Man featured in a documentary called ‘The Jihadis Next Door’ was one of London attackers - Sensationalist Headlines

The Guardian [t]https://s9.postimg.org/t7m61fdcf/kha.png[/t] [quote=Washington Post]LONDON — Police on Monday released the names of two of the three men who carried out the high-profile attack in the heart of London last week — but one of them was already known for his extremist views among his neighbors and had been reported to authorities years ago. He had also appeared in a 2016 British television documentary called “The Jihadis Next Door.” Khuram Shazad Butt, a 27-year-old former transit worker, was apparently a sociable man. His neighbors said he invited male friends over for barbecues, and frequented a local gym and swimming pool. But he also displayed a dark side — enough for the neighbors to call a police hotline to warn that he was an extremist. Butt, who was killed by police during the attack Saturday, was a British citizen who was born in Pakistan. He spoke English salted with east London slang and was a fan of the Arsenal soccer team. He was wearing one of the team’s jerseys when he and the two other attackers killed seven people and wounded 48 in the vehicular and knife attack in central London. The other attacker named by police was Rachid Redouane. [In supposed no-go zone, British Muslims, Christians say no to fanatics] Butt had vocalized his extremist views for years, including ranting that voting in British elections was “against Islam.” Erica Gasparri lives in the public housing complex where Butt resided in the east London borough of Barking. The mother of three told The Washington Post that two years ago, one of her children came home and told her, “Mummy, I want to be a Muslim so I can go to heaven.” ... Neighbors said Butt would not address women outside of his family. His wife often wore a full veil. He had two children. Gasparri said she called a police hotline and reported her belief that Butt was an extremist. “He told me, ‘I will do anything for my religion,’ ” she said, referring to Butt. Gasparri took it as a threat. “Khuram Shazad Butt was known to the police and MI5,” police said in a statement Monday, referring to Britain’s main domestic intelligence agency. “However, there was no intelligence to suggest that this attack was being planned and the investigation had been prioritized accordingly.” Jibril Palomba, another neighbor, said he spent time with Butt at the gym, where they spotted each other while lifting weights and boxed as sparring partners. “He was a good guy, but then he turned out to be trouble,” Palomba said. Palomba, whose parents are Italian and Somali, is a Muslim. He said the last time he saw Butt, just three days before the attack, his neighbor seemed strange. “He said to me, ‘Good luck,’ and I said, ‘What, where are you going?’ And he said, ‘No place.’ But then he said, ‘I’m just saying, you should be a good Muslim, so that you will go to heaven.’ And I told him, ‘I am a good Muslim. What are you talking about?’ ” ... At least one other person featured in the documentary has since joined the Islamic State militant group in Syria. Siddhartha Dhar left Britain only days after being released from prison on bail and is thought to have risen in the ranks of the Islamic State quickly after his arrival in Syria. Like Dhar, Butt is thought to have been associated with al-Muhajiroun, a banned extremist organization . [/quote] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/man-featured-in-a-documentary-called-the-jihadis-next-door-was-one-of-london-attackers/2017/06/05/6d47f918-49ed-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html[/url] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/khuram-shazad-butt-london-attacker-video-documentary-the-jihadists-next-door-channel-4-a7774306.html[/url] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/london-bridge-attacker-named-as-khuram-butt[/url] I really do think with how much documentation is on these groups and their extremist ties that more should be done to lock down their activities. Just the other week a user told me this documentary was "outdated" for being [b]one[/b] year old and thus not relevant to consider. And look how this pops in with direct connection to last weeks attack with clear warning signs for all to see. The documentary if anyone is interested. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DsG9yQrdD4[/media]

Central Europe really needs to act upon this, how many times have we seen “____ was known to the police" now, I understand that if they can't just lock them away without evidence but at least shut down these obvious extremist sites and keep a close eye on suspicious individuals. It doesn't help, in the UK, that May is trying to reduce the police force to push internet regulation, disgusting and preventable events.

Being an extremist isn't a crime in of it self until you act on those views, they couldn't legally hold him (whose also a citizen) on anything before the attack.

