Terrorist Attacks Thread

[Pilgrim Meister]

I think the time has come for a General Thread on these attacks, instead of lots of different threads for each one.

Explosion in Brussels, man with an explosive belt neutralised by the Security Services.

 

[Blitzballer]

Hopefully they blew his head off.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Linky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40349654

 

[PuB]

Hopefully they blew his head off. Cocksucker

I know these attacks provoke anger (and rightly so), but can we please keep the insults to those which might not offend other minorities.

Glad to see the bastard didn't take anyone else with him.

 

[Blitzballer]

I apologise PuB

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

I remember when terror attacks used to be once a week.

And we thought that was bad then.

Europe has lost the battle sadly. Only worse from here unless we make major changes.

**awaits post deletion and banning from thread.

 

[St. Juste]

I remember when terror attacks used to be once a week.

And we thought that was bad then.

Europe has lost the battle sadly. Only worse from here unless we make major changes.

**awaits post deletion and banning from thread.

Lesson of the day: don't invade other sovereign nations.

Rather than war being contained in a far away place, and conducted by us, it is now happening to us on a far smaller scale.

Neutrality seems the only logical way forward. It's doing well for Switzerland.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

Lesson of the day: don't invade other sovereign nations.

Rather than war being contained in a far away place, and conducted by us, it is now happening to us on a far smaller scale.

Neutrality seems the only logical way forward. It's doing well for Switzerland.

Agree to a certain extent. NATO has got everything wrong in recent times.

But looking after our borders should be Europe’s number one goal.

And somehow de-radicalising the Islamic religion – hard to do when it’s so easy to interpret “death to disbelievers” as anything other than what it says.

Somehow Christians have got it in their heads not to kill gays in the modern world (and rightly so)… How do we take Islam through the same process?

 

[Cornish Piskie]

I am a peace loving civilian and I find it difficult to see how anybody can believe that killing in the name of religion is justified and to all those young British Muslims who burn the Union Flag or desecrate war memorials, I would say that they are not only criminals, but worse than that, they also do a terrible disservice to their forefathers.

In the two world wars of the 20th Century, around four million Indians (including those who would one day become Pakistanis) volunteered to fight alongside British troops. Asian combatants were involved in every theatre that Britain was involved in during World War II. One third of those were Muslims. 27 Indians were awarded the Victoria Cross. Rather than hailing Al Qaeda terrorists and Islamic State insurgents as “heroes”, young British Muslims should look to men like Sepoy Ali Haidar whose actions in Italy earned him a VC. Tens of thousands of Asian men died and many more were wounded fighting for Britain. What would they have to say about the Jihadists who bomb innocent civilians or hack off duty soldiers to death?

Those moronic English Defence League idiots who talk about Britain being overrun by “Pakis” would do better to learn about the reliance we put on men from all over the former Empire in those times of national emergency, rather than attacking those who live among us now, for being different. Those thugs are wrapping themselves in a flag that was saved by the blood of Asians, and others, who fought the Nazis, including many Muslims whose religion they denigrate.

I believe though, that our politicians should listen to the grievances of young British Muslims. Our elected representatives must recognise that the foreign policies they implement, and the resultant military actions, are often the root cause of Muslim discontent. The two sides may be a long way apart at the moment, but bridges must be built and that cannot begin to happen until we open a full and frank dialogue.

If Tony Blair, and the rest of Parliament since, had listened to the – literally – millions of people who protested on the streets before he and his cohorts dragged us unwillingly into the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as lickspittle poodles of an aggressive and vengeful USA, it is quite certain that the London bombings of July 2005 and other terror attacks on British soil since then, would not have happened.

The elders of the British Muslim communities should instil in their young people a sense of respect and aspiration for the way of life their grandfathers and great grandfathers fought to preserve when they served on our side.

In the name of decent Islam, the Muslim communities of Britain must stop tolerating the hate-mongering, Sharia-peddling extremism in their midst. Condemn the Jihadists, each and every one, every single day and at last show some respect for their forefathers.

 

[Stevencc]

I am a peace loving civilian and I find it difficult to see how anybody can believe that killing in the name of religion is justified and to all those young British Muslims who burn the Union Flag or desecrate war memorials, I would say that they are not only criminals, but worse than that, they also do a terrible disservice to their forefathers.

