-Tahrir scumbags that Nawaz broke from. He's not moderated, he's just crossed the aisle from one sort of reaction to the other.

I've recommended it on two threads today but I'd really suggest reading The Muslims Are Coming by Arun Kundnani. It's a really patient takedown of the deradicalisation industry and the theories of radicalisation currently employed by the UK and US governments.

The general thesis of the book is that Islamic terrorism (as it's commonly understood) is an outlet for largely secular political grievances, rather than theological ones. In doing this, he critiques both the Conservative view that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western values, and the liberal view that extremists represent a perversion of Islam. He explains how the supression and criminalisation in the UK and the US of legitimate outlets for those grievances* has lead to a minority of people seeking more violent and destructive outlets for those grievances.

In his conclusion, Kundnani argues that what is needed is not, as Nawaz would have it, indoctrination of Muslims into supporting "western values" but a legitimisation of political dissent from Muslims, particularly when it comes to calling out the hypocricies of Western foreign policy.

I agree that some people hate Muslims "just because". We can all (with the probable exception of johnnytodd) agree these people are arseholes. But that certainly doesn't explain the concern about radical Islam in wider British society. People are right to be concerned. It's certainly no indication of widespread racism throughout British society.

I still think there's this tendency on your part to view "racism" as a personal moral failing. I think that's the wrong way to look at it**, and certainly not what Jockney and I am referring to when we talk about British society being racist. We're talking about a society benefits from the sustained exploitation of people in the global south; a society that denies safe haven to refugees forced from their homelands by British-made weapons that we've flogged to barbaric regimes; a society that seems massively unconcerned with lack of police accountability for the hundreds of black men who die dodgy circumstances in their custody but acts like the sky is falling in when a cop gets stabbed.

Like, no-one thinks "I don't care about Sean Rigg because I think the lives of black people are worth less than white people" - that's just how deeply ingrained social prejudices manifest themselves.

* by this I mean the way Prevent and Channel suppress free-speech in the UK, and the systemic FBI infiltration and criminalisation of political muslim groups - such as Palestinian solidarity - in the US - see the Holy Land trial http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...ly-land-foundation-hamas-161004083025906.html
** I suspect vast swathes of the British public are racist and islamophobic in the personal, moral way too.

 

[spireite]

The most British thing you can do right now, is laugh at a copper falling on his arse. It's what we do!

Morning Angle.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

Majid Nawaz is a hack and an opportunist though. I don't really think he has anything interesting to say. His links to the security services tarnish his credibility and his willingness to pal about with the extreme-right suggest that his political judgement is far from sound. I mean, in whose world are the likes of Sam Harris and Tommy Robinson any less repugnant than the Hizb-ut-Tahrir scumbags that Nawaz broke from. He's not moderated, he's just crossed the aisle from one sort of reaction to the other.

I've recommended it on two threads today but I'd really suggest reading The Muslims Are Coming by Arun Kundnani. It's a really patient takedown of the deradicalisation industry and the theories of radicalisation currently employed by the UK and US governments.

The general thesis of the book is that Islamic terrorism (as it's commonly understood) is an outlet for largely secular political grievances, rather than theological ones. In doing this, he critiques both the Conservative view that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western values, and the liberal view that extremists represent a perversion of Islam. He explains how the supression and criminalisation in the UK and the US of legitimate outlets for those grievances* has lead to a minority of people seeking more violent and destructive outlets for those grievances.

In his conclusion, Kundnani argues that what is needed is not, as Nawaz would have it, indoctrination of Muslims into supporting "western values" but a legitimisation of political dissent from Muslims, particularly when it comes to calling out the hypocricies of Western foreign policy.



I still think there's this tendency on your part to view "racism" as a personal moral failing. I think that's the wrong way to look at it**, and certainly not what Jockney and I am referring to when we talk about British society being racist. We're talking about a society benefits from the sustained exploitation of people in the global south; a society that denies safe haven to refugees forced from their homelands by British-made weapons that we've flogged to barbaric regimes; a society that seems massively unconcerned with lack of police accountability for the hundreds of black men who die dodgy circumstances in their custody but acts like the sky is falling in when a cop gets stabbed.

Like, no-one thinks "I don't care about Sean Rigg because I think the lives of black people are worth less than white people" - that's just how deeply ingrained social prejudices manifest themselves.

* by this I mean the way Prevent and Channel suppress free-speech in the UK, and the systemic FBI infiltration and criminalisation of political muslim groups - such as Palestinian solidarity - in the US - see the Holy Land trial http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...ly-land-foundation-hamas-161004083025906.html
** I suspect vast swathes of the British public are racist and islamophobic in the personal, moral way too.

Sorry, you're trying to equate Sam Harris and Hizb ut Tahrir? Are you stupid? Lets compare and contrast the two.

Sam Harris:

• Criticises Islam verbally in an often aggressive and offensive manner.
• Believes in a secular America
• Believes in gender equality

Hizb ut Tahrir

• Supports the Islamic idea of a Caliphate with Sharia law, the removal of democracy as man-made and therefore denying the sovereignty of God .
• Women will have to swear obedience to their husbands, and the primary role of women is in the home.
• All men will join mandatory military training at age 15.
• Death penalty for apostates.

In my world and in the world of anyone who isn't a fucking moron, the two are not the same. You can dislike Sam Harris (he is a bellend) whilst at the same time not being as moronic as you are.


I think the idea that many Muslims turn to radicalism as a result of political grievances is true but you can't deny the fact that Islamic radicals like Sayyid Qutb and others like him have built up a narrative for addressing that grievance which is wholeheartedly Islamic at its very core, and that is where a problem with Islam lies.

 

[Jordan Welch]

Was the attacker a refugee? Not sure we've had anything confirmed yet. You've probably had that picture saved up just for this moment and you couldn't even wait until we knew the facts to get your boot in.

Obviously tragic and these attacks are pretty hard to detect as literally anyone can jump into a car and smash it into a group of people. It seems the response was swift though.

This world needs more people like you. Strictly speaking, those bastards always have an upper hand for attacking at their own choice. We need to work on the backend to put a deadlock to them.
And its easier to associate such activities with any terrorist organization to relax the pressure you receive from the public. AN INSIDE JOB at some occasion.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I'll be honest, on the face of it, Mr Kundnani's argument doesn't sound especially compelling to me. I mean, I think there's probably some merit in the idea of Islamic terrorism as a manifestation of secular political grievances but think it's potentially dangerous to minimise the theological basis for this kind of violence. Is there an example of how Prevent/Channel meaningfully suppress free speech?

 

[Techno Natch]

This guy has been tracked by MI5 in recent years. As seems to be the same scenario with many radicalised extremeists who have also commited terrorism offences across Europe (Belgium and France attacks come to mind here). It shouldn't get to the stage where incidents such as yesterday occur whilst we have our intelligence service come out and say that we've had him on the radar. Too little too late now.

We're did you read he was tracked by mi5? He had previous for GBH, Carrying a weapon and public order offences so wasn't a particularly nice guy or a good Muslim for that matter. However the report I'm reading says he was not suspected to be linked to any terror organisations.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

I don't think the problem with PREVENT is that it stops free speech, I don't think it is that strong armed. But I think it will do far more to make Muslims feel under attack and an enemy of our society than anything else.