[QUOTE=Saxon;52316933]Being an extremist isn't a crime in of it self until you act on those views, they couldn't legally hold him (whose also a citizen) on anything before the attack.[/QUOTE] No, but stopping the van before it reached the bridge could have been an option, had they had the funding to actively monitor these known threats.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52316905] I really do think with how much documentation is on these groups and their extremist ties that more should be done to lock down their activities. [/QUOTE] How so? [editline]5th June 2017[/editline] From your source [QUOTE] “Khuram Shazad Butt was known to the police and MI5,” police said in a statement Monday, referring to Britain’s main domestic intelligence agency. “However, there was no intelligence to suggest that this attack was being planned and the investigation had been prioritized accordingly.”[/QUOTE] What do you think they should have done?

[QUOTE=Rowtree;52316945]No, but stopping the van before it reached the bridge could have been an option, had they had the funding to actively monitor these known threats.[/QUOTE] I suppose if that where possible, its pretty hard to monitor an individuals activities every hour of every day, especially when they just used common tools for their attack. Your PM cutting police funding doesn't help though I'd agree.

[QUOTE=Rowtree;52316945]No, but stopping the van before it reached the bridge could have been an option, had they had the funding to actively monitor these known threats.[/QUOTE] Nah can't be actually funding the security services of the country who can make a difference when it's needed. Gotta make cuts. Gotta stay strong and stable and spy on the Internet instead.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52316952]How so?[/QUOTE] [quote]Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said Butt was known to police and MI5 but said there had been no evidence of "attack planning" and he had been deemed as a 'low priority.'[/quote] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/ringleader-london-bridge-terror-attack-named-khuram-butt/[/url] Straight up monitor them to the max and don't treat them like low risks. Obviously these assholes operate the thinnest of lines to stay in legal terms, but I straight up think they easily deserve the highest priority of monitoring. [quote]Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent’s Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door. In the documentary, Abu Haleema and Shamsuddin are filmed laughing as they watch Islamic State execution videos. Haleema was shown calling for homosexuals to be thrown from tall buildings, alcohol to be outlawed and adulterers to be stoned to death on Haven Green near Ealing, in West London. The documentary, filmed over two years by director Jamie Roberts, also showed Shamsuddin calling for David Cameron to be arrested under Sharia law. “The Sharia is coming to the UK – this black flag you see here one day is gonna be on 10 Downing Street,” he said. He later told the filmmakers: “Our message is deadly, we are calling for world domination, and for Sharia for the UK.”[/quote] I'm sure this isn't going to be popular, but label him and groups with people like him as terrorists if they associate themselves with ISIS. I really do believe if you are this close to a terrorist group, openly calling for violence, and advocating locking up elected officials, then I straight up can't think what else deserves the open scrutiny for the police to round these people up as supporters of terrorism. Atleast Germany is willing to crack down on these groups and shut down mosques who fester these dangerous elements. These groups need to be broken up quite frankly and the individuals monitored or deported if they are linked to so many actors of terrorism.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52316988][URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/ringleader-london-bridge-terror-attack-named-khuram-butt/[/URL] Straight up monitor them to the max and don't treat them like low risks.[/QUOTE] What does "monitor them to the max" even mean though? Bug everything they use? Have people watching them constantly? Do you have any idea how expensive of an operation that would be for just one low-priority person? [QUOTE=Tudd;52316988]I'm sure this isn't going to be popular, but straight up label him and his groups terrorists if they associate themselves with ISIS. I really do believe if you are this close to a terrorist group, openly calling for violence, and the advocate locking up elected officials, then I straight up can't think what else deserves the open scrutiny for the police to round these people up as supporters of terrorism.[/QUOTE] What is the evidence that he associated with ISIS? How close was he to a terrorist group? Because domestic security says they had no intelligence they were planning anything.

[QUOTE=Rowtree;52316945]No, but stopping the van before it reached the bridge could have been an option, had they had the funding to actively monitor these known threats.[/QUOTE] But in seriousness, what kind of surveillance would be necessary in order to monitor and have enough info to be able to stop the possibly hundreds of individuals that might make up this "watch list". Would monitoring a legally innocent individual's movement and communication be a good course of action? Would it even have prevented the event in question? Also, who decides who's on this "watch list"? Could political dissenters be considered "known threats"?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52317001]What does "monitor them to the max" even mean though? Bug everything they use? Have people watching them constantly? Do you have any idea how expensive of an operation that would be for just one low-priority person? [/quote] Well I sure as hell think that him being a "low-priority" was a mislabeling. Anyone intimately connected with a group like that in the documentary should easily be high-priority for domestic threats. And I mean have people investigate these groups, subvert them if you have to, or just crack down on them like Germany does and start locking up or issuing punishments/deportations/defunding for linkage to terrorist groups. [quote] What is the evidence that he associated with ISIS? How close was he to a terrorist group? Because domestic security says they had no intelligence they were planning anything.[/QUOTE] "No intelligence they were planning anything." doesn't mean they didn't have evidence the guy was linked to a group supportive of terrorist groups. Watch the documentary and just look at the association he had with a group linked to ISIS fighters that they were friends with or carrying around the black flag of ISIS. I mean really, did you just ignore the quotes I put.