In the two world wars of the 20th Century, around four million Indians (including those who would one day become Pakistanis) volunteered to fight alongside British troops. Asian combatants were involved in every theatre that Britain was involved in during World War II. One third of those were Muslims. 27 Indians were awarded the Victoria Cross. Rather than hailing Al Qaeda terrorists and Islamic State insurgents as “heroes”, young British Muslims should look to men like Sepoy Ali Haidar whose actions in Italy earned him a VC. Tens of thousands of Asian men died and many more were wounded fighting for Britain. What would they have to say about the Jihadists who bomb innocent civilians or hack off duty soldiers to death?

Those moronic English Defence League idiots who talk about Britain being overrun by “Pakis” would do better to learn about the reliance we put on men from all over the former Empire in those times of national emergency, rather than attacking those who live among us now, for being different. Those thugs are wrapping themselves in a flag that was saved by the blood of Asians, and others, who fought the Nazis, including many Muslims whose religion they denigrate.

I believe though, that our politicians should listen to the grievances of young British Muslims. Our elected representatives must recognise that the foreign policies they implement, and the resultant military actions, are often the root cause of Muslim discontent. The two sides may be a long way apart at the moment, but bridges must be built and that cannot begin to happen until we open a full and frank dialogue.

If Tony Blair, and the rest of Parliament since, had listened to the – literally – millions of people who protested on the streets before he and his cohorts dragged us unwillingly into the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as lickspittle poodles of an aggressive and vengeful USA, it is quite certain that the London bombings of July 2005 and other terror attacks on British soil since then, would not have happened.

The elders of the British Muslim communities should instil in their young people a sense of respect and aspiration for the way of life their grandfathers and great grandfathers fought to preserve when they served on our side.

In the name of decent Islam, the Muslim communities of Britain must stop tolerating the hate-mongering, Sharia-peddling extremism in their midst. Condemn the Jihadists, each and every one, every single day and at last show some respect for their forefathers.

And what is the plan when, as is often the case, it turns out that a terrorist was actually reported to the authorities numerous times by Muslims (often those that shared the same place of worship) only for them to be allowed to go on and commit said terrorist attack?

And what is happening with the people that are being reported at the moment? Are we slapping them on a list and saying "job done"? Are we financially unable to commit to going further than that, are our police forces understaffed to the point that we can't keep tabs on reported extremists? Do we not take the reports seriously?

Somewhere along the chain someone isn't doing their duty and it doesn't always seem to be the Muslims that share the same space as the would-be terrorists.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

I don't quite see your point, Steven. What are you trying to say here?

While I agree that there are shortcomings within the system of evaluating and acting upon information received, it's not the point I was trying to address. It's certainly not the message I was trying to convey.

My point was that we are missing a fundamental element for the motivation behind such attacks.

There is no doubt that most attacks are planned, organised and carried out by disaffected British Muslims. I ask the question "Why are they disaffected?"

I hear many times that Islam is a religion that places a great deal of emphasis on tradition and reverence for elders, so why can't these young men look at the example of their elders who fought FOR this country..? It's a simple enough proposition.

Understanding a problem is often key to eradicating it. If all we ever do is shout "Terrorist" from the rooftops, and demand harsher and harsher penalties, while we allow politicians to systematically erode our civil liberties then we are not only denigrated as a society but in the process of lowering ourselves, we also lose the very freedoms we're supposed to be trying to defend.

I think I made my point quite clear in my previous post. Please try to understand the message it contains. I think it is balanced and fair. Both sides need to recognise their shortcomings and start trying to find common ground. Please don't say there can't be any common ground because there has to be or the matter will never be resolved.

 

[Stevencc]

I don't quite see your point, Steven. What are you trying to say here?

While I agree that there are shortcomings within the system of evaluating and acting upon information received, it's not the point I was trying to address. It's certainly not the message I was trying to convey.

My point was that we are missing a fundamental element for the motivation behind such attacks.

There is no doubt that most attacks are planned, organised and carried out by disaffected British Muslims. I ask the question "Why are they disaffected?"

I hear many times that Islam is a religion that places a great deal of emphasis on tradition and reverence for elders, so why can't these young men look at the example of their elders who fought FOR this country..? It's a simple enough proposition.

