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

[Phil H]

Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries - I find that extremely dangerous. History is about interpretation and re-interpretation. It is a real fettering of freedom when certain questions cannot be asked.

On Hitler - I have spent a lifetime studying Hitler (causes and effects, personally and as a leader) in an academic sense. My degree is in International Politcs and much of modern history is about the lead up to the 3rd Reich and the effects of its fall. I am not fascist as a result, perhaps less likely so, because I know in detail what it does and how falacious fascism is in the deceptively simply solutions it offers.

On UKIP, I do sometimes wonder whether - maybe one day in the future, it will be made illegal for any country to withdraw from the European Union!

After all, Lincoln decreed that the Confederate States could not legally withdraw/secede from the Union having once joined it. Since, in a more developed EU, one country's withdrawl could destabilise the remainder, I just wonder whether they might seek to prevent it.

there is also a sort of liberal fascism that says that "conservatism" is wrong (that is seeking to maintain traditions) while progress (as they define it) cannot be halted.

Thus on a subject (UK centred) such as hanging, every effort is made by liberals to prevent re-opening the subject to debate. Yet on a topic/issue they wish to see changed, a defeat does not mean that they will not bring the subject forward for debate time and time again, until it passes. Democracy, or a form of liberal tyranny?

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.

What a very arrogant view, if I might say so. The country for many of the minority groups, Jews, blacks, muslims, Poles, Australians, Chinese etc etc is as much theirs as it is yours. Britain ceased to be a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant country some decades ago. You will not, cannot reverse that. So why these snide, derogatory remarks and attitude, as though some UK passport holders are less valued, equal than others?

As I remarked before, we ddi not condemn all the irish because a few became IRA bombers. We recognised the issues and dealt with them. indeed, in some cases (Birmingham/Guildford) it appears miscarriages of justice occured because we leapt to too hasty conclusions.

Unless someone in our society strives to understand why some youths respond to the appeals of fundamentalists, we will never be able to deal with the issues. marinaglise, discriminate and treat suspiciously and you will increase the alienation and create more bombers not less.

The basic truth is that Britain is now a culturallly and ethnically diverse country. It is not only peoples of different colours, but East Europeans, Jews (long-standing communities), Australians, Chinese, Hispanics - partly a result of empire, partly a result of Europeanisation. Curry is now the most popular meal in Britain - not roast beef!

So please grow up and think through what you are spouting.

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.

Selling it out to what, pray?
I try to understand why a Yorkshireman is different to a lancastrian; I want to know why some Scots want independence - to understand their position. Is that wrong?

I don't AGREE with Scottish nationalists. I abhor the idea of the UK breaking up. But ONLY by understanding someone else's position can I work or argue against it.

These are the truly dangerous people, imo.

Let us judge that when you set out your solutions to UK-based terrorism, louisa.

Phil

[Sally]

It depends on what you mean by 'understand' the bombers

Exactly, Limehouse, it does.

Understanding does not equate to empathy - it always surprises me how often people confuse the two. To say you understand, or that you seek understanding, can often be interpreted as an endorsement, when its nothing of the sort.

We should seek to understand radicalism as a country - because if we don't we're defenceless. You can't prevent what you don't understand.

That doesn't mean that we should empathise with those who condone the murder of random, innocent people for a cause - although of course some will.

[Phil H]

Precisely, Sally!! What a wonderful woman you are!

I wish I could have put it as succinctly and so well.

Phil

[Limehouse]

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?

The training I attended lasted for just one hour. During that time we watched a fictional film. In the film a young man trying to make a bomb injured himself. Following this injury an enquiry was held during which various contributors talked about how the young man's behaviour had become more withdrawn in recent times. They spoke about how he had been making threats to 'pay back' people he considered had 'disrespected him'. The nature of his extremism was kept deliberately vague so that course members could relate his behaviour to a range of types of extremism.

Surely you can see, Robert, that the training was designed to make it possible for those working with young people to identify potential problems and put strategies in place to prevent actions that might lead to the type of behaviour carried out by those who are the very subject of this thread?

This type of training in common in schools, colleges and youth organisations. It is no different from the training that teaches us how to identify those vulnerable to other types of grooming (sexual grooming) or those vulnerable to forced marriages in inappropriate relationships. This training is a legal requirement and is known as safeguarding. There is nothin sinister about it.

