9 ms·

What? This was a relatively small incdent and police killed the attackers within eight minutes of being called ( http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-londo

What? This was a relatively small incdent and police killed the attackers within eight minutes of being called ( http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-and-borough-market-statement-by-commissioner-244608 http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-and-... ). How dare any politicians use this to promote their agendas?

NetStrikeForce 9y ago
And she said this in a very politicised speech just after cancelling campaigning for the elections, so no one can publicly reply. May and her team are despicable human beings.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > just after cancelling campaigning for the elections Wait. Can she do that? By herself?
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    No but if she says the Conservatives have cancelled it for the day and the other parties don't they'll get crucified by the right wing press (particularly print). So you are buggered if you do respond and buggered if you don't.
    - justincormack 9y ago
      UKIP have not cancelled campaigning...
      - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
        UKIP are very right wing, are already villified by the left, and who rely on incidents like this for their conversions. They stand to lose nothing by doing so.
        marcosdumay 9y ago
        What a great way to make the radicals popular. They will certainly gain a lot by being the only ones disagreeing.
  - NetStrikeForce 9y ago
    Sorry my words were not clear, glad someone else clarified for me :)
dualogy 9y ago
> How dare any politicians use X to promote their agendas? Welcome to planet Earth! I gather it's your first visit?
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  After the recent attack near parliament Amber Rudd (home secretary) wasted no time at all in blaming WhatsApp, because the guy used WhatsApp. He could have used WhatsApp to send a cat meme to his mum for all we know. It is disgusting the way they are prepared to use these events to push their totalitarian agenda
smoyer 9y ago
She's actually been saying this for quite a while but nobody's listening. Now she's using the incident to bolster her argument. It's a pretty ridiculous claim to state that this type of monitoring will help - "these terrorists have safe spaces on the Internet". Smart terrorists will find a "space" to communicate where big brother is not listening. If you eliminate one, they'll simply move elsewhere but there's no practical chance of removing them all.
- rocqua 9y ago
  I am against may's plan, but pushing terrorist propaganda into the dark would be a good thing. The harder it is to find for authorities, the harder it is to find for impressionable people. The argument is not to keep terrorists from communicating internally, but to keep them from publishing.
  - infodroid 9y ago
    This sentiment is common but misguided. For one thing, "impressionable people" will always seek out taboo information. Banning jihadi messaging isn't going to make it less appealing to them (when they find it elsewhere) or to make it disappear from the internet (there's always a way). So this is an ineffective strategy. It is better to target the root cause, which is that jihadi ideas are clearly attractive to a large group of European youths. Just look at the numbers of Europeans travelling to Iraq, Libya, Syria to fight, to sacrifice their lives for this ideology. You can't dismiss all these people as "impressionable". As far as I can tell, they are otherwise normal people who are as rational as you or me. Sure, there are some truly impressionable people out there. And we should prevent them from being radicalized. But it's like with sex or drugs... We talk to our kids about difficult subjects so they are well-informed and are not so naive and easy to manipulate. But we don't talk about jihadi ideology. Why is mainstream society unwilling to challenge their ideas and expose them as wrong? You can't defeat an ideology by pretending that it doesn't exist, which is what you're effectively doing when you censor it. It's a knee-jerk yet cowardly way to avoid confronting the actual problem. And the problem isn't going to go away unless you confront the ideology head-on. Radicalization isn't the inevitable outcome of being exposed to these ideas but is rather the result of losing an argument.
exodust 9y ago
Small incident? This was a coordinated attack by three terrorists. More than 40 injured. Truck and knives used as weapons on Saturday night crowds. Look at the intended carnage. Police response time has nothing to do with evaluating the seriousness of the crime. Think about the organised networks behind these attacks, and the "routine" nature they are becoming, and then perhaps contribute ideas to help prevent them.
- coldcode 9y ago
  How many people died last week in the UK from fentanyl overdoses? How many from alcohol involved traffic accidents? More than this. Why is terror more terrible than unexpected death by other means?
  - tempodox 9y ago
    Put simply, it's much easier to argue that you must sacrifice all liberty for protection against terror than against drunk driving. Terror serves your oppressor's needs better than anything else.
    - freedomintruth 9y ago
      If you want to know why political and religious violence is worse than drug overdose and why we have to resist it, look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. Although we can say it was Bush then Obama who destabilized the country by removing the tyrants, in the tyrants' absence, religion-influenced political struggles (ie. Sunni vs Shiite, Islam vs Kurd) blew the countries apart, and continues to blow the countries apart. So drug addictions can be bad, but religously-motivated wars are worse because they will destroy everyone. Even stable countries like Saudi Arabia is not immune, and people are worried that the more radical elements there will take power if the country loses its wealth, wealth which is used to pacify the population.
  - freedomintruth 9y ago
    Do you think these terrorists were just going to stop at killing a few people? "Gee, I think I will kill 10 people then go home." Seriously? My guess is they would keep on killing as many as they could, just as they tried to enter the stadiums and concerts to do maximum damage, just as they locked in the Bataclan to kill as many as they could, etc, etc. In which of these events did they kill a few people then went home?