Understanding a problem is often key to eradicating it. If all we ever do is shout "Terrorist" from the rooftops, and demand harsher and harsher penalties, while we allow politicians to systematically erode our civil liberties then we are not only denigrated as a society but in the process of lowering ourselves, we also lose the very freedoms we're supposed to be trying to defend.

I think I made my point quite clear in my previous post. Please try to understand the message it contains. I think it is balanced and fair. Both sides need to recognise their shortcomings and start trying to find common ground. Please don't say there can't be any common ground because there has to be or the matter will never be resolved.

I think what I said was quite clear, too. You've just ignored my point almost totally and gone in another direction completely, for some reason. You did acknowledge the shortcomings of the authorities fleetingly, but I think it's a point worthy of much more discussion and you did prompt it with the comments at the end of your first post.

Your final line, in your original post, places the onus on Muslim communities to stop "tolerating" extremism. In many cases they are not tolerating it at all but are actively reporting extremism and potentially dangerous individuals to the authorities. We cannot fail to act on that, watch another atrocity and then call for Muslims to be more proactive in stamping out these lunatics.

What is the plan beyond asking Muslims to do something they are already doing?

That's what I'm saying, or, rather, asking.

 

[St. Juste]

Agree to a certain extent. NATO has got everything wrong in recent times.

But looking after our borders should be Europe’s number one goal.

And somehow de-radicalising the Islamic religion – hard to do when it’s so easy to interpret “death to disbelievers” as anything other than what it says.

Somehow Christians have got it in their heads not to kill gays in the modern world (and rightly so)… How do we take Islam through the same process?

The threat is not coming externally, it comes internally. Any border protection is meaningless. Extensive military spending has no impact in preventing terrorist incident.

The Islamic religion is no more or less radical than any other, the Bible purports many horrendous things and there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who commit terrorists. Indeed, the UKs most prolific terrorists in recent years were Catholic - and our resolution to that was the exact opposite of "strengthening" borders.

Those who are oppressed are more likely to react, given the repeated invasions of Muslim countries in recent years they are clearly the oppressed. And prior to the creation of Israel, the UK was attacked by Zionist terrorists. And prior to that by Boer terrorists.

Religious text has nothing to do with it, radicalisation occurs through oppression. Consider the incredibly violent acts from Buddhists, for example.

I am a peace loving civilian and I find it difficult to see how anybody can believe that killing in the name of religion is justified and to all those young British Muslims who burn the Union Flag or desecrate war memorials, I would say that they are not only criminals, but worse than that, they also do a terrible disservice to their forefathers.

In the name of decent Islam, the Muslim communities of Britain must stop tolerating the hate-mongering, Sharia-peddling extremism in their midst. Condemn the Jihadists, each and every one, every single day and at last show some respect for their forefathers.

Not really, desecrating war memorials or burning union flags is petty vandalism. These are symbols. Indeed, I'm pretty certain the latter isn't even a crime - and if it is, it's probably because of the fire rather than the symbol. To be outraged about it is pretty odd to be honest - why would you care? Desecrating war memorials, or graves of any kind, is pretty insensitive vandalism but as a criminal offence it's not particularly serious.

Secondly, I don't know what effect repeated condemnation would have. You condemn them or you don't. The victims of groups such as Isis are overwhelming Muslim (and of many different sects within Islam). Of course these people are opposed to them, I'm not even sure it needs to be said. It would be like me being asked to repeatedly condemn Chechnya rebels, or white supremacists. Why? Who would it benefit?

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

The threat is not coming externally, it comes internally. Any border protection is meaningless.

It comes from both.


There are plenty of home grown terrorists but far more entering Europe daily from the Middle East and Africa.


There’s limited things we can do with the home-grown Islamists, but surely stopping new ones arriving is a no-brainer?

The Islamic religion is no more or less radical than any other, the Bible purports many horrendous things and there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who commit terrorists. Indeed, the UKs most prolific terrorists in recent years were Catholic - and our resolution to that was the exact opposite of "strengthening" borders.

