Suicide bomb gang guilty of plotting 'worst ever terror attack in Britain'

[Robert]

If society is to blame then society either had power which it chose not to exercise (since one can't be blamed for something outside one's control) or else it failed to acquire such power when it should have done. Therefore society, to avoid blame, must acquire and exercise that power.

I don't like the way that's heading. It's perfectly OK to frame and enforce laws designed to safeguard society from violence. But you can't engineer a society (or to put it in the current economics jargon : you can't micro-manage individual consciences).

[Limehouse]

"The 'Prevent' training being pioneered and delivered by the police to teachers, youth workers and other community workers helps to identify behaviour likely to become radicalised. It trains us to identify young people likely to be vulnerbale to radical grooming and initiates various initiatives to help young people from diverse communities to inigrate and work together."

This smells of Big Brother.

BTW, what are diverse communities? Has the word "diverse" simply come to mean "non-white"?

Prevent training simply involves attendance at a course during which candidates receive training to help them identify behaviour likely to lead to recruitment to extreme terrorist-type causes (which, by the way, need not be Muslim in purpose, objective and origin). The idea is to 'prevent' the seeds of extremism forming and developing into something more threatening.

What are diverse communities? Well, they are communities made up of people from diverse backgrounds and cultures. For example, one of my classes includes students from: Pakistan, Eritrea, Guinea Bissau, Lithuania, Nepal, Portugal, Scotland and England. They are all learning together, living in the same city and aiming to have careers in the health profession. Their religious beliefs include Muslim, Hindu and Christian. Each of them contributes to stories about their beliefs and cultures and they listen to each other and learn from each other. They are hard-working, decent youmng people and I am proud to teach them.

[Errata]

There are few absolute truths in the world that need to be acknowledged here I think. There is a difference between responsibility and blame. A society is responsible for how it treats the least of it's members. And it is responsible for it's part in creating situations that may have an adverse effect on society as a whole. Prejudice, marginalization, racism, paternalism, over generalization all play a huge part in creating very severe tension in any culture. And anyone who participates in those activities is responsible for his actions, and responsible for the consequences of his actions. Which I think we can all agree on.

He is not to blame for the actions of the marginalized. They too have a choice. They can choose non violence. Many have. If they choose to build a bomb to express their displeasure at the cultural tension that they may have had no part in creating, that is their responsibility alone.

A man who thinks all Muslims are dangerous and acts on that belief is responsible for his words and deeds. He is responsible for contributing to a culture of fear and mistrust, he is responsible for half of the tension between Muslims and others, he is responsible for creating an atmosphere that creates fear, mistrust, even hate in Muslim communities. He is responsible for creating the potential, but not the actuality. We are all responsible for our own emotions and reactions. Some people greet racism with hate, some greet it with fear, some with sadness, others with humor... the racist doesn't create the reaction. A racist creates a situation which provokes a reaction.

However, while no person contributing to an atmosphere of distrust is to blame for the actions of those that are distrusted, it is painfully obvious that if the actions of the distrusted are violent, it might be in these person's best interests to examine how they may have contributed to the situation. And perhaps alter their behavior. It is not inappropriate to say "Gee, I'm a racist, and acting on my racism has contributed to a dangerous climate. I cannot control what others do, but I can decide to no longer contribute to that dangerous environment". Racism does not necessarily lead to bombings. Racism happens without bombs, bombs happen without racists. But we know that marginalizing a people leads to bad things from both sides. I mean, it isn't exactly a mystery why marginalized people lash out. And it doesn't require magic to get violent retaliation from an atmosphere of fear and hate.

It's not about blame. It's about taking responsibility for your part. It is a true statement that without an atmosphere of fear and hate these guys may not have turned into bombers. May not. Not would not. They could have just as easily ended up bombers anyway. But what I don't understand for the life of me is why people wouldn't say to themselves "I'm not responsible for these guys choices, I am not to blame. But I could have contributed to the situation which led to their choice. And even if I can't think of any other reason to change my actions, I at least want to be damned sure that I bear no responsibility for making someone feel that desperate or alone ever again. And people will feel that way. People will still build bombs. But they won't do it because of anything I said or did. I refuse to even be an excuse for these guys."

In the end, it is really no different than finding out some guy you know who maybe you made fun of or teased botched a suicide attempt, which he tried because he felt so alone. You are not to blame for the suicide attempt. But what kind of monster doesn't stop giving that guy crap? And he may try again, but it won't be because you were a jerk to him. It won't be because you contributed to his bad situation. Stop giving these guys crap. It may stop the bombings, it may not. But if it doesn't, at least you know it had nothing to do with you.

[jason_c]

Can you provide any evidence to support your statement that 'these people were given free housing and welfare?'

Additionally, Afghanistan was a prefectly liberal country with plenty of freedoms until certain 'western democracies' started interferring with their system, thus allowing the Taliban to gain control and force women back into hiding under veils and out of public life.

What are you talking about? Before Western democracies started interfering Afghanistan was a basket case of communist intolerance and tribal warfare. A number of women in the capital city walking around without Burkha's does not equal a perfectly liberal country.

