What? This was a relatively small incdent and police killed the attackers within eight minutes of being called ( http://news.met.police.uk/news/attacks-in-london-bridge-and-... ). How dare any politicians use this to promote their agendas?
May and her team are despicable human beings.
Wait. Can she do that? By herself?
So you are buggered if you do respond and buggered if you don't.
Look at the intended carnage. Police response time has nothing to do with evaluating the seriousness of the crime. Think about the organised networks behind these attacks, and the "routine" nature they are becoming, and then perhaps contribute ideas to help prevent them.
So drug addictions can be bad, but religously-motivated wars are worse because they will destroy everyone. Even stable countries like Saudi Arabia is not immune, and people are worried that the more radical elements there will take power if the country loses its wealth, wealth which is used to pacify the population.
That said I think Theresa Mays suggestion is dangerous and inefficient.
Hardly any. You really can't extrapolate from the bizarre US drugs situation to any other country.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
about 110 people per year from "other specified opioid", about 190 per year from "other unspecified opioid", making 300 / 50 = 6 per week.
Huge numbers of Americans take opioids. Opioid use in the US is far far higher than the UK.
You haven't given this much thought have you. Describing mass murder as an "unexpected death" is not smart.
First of all, your overdose and traffic deaths are *accidents", there was no intent to murder involved. This means we work to minimise the likelihood of such deaths via preventative measures from education, health and legal through to building safer roads and vehicles.
Mass murder on the other hand is no accident and is less manageable. Murder affects the community more due to the nature of the crime. The callous intent leading up to the crime, the actual violence and consequences after.
When people ask "how can we prevent this", and the answers don't come as easily as preventing drunk driving, then obviously the problem is worse. Combined with brainwashed religious extremist ideology, you have yourself a more terrible problem than what road safety measures can ever hope to deal with.
Its very convenient to now attribute the radicalization to "jihadi mentality", when the real answer is the much more painful realization that we contributed to this radicalization by voting in and re-electing war mongers. Its very convenient to say British born, "of Libyan descent", as if to distance a radicalized person's Britishness and attribute all their radicalization completely to their descent. Maybe looking inward for blame is the answer.
Power vacuum is term so fitting i will be using it from now on. If you do personal research on this topic it becomes very clear. Even the rise of ISIS is possible because how US decimated countries like Iraq. You are left with almost no gov, scared frustrated population and space (vacuum) for new power to emerge.
I mean why are we so suprised that there are terorists from pakistan. US has had drones bombing the place since 2004. I am sure i am not the only one who would try to do something about it (eventualy figure out how to shoot it down). Paradoxically aren't Americans the first ones to take out their big guns from the basement to shoot trespassers - because it is their right?
Give me a break. There is no relationship between a "power vacuum" and mass murder of innocent people by this so-called "power" you speak of.
If you allowed these "powers" to be in power by way of the ballot box, they'd be finished after the first few votes were counted.
Please don't give any credit or reasoning to these cancerous terrorist organisations. Never forget their idea of justice is to murder cartoonists because "they drew first" and to behead those who insult the prophet.
Don't give them motivating credibility by your political sympathising, you're not helping. When one of these assholes decides to knife someone in the street, they're not thinking "this is for the drone strikes", they're shouting God Is Great as they assume the role of "soldier of Allah". They are NOT thinking of the innocent victims of US drone strikes.
Where's the second?
Welcome to planet Earth! I gather it's your first visit?
The argument is not to keep terrorists from communicating internally, but to keep them from publishing.
It is better to target the root cause, which is that jihadi ideas are clearly attractive to a large group of European youths. Just look at the numbers of Europeans travelling to Iraq, Libya, Syria to fight, to sacrifice their lives for this ideology. You can't dismiss all these people as "impressionable". As far as I can tell, they are otherwise normal people who are as rational as you or me.
Sure, there are some truly impressionable people out there. And we should prevent them from being radicalized. But it's like with sex or drugs... We talk to our kids about difficult subjects so they are well-informed and are not so naive and easy to manipulate. But we don't talk about jihadi ideology. Why is mainstream society unwilling to challenge their ideas and expose them as wrong?
You can't defeat an ideology by pretending that it doesn't exist, which is what you're effectively doing when you censor it. It's a knee-jerk yet cowardly way to avoid confronting the actual problem. And the problem isn't going to go away unless you confront the ideology head-on. Radicalization isn't the inevitable outcome of being exposed to these ideas but is rather the result of losing an argument.
That is not to say you should deny jihadism exists, but letting the most vocal jihadis be the ones to tell the story doesn't seem wise.
The best argument I see against this is essentially the martyrdom of oppression. It doesn't help when they can claim "See, they are afraid of us so they must censor us".
Consider the 'fair and balanced' approach to global warming. Giving the obviously wrong a platform doesn't seem to have worked.
Banning propaganda from "vocal jihadis" won't make their words any less appealing. And no matter how good your technical controls, it won't prevent a motivated person from finding such material online, one way or another.
And while there are many reasons why the jihadi message is so effective, I happen to believe that it is sustained not because the ideas are being widely and indiscriminately dissiminated, but rather because the ideas are not being exposed and challenged.
It is bizarre that there are people committing mass murder, motivated by a concrete and well-documented set of beliefs, which nobody is criticizing let alone even willing to discuss in public. Doesn't that sound to you like "they are afraid of us"? I'm sure that's how it looks like to a jihadi recruit.