Islamic terror is an almost daily occurrence in Europe today. It really has no competitor in being the number one problem many countries face today. The IRA comparison is always made and is completely irrelevant. Take the bombings in Manchester… How can you compare an attack on the UK PLC, with a 2hr warning given and zero deaths to a slaughter of children for not following the Islamic way of life? To compare the two isn’t fair…And were the IRA really killing people because they weren’t Catholic – I think not.. It was aimed at British rule. Again, the comparison is complete nonsense. The Western world has faced nothing like it faces now with Islam, immigration, demographics and terror. It’s a new daily threat we face and one that is only going to get worse – whether we start controlling our borders or not. The only question is ‘how bad will it get’?

Religious text has nothing to do with it, radicalisation occurs through oppression. Consider the incredibly violent acts from Buddhists, for example.

If you listen to ISIS they will tell you Islamic text has everything to do with it. So either listen to them or FAKE NEWS.

As for the Buddhists – what example are you talking about?

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Not really, desecrating war memorials or burning union flags is petty vandalism. These are symbols. Indeed, I'm pretty certain the latter isn't even a crime - and if it is, it's probably because of the fire rather than the symbol. To be outraged about it is pretty odd to be honest - why would you care? Desecrating war memorials, or graves of any kind, is pretty insensitive vandalism but as a criminal offence it's not particularly serious.

Secondly, I don't know what effect repeated condemnation would have. You condemn them or you don't. The victims of groups such as Isis are overwhelming Muslim (and of many different sects within Islam). Of course these people are opposed to them, I'm not even sure it needs to be said. It would be like me being asked to repeatedly condemn Chechnya rebels, or white supremacists. Why? Who would it benefit?

Extract from the Desecration of War Memorials Act 2010

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— 1 Interpretation In this Act— “war memorial” means any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war, including civilians and animals; “desecrates” means an act of disrespect including spitting, urination or defecation. 2 Amendments to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (1) After section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is inserted— “(1A) A person who without lawful excuse destroys, damages or desecrates a war memorial shall be guilty of an offence.”. (2) After section 4(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is inserted— “(1A) A person guilty of an offence under section 1(1A) is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both, (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.”.

I figure that desecrating a war memorial is a bit more serious than an act of petty vandalism , Juste. If you consider ten years in chokey trivial, then what would you call serious..?

Try pulling one of the flags that adorn the Cenotaph (or any war memorial) down and then burning it. See how petty M'lud considers that..!!



As for your second point, I think that the condemnation of any group's peers does have a psychological effect. Radicalisation of an individual often takes place in the first instance by coming into contact with a group of like minded persons who are able to firstly isolate that person from mainstream thinking and then exert a radical influence on him.

This is made easier if the individual is unclear as to what is considered right and wrong within his own social grouping. The less socially acceptable influence the individual has been exposed to in his life up to that time, the more prone he is to radicalisation.

If those he has looked up to, up to that time, have condemned violence and extremist thinking, publicly in places such as mosques and more generally in the community, the more likely he is to resist radical indoctrination.

Read: "Fractured Identities: Changing Patterns In Social Identity" (Bradley H, 1996. Cambridge University Press)

Making Sense of Society (Marsh I, 1996. Longman Press)

 

[DarkSithLord]

A Police officer has been stabbed in the neck in an airport in Michigan USA in an apparent terror attack. He is in a stable condition in hospital

 

[HertsWolf]

I hear many times that Islam is a religion that places a great deal of emphasis on tradition and reverence for elders, so why can't these young men look at the example of their elders who fought FOR this country..? It's a simple enough proposition

Islam, like Christianity, isn't homogenous. Also like Christianity, there are those who are on the extreme fundamentalist right. Logic doesn't really work. It's also worth noting that it appears quite a few are recent converts to Islam, or have gone from being ordinary folk to being radicalised in an incredibly short period of time.

Many individuals, after committing heinous crimes, say 'God told me to do it'. Isn't this largely the same?

 

[TheMinsterman]

I remember when terror attacks used to be once a week.

And we thought that was bad then.

Europe has lost the battle sadly. Only worse from here unless we make major changes.

**awaits post deletion and banning from thread.

"I only come on here to pass the time at work, worst moderated forum I've been on, I'm going to leave of my own accord."

That lasted long didn't it?

 

[HertsWolf]

There are plenty of home grown terrorists but far more entering Europe daily from the Middle East and Africa.

