GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I wanted to offer my condolences and prayers to the people of the United Kingdom (including LQ members who are British,) concerning today's attack in London.
Thanks! We're all a bit shaken, but it could have been a lot worse. At least they got the bastard. And the whole thing proved, I think, that you can't actually get into the Houses of Parliament and do any damage there, even if you are armed and prepared to kill. The police did everything they were supposed to do.
Unfortunately there's not much the police can do to identify crazy lone wolf terrorists in advance. These people are not like the jihadis of the 1990s. They don't go to training camps in Pakistan, they aren't supplied with plastic explosives by other terrorists, they don't leave any trail. They just brood over jihadi websites until they feel ready to go out and make martyrs of themselves. You can't even restrict their access to weapons when those weapons are cars. We'll just have to accept that life is dangerous but that it's still better to die in a democracy than live under tyranny.
The utter senselessness just boggles my mind and it takes me awhile to think clearly again about cause and effect. Repeatedly, Hazel, I see you handle crisis with aplomb and intelligence. I'm very pleased you are OK and my condolences go out to any not so forunate. It's just ridiculous that this medieval crap still plagues us all.
I suppose it's easy for me. I live in the suburbs (London is huge, remember) and seldom have any reason to go into the city. The chances of my being anywhere near a terrorist incident are vanishingly small. Also I'm old so I haven't many years to lose. But there were children involved in this. A party of French schoolchildren was on the bridge and some of them were injured. Can you imagine the mindset of a man who would deliberately plow his car into a group of innocent kids? I take great satisfaction in the thought that he is now in hell getting what he deserves. No 50 virgins for him!
Unfortunately there's not much the police can do to identify crazy lone wolf terrorists in advance. These people are not like the jihadis of the 1990s. They don't go to training camps in Pakistan, they aren't supplied with plastic explosives by other terrorists, they don't leave any trail. They just brood over jihadi websites until they feel ready to go out and make martyrs of themselves. You can't even restrict their access to weapons when those weapons are cars.
And this kind of makes them not "terrorists", by definition.
If some crazy right wing extremist kid did the same thing, it would have made the news, of course but it would have not been under the same "islamic terror"/"war on isil" umbrella. It would certainly not have gotten the same media attention - and it certainly would not have gotten 13 pages in a certain free newspaper.
At the moment we don't know all the facts, but as you rightly state, it seems he acted alone and his weapons were knives and a car. He mowed down pedestrians, rather than going directly for what has been designated as the target, the vehicle then hit a concrete fence post and he presumably got out and proceeded on foot, armed only with knives.
To me these are the actions of someone with mental health problems, or someone just downright prejudiced and full of hate, with a huge chip on their shoulder, (or likely a mix of both) not a highly organised and coordinated terrorist strike.
If this is a sentiment rather than a centralised organised group or groups, if this is being spread via "social media", then how does one fight it? We hear about "poisonous idelogies", we hear about "radicalisation" and we hear constantly that it's "condemned", yet what is the solution?
But to find the solution one has to first examine the cause. No one is yet willing to do that - honestly.
Unfortunately, in order to say that you have a "War on Terror," you have to know where "Terror" is, so that you can send your armies and navies and $30-million-a-pop airplanes in there to wipe them out.
To maintain public support for this senseless expenditure, you must put "a face and a name" on it, such as "Osama bin Ladin," or an acronym like "ISIL." Maybe a place ... say, "Yemen." (Ask a thousand people to locate "Yemen" on a world map, and I will wager that none of them will find it.)
Your object is simply to make the public feel protected. (And that, for having spent ##CLASSIFIED##ions of Dollars, they've actually bought something. )
And then, the truth comes out: there are psychopaths out there. People who have no regard for any human life, including their own.
It takes quiet vigilance to counter them, along with the "ten thousand eyes" strategy: "If You See Something, Say Something.™" But, that does not make the news. We only know about the bombs that go off. We don't know about the ones that never do.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-23-2017 at 07:48 AM.
Well what is there to say that hasn't already been said? The only thing now that really grinds my gears is that this guy was under the radar of MI5 - so I guess at this point it has come down to if they are suspected - authorities should have acted.
And this kind of makes them not "terrorists", by definition.
If some crazy right wing extremist kid did the same thing, it would have made the news, of course but it would have not been under the same "islamic terror"/"war on isil" umbrella. It would certainly not have gotten the same media attention - and it certainly would not have gotten 13 pages in a certain free newspaper.
It's more complicated than that. I agree that the recent spate of "lone wolf terrorists" are psychologically the same kind of lone wolves who carry out mass shootings in America every few months. However I believe that they are working in a different context.
Terrorists seek political change. It may be purely political (change of government, change of government policy, independence from a colonial power) or partly religious (establishing a caliphate, getting rid of unbelievers). They hope to achieve this by terrorising people, hence the name. The violence is always instrumental, a means and not an end. For the traditional lone wolf, it's an end in itself: his revenge on a society that has failed to appreciate him.
Lone wolves often espouse extreme right wing politics but they don't have a serious political program for creating the kind of country they claim to want. Anders Brevik was a case in point. I don't regard him as a terrorist because he wasn't seriously trying to change his country's politics, but only expressing his own islamophobia. But Daesh has found a way to turn this kind of psychopath into a political weapon.
