[Closed] Terrorism

Yes, they are using religion and doing it against what it really teaches.

There's just been an extremely interesting interview with Nazir Afzal, the former CPS prosecutor. He raised the point that when something like this happens the government and police then engage with the Muslim community through organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain.

He then went on to point out that these 'community leaders' are self-appointed, elderly, very socially conservative and basically totally unrepresentative of a Muslim population which is predominantly young, and female. He pointed out that dealing exclusively with these people, has not, and will not do anything to combat Islamist terrorism. The whole of the community needs to feel involved, and not just a tiny, unrepresentative and largely self-serving minority, who's claim to represent the community is just accepted unquestionably by the authorities

There needs to be an open and honest dialogue about the perversion of an ideology to push men to commit acts of violence

There does, and deviant's post that I pulled him up on did that up until the xenophobic BS in the last couple of paragraphs.

Some muslims are terrorists

Some non-muslims are terrorists

Not all muslims, and not all non-muslims are terrorists

This is doing the rounds on Facebook,

Sets my alarm bell ringing. Reads very much like '2 + 2 = a few, therefore: Jew'. A galloping Gish-ful of shoeshine?

Any set of assertions which uses ' Muslims', 'Arabs' and 'Islamists' as equivalent and interchangeable descriptors deserves to be ripped a new one. I assume peope who post that stuff do actually fact check...

No? See similar tracts about 'the Jews'.

That Peter Hammond chap is a little questionable....

"Frontline Fellowship is a Bible based African mission that has pioneered missionary work into neglected mission fields and areas resistant to the Gospel"

[url= https://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100000074:about-us-v2&catid=55:about-us-cat&Itemid=170 ]Link[/url]

I'm sorry, but "resistant to the Gospel"? Get over yourself Sir. Ever thought those folks might be quite happy?

[url= https://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1266:the-director&catid=55:about-us-cat&Itemid=170 ]Peter Hammond[/url]

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

^ Brutal video that. Perfect example of what happens when you have 'loose' ROE and no checks and balances post-engagement. I can't remember if they were convicted eventually. I'll go google.

Edit- Nope, ruthlessly covered up. Thankfully our ROE was a little more restrictive than that. That was blatant murder. But still nothing compared to what Daesh are doing now. Toppling Saddam really did open the Pandora's box of shitstorms there.

Murder? Hmm,

positive identification of group with weapons (00.59) and mistaken belief that the camera was an RPG (01.24) cease fire and no shooting at wounded.

Toppling Saddam really did open the Pandora's box of shitstorms there.

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/margaret-thatcher-iraq_b_3037423.html ]Arming Saddam in the 1st place (including with chemical weapons)[/url] probably didn't help...

Toppling Saddam really did open the Pandora's box of shitstorms there.

positive identification of [s]weapons[/s] a tripod and mistaken belief that the camera was an RPG, cease fire and no shooting at wounded.

FIFY

cease fire and no shooting at wounded.

not until a mini van turned up to help the wounded and they shot that up too.

from 8 mins

So the worst you can attribute it to is honest mistake but genuine belief (within a war zone) rather than murder.

You do get the difference between the two, right?

Did you watch the video, Ninfan? Perhaps you didn't notice the shooting of unarmed people fleeing the carnage. No-one was left alive. Massacre, murder, anything less is a lie.

What defines a war zone and how is one created?

Probably start reading here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Ah, we're back in the silly 'you can shoot them when they are Throwing a bomb at you, but as soon as they let go of it they are no longer a threat' moral relativism of the bleeding heart lefties again, quelle surprise.

there were children in the minivan btw.

it was their fault for bringing kids to a battle

perhaps it's where they live 🙄

there is a small but viscous sect within Islam that honestly believe their role is to take the fight to non believers, kill or convert non believers and spread Islam...by force if necessary.

Very privileged to be in the presence of so many experts on this thread. Can you explain where your deep insight into Islam comes from, deviant?

The problem with lumping terrorism and Islam together is nothing to to with political correctness. It's about treating our citizens fairly. So you can't really stop and search all Muslims any more than you can stop and search all black people in Chicago, say, even if more black people are involved in certain crimes.

Ah, we're back in the silly 'you can shoot them when they are Throwing a bomb at you, but as soon as they let go of it they are no longer a threat' moral relativism of the bleeding heart lefties again, quelle surprise.

I don't think you get the point, Ninfan.