Oh you edited your post [QUOTE][B] Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent’s Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door.[/B] In the documentary, Abu Haleema and Shamsuddin are filmed laughing as they watch Islamic State execution videos. Haleema was shown calling for homosexuals to be thrown from tall buildings, alcohol to be outlawed and adulterers to be stoned to death on Haven Green near Ealing, in West London. The documentary, filmed over two years by director Jamie Roberts, also showed Shamsuddin calling for David Cameron to be arrested under Sharia law. “The Sharia is coming to the UK – this black flag you see here one day is gonna be on 10 Downing Street,” he said. He later told the filmmakers: “Our message is deadly, we are calling for world domination, and for Sharia for the UK.”[/QUOTE] Bolded is the only thing that is currently, vaguely illegal in the UK. Which was why he was confronted by the police in the documentary. The rest is fucked up, but no where near qualification enough to detain someone indefinitely. [QUOTE=Tudd;52316988] These groups need to be broken up quite frankly and the individuals monitored or deported if they are linked to so many actors of terrorism.[/QUOTE] Deported to where? He was a British citizen.

It's knee-jerk calls like this for "more surveillance" of people believed to be threats without understanding what that entails or the dangerous precedent it sets that have been fueling the UK's crackdown on internet privacy and freedom.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52317029] Deported to where? He was a British citizen.[/QUOTE] I am sure you can deduce that I mean that as an option for other individuals.

[quote]Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent’s Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door.[/quote] Where are vigilantes/drunks when you need them? Somebody ought to have curb stomped him and his friends right there in the city square.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317024]Well I sure as hell think that him being a "low-priority" was a mislabeling. Anyone intimately connected with a group like that in the documentary should easily be high-priority for domestic threats.[/QUOTE] On what basis do you think it was mislabeling? You have the benefit of hindsight, the authorities didn't. They had no evidence that suggested they were about to launch an attack. how many dozens or even hundreds of low-priority threats remain low priority? [QUOTE=Tudd;52317024]And I mean have people investigate these groups, subvert them if you have to, or just crack down on them like Germany does and start locking up or issuing punishments/deportations/defunding for linkage to terrorist groups.[/QUOTE] If you are going to start running 24/7 surveillance and infiltrating groups of people associating together based on their love of the ISIS flag and grotesque videos featuring extremists executing people, you are going to have to massively raise funding for the police and domestic security forces. [QUOTE=Tudd;52317024]"No intelligence they were planning anything." doesn't mean they didn't have evidence the guy was linked to a group supportive of terrorist groups.[/QUOTE] But they can't act on that because it's not illegal. The police can't just go around spying and indefinitely detaining people because they watch disturbing shit on Liveleak. It doesn't work like that Tudd.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52317052]On what basis do you think it was mislabeling? You have the benefit of hindsight, the authorities didn't. They had no evidence that suggested they were about to launch an attack. how many dozens or even hundreds of low-priority threats remain low priority? If you are going to start running 24/7 surveillance and infiltrating groups of people associating together based on their love of the ISIS flag and grotesque videos featuring extremists executing people, you are going to have to massively raise funding for the police and domestic security forces. But they can't act on that because it's not illegal. The police can't just go around spying and illegally detaining people because they watch disturbing shit on Liveleak. It doesn't work like that Tudd.[/QUOTE] I feel like if you knowingly engage in correspondence with terrorists (outside of journalism) you've rightly earned yourself a ticket to prison. It astounds me that on one hand, we have an international coalition of intelligence gathering and sharing on a massive level, tapping phones and internet connections and collecting massive amounts of data about citizens' communications.. Yet this guy is literally doing a documentary talking about how he wants to dominate Britain, usher in Sharia Law and is buddies with terrorists, but they can't do anything. If that's the case, what the hell are our intelligence services for?

