How Britain has been kept safe for a decade • Hacker News Board

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#61

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

HappyFunGuy wrote: post #33

Being safe from terror attacks is 9 parts not being attacked, and 1 part catching people beforehand. If you state you are safe, because you're doing the 10% right, you're mistaken. Would you also state there's no planes blowing up because the TSA or UK equivelent? It is because they are not trying. So find out why they aren't trying, and you'll find out why you're "safe." Maybe you are killing less people with drones…

> If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right?

How do you know we haven't?

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#62

Post by bengalister » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #36

bengalister wrote: post #20

Maybe the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies is to blame (it cannot help anyway) but it cannot alone explain the difference. First we (I am French) have a larger muslim population: 3-3,5 millions for UK the double in France mainly from North Africa. So statistically speaking there's a higher chance of having islamists in France. Also many of French of Arabic origin just hate or despise France and the…

Could you or other French elaborate more on that last paragraph? I'm curious of why the younger French would want to leave. Is it only because of the influx of Muslims, violence, and job opportunities? Or, are there other things going on, as well?

I don't how it is much different to other European countries but many people of my entourage went abroad. Some ex co-workers went to USA & Canada, some cousins to Scotland, Singapore and Ireland. And they have no intention to come back. That's the difference with 15 years ago, expats used to come back. Also some young co-workers also are searching jobs out of France, even co-workers of Arabic origins want to leave (1 is in the process of being recruited for a Dubai job).

That's not a coincidence.

The main reason used to be of the French gloomy economy, especially for the new comers on the job market, it is very hard even with qualifications to find a job. And there's no perspective on improvement on that side since the mentalities are very conservative (to stay polite). People think they cannot be successful in France and can be in the countries mentioned above.

Now since 5 years ago, I think you can add the feeling of France not being safe. Many jews left France being fed-up of being targeted by the muslim community and the lack of reaction from "traditional" French. The influx of people from troubled areas is not going to help. I expect the number of French leaving the country to boom.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#63

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:17 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #60

jacquesm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What conceivable purpose could indiscriminate mass murder in a major European city serve? Yes, that's the question. > I'm certain noone ever attempted such a thing before. I'm aware of that. > Equally certain they didn't claim allegiance to any particular, you know, religion or anything like that. I'm aware of that too. Even so, none of that actually answers the question, it's just a bunch of handwaving and suggest…

> and who happened to be very loosely affiliated with Islam That's similar to lots of the terrorists who've been caught. They tend to be converts to Islam, or previously not particularly observant before being radicalised.

Yes, they also all consumed mothers milk.

Being radicalized is code for 'impressionable person ends up believing stories by some fraudster'.

Let's cut to the chase here, this is why we won't be solving this any time soon:

Religion pre-selects - in all its forms - the gullible, those, who would rather believe a story than the evidence before their eyes. Because of that and that alone we're stuck with this problem because our societies would have to outlaw all religion as some kind of disease if they're going to gather up the tools to do something about this problem on a scale where it will make a difference and within the framework of our legal systems, that is, without prejudice against one religion or another.

But of course that will never fly, it would create a huge immediate problem, much larger than the one posed by terrorism. It would require all those that are involved in some other religion besides Islam to come to terms with their own religion and this will - given the influence of all those other religions, particularly Christianity in all its forms - never ever happen. And if it did it would make the current crop of terrorists look like rank amateurs.

See also Richard Dawkins' 'crusade' against religion in all its forms, even atheists are not immune to telling others how they should live.

If you're going to find one common element between Crusaders, IRA/Unionist bombers and Islamists (and a whole raft of others besides) it is a categorical in-ability to keep their religions where they should be: in their houses and their places of worship.

As soon as people go out into the real world and start telling others how they should live it's game over. So, as far as I can see we're stuck with this problem for the foreseeable future, until enough blood has been shed that people will come to their senses again. It never was any different.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#64

Post by yardie » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

ismail wrote: post #26

yardie wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've traveled between London and Paris frequently. I found the visibility of fundamentalist muslims in the UK to be much higher than anywhere in France. The burka and niqab, for example, is not only illegal but even before being so it was extremely unpopular in France (I believe the estimate was ~200 for the entire country). Yet, walking around London and it's outskirts this was a common sight. France has managed to…

"The burka and niqab, for example, is not only illegal but even before being so it was extremely unpopular in France" Niqaab/burka != terrorist

No, it is an indicator of fundamentalists who, I feel, hold some really regressive and oppressive views on women and Western society. Extremism is the more virulent version of fundamentalists.

The UK has decided that freedom of religion, no matter how intolerant it actually is, is to be protected. Even if it denies some human rights. France has decided that freedom of religion cannot supersede human rights, ever.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#65

Post by MicroBerto » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #24

MicroBerto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> France has managed to avoid most islamic extremists Yet any extremist can literally walk into France and terrorize, which is essentially what's happened. So perhaps the biggest difference the fact that Britain has a physical border wall?

He was originally from Tunisia, there is a large body of water that separates them from France. Extremists can arrive by plane or boat. The same way they can get into the UK.

Not in the significant numbers that have been coming into France by way of land.