"Bleeding heart lefties" or people who realise that you can't massacre thousands of people without upsetting people who are then likely to follow the "eye for an eye" logic whichever good book they've read it in.

Don't start a fight you can't win.

positive identification of group with weapons (00.59) and mistaken belief that the camera was an RPG (01.24) cease fire and no shooting at wounded.

&

So the worst you can attribute it to is honest mistake but genuine belief (within a war zone) rather than murder.

You do get the difference between the two, right?

Hmm.

So, initially you try to pass the incident off as a positive identification - which professionally, I can tell you, they didn't look like weapons in the slightest (previous life as a trained observer in the British Army. Look up STA patrols if you're bothered)...

Then you admit it was a mistake.

Do you know what you want??

I don't think you get the point, Ninfan.

You're probably right - maybe they should have tased and arrested them as well?

initially you try to pass the incident off as a positive identification -

I'm not passing it off as anything, they believed they had a positive identification of weapons - you can argue till you're blue in the face over whether they were wrong or right to do so, but it's categorically clear that that was their belief at the time, that the group were combatants, even if mistaken, which is enough to disprove the allegation of murder being thrown about against them.

I'm sorry but that call was a shite one. It's obvious there were no weapons.

& I only quoted you..

Your words...."positive identification".

Clearly it wasn't, yet you chose to use them. Why?

To some extent i reckon the folk committing these acts are desperate to be part of an in group. Like van owners getting remaps or people planking it's similar but more sinister.

It's all done on line, in forums, and chat groups. People with agendas are taking advantage of vulnerable folk, and they in turn inspire other easily led idiots. Basically the same as abuse grooming. I'd consider them as victims too.

Why are young people so desperate though? What's missing from their lives? The ones travelling to fight or blowing themselves up don't always come from terrible backgrounds, they can be incredibly fortunate too. I'm not sure anyone really understands.

To put a quote in the mouths of the Americans...
It's their god given right to go into another country and kill people...

When an American or a Brit says God heading into war or when foreign people die it's never questioned.

Oh and classic ninfan distraction, happy to argue the semantics on one issue and duck away from any of the tough questions.

Because that's what they [u]believed[/u] they had - "yes we have seen weapons" not "we suspect they might have weapons"

When an American or a Brit says God heading into war or when foreign people die it's never questioned.

Perhaps because they are saying "God is with us" not "God told me to do this", in which case we would think they were crazy

What defines a war zone and how is one created?

Probably start reading here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

That's a lot of bumpf to get through and I'm still none the wiser.

Can civilians declare war, or is it purely a government led activity?

That's a lot of bumpf to get through and I'm still none the wiser.

From the BumpfPoster Master General! 😀

That's a lot of bumpf to get through and I'm still none the wiser.

[img] [/img]

Do your own research.....

Can civilians declare war, or is it purely a government led activity?

So, rolling back to the core of the argument

If these people turn out to have been known to the security services (and I suspect they will) then what were they still doing on the street, and should we have locked them up earlier (even if they had not yet done anything currently illegal)?

If you want to know go look it up, at this point you seem to want to lead the thread off track with ninfan there. Still no practical solutions and suggestions?

and should we have locked them up earlier (even if they had not yet done anything currently illegal)?

Whoops, looks like you posted too soon there Mike 🙂

care to answer the question?

Would you be willing to be locked up for your thoughts?

You're implying that he thinks...

Would you be willing to be locked up for your thoughts?

Who suggested that?

Well as you don't know what gets you on a watch list, and you want the watch list arrested what if you ended up on one? Bit too much research into something, meet the wrong people and your in an orange jump suit having water poured into you. See how some of this goes?
Have we been here before?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

there is a small but viscous sect within Islam that honestly believe their role is to take the fight to non believers, kill or convert non believers and spread Islam...by force if necessary.

Very privileged to be in the presence of so many experts on this thread. Can you explain where your deep insight into Islam comes from, deviant?

Do you disagree with his comment?

 

Still no practical solutions and suggestions?

Go back to the start of the thread mike, I've made it pretty clear...

Still no comment on this? i.e. The Home Secretary, one of whose main jobs is defending the nation from terrorist threats, preventing a fellow candidate from speaking the truth in her local hustings just yesterday, shortly before the latest attacks...