[QUOTE=srobins;52317063]I feel like if you knowingly engage in correspondence with terrorists (outside of journalism) you've rightly earned yourself a ticket to prison. It astounds me that on one hand, we have an international coalition of intelligence gathering and sharing on a massive level, tapping phones and internet connections and collecting massive amounts of data about citizens' communications.. Yet this guy is literally doing a documentary talking about how he wants to dominate Britain, usher in Sharia Law and is buddies with terrorists, but they can't do anything. If that's the case, what the hell are our intelligence services for?[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, they had zero evidence that he communicated with terrorist groups (which is, I'm pretty sure, a crime already, at least in the US). So what they had to go on was him threatening his neighbors, insinuating overthrow of the secular government, and his generally theocratic-totalitarian views. Apart from the threats, there's nothing that can be considered illegal or even unique. If you want to make associating with or advocating for political violence and upheaval a crime, you've got a lot of work to do. I don't see any fundamental difference between "joking" about throwing gay people off buildings and "joking" about throwing leftists out of helicopters, as an example.

[QUOTE=srobins;52317063]I feel like if you knowingly engage in correspondence with terrorists (outside of journalism) you've rightly earned yourself a ticket to prison. It astounds me that on one hand, we have an international coalition of intelligence gathering and sharing on a massive level, tapping phones and internet connections and collecting massive amounts of data about citizens' communications.. [B]Yet this guy is literally doing a documentary talking about how he wants to dominate Britain, usher in Sharia Law and is buddies with terrorists, but they can't do anything. If that's the case, what the hell are our intelligence services for?[/B][/QUOTE] Because none of it is illegal. The authorities are bound by laws, and until intelligence tells them that someone has broken the law, or is about to break the law, they can't really do anything about the person or group. No intelligence gathered by MI5 seemed to indicate Butt was planning an attack. That is why he registered as a low priority. I don't know the powers of domestic agencies in the UK regarding survelliance but its possible that what we learned about Butt in the documentary was the extent of his extremism, and nothing constituted jail time. If the argument is "Well the laws should be changed and the authorities should have a lot more power when it comes to surveillance" then thats one thing and maybe it's a legitimate point but one I'm not really interested in arguing. I want to know what Tudd thinks they should have done under existing legislation and limits of law enforcement. He seems to be pretty certain that they were mistaken about Butt and I'd like to know the reason why.

The governments in Europe really need to stop this passive-aggressive monitoring, and just start giving these radicals the swift boot to the face. Stop giving them the time to prepare, and simply lockdown on any chance/operation that these fundie nuts may attempt.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52317228]The governments in Europe really need to stop this passive-aggressive monitoring, and just start giving these radicals the swift boot to the face. Stop giving them the time to prepare, and simply lockdown on any chance/operation that these fundie nuts may attempt.[/QUOTE] Did you not read anything about this case, or even this thread? There is nothing "simple" or straightforward about stopping terrorism without tipping over to criminalizing dissidence.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52316988]Straight up monitor them to the max and don't treat them like low risks.[/QUOTE] Is that not what the police were doing? What else are they supposed to do? Deport them, on what basis?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52317052]On what basis do you think it was mislabeling? You have the benefit of hindsight, the authorities didn't. They had no evidence that suggested they were about to launch an attack. how many dozens or even hundreds of low-priority threats remain low priority?[/quote] Actually just using the documentary available before the attack, I would still think the authorities would have this group on the highest of priorities to watch. They are essentially the closest thing to domestic terrorists you could point at. [quote] If you are going to start running 24/7 surveillance and infiltrating groups of people associating together based on their love of the ISIS flag and grotesque videos featuring extremists executing people, you are going to have to massively raise funding for the police and domestic security forces. [/quote] I think you can understand I don't mean to curb all freedom of information. But I think it is pretty obvious these aren't people who just watch ISIS videos for entertainment. They clearly are for implementing a violent rule of law and subverting the government by supporting terrorists groups. [quote] But they can't act on that because it's not illegal. The police can't just go around spying and indefinitely detaining people because they watch disturbing shit on Liveleak. It doesn't work like that Tudd.[/QUOTE] Yah I understand that, but you also have a group with links to ISIS fighters to Syria and freely walking around despite showing every sign they support terrorists. I really don't think it would be out of bounds for the UK government to start detaining them or using undercover agents to start subverting operations/catching them at opportunities they don't have their public image up. We do that with fricken biker gangs all the time, and they don't even represent a public safety concern as big as potential terrorists.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317304]But I think it is pretty obvious these aren't people who just watch ISIS videos for entertainment. They clearly are for implementing a violent rule of law and subverting the government by supporting terrorists groups.[/QUOTE] It's nice that you think it's "pretty obvious" and "very clear" that these people should have been dealt with, in hindsight. The authorities who were actually investigating them felt they didn't have the evidence to make that claim. Where's yours, beyond repeating "it was very obvious" after having already witnessed the crime?