Statistically speaking, the fewer terrorists you allow into your country, combined with the fewer amounts of terrorist organizations you allow to operate in your country, the fewer terrorist attacks you will have.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#66

Post by simbalion » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

sevenless wrote: post #57

simbalion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning guns from citizens doesn't make life harder for terrorists. There was a video last year of an ISIS person beheading someone using a large knife, on a city street in broad daylight as pedestrians walked by on the other side of the street, powerless to do anything to stop the atrocity taking place in front of them. In many places in the United States, if someone tried to cut someone's head off in broad daylight…

Why do you think that terrorist (I assume you're talking about the London guy) would be trying to cut someone's head off if he were in the USA? As I pointed out, he bought a gun and tried to use it FIRST, which very thankfully didn't work. The knife was not his first choice. He'd certainly have preferred an AR15. But don't listen to me. Listen to Al Qaeda. > A video from 2011 has resurfaced showing American-born al Q…

"listen to al Qaeda" yeah that makes sense, murderers always tell the truth right?

You can't buy a fully automatic firearm at a gun show without a background check. Not legally. And not without an ID card. But listen to the murderers and take their word for it because they are honest people.

What you can do is buy anything you want in the world illegally, and in any country you happen to be in, so arguing about the black market is a fraud.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#67

Post by cagey » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 10:35 PM UTC

simbalion wrote: post #66

sevenless wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that terrorist (I assume you're talking about the London guy) would be trying to cut someone's head off if he were in the USA? As I pointed out, he bought a gun and tried to use it FIRST, which very thankfully didn't work. The knife was not his first choice. He'd certainly have preferred an AR15. But don't listen to me. Listen to Al Qaeda. > A video from 2011 has resurfaced showing American-born al Q…

"listen to al Qaeda" yeah that makes sense, murderers always tell the truth right? You can't buy a fully automatic firearm at a gun show without a background check. Not legally. And not without an ID card. But listen to the murderers and take their word for it because they are honest people. What you can do is buy anything you want in the world illegally, and in any country you happen to be in, so arguing about the b…

I was fairly confident that buying a fully automatic firearm at a gun show was unlikely to be a matter of "ID + background check" as with buying a semi-automatic (or non-automatic) firearm. See links below (8 and 9 years old; the laws are unlikely to have become more liberal since then) for more info.

My (perhaps inadequate) attempt to summarize the high points from those two sources: such purchases (in those states where ownership is legal; in some it is not) require the buyer to undergo an extensive (and apparently very slow: 50-90 days, after payment for the (by definition very expensive) fully automatic legally transferable firearm has been delivered to the seller) check process: an additional Transfer Fee of $200 must be paid, and passport photos and fingerprints submitted, with the application, which must be (before submission to the Feds (BATFE)) signed by the "chief law enforcement officer" of the area you live in. Annual inspections by the Feds of the premises where the fully-automatic firearm is stored are apparently also part of the "ownership contract" which the owner enters into with the Federal Government.

Sources: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208100642A... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080102143807A...

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#68

Post by JupiterMoon » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #28

jahnu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4 and Maguire 7 were tried and convicted in secret courts.

You mean the cases we know about due to the independent judiciary and that have led to massive systemic change? You're not going to find a terror suspect being interviewed by the police without a lawyer present and the whole thing being videoed. The days of false confessions and coercive interrogations are long gone.

Really? I was under the impression that terror suspects could be held for several weeks without having charges brought against them? I was also under the impression that due process is completely ignored in some circumstances (e.g. at airports).

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#69

Post by sevenless » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 1:44 PM UTC

cagey wrote: post #67

simbalion wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"listen to al Qaeda" yeah that makes sense, murderers always tell the truth right? You can't buy a fully automatic firearm at a gun show without a background check. Not legally. And not without an ID card. But listen to the murderers and take their word for it because they are honest people. What you can do is buy anything you want in the world illegally, and in any country you happen to be in, so arguing about the b…

I was fairly confident that buying a fully automatic firearm at a gun show was unlikely to be a matter of "ID + background check" as with buying a semi-automatic (or non-automatic) firearm. See links below (8 and 9 years old; the laws are unlikely to have become more liberal since then) for more info. My (perhaps inadequate) attempt to summarize the high points from those two sources: such purchases (in those states…

I suspect they were not using the right terminology; non-technical people don't know what the word "automatic" means, and some confuse "automatic rifle" for "assault rifle". You don't need an automatic rifle to inflict mass casualties (Orlando, Dallas) and even Western soldiers, I gather, rarely use full auto fire mode in battle. It's usually tactically unnecessary and empties the magazine in a few seconds.

Re: How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

#70

Post by bybjorn » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #63

DanBC wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and who happened to be very loosely affiliated with Islam That's similar to lots of the terrorists who've been caught. They tend to be converts to Islam, or previously not particularly observant before being radicalised.

Yes, they also all consumed mothers milk. Being radicalized is code for 'impressionable person ends up believing stories by some fraudster'. Let's cut to the chase here, this is why we won't be solving this any time soon: Religion pre-selects - in all its forms - the gullible, those, who would rather believe a story than the evidence before their eyes. Because of that and that alone we're stuck with this problem beca…

So, authorities shouldn't focus on preventing young/gullible people from being radicalised in the name of Islam, because they are just as likely to be radicalised in the name of [any other religion] and that poses an equal threat?