And the home office of Her Majesty's Government, financed by the populus, [url= http://www.newsweek.com/uk-report-terror-saudi-arabia-public-finding-618508 ]failing to publish a report on Saudi links to funding of terrorism?[/url]

Solutions? Raise awareness, demand public accountability...

I've been fairly active on that front 😉

Who suggested that?

Er..You?

should we have locked them up earlier (even if they had not yet done anything currently illegal)?

Overhead some people chatting about terrorist attacks this morning. The consensus was this is the start of a period of sustained and frequent attacks.
I hope they are wrong but can't find much evidence to disagree.

Saudi Arabia. End of discussion.

From page one and still correct.

I've said it before and I'll say it again today that in the midst of another terrible atrocity we need to look at and understand the root causes; one hundred years of British foreign policy, and the failings within our own society that has let these individuals slip through the cracks and become radicalised.

No-one wakes up one morning and decides to be a terrorist. No-one goes to a Mosque and one day has someone convince them to be a terrorist.

These people are, in general, the ones that society has failed, the ones from disadvantaged backgrounds and areas, the ones failed by an underfunded education system, the disenfranchised, those missed or failed by underfunded mental health service, and I admit the occasional inherently violent that have been missed by an underfunded justice system. It is these people who feel like society has failed them, who don't feel like they have a future, those suffering from depression and despondency. Those who have come to this country seeking refuge and have been met with vitriol, racism, bias and hatred from the right-wing press and right-wing groups on social media (and those who take its words as gospel) blaming them for all societies ills because of their colour, religion or heritage.

It is these people who those who seek to propagate terror target, whispering in their ear, telling them that they are their friends, that they understand, that the west hates them; "the evidence is in all the papers, see how they hate you", "look at what they do to our families in (insert recently bombed country here)". They offer them the support and comfort that society has failed to, and in turn promotes hatred of this society and it's this hatred that leads to the atrocities we are seeing across the world.

This is the doorway that society opens to let radicalisation in.

Blame the English, why not?

Er..You?

No, you're extrapolating "not yet done anything currently illegal" into something else

It's perfectly possible that they have [b]done[/b], not just thought about, lots of things that at the moment cannot lead to imprisonment, you only have to look at the background of the Manchester bomber to see examples - travelling abroad to war zones like Libya and Syria and believed to have been in training camps there being the type of thing that you could potentially criminalise, leading to detention or refusal of entry.

British foreign policy, and the failings within our own society that has let these individuals slip through the cracks and become radicalised.

ninfan - Member

It's perfectly possible that they have done, not just thought about, lots of things that at the moment cannot lead to imprisonment, you only have to look at the background of the Manchester bomber to see examples - travelling abroad to war zones like Libya and Syria and believed to have been in training camps there being the type of thing that you could potentially criminalise, leading to detention or refusal of entry.

I thought travelling to Syria was already enough to get you potentially locked up?

One thing at a time eh?

The causes and catalysts of (Islamic) terrorism, (political, religious, socio-politica, culturall and personal) are:

1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
Etc

The way I see it - unless these are identified, verified and agreed upon then any discussion about 'solutions' is worse than moot.

OK so we can blame ourselves for the terrorism in our own country?!

What about the Muslim child abusers/rape gangs in Rotherham and Oxford etc etc etc? How is that our fault???

Bear in mind this is from 25 years ago... aside from myriad more deaths, what's changed?

OK so we can blame ourselves for the terrorism in our own country?!

To some degree.

What about the Muslim child abusers/rape gangs in Rotherham and Oxford etc etc etc? How is that our fault???

Like Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc. I don't think child abuse etc. is a wholly exclusive Muslim issue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again today that in the midst of another terrible atrocity we need to look at and understand the root causes; one hundred years of British foreign policy, and the failings within our own society that has let these individuals slip through the cracks and become radicalised.

No-one wakes up one morning and decides to be a terrorist. No-one goes to a Mosque and one day has someone convince them to be a terrorist.

These people are, in general, the ones that society has failed, the ones from disadvantaged backgrounds and areas, the ones failed by an underfunded education system, the disenfranchised, those missed or failed by underfunded mental health service, and I admit the occasional inherently violent that have been missed by an underfunded justice system. It is these people who feel like society has failed them, who don't feel like they have a future, those suffering from depression and despondency. Those who have come to this country seeking refuge and have been met with vitriol, racism, bias and hatred from the right-wing press and right-wing groups on social media (and those who take its words as gospel) blaming them for all societies ills because of their colour, religion or heritage.