NetStrikeForce 9y ago

And she said this in a very politicised speech just after cancelling campaigning for the elections, so no one can publicly reply. May and her team are despicable human beings.

marcosdumay 9y ago
> just after cancelling campaigning for the elections Wait. Can she do that? By herself?
- noir_lord 9y ago
  No but if she says the Conservatives have cancelled it for the day and the other parties don't they'll get crucified by the right wing press (particularly print). So you are buggered if you do respond and buggered if you don't.
  - justincormack 9y ago
    UKIP have not cancelled campaigning...
    - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
      UKIP are very right wing, are already villified by the left, and who rely on incidents like this for their conversions. They stand to lose nothing by doing so.
      - marcosdumay 9y ago
        What a great way to make the radicals popular. They will certainly gain a lot by being the only ones disagreeing.
- NetStrikeForce 9y ago
  Sorry my words were not clear, glad someone else clarified for me :)

dualogy 9y ago

> How dare any politicians use X to promote their agendas? Welcome to planet Earth! I gather it's your first visit?

jimnotgym 9y ago
After the recent attack near parliament Amber Rudd (home secretary) wasted no time at all in blaming WhatsApp, because the guy used WhatsApp. He could have used WhatsApp to send a cat meme to his mum for all we know. It is disgusting the way they are prepared to use these events to push their totalitarian agenda

smoyer 9y ago

She's actually been saying this for quite a while but nobody's listening. Now she's using the incident to bolster her argument. It's a pretty ridiculous claim to state that this type of monitoring will help - "these terrorists have safe spaces on the Internet". Smart terrorists will find a "space" to communicate where big brother is not listening. If you eliminate one, they'll simply move elsewhere but there's no practical chance of removing them all.

rocqua 9y ago
I am against may's plan, but pushing terrorist propaganda into the dark would be a good thing. The harder it is to find for authorities, the harder it is to find for impressionable people. The argument is not to keep terrorists from communicating internally, but to keep them from publishing.
- infodroid 9y ago
  This sentiment is common but misguided. For one thing, "impressionable people" will always seek out taboo information. Banning jihadi messaging isn't going to make it less appealing to them (when they find it elsewhere) or to make it disappear from the internet (there's always a way). So this is an ineffective strategy. It is better to target the root cause, which is that jihadi ideas are clearly attractive to a large group of European youths. Just look at the numbers of Europeans travelling to Iraq, Libya, Syria to fight, to sacrifice their lives for this ideology. You can't dismiss all these people as "impressionable". As far as I can tell, they are otherwise normal people who are as rational as you or me. Sure, there are some truly impressionable people out there. And we should prevent them from being radicalized. But it's like with sex or drugs... We talk to our kids about difficult subjects so they are well-informed and are not so naive and easy to manipulate. But we don't talk about jihadi ideology. Why is mainstream society unwilling to challenge their ideas and expose them as wrong? You can't defeat an ideology by pretending that it doesn't exist, which is what you're effectively doing when you censor it. It's a knee-jerk yet cowardly way to avoid confronting the actual problem. And the problem isn't going to go away unless you confront the ideology head-on. Radicalization isn't the inevitable outcome of being exposed to these ideas but is rather the result of losing an argument.

exodust 9y ago

Small incident? This was a coordinated attack by three terrorists. More than 40 injured. Truck and knives used as weapons on Saturday night crowds. Look at the intended carnage. Police response time has nothing to do with evaluating the seriousness of the crime. Think about the organised networks behind these attacks, and the "routine" nature they are becoming, and then perhaps contribute ideas to help prevent them.

coldcode 9y ago
How many people died last week in the UK from fentanyl overdoses? How many from alcohol involved traffic accidents? More than this. Why is terror more terrible than unexpected death by other means?
- tempodox 9y ago
  Put simply, it's much easier to argue that you must sacrifice all liberty for protection against terror than against drunk driving. Terror serves your oppressor's needs better than anything else.
  - freedomintruth 9y ago
    If you want to know why political and religious violence is worse than drug overdose and why we have to resist it, look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. Although we can say it was Bush then Obama who destabilized the country by removing the tyrants, in the tyrants' absence, religion-influenced political struggles (ie. Sunni vs Shiite, Islam vs Kurd) blew the countries apart, and continues to blow the countries apart. So drug addictions can be bad, but religously-motivated wars are worse because they will destroy everyone. Even stable countries like Saudi Arabia is not immune, and people are worried that the more radical elements there will take power if the country loses its wealth, wealth which is used to pacify the population.
- freedomintruth 9y ago
  Do you think these terrorists were just going to stop at killing a few people? "Gee, I think I will kill 10 people then go home." Seriously? My guess is they would keep on killing as many as they could, just as they tried to enter the stadiums and concerts to do maximum damage, just as they locked in the Bataclan to kill as many as they could, etc, etc. In which of these events did they kill a few people then went home?