We are talking about the prevention of extremism of any type. If anyone or any group conspire to create bombs or cultivate and spread germs or chemicals to harm others - then they are a danger. As it happens, as I previously mentioned, my training included the mention of animal welfare activists - who are often quite left-wing and who have, in the past, planted devices under cars of people working for Huntingdon Life Sciences, which happens to be not too far from where I live.

You wrote: Just how the extremist views can threaten the UK unless they lead to terrorist acts isn't explained.

Well I can explain that. The extremist views of these young men were known, were identified as being a threat and lead to them being arrested. Incidently, it was members of their own community that alerted the authorities to them and they did this because they were concerned about the extremist views they were expressing.

[Robert]

"Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries - I find that extremely dangerous. History is about interpretation and re-interpretation. It is a real fettering of freedom when certain questions cannot be asked...

...On UKIP, I do sometimes wonder whether - maybe one day in the future, it will be made illegal for any country to withdraw from the European Union!

After all, Lincoln decreed that the Confederate States could not legally withdraw/secede from the Union having once joined it. Since, in a more developed EU, one country's withdrawl could destabilise the remainder, I just wonder whether they might seek to prevent it.

there is also a sort of liberal fascism that says that "conservatism" is wrong (that is seeking to maintain traditions) while progress (as they define it) cannot be halted.

Thus on a subject (UK centred) such as hanging, every effort is made by liberals to prevent re-opening the subject to debate. Yet on a topic/issue they wish to see changed, a defeat does not mean that they will not bring the subject forward for debate time and time again, until it passes. Democracy, or a form of liberal tyranny?"

Phil, I was reading your post and agreeing with it (see quoted sections above) and then I came upon this :

Louisa posted : 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.

Phil replied : What a very arrogant view, if I might say so. The country for many of the minority groups, Jews, blacks, muslims, Poles, Australians, Chinese etc etc is as much theirs as it is yours. Britain ceased to be a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant country some decades ago. You will not, cannot reverse that. So why these snide, derogatory remarks and attitude, as though some UK passport holders are less valued, equal than others?

The "some" Uk passport holders who are less valued than others, are the people who wanted to blow up their fellow citizens! This kind of gives one a jaundiced view of them, Phil. In fact, speaking personally, I do not regard them as equal to others. I emphatically value them less than others. Now, please don't go on again about Christian love and human rights and how most Moslems are law-abiding. Let's leave most Moslems aside. Let's concentrate on the plotters. You've already said that you have no sympathy with them. So where's the argument?

BTW I don't know whether your comment on holocaust denial was in response to something I said. I mentioned climate change denial, not holocaust denial. As you can see, I agree with what you say about holocaust denial. If we're not careful, we'll be back to the days of Galileo.

[Robert]

"We are talking about the prevention of extremism of any type. If anyone or any group conspire to create bombs or cultivate and spread germs or chemicals to harm others - then they are a danger."

Of course anyone who makes threats, or acts as though he intends to commit terrorist acts, is a matter of concern for the police and/or the psychiatric profession, let alone teachers. But :

"We are talking about the prevention of extremism of any type." And that's what worries me. Unless there is some clear suggestion that these people are going to commit illegal acts, their views are entirely a matter for themselves. If someone wants to be a Communist or a Nazi or a bin Laden supporter then it's his own decision unless there are grounds for thinking that violence will result. We don't want teachers to become the spy in the classroom, noting down little snippets of overheard conversations, subjecting pupils to interrogations and all the rest of it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't AGREE with Scottish nationalists. I abhor the idea of the UK breaking up. But ONLY by understanding someone else's position can I work or argue against it.

Does not surprise me in the slightest.

Personally, I'm with the Scottish nationalists. Better to fail off your own back than succeed off someone else's.

It isn't really illuminating that you'd deny the Scottish independence because you don't agree with it/abhor the idea of the UK breaking up. Pretty funny really. I think self-determination is far more important than your whims being implemented.

You're far closer to the totalitarians than you'd have us believe.

[Phil H]

I am talkimg throughout my posts about the wider community in which the would-be bombers lived and grew up. Please define your terms.

The "some" Uk passport holders who are less valued than others, are the people who wanted to blow up their fellow citizens! This kind of gives one a jaundiced view of them, Phil.

Knee jerk reaction, not sense.