It is these people who those who seek to propagate terror target, whispering in their ear, telling them that they are their friends, that they understand, that the west hates them; "the evidence is in all the papers, see how they hate you", "look at what they do to our families in (insert recently bombed country here)". They offer them the support and comfort that society has failed to, and in turn promotes hatred of this society and it's this hatred that leads to the atrocities we are seeing across the world.

This is the doorway that society opens to let radicalisation in.

I'm not sure whether our society has failed them. The Manchester bomber was university educated wasn't he? I haven't seen any working class white kids carrying out terror attacks. Perhaps the Muslim community has failed them?

What about the Muslim child abusers/rape gangs in Rotherham and Oxford etc etc etc? How is that our fault???

Dunno what this has to do with the terror attacks TBH.

It's all part of their total contempt for the country they are living in, that's what it's got to do with it.
Do you know they branded a letter 'M' onto a 13 year old girl to show she was now the property? of Mohammed.
Disgusting.

"War" does have a legal status in terms of state-on-state conflict as defined via the Geneva conventions - for terrorism to be classed as an act of war, then there would need to be proof that it was effectively state-sponsored. Even the Afghan conflict was not a "war" but was a NATO-led peace-keeping activity at the request of the Afghan government.

mitsumonkey - Member
It's all part of their total contempt for the country they are living in,

Continuing to demonise a religion plays into the hands of the recruiters.

Because that's what they believed they had

Yet, that has been proven to be inaccurate.

Why would you use something that you know to be inaccurate if it's not in an effort to imply the opposite.

You could have caveated it with an admission that it was wrong but you chose not to.

Bias much?

It's all part of their total contempt for the country they are living in, that's what it's got to do with it.
Do you know they branded a letter 'M' onto a 13 year old girl to show she was now the property? of Mohammed

No I didn't know. I still don't know. You didn't give any reference. And...'they'?

A woman has told the Old Bailey how she was branded with the initial of a man who raped her and turned her into a sex slave when she was 12 years old.
The witness, now 19, was giving evidence at the trial of nine men accused of grooming children and exploiting them for sex in Oxford.
She said Mohammed Karrar used a hair pin to brand the initial "M" on her buttock to show she "belonged to him".

...."It was M for Mo and he said I belonged to him. He was branding me so people knew I was his."

When you say 'they', what you seem to be saying is that all Islamic men are abusive sexual predators, rapists and paedophiles?

The Glasgow airport attackers hardly fit a deprived background profile.

As for the Rotherham gangs, that was down to the way those groups of Muslim men thought about the Infidel girls. Held in complete contempt they were utterly worthless to them. Didn't it turn out their families all came from one particular part of ****stan?

Or can we not talk about that?

I'm not sure whether our society has failed them. The Manchester bomber was university educated wasn't he? I haven't seen any working class white kids carrying out terror attacks. Perhaps the Muslim community has failed them?

I believe he dropped out of university however I may be wrong. Maybe it was at this point he fell through the cracks and the ISIS / other extremist recruiters were the support system he didn't find elsewhere.

I'm sure there are many many white working class kids in a similar situation some of whom are radicalised in to the right wing movements, taught by the press and others that their situation is such bacause of muslims or imigrants some of whom will carry out racially motivated attacks albeit on a smaller scale that won't be classed as 'terrorism'. The disinfranchaised 'white' youth isn't going to be targeted by ISIS recruiters.

The scale of the attacks reported as terrorism are a consequence of the scale of the death and destruction that the recruiters feed them, they don't get shown videos of people graffiti get mosques or beating up someone of colour etc they get shown videos of whole families killed by stray Coalition bombs, of hospitals and weddings hit by mistake. It's a factor of scale.

Maybe the 'Muslim community' has failed them, maybe if we stop segregating it in to 'the Muslim community' and 'the rest of society' we would realise that it's societies job as a whole to make things better. I'm an atheist/agnostic if I'm struggling I don't expect just the Humanist organisation to help.

Or can we not talk about that?

maybe if we stop segregating it in to 'the Muslim community' and 'the rest of society'

In that case you could argue that responsibility lay at the door of the proponents of multiculturalism, who absolutely promoted the retention of their identification as 'the Muslim community' rather than integrating into British scociety.

Some bloke whose name shall not be mentioned even warned about the inevitable consequences of this years ago.

Didn't it turn out their families all came from one particular part of ****stan?

