Terror attacks

[Retsdon]

The people who did this crime are (along with their friends) on here.

http://documentary-movie.com/the-jihadis-next-door/

 

In the old days, it was quite simple. People who, in the interests of an alien power, actively sought the overthrow of the country and the state were classified as traitors. And they were arrested, tried, and if found guilty, they were hanged.

 

These days that kind of black and white approach seems to have gone out of fashion. Nonetheless, watching the link above, it's very hard to argue with rugged good sense of our forbears!

[Mice!]

I've said on another post, the reaction from security forces was great, if they have shot an innocent by stander I'm sure they feel bad about it, but were not dealing with foxes, they can't wait for a suitable backstop.

 

Agree with all the sensible posts above, put enough lead into them to put them down permanently, as soon as they start brandishing weapons in the street game over.

[CharlieT]

I've said on another post, the reaction from security forces was great, if they have shot an innocent by stander I'm sure they feel bad about it, but were not dealing with foxes, they can't wait for a suitable backstop.

 

Agree with all the sensible posts above, put enough lead into them to put them down permanently, as soon as they start brandishing weapons in the street game over.

 

I wonder if you would be so nonchalant about it had it been your son or daughter.

[AVB]

 

I wonder if you would be so nonchalant about it had it been your son or daughter.

 

Who may have been killed by the assailant anyway if the police had not shot.

[ordnance]

 

I wonder if you would be so nonchalant about it had it been your son or daughter.

If they have no choice but to open fire as in this case, then there is always a chance that in a crowded area someone innocent could be injured i am sure that is something they take into account before opening fire.

[steve 88]

 

Course they would hurt their own. Muslims have killed Muslims for generations.

 

All this they don't represent their religion is complete rubbish, there are many forms of Islam some are stricter than others. Westernised Muslims would be seen the same as westerners.

23,000 estimated Jihadis in this country, this isn't just a few...

 

Spot on there.

[Mice!]

 

I wonder if you would be so nonchalant about it had it been your son or daughter.

I couldn't be less nonchalant about it, I'm sure I would be devastated, I live in Leyland an 8 year old girl died in the bomb attack in Manchester along with others.

 

This is the closest attack to me in recent times and it sickens me.

 

I think the police have to know they have the backing of senior brass and politicians in these circumstances, had those bombs been real on the three knife wielding nutters how much worse would it have been.

 

Had the situation not happened the police wouldn't have had to pull the trigger

[Retsdon]

My opinion about tolerating traitors is posted above. Nonetheless it's important to differentiate, and it's important to actually define the enemy.

 

And I'll say categorically that the enemy isn't 'Islam'. I'm not a fan of the religion at all, but really the shouty aggressive people are not what Islam is actually about any more than the shouty aggressive Southern Churches are what Christianity is about.

 

Genuinely religious Muslims, and having been in Saudi for 10 years I've met a few, are quietist and introspective - as are other properly religious people.

 

Political Muslims, like political Jews, like political Christians, like political Hindus, use their religion as a weapon. These 'Muslims' who shout the odds from the rooftops are not the religious Muslims I know - anymore than a Westboro Baptist Church preacher is like Father Michael, the gentle Benadictine monk whose compassionate sermons I can still remember after 50 years.

 

Good people are good people regardless of their nominal faith. The destroyers are the destroyers, regardless of theirs.

 

Those are the battle lines we should be lining up on.

[bullet1747]

You would be well aware then that the police here are armed on and off duty with no real issues. I would be interested on your view regards the police being armed in the rest of the UK.

 

To be honest makes my blood boil when I here about terriosim , don't want to see them armed I think all police should be trained and have at least a side arm locked in the vehicles just in case something happens , not saying they draw them every time and act cocky walking the streets

Think untill people have been in this situation IE Iraq afghan Ni you don't really know or feel the pressure the forces or police are under , what's your view you have lived with it all your life must have been awkward for you hts off to ya

[Dellbert]

 

 

Trying to shoot someone in the head at a distance especially with a handgun is a very difficult shot, they would probably aim centre mass, if as in this case they were wearing suicide vests (fake) they would be justified in finishing them off with a head shot.

 

Centre mass shots would risk setting off the explosive vest surely ? and body armour being worn would reduce the effect of a 9mm handgun or carbine ,which is why some of the carbines used are now 556/223

[Mungler]

I have just watched the 'Jihadid next door documentary' (which was on Netflix but which has now been removed).

 

The people involved are just loons. They're not English, their not Pakistani but they are Muslim and so all their eggs go into that one basket.

 

They are all on job seekers allowance, sicky Ben or otherwise supported by the State they so detest. They are losers but they are rabid in their determination to recruit the disaffected and they love the internet as a broadcast medium.

 

One good thing from the documentary was the normal muslims deriding the loons who were preaching their usual bile and hate outside Finsbury mosque. Indeed, when these hate preachers are called out and derided on the steeets it was always by other (moderate) muslims.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Mungler

[Mice!]

It said on the radio coming home one of the scum who was shot in London was on the program which is probably why its been pulled from Netflix

[Scully]

I can't understand why some regard as having a firearm locked away in a vehicle is a good idea! What's the point? Incredible.

[Mice!]

What's better scully a fire arm in the car or wait for armed response, I'm guessing its a compromise if the call is possible terrorist out comes the glock, rta no need

[Scully]

What's better scully a fire arm in the car or wait for armed response, I'm guessing its a compromise if the call is possible terrorist out comes the glock, rta no need

A firearm on the person, that's what's better; otherwise it's not a defensive tool at all.

