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

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317469]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] I think they're just as cancerous. But I don't agree with your idea that the police dismissed them solely on the basis that they were "low priority". They had no evidence this was going to happen. No one knew. It's bullshit to say that after the fact, like the police missed some obvious plot. It's been what, [B]two days??[/B] Maybe spend some time thinking about the people who lost someone, rather than immediately using their tragedy as a means to politicize the whole damn thing.

[QUOTE=MrBob1337;52317133]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] Ah, if they didn't know he was corresponding with terrorist groups then that's different. That was kind of the main bit of legal ground I was meaning to go off of, I agree that you can't just arrest people for bad behavior/thoughts.

[QUOTE=rilez;52317558]I think they're just as cancerous. But I don't agree with your idea that the police dismissed them solely on the basis that they were "low priority". They had no evidence this was going to happen. No one knew. It's bullshit to say that after the fact, like the police missed some obvious plot.[/quote] Both of us actually don't know what details they had that went deeper, but just from this documentary I would hope the authorities would have arrested them for supporting terrorism. Call it harsh, but I really think you can drop charges when you have a group on camera supporting violence, government overthrow, and terrorists. Not to mention the history surround this group with convicted terrorists. [quote] It's been what, [B]two days??[/B] Maybe spend some time thinking about the people who lost someone, rather than immediately using their tragedy as a means to politicize the whole damn thing.[/QUOTE] Where am I disrespecting the victims in any of this? Are you really going to say such a thing and suggest me advocating a crack down on Islamist groups that support ISIS is me being insensitive to victims who were killed by like minded people? Sorry to the victims, but unless someone is on here directly affected by the attack and needing consoling, I think it is incredibly fair to talk about how one of the attackers was in a documentary literally called "Jihadists next door" and how many red flares authorities had that this guy was a potential violent extremist. [editline]5th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52317568]Ah, if they didn't know he was corresponding with terrorist groups then that's different. That was kind of the main bit of legal ground I was meaning to go off of, I agree that you can't just arrest people for bad behavior/thoughts.[/QUOTE] He was in a group that was mentored once by this [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12190513/Islamic-State-leaks-reveals-banned-cleric-Omar-Bakri-recruited-British-jihadists.html]guy[/url] and also had this [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Rumaysah]person[/url] in their group before he left to fight for ISIS. There are plenty more connections, but those are the two biggest and in the documentary you see that the members support both Omar and Abu for their actions on camera.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317597]Where am I disrespecting the victims in any of this? Are you really going to say such a thing and suggest me advocating a crack down on Islamist groups that support ISIS is me being insensitive? Sorry to the victims, but unless someone is on here directly affected by the attack and needing consoling, I think it is incredibly fair to talk about how one of the attackers was in a documentary literally called "Jihadists next door" and how many red flares authorities had that this guy was a potential violent extremist.[/QUOTE] It [B]is[/B] disrespectful, especially after such a short amount of time, to imply that you somehow knew better than the authorities. That all of this could have been prevented, had they just heeded your advice. What you're implying, two days after the fact, is that the police allowed this to happen. They had all the warning signs, and yet they let him go, and because of that, he killed all those people. Yes, that's disrespectful. Pointing out in hindsight, [B]"Oh, they should have done this!"[/B] is not helpful. There's literally no reason for it, besides some strange attempt to push the narrative that you almost always push around here. It's bad enough seeing the tabloids and 24/7 news try to lay out these stories for us, explain it all in hindsight and make the police look as dumb as possible. School shootings, terrorist attacks, you name it there's always an explanation and a "what if" for it. We don't need /r/the_Donald's personal RSS feed trying to explain this one.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52317536]I think because it'd fall under thought crimes[/QUOTE] But man if it was illegal to hold extremist views I'm confident we'd have a different president today. edit: not to turn this into a trump argument

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52317653]But man if it was illegal to hold extremist views I'm confident we'd have a different president today. edit: not to turn this into a trump argument[/QUOTE] But you're in Canada

although to be fair to tudd, Trump did beat him to the punch in using the deaths of innocent people to advance his crazy political agenda. edit: [QUOTE=Perrine;52317664]But you're in Canada[/QUOTE] American Citizen living in canada

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of these persons of interest. The public doesn't hear about them because it's bad for opsec to let people know that you're monitoring them. What do you want to do, arrest all of them? Deport all of them, never mind the fact that many of them are citizens? It's entirely likely that a large proportion of these people end up never doing anything. You can't make a move against them until they start acting, and it's probably the case that most of them who do act [i]are[/i] in fact caught before they can do any harm. We just don't hear of them because again, it's damages opsec.