You have zero evidence for this. Zero. You thinking something doesn't make it so. So it's just fake news. (It doesn't need capitalising)

Islamic terror is an almost daily occurrence in Europe today. It really has no competitor in being the number one problem many countries face today. The IRA comparison is always made and is completely irrelevant. Take the bombings in Manchester… How can you compare an attack on the UK PLC, with a 2hr warning given and zero deaths to a slaughter of children for not following the Islamic way of life? To compare the two isn’t fair…And were the IRA really killing people because they weren’t Catholic – I think not.. It was aimed at British rule. Again, the comparison is complete nonsense.

This is demonstrably utter crap. Atrocities during the troubles in Northern Ireland were committed with ferocity by both Catholic and Protestant terrorists.
Bombs were frequently set off with no warning (Birmingham pubs, Guildford pub bombs, pub bombs in Woolwich and Caterham, Warrington, M62 coach bombing, Enniskillen, Dublin and Monaghan bombs...all with no warning; all took lives). Far, far, far more people died than have been killed recently by Islamist extremists. 3,600 in total.
There were hundreds of people killed simply because they were Catholic or Protestant. There are far too many to reference, but Google 'Kingsmill massacre' and read the whole Wikipedia article to get a feel for how awful, how random this was. "The IRA weren't really killing people because they weren't Catholic"??? Are you mad? Yes they were. This can be Googled and referenced within less than five seconds with hundreds of examples. So were Loyalist paramilitaries.

We didn't ban Christians, or Irish, or Catholics or Protestants yet peace did prevail. It took wise heads, not inflammatory remarks and ignorant commentary.

The Western world has faced nothing like it faces now with Islam, immigration, demographics and terror. It’s a new daily threat we face and one that is only going to get worse – whether we start controlling our borders or not. The only question is ‘how bad will it get’?
If you listen to ISIS they will tell you Islamic text has everything to do with it. So either listen to them or FAKE NEWS.

When you post your hatred and ignorance here, I feel we **are** listening to ISIS, because you are doing ISIS propaganda work for them.
The only fake news here is the odious diarrhoea you are serving up. Go away, you uneducated, shallow hate-monger and return when you have some semblance of a proper solution.

 

[HertsWolf]

Agree to a certain extent. NATO has got everything wrong in recent times.

No it hasn't got "everything wrong". It still works fine. You saying it hasn't doesn't make it so.

And somehow de-radicalising the Islamic religion – hard to do when it’s so easy to interpret “death to disbelievers” as anything other than what it says.

A religion doesn't need de-radicalising. A small group of nutter extremists doesn't reflect on an entire faith.

Somehow Christians have got it in their heads not to kill gays in the modern world (and rightly so)… How do we take Islam through the same process?

Well we can practice this process on the 21 Christian countries in Africa where homosexuality is illegal. How do we take them through this process that you propose?

 

[epic73]

Does anyone know the reason for all these attacks, especially recently? Is it all based on religion/sexuality/gender/etc?

 

[Laker]

You're like a nasty virus: the STI of this forum.

Your posts are generally very good however your personal insults are not on - the above line is out of order and the one in the post before isn't much better.

 

[Aber gas]

Your posts are generally very good however your personal insults are not on - the above line is out of order and the one in the post before isn't much better.

You liked a post recently calling me an "arsehole" and a "c***". So what's your issue here? Because it's clearly not all insults that you feel are out of order. I mean, what's your line of acceptability? Does it depend on who posts the insult or who is the insulted?
Personally I couldn't care less what stuff is thrown my way but I understand that some folk don't like personal insults. Obviously not you though. Which makes this post strange.

 

[Laker]

You liked a post recently calling me an "arsehole" and a "c***". So what's your issue here? Because it's clearly not all insults that you feel are out of order. I mean, what's your line of acceptability? Does it depend on who posts the insult or who is the insulted?
Personally I couldn't care less what stuff is thrown my way but I understand that some folk don't like personal insults. Obviously not you though. Which makes this post strange.

Can you tell me which post so I can judge it myself? Either you can't do it or I am not intelligent enough to work out how to find posts I've liked.

I swear often, I have no problem with it. In fact I think that a good "fucking" emphasises your point much more than "very" or "really". I also throw insults out freely when it's tongue in cheek. It's just when it's quite so vitriolic that I find it unnecessary, especially when the poster is generally very good at putting their point across without needing to do it.

Maybe others disagree but there you go.