Unbelievable!

[ShootingEgg]

What's better scully a fire arm in the car or wait for armed response, I'm guessing its a compromise if the call is possible terrorist out comes the glock, rta no need

Alot of the police on the continent are armed with a side arm. The problem will occur when we get a trigger happy officer. Or inexperience kicks in. We are not used to seeing it as it's never been standard.

 

Our biggest problem now is, we can't see our enemy's. They walk around hidden in plain sight.

[Mr. Merkel]

In the early days of the ARV's weapons were left in the car this was seen as a comprise i.e. uniformed police officers with an armed capability. Weapons could only be removed on authority of a senior officer who was not at the scene and would act on the information given to him, in a rapidly changing incident this was unacceptable.

 

However, times have changed since then there is no quicker response than drawing a gun from its holster. Last Saturday 8 police officers from 2 forces fired 46 shots at 3 terror suspects/murders clearly wearing some sort of explosive vests I personally do not think that was excessive force, just my views.

[Chris B123]

I have worked in Spain and Italy for many years in the past, most officers are armed, once you get over the initial shock of seeing and being in close proximity of guns then it becomes the norm, within a few months I didn't even notice. If officers were armed here, within 12 months it would not even be a talking point.

[inthedark]

Last Saturday 8 police officers from 2 forces fired 46 shots at 3 terror suspects/murders clearly wearing some sort of explosive vests I personally do not think that was excessive force, just my views.

 

That's only 2 each per suspect. Hardly overkill

[Vince Green]

When I was in Texas a couple of weeks ago I went for dinner with one of my Texan colleagues. We spoke about the attack on Westminster bridge and he made the point that if that happened in the US the knife wielding attacker would have been quickly dispatched by any number of law abiding citizens with CCW permits. Made sense to me, although I would suspect that this type of attack would likely involve firearms rather than edged weapons in the US but an interesting point on cultural differences nonetheless.

The trouble is in America a lot of innocent law abiding citizens get dispatched by people with concealed weapons permits.

 

In this country, there are about 3000 people on MI5's watch list. Now in my book, if you do something serious enough to attract the attention of MI5 then there should be powers to deport anybody we don't like 'because we can', have their right to remain automatically revoked 'because we can', and their benefits stopped 'because we can'. If they are a problem remove the problem.

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/619641/Terrorist-suspects-benefits-UK-Salman-Abed-Anjem-Choudary

 

Boris Johnson was asked why they didn't do that and his reply was basically "because they have lawyers" Well change the law. The lawyers are only milking the legal aid budget. So two birds with one stone

Edited June 6, 2017 by Vince Green

[Good shot?]

Current 'Human Rights laws' are the main reason we do not remove these people IMO.

[subsonicnat]

 

In this country, there are about 3000 people on MI5's watch list. Now in my book, if you do something serious enough to attract the attention of MI5 then there should be powers to deport anybody we don't like 'because we can', have their right to remain automatically revoked 'because we can', and their benefits stopped 'because we can'. If they are a problem remove the problem.

 

Now this my opinion as well.

Do we have to hundreds more killed and maimed to prove they have rights.??.

It could be an immeadiate fix,

Why not implement it, why should we walk around in fear of being killed on our streets..

As far as I am concerned they lost ALL THEIR RIGHTS When they came on the WATCH LIST..

Get Rid..

[Wingman]

Current 'Human Rights laws' are the main reason we do not remove these people IMO.

I agree with this entirely, its all to do with an overtly left wing ideology that has taken over this country. No I am not in any way advocating the far right but a more balanced approach that accepts that extremist ideology of any kind cannot be tolerated and is supported by a legal and security framework that protects the population rather than the "human rights" of the perpetrators.

 

Remember the legal fiasco when we wanted to extradite that nutter with the hook a few years ago? How much money, time and effort did that take whilst he was spreading his venomous hatred prior to getting kicked out.

[Vince Green]

I agree with this entirely, its all to do with an overtly left wing ideology that has taken over this country. No I am not in any way advocating the far right but a more balanced approach that accepts that extremist ideology of any kind cannot be tolerated and is supported by a legal and security framework that protects the population rather than the "human rights" of the perpetrators.

 

Remember the legal fiasco when we wanted to extradite that nutter with the hook a few years ago? How much money, time and effort did that take whilst he was spreading his venomous hatred prior to getting kicked out.

 

 

That 'nutter with the hook' was Abu Hamsa who preached at the notorious Finsbury Park Mosque. That Mosque is right slap bang in the middle of Jeremy Corbyn's Kensington North Constituency.

That gives you some idea of what his constituency is like, it might also explain the true reason why he has voted against a lot of the recent anti terrorist legislation. He is never going to get tough on these people, they have him in their pocket. If he rocks the boat he loses their votes and he's out

Edited June 6, 2017 by Vince Green

[Wingman]

 

 

That ;nutter with the hook' was Abu Hamsa who preached at the notorious Finsbury Park Mosque. That Mosque is right slap bang in the middle of Jeremy Corbyn's Kensington North Constituency.

That gives you some idea of what his constituency is like, it might also explain the true reason why he has voted against a lot of the recent anti terrorist legislation. He is never going to get tough on these people, they have him in their pocket. If he rocks the boat he loses their votes

 

Well made point Vince. So that's why this area of London is referred to as "Vibrant" I assume!

Edited June 6, 2017 by Wingman