They have announced that they will adopt anyone who is prepared to kill in their name, even if he has no direct contact with them. This provides every nutter
Quote:
with mental health problems, or someone just downright prejudiced and full of hate, with a huge chip on their shoulder
with a virtual community to belong to and the opportunity to become a hero and martyr. And Daesh can use the resultant strikes for its own purpose of terrorising the rest of us into submission. They have discovered that terrorist strikes do not have to be highly organised to succeed.
And this kind of makes them not "terrorists", by definition.
The OED defines a terrorist as "A person who uses violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community." That works for me.
Quote:
If this is a sentiment rather than a centralised organised group or groups, if this is being spread via "social media", then how does one fight it? … But to find the solution one has to first examine the cause. No one is yet willing to do that.
You fight it by taking down the propaganda sites on the internet, for a start. Then you make sure that immigrants are people who accept and are integrated into our society.
The cause is obvious. Whether you consider that interpretation authentic or not, it is possible to interpret passages in the Quran as justifying violent jihad. Also the concept of ummah is often taken to imply that all members of any community are responsible for the acts of all others: if "the West" fights Daesh, then Muslims are entitled to retaliate against any Westerner. This terrorism is Islamic — how many non-Muslims have driven their cars into crowds? — and no amount of liberal handwringing is going to change that.
The cause is obvious. Whether you consider that interpretation authentic or not, it is possible to interpret passages in the Quran as justifying violent jihad. Also the concept of ummah is often taken to imply that all members of any community are responsible for the acts of all others: if "the West" fights Daesh, then Muslims are entitled to retaliate against any Westerner. This terrorism is Islamic — how many non-Muslims have driven their cars into crowds? — and no amount of liberal handwringing is going to change that.
That is true unfortunately. There have been many groups of political terrorists who also had a religion in common. The IRA for example were Catholics. But that was simply their tribal affiliation. They were actually no more religious than any other group of young Catholic men. Some of them weren't even believers. The ones who were didn't expect God to particularly approve of what they were doing; they just hoped He would turn a blind eye to it because they were "doing it for Ireland". The same can be said for Jewish terrorists like the Irgun or the Stern Gang, or Muslim ones like the PLO.
Daesh, Al Qaeda and Al Shabbab are different. Religion is what it's about for them. They do what they do for Allah and for Islam. In fact the first sign that someone has been "radicalised" is usually that he suddenly becomes very religious, starts wearing Islamic dress and praying a lot.
And this happens exclusively with one religion: Islam. The nearest Christian equivalent would be the crusaders, but that was centuries ago. In the 21st century, Islam is the only religion that has produced this kind of perversion. It's surely not islamophobic to ask why.
This terrorism is Islamic — how many non-Muslims have driven their cars into crowds? — and no amount of liberal handwringing is going to change that.
..and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel
And this happens exclusively with one religion: Islam. The nearest Christian equivalent would be the crusaders, but that was centuries ago. In the 21st century, Islam is the only religion that has produced this kind of perversion. It's surely not islamophobic to ask why?
Sorry, DavidMcCann and hazel..please stop there. The only thing that's 100% true is "This whacko was muslim", period.
As far as "how many non-Muslims" have driven into crowds on purpose? Don't know..but there is ZERO shortage of so-called 'Christian Terrorists' on American soil, and around the world:
Or any white supremacist group out there, for that matter??
Saying "All Muslims are terrorists" is as plain wrong and stupid as saying "All Christians are white supremacists". Blaming extremists for the actions of EVERYONE is plain wrong. Would you also say that the kkk is a 'Christian Organization'?? After all...their members *SAY* they're obeying the bible, and they're all 'good protestants and fine church-going folks', right??? No...you call the klan what it is: a group of idiots. Terrorists also fits..they fit the definition nicely.
hazel, while the klan (well, the first one), wasn't founded in the 20th century, they were close, and certainly grew their numbers during that time; the re-birth of the klan was in the 20th. I'd also direct you to Germany in the 1940's as well; not sure why choosing the past 17 years is important.
I've been to those countries..in positions where I was *ABSOLUTELY* a target. And I can tell you with no uncertainty that 95%+ of the folks over there want no part of it (those groups), but want exactly what we do: to be left to do as they please, how they please. I've witnessed incredible acts of generosity and kindness from those folks. And before anyone goes on about "Well, 95%! I'm sure *SOME OF THEM* know folks who may be suspicious..why aren't they acting??", I'd like you to first tell me why the 'good fine folks' at churches don't turn in suspected klan/neo-nazi members. Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
...where the truth was sat on for decades by folks who went to church every Sunday? No, sorry...no one, not any group anywhere, fits into one mold, and can't be painted with broad strokes.
You can find cruelty, bigotry, and extremism anywhere. I have been fortunate to have worked with/for the SPLC and the Birmingham Civil rights institute; those traits aren't limited to Islamic folks.
"... has found 600 passages of explicit violence in the Hebrew Bible [a.k.a. Old Testament], 1000 verses where God's own violent actions of punishment are described, 100 passages where God expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God irrationally kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason. Violence ... is easily the most often mentioned activity in the Hebrew Bible."
A man is stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Over fifty thousand people die because one person looks into the Ark of the Covenant. (Take that, Steven Spielberg!)
God is even quoted as giving-over the young women of the conquered country for the ... ahh ... satisfaction ... of the conquerors:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 31:17-18:
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that hath not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
So, if you want to kill a bunch of people "because God told me to do it," it's not hard to come up with justifications taken from holy-books.
But psychopaths usually don't need any justifications at all.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-23-2017 at 03:03 PM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
)
... of the conquerors: 