[Limehouse]

Great.

Let's spend a **** load of tax payers money employing people who love nothing more than a cause to understand people who want to blow us up.

Tell you what, Julie, we must be a laughing stock in countries like the US and Australia.

It would be funny except it's beyond pathetic.

All part of the post imperial malaise, I suppose. Let's save everyone and the world!

It costs hardly anything to provide Prevent training, and as the name of the course suggests, it's purpose is to PREVENT terrorism, to PREVENT the seeds of terrorism being sown and growing, to PREVENT vulnerable young people being recruited to a number of extreme causes.

I do not think the US or Australia could teach us anything about integration. Their own native people could tell you a different story.

[Limehouse]

What are you talking about? Before Western democracies started interfering Afghanistan was a basket case of communist intolerance and tribal warfare.

Really?

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Errata;254450]

But what I don't understand for the life of me is why people wouldn't say to themselves "I'm not responsible for these guys choices, I am not to blame. But I could have contributed to the situation which led to their choice. And even if I can't think of any other reason to change my actions, I at least want to be damned sure that I bear no responsibility for making someone feel that desperate or alone ever again. And people will feel that way. People will still build bombs. But they won't do it because of anything I said or did. I refuse to even be an excuse for these guys."

Because Errata, I can put my hand on my heart and say I haven't contributed. I make no distinction between muslim, jew, christian, agnostic, atheist (although to be honest they get on my nerves a bit with their self aggrandising), or anyone else. At no point in my life have I displayed any kind of action which places emphasis on someone's race/religion/background.

What I am sick of is the idea that "it's society". Load of bollocks.

[Robert]

Limehouse, that's what bothers me : what comes next? After you have identified these "at risk" people, what's the next step? Monitoring their reading material? Giving them questionnaires to complete? In other words, how intrusive is it?

I see that in your list of members of diverse communities there are people who as far as I can see would be highly unlikely to plant Jihadist bombs. Yet apparently these people are also to get the same treatment. This is perhaps explained by your remark "Prevent training simply involves attendance at a course during which candidates receive training to help them identify behaviour likely to lead to recruitment to extreme terrorist-type causes (which, by the way, need not be Muslim in purpose, objective and origin)" (my emphasis). So as I suspected, the net has already been widened.
Can I take it that this treatment will include racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism and the new one about transsexuals whatever it is?

[Limehouse]

Limehouse, that's what bothers me : what comes next? After you have identified these "at risk" people, what's the next step? Monitoring their reading material? Giving them questionnaires to complete? In other words, how intrusive is it?

I see that in your list of members of diverse communities there are people who as far as I can see would be highly unlikely to plant Jihadist bombs. Yet apparently these people are also to get the same treatment. This is perhaps explained by your remark "Prevent training simply involves attendance at a course during which candidates receive training to help them identify behaviour likely to lead to recruitment to extreme terrorist-type causes (which, by the way, need not be Muslim in purpose, objective and origin)" (my emphasis). So as I suspected, the net has already been widened.
Can I take it that this treatment will include racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism and the new one about transsexuals whatever it is?

If I identified anyone as being 'at risk' then I would report my concerns to a designated person. Nothing more is done by me at all. Depending on the type and level of behaviour causing concern, the young person would be approached by a specialist member of the Prevent team.

I do not have a clue what you mean when you say the people I mentioned would get the same treatment. What treatment? I am an English teacher, but as a teacher, I am trained to look out for all 'at risk' behaviour. It's part of every teachers' safeguarding training.

You asked what a diverse community was and I gave an example.

I am confused by your use of the word 'treatment'. Certainly, all children and students in mainstream education and further education learn about diversity and this learning embraces all of the 'isms' you describe.

[Robert]

But we're not talking about the ordinary lessons the kids get in school, are we? This is an additional scheme called Prevent training, and the follow-up actions resulting from it. This is what I mean by the treatment.

I am not here talking about bullying and suchlike, which is the kind of thing that teachers have always had to deal with. I am talking about the attempt to identify people who might (in the opinion of the teacher) go on to commit illegal acts. Such identifications by the teacher are obviously supposed to take place at a very early stage, or why use the word "seeds"?

I would like to know just what this specialist member of the Prevent team will be doing and what powers this member will have. I also find it strange that "nothing more is done by you at all." The idea of a teacher reporting somebody for something, and then knowing nothing of what happens afterwards is mind-boggling.

[Limehouse]

But we're not talking about the ordinary lessons the kids get in school, are we? This is an additional scheme called Prevent training, and the follow-up actions resulting from it. This is what I mean by the treatment.

I am not here talking about bullying and suchlike, which is the kind of thing that teachers have always had to deal with. I am talking about the attempt to identify people who might (in the opinion of the teacher) go on to commit illegal acts. Such identifications by the teacher are obviously supposed to take place at a very early stage, or why use the word "seeds"?

I would like to know just what this specialist member of the Prevent team will be doing and what powers this member will have. I also find it strange that "nothing more is done by you at all." The idea of a teacher reporting somebody for something, and then knowing nothing of what happens afterwards is mind-boggling.