If you are suggesting that the families of those who plotted (as I say, I except the would-be bombers themselves) are not, in law or reality, equal citizens - then I believe you are on dangerous ground.

The would-be bombers themselves have been dealt with under the law as would any criminal.

In fact, speaking personally, I do not regard them as equal to others. I emphatically value them less than others.

That means that, in principle, others could regard YOU as being unequal - on some grounds, some time - your sexuality, political views, tastes, relieon - are you content with that? If not, your views have created the precedent.

Now, please don't go on again about Christian love and human rights and how most Moslems are law-abiding.

Why - that is the basis of my views and also i think of civilised western values.

Let's leave most Moslems aside.

can you do so?

Let's concentrate on the plotters. You've already said that you have no sympathy with them. So where's the argument?

Because the would-be terrorists were part of their community, grew up in it. If there are issues there that created potential mass-murderers we need to know what they are. It is about the community that I ask for tolerance and understanding. I have been consistent in that.

Phil

[Phil H]

Does not surprise me in the slightest.

Personally, I'm with the Scottish nationalists. Better to fail off your own back than succeed off someone else's.

It isn't really illuminating that you'd deny the Scottish independence because you don't agree with it/abhor the idea of the UK breaking up. Pretty funny really. I think self-determination is far more important than your whims being implemented.

You're far closer to the totalitarians than you'd have us believe.

Are you really so lost in you own drivel that you cannot see what posts actually say.

I did not say I would prevent Scottish independence - I simply said I am against it, strongly so. Are you saying that you have NO personal view on any issue? If not, then there are clearly views you would argue against.

You take a different line to me on the issues with this thread. But you won't ever win the argument without undertanding the arguments I advance or the basis on which they are put forward. A general has to understand his adversary, even while trying to beat him.

But then, given your views, maybe English isn't your native language, so that the vocabulary of debate is unfamiliar to you.

Phil

[Robert]

Now, where have I mentioned the families of the bombers? Or the wider Moslem community (except to say that while you think that many of them disapprove of terrorism, I think that most do). In fact it is you who keep mentioning the Moslems en masse.

As for equality : if you think that it is a senseless, kneejerk reaction to view someone who wanted to murder scores of people as being of less value than a decent person, then you are entitled to your own eccentric opinions. As for someone regarding me as having less value than someone else, sure, so what? It's called life, Phil. Different people have different tastes, likes and dislikes. Some people we choose as friends. Others we choose to avoid. The only thing that need concern you, is whether the law is being administered fairly, whether examinations are being marked fairly, and so on. People's personal tastes are of no concern to anyone but themselves. But just for the record : I despise people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Myra Hindley, Jack the Ripper and the kind of scum whose plot has just been foiled. I value them less than other people. I regard them as unequal to other people. If your Christian loving god prefers to see no difference between this murderous scum and, say, an Einstein or a nurse, then so much the worse for your Christian loving god.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I did not say I would prevent Scottish independence - I simply said I am against it, strongly so. Are you saying that you have NO personal view on any issue? If not, then there are clearly views you would argue against.

'Fraid not, pal.

You said you would work against it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But then, given your views, maybe English isn't your native language, so that the vocabulary of debate is unfamiliar to you.

Ouch, an opposing point of view can't be English because Phil and associates are the purveyors of thought.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If your Christian loving god prefers to see no difference between this murderous scum and, say, an Einstein or a nurse, then so much the worse for your Christian loving god.

I suppose it could be argued that regardless of what we do, those of us who do not follow Jesus are condemned to eternal damnation; thus rendering Hitler and Einstein of equal value.

Argued at a push, I might add.

See, I don't recognise Phil's God, because it is a basic tenet of Christianity that God is just.

[Robert]

God may have been just once upon a time, but he's recently had a visit from the Thought Police.

[Errata]

God may have been just once upon a time, but he's recently had a visit from the Thought Police.

It is for man to be just. It is for god to be obeyed. Or so I was taught by my blessedly cynical rabbi. It's why religious conflicts are so hairy. If god is on my side, who can be against me? But god is never on our side, or anyone elses. We are on god's side, or we are not. And we won't find out if we were right until we are dead. So in the here and now, it's our world to trash or treasure as we see fit. Me, I want people to be happy. That's the side I'm on. I'm alright with it. If god disagrees, assuming he exists, I imagine I will find out in 50 or so years.