[QUOTE=rilez;52317646]It [B]is[/B] disrespectful, especially after such a short amount of time, to imply that you somehow knew better than the authorities. That all of this could have been prevented, had they just heeded your advice.[/quote] I think it is even more disrespectful and dangerous to the victims to suggest that groups like these can be known to exist with so much incriminating behavior/violent beliefs linked to terrorism and people have to deal with it until they make a move and it is too late. [quote] What you're implying, two days after the fact, is that the police allowed this to happen...[/quote] More like they could have done a better job with the information and warnings given to them and procedures should changed. I never said they allowed it to happen. That is just you being malign with my statements now. [quote]"Oh, they should have done this!"[/B] is not helpful. There's literally no reason for it, besides some strange attempt to push the narrative that you almost always push around here. [/quote] No, it is called discussing what are possible preventative measures to stop further attacks. Sorry you disagree with mine, but your moral "high ground" is that people have to just deal with groups that have a history of extremism that leads to lethal outcomes. [quote] It's bad enough seeing the tabloids and 24/7 news try to lay out these stories for us, explain it all in hindsight and make the police look as dumb as possible. School shootings, terrorist attacks, you name it there's always an explanation and a "what if" for it. We don't need /r/the_Donald's personal RSS feed trying to explain this one.[/QUOTE] I am sorry that bothers you, but the alternative to reality is that we simply ignore this information and act like there wasn't a trail that led to this moment. And I find that incredibly dangerous and dismissive.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317698]I think it is even more disrespectful and dangerous to the victims to suggest that groups like these can be known to exist with so much incriminating behavior/violent beliefs linked to terrorism and people have to deal with it until they make a move and it is too late.[/quote] Show me exactly where I stated that people "should just deal with" terrorism. I'm the one who's maligned? You're the one suggesting the police could have done "a better job", what exactly does that mean?

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52317536]I think because it'd fall under thought crimes[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what some people want them arrested for

[QUOTE=rilez;52317751]Show me exactly where I stated that people "should just deal with" terrorism. I'm the one who's maligned?[/quote] At every point I make you have essentially said that the police shouldn't/cannot act on them without more proof, despite this group publicly supporting terrorists and violent actions. I think several governments in the world including the UK already have laws for such people to detain and investigate them since it undermines their constitutions and is a public safety hazard. So I get you want more proof to act on them, but you haven't offered any alternative ideas to tackle this issue with the available information, so I have to assume you are fine with waiting until something more serious happens. [quote] You're the one suggesting the police could have done "a better job", what exactly does that mean?[/QUOTE] Personally I think having detectives and undercover agents to collect evidence on them would be a good start. Much like this [url=http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/03/24/richardson-man-charged-with-lying-to-fbi-about-supporting-isis/]case[/url] and several others that even countries like [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-raids-idUSKBN13A0MY]Germany do[/url], this tactic helps collect evidence that is otherwise impossible to grab from someone who only reveals their intentions privately. I really believe a group with such public support of terrorists basically forfeits their right not to be surveilled if such a right even existed in the first place for them in the UK. That and I would hope to imagine that the UK government doesn't put such people in a low-risk category when that group has so many members directly tied to terrorism or fighting for ISIS.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317777]At every point I make you have essentially said that the police shouldn't/cannot act on them without more proof, despite this group publicly supporting terrorists and violent actions. I think several governments in the world including the UK already have laws for such people to detain and investigate them since it undermines the constitution and is a public safety hazard.[/QUOTE] They can't arrest or deport them because they said something or waved a flag. That's not my opinion, it's just the law. I know you want them gone, but it's not something the police could have done legally. You detain them for 48 hours. Then what? What good would that have done for their investigation? [QUOTE=Tudd;52317777]So I have to assume you are fine with waiting until something more serious happens.[/QUOTE] You're right