Firstly, the 'kids' do not get Prevent training, the staff do.

http://www.swalecvs.org.uk/documents/PREVENTTrainingInvitation-FINAL.pdf

Here is a leaflet about Prevent training. It is similar to the training I attended but my training was in-house and provided by the local constabulary by a specialist trained in working with young people.

The specialist who provided my training emphasised that it is not soley aimed at extremists of a religious type - but any extremist organisation that might resort to bombings or similar (some animal rights activists for example).

[louisa]

I'm with Fleetwood Mac with just about all of his posts.

It saddens me to read the views of people like Phil H who will brands people who speak out against the current situation in Britain as 'racists' or....the word they especially like using.....fascists.

It's a typical cop-out for people that can't get a grip on what is happening here.

We are not racists or fascists, just ordinary intelligent people who can see that there is a problem that needs to be faced.

Personally I don't want to try to 'understand' bombers. If they were born and raised here (in a country that gave their parents freedom and safety) and then decide to give thanks by attempting to kill the very hand that has fed them and their families, then I have zero sympathy.

Unfortunately it's liberal minded people like Phil H that think we should be pandering to muslim fundamentalists, trying to 'understand' them, that are basically selling this country out. These are the truly dangerous people, imo.

[Limehouse]

I'm with Fleetwood Mac with just about all of his posts.

It saddens me to read the views of people like Phil H who will brands people who speak out against the current situation in Britain as 'racists' or....the word they especially like using.....fascists.

It's a typical cop-out for people that can't get a grip on what is happening here.

We are not racists or fascists, just ordinary intelligent people who can see that there is a problem that needs to be faced.

Personally I don't want to try to 'understand' bombers. If they were born and raised here (in a country that gave their parents freedom and safety) and then decide to give thanks by attempting to kill the very hand that has fed them and their families, then I have zero sympathy.

Unfortunately it's liberal minded people like Phil H that think we should be pandering to muslim fundamentalists, trying to 'understand' them, that are basically selling this country out. These are the truly dangerous people, imo.

Louisa,

It depends on what you mean by 'understand' the bombers (potential bombers - they didn't plant any bombs).

Of course, not many people would be keen to engage with them along the lines of "ah, bless you. let's sit down over a nice cup of tea and discuss why you feel so bad about living in this country". However, these are British citizens, born here, raised here and clearly not very proud of the fact. We can't 'send them home' because they are British. We have to investigate why they have been radicalised towards terrorism and we have to act to prevent other young people from being radicalised in the same way. And remember, it is not just the British Asian community that is at risk of being radicalised in this way. Plenty of non-Asian young people are converting to Islam and might be influenced by some of the more radical and dangerous fringe groups.

So, what do we mean by 'understand' them. Well, we can 'understand' how the rise of fascism in Germany came about in the 1930s without supporting the extermination of the Jews and others. We can 'understand' how some young people in the Uk are being attracted to groups such as the EDL without joining them on a march or protest. We do not have to have tolerance towards, or sympathy for, certain behaviours in order to 'understand' them. But we must understand what is at work to cause this radicalisation - and we must look further than these shores to find the answer.

[Phil H]

Since you refer to me as a "they" louisa, I will defend myself.

You make huge blanket generalisations, you condescend and you simplify to the point of absurdity.

It saddens me to read the views of people like Phil H who will brands people who speak out against the current situation in Britain as 'racists' or....the word they especially like using.....fascists.

The divisive, demonising views you express are EXACTLY the hallmarks of fascism and the totalitarian state. we own this... we are right...!!! Us.. them!!! I simply pointed to the pathway that such views create...

At the very least the views you and FM vomit out make like easier for the BNP and the rascists.... Beware.

I ask two simply questions:

Please set out your approach to dealing with terrorism in the UK and why you think it would work.

If you dislike the Uk so much please tell me which countries you admire and would like to live in.

Phil

[Robert]

I know that the kids do not get the Prevention training. Instead, they are on the receiving end of what results from the training.

Thank you for the leaflet. I must say, I find it rather sinister. It mentions "terrorism or extremist views." So apparently it isn't just about terrorism - it's about extremist views too. Now, I can understand that someone who says that Hitler or bin Laden or Stalin was right, might go on to commit an illegal act. But the interest in that person would be because of the potential illegal act. If we have a system where extremist views are reported simply because they're extremist, then that's bad. You may think that this is a quibble, but I am only making the distinction because the leaflet makes that distinction. It might be argued that the extremist views can result in other illegal acts such as beatings-up etc, which are not technically terrorism. But the document specifies that the extremist views threaten the UK, so presumably something quite big is being envisaged. Just how the extremist views can threaten the UK unless they lead to terrorist acts isn't explained. I also noticed that extreme right-wing views were singled out. Obviously we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing that extreme left-wing views are no threat whatsoever.

Furthermore, who decides what is an extremist view? The goalposts keep shifting, don't they? After all, only seven years ago we had this :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-are-closet-racists-says-cameron-472769.html

So, what counts as an extremist? A UKIP supporter? A climate change denier?