[QUOTE=rilez;52317323]It's nice that you think it's "pretty obvious" and "very clear" that these people should have been dealt with, in hindsight. The authorities who were actually investigating them felt they didn't have the evidence to make that claim. Where's yours, beyond repeating "it was very obvious" after having already witnessed the crime?[/QUOTE] Well actually waving an ISIS flag like they did is grounds for supporting terrorism and being illegal in the UK. [quote]"Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation. While support of and membership of [IS] is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state."[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33406768[/url] Ofcourse, that law is wide in interpretation. Though if there ever was a group that fits that description, it would be this one in the documentary. Personally I think their open support for their friends to fight for ISIS in Syria is already guilt of support for terrorism at around 22:38 in the documentary.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52316921]Central Europe really needs to act upon this, how many times have we seen “____ was known to the police" now, I understand that if they can't just lock them away without evidence but at least shut down these obvious extremist sites and keep a close eye on suspicious individuals. It doesn't help, in the UK, that May is trying to reduce the police force to push internet regulation, disgusting and preventable events.[/QUOTE] The difficulty is that we live in the information age and it's tricky to parse all that the data going around to usable actionable information. There's too much white noise [editline]5th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=rilez;52317323]It's nice that you think it's "pretty obvious" and "very clear" that these people should have been dealt with, in hindsight. The authorities who were actually investigating them felt they didn't have the evidence to make that claim. Where's yours, beyond repeating "it was very obvious" after having already witnessed the crime?[/QUOTE] Yeah it's pretty obvious now that an attack was going to happen but that's in hindsight. Do you think you could have predicted 9/11 before it actually happened Tudd?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317356]Personally I think their open support for their friends to fight for ISIS in Syria is already guilt of support for terrorism at around 22:38 in the documentary.[/QUOTE] You need more proof than that to get anything more than a temporary detention. Samina Malik was caught with more damning evidence than that, and her conviction was overturned. Waving a flag isn't enough. [url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/17/uksecurity.ukcrime[/url]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52317390] Yeah it's pretty obvious now that an attack was going to happen but that's in hindsight. Do you think you could have predicted 9/11 before it actually happened Tudd?[/QUOTE] Well people have been looking into the events leading up to 9/11, but that is a separate discussion in itself considering the the tactics used by terrorists before 9/11 have changed over time and thus there is always an unpredictable element with 9/11 considering when people weren't ramming hijacked airliners before. Though there is an interesting article on that topic [url=http://www.politico.eu/article/attacks-will-be-spectacular-cia-war-on-terror-bush-bin-laden/]here[/url] Concerning this attack, I think it is highly predictable that members of this group would eventually try something. They already had cases of their members: - Going to Syria to fight for ISIS (One of them is suspected to be the second Jihadi John and he appeared in the documentary). - Most of them learned under [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bakri_Muhammad]Omar Bakri Muhammed[/url], who left the UK only to end up in a Lebanese prison under charges for acts of terrorism. I just simply think this group is a cancer that should have been detained on terrorist charges a long time ago. If the police needed to investigate them more for evidence so-be it, but I think it is bullshit that anyone linked to that group is "low-priority" when they are the most extreme public group in the UK I have seen.

[QUOTE=Saxon;52316933]Being an extremist isn't a crime in of it self until you act on those views, they couldn't legally hold him (whose also a citizen) on anything before the attack.[/QUOTE] the question here is why in the fuck is it not a crime

[QUOTE=DudesonFan;52317535]the question here is why in the fuck is it not a crime[/QUOTE] I think because it'd fall under thought crimes