 

[HertsWolf]

Your posts are generally very good however your personal insults are not on - the above line is out of order and the one in the post before isn't much better.

No, you're right. I shouldn't have done it, and I am editing to delete them.

Edit: I note that The Eyes Of Self Actual was here to 'Like' your post, but was not able to provide a single response to mine.

 

[Carver]

I know these attacks provoke anger (and rightly so), but can we please keep the insults to those which might not offend other minorities.

Glad to see the bastard didn't take anyone else with him.

What minorities are you talking about exactly?

 

[Renegade]

Have all the banned members suddenly been allowed back specifically to spread tripe in this thread? We just need a flat earth intervention from JT and this thread is complete. I see the infinite loop of 'the death of Europe' has returned.

What minorities are you talking about exactly?

Friends of Dorothy. Come on, keep up.

 

[Carver]

Have all the banned members suddenly been allowed back specifically to spread tripe in this thread?

 

[HertsWolf]

In the name of decent Islam, the Muslim communities of Britain must stop tolerating the hate-mongering, Sharia-peddling extremism in their midst. Condemn the Jihadists, each and every one, every single day and at last show some respect for their forefathers.

With respect, I don't see you condemning the dramatic rise in attacks on Muslims by hate-mongering extremism in our midst.
Condemn the extremists, each and everyone, every single day and at last show some respect for your forefathers.

I have hunted hard for your condemnation of the attack on Muslim worshippers in Finsbury Park in that thread. I guess instead of expressing your condemnation in this forum, you are tramping the streets of Penzance condemning them in person to shopkeepers and tourists.

In fact, Muslims are considerably more affected by Islamist terrorism than anyone else. Around the world, more Muslims are killed by Islamist terrorists than anyone else. In Britain, not only do Muslims risk the randomness of suicide bombers and the crazed lunacy of men with knives, but they also face physical attacks and abuse by others, they face verbal abuse in public places and they are castigated in the media constantly. For what it is worth, Muslim communities actively monitor what is going on and do report suspicions and at a much higher rate (by an order of magnitude) than others report anti-Muslim hate. Muslims condemn extremism and they report it; all too frequently the information is ignored. The scale of reporting is under-reported by the media.

 

[St. Juste]

Extract from the Desecration of War Memorials Act 2010

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— 1 Interpretation In this Act— “war memorial” means any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war, including civilians and animals; “desecrates” means an act of disrespect including spitting, urination or defecation. 2 Amendments to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (1) After section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is inserted— “(1A) A person who without lawful excuse destroys, damages or desecrates a war memorial shall be guilty of an offence.”. (2) After section 4(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is inserted— “(1A) A person guilty of an offence under section 1(1A) is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both, (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.”.

I figure that desecrating a war memorial is a bit more serious than an act of petty vandalism , Juste. If you consider ten years in chokey trivial, then what would you call serious..?

Try pulling one of the flags that adorn the Cenotaph (or any war memorial) down and then burning it. See how petty M'lud considers that..!!



As for your second point, I think that the condemnation of any group's peers does have a psychological effect. Radicalisation of an individual often takes place in the first instance by coming into contact with a group of like minded persons who are able to firstly isolate that person from mainstream thinking and then exert a radical influence on him.

This is made easier if the individual is unclear as to what is considered right and wrong within his own social grouping. The less socially acceptable influence the individual has been exposed to in his life up to that time, the more prone he is to radicalisation.

If those he has looked up to, up to that time, have condemned violence and extremist thinking, publicly in places such as mosques and more generally in the community, the more likely he is to resist radical indoctrination.

Read: "Fractured Identities: Changing Patterns In Social Identity" (Bradley H, 1996. Cambridge University Press)

Making Sense of Society (Marsh I, 1996. Longman Press)

....And possession of a small amount of cannabis carries a 5 year prison term. Nobody has ever been imprisoned for 10 years for that crime, no one ever will. Indeed, the date it was enacted suggests it was around that bizarre Wooten Basset time of Sun trumpeted hero worship.

Most cenotaphs don't even have flags.

So a murderer wouldn't become a murderer, if people around him were vocally opposed to murder? It's rather odd reasoning.

A novel approach to dealing with the issue of contemporary terrorism is to cite two books from more than 20 years ago - I like it.