No idea, the particular part where the majority killed by US drones are civilians and targets have included a girls' school, community centre and other distinctly non military targets?

No idea, the particular part where the majority killed by US drones are civilians and targets have included a girls' school, community centre and other distinctly non military targets?

I believe the child abuse (in Rotherham st least) was going on well before any drone strikes in ****stan.

Overhead some people chatting about terrorist attacks this morning. The consensus was this is the start of a period of sustained and frequent attacks.
I hope they are wrong but can't find much evidence to disagree.

I think the counter argument is that Islamic terrorists have not demonstrated the ability to perpetrate sustained and frequent attacks in the UK so far.

Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at Kings College, recently posted a series of Tweets which I thought were a good summary of how we should measure the success of counter terrorism:

How should we evaluate terrorism and counter-terrorism as strategies?
Looked at in terms of individual incidents, any successful attack is a failure of counter-terrorism.
There will be leads that weren’t followed or individuals that ‘got through the net’.
But against this sort of individualised threat it is extremely hard to identify all possible militants.
In addition terrorism is not always instrumental with a realistic political objective.
It is often undertaken as revenge for Western policies and as an objection to Western values and way of life.
For individual terrorists the attack itself is a political statement and they have succeeded if they have killed, maimed and destroyed.
But a lasting political effect depends on destabilising the whole society and this requires regular attacks.
Terrorism as a strategy therefore requires a campaign with constant emergencies and incidents.
The aim is to create impression of irresistibility, so that people lose confidence in government/ security agencies/police/army.
Every attack prevented not only spares people misery but also undermines attempts to create a sense of a society under siege.
Keeping successful attacks to minimum so don’t coalesce into something larger is how, over long term, counter-terrorism must be viewed.
In this the UK has been successful over the years but it remains a challenge, perhaps now growing because of links to ISIS in MidEast.
Along with normal security measures the importance of assertions of liberal values/community solidarity should not be underestimated.
In the end that is what it is all about.

There are 23000 would be, could be terrorist in this country, we can only monitor 3000 of them.

Where are you getting this figure from? The number of people "known" to the authorities is quoted at between 3,000 and 6,000 - which, incidentally, is higher than the number of people we have to do any "watching." I've not seen anyone mention tens of thousands (not saying that it's wrong but I'd like to see a credible source please).

The thing that puzzles me about these attacks is why they're automatically labelled 'terrorist'. Many are carried out by lone-wolf nutters

Simply because it's in Daesh's best interests to go "yep, we did that" irrespective of whether it was anything to do with them or not. It adds to their power, makes it appear that they have more resources and reach than they do.

If these people turn out to have been known to the security services (and I suspect they will) then what were they still doing on the street, and should we have locked them up earlier (even if they had not yet done anything currently illegal)?

Because a country with a policy of "guilty until proven innocent" isn't one I want to live in, for a start. These people who are "known" might well not have done anything wrong at all, and you want to round them up because they're brown and look a bit explody? Sure, I can't see how that could possibly cause any problems. You've thought about this, haven't you?

Overhead some people chatting about terrorist attacks this morning. The consensus was this is the start of a period of sustained and frequent attacks.

Sounds like a cast-iron source of information to me. I overheard some people chatting about zombies this morning, so I've stocked up on canned foods and barricaded the door.

Ah, so someone had swapped from blaming the Muslim community as a whole for terrorist attacks to child abuse. No doubt other slurs can be thrown at the community too, what's next? I'm sure those who spend their time insulting leftie liberals on this thread can dig deeper into WWII propaganda for inspiration on stereotyping minorities.

Reap as you sow.

The only way to totally stop these attacks is to have a level of state control and intrusion that we can't financially afford, and I wouldn't want to live under.

Sometimes, sadly, a free democracy comes at a cost. If we forget that, they have already won.l

You need to change the thread title. This thread appears to be about Muslim terrorists not simply terrorists.

Either you've succumbed to racism by implying terrorists means Muslims or you've chosen to discuss one aspect of terrorism but have written an incorrect thread title.

There are consistently acts of terrorism around the world that have nothing to do with Islam.

Very UKip to imply terrorists mean Muslims by default.

I'm going to get flamed for this but it needs to be said..

Over the last couple of weeks I have personally heard some extremist views.. I've not heard these views in a Mosque but public here in the UK. Things like "we should just wipe the lot of them out" and "get them all out of our country". Even "Why can't we just nuke them?"

Should this not be considered "Radical Extremist Thinking" or is it okay because it has been said by British people of western culture?

Have people who think like this not just been Radicalised by the constant stream of one side propaganda they have been fed for so many years now? Whilst out for a ride in the woods today it was a 17 year old kid who told me "we should just nuke them".

All this kid has heard his entire life is Muslim Terrorists. He had no understanding of the effects of foreign policy. He had no understanding of the effects on a population on an invasion. All he has seen is the newspaper and TV reports all his life that just scream Muslim Terrorists whenever? an atrocity has been carried out again Coalition forces or a Western target.

This is because we never see the effects of a drone strike on a school or a Wedding. We don't see the innocent Muslim children's bodies torn apart lying in the rubble. We don't see the effects of the depleted uranium rounds? that litter Iraq or Afghanistan. We don't get these reports on loop for days with names put to faces in the same way as we so when something occurs against a Western target. We may hear that some civilians died but it's okay because we got one bad guy.. the other 30 or 40 civilians are just collateral damage.

We don't see this but many people of Muslim decent do see this because they have family members or contacts that have first hand accounts of life under the threats of drones, The silent killer at 5000 ft. They have family or contacts that have lived for years under Coalition control where atrocities have been carried out time and time again against local populations. We just don't get to hear about these atrocities or if they do come to light when someone like Chelsea Manning releases the evidence, we jail them for 30 years for telling it like it is and brush over it.

They are seeing our western propaganda machine pumping out our western version of events but they are also getting access to the other side of the story through their contacts. Believe me if you wanted to see this side of the story you can find it out there if only you choose to look.

My point is that we are brainwashed as much as they are brainwashed. We say they have no morals for the way they treat women etc.. well, there are sections of western culture that have no morals about the way they treat women etc.. they have ways of life that we in the west find deplorable.. well guess what, they think things we do in the west are deplorable too.

I hear people say, "but we are tolerant in the west" but yet we kill each other based on? race. We kill each other based on authority. We hate people based on sexuality and we hate people based on race.

I hear some of you now saying "bollocks, I don't think like that" or "yes but only a minority think like that" well guess what, only a minority of Muslim people think like that as well.

that and US terrorism in Iraq

To the very good advice "Keep Calm and Carry On", I would add:

If you suspect something, report it.

Eyes and ears open, everybody...

*applauds*

(lucorave's post)

Good point re by lucorave

And a +1 for Woppit as well

Lucorave - voice of sense. Well said.

Have people who think like this not just been Radicalised by the constant stream of one side propaganda they have been fed for so many years now? Whilst out for a ride in the woods today it was a 17 year old kid who told me "we should just nuke them".

My concern here maybe is that saying your young friend there has been "radicalised" kinda dilutes what it means to be radicalised. He's been misled by people in authority and by the media (arguably the same thing) but that's a fair chalk away from becoming a terrorist. At 17 he's probably just repeating what his dad says anyway and has little knowledge about what he's talking about. Though I totally agree that this does need to be addressed; groups like Daesh [i]want [/i]us to hate them so that they can tell their acolytes "look how much they hate us, look how much they hate [b]you[/b]" and we're playing right into their hands.

I think there's a lot of "all mouth and no trousers" going on here. It's the same Billy Big Bollocks bullshit bluster that some folk come out with all the time, "oh yeah, if I were there I'd have knocked his ****ing block off" when the truth is they'd have cacked their pants and run away. All these right-wing shitehawks who want them all "rounded up and shot," I reckon if you gave them a machine gun and went "go ahead" it'd be a very small minority who would actually, really want them all shot badly enough to be able to pull the trigger. It sounds good when you're in the pub with your Daily Express-reading mates and a pint of Best, though.

Should this not be considered "Radical Extremist Thinking" or is it okay because it has been said by British people of western culture?

The west is an all consuming religion in itself.

And just a poisonous as the others.

We've all got that out our systems what should we actually do then?

I'll kick it off..

Stop selling arms full stop not to certain groups just stop selling them.

Stop the flow of Saudi money into UK mosques.

Put more police on the streets in predominantly muslim areas.

Hold the web companies responsible for content.

Hang on, I haven't brought enough popcorn for everybody.

I'll tell you what we need to do right out of the gate to reduce all the hate and bad feeling, as well as solve a whole host of other problems. We need to hold the press to account for inciting hatred and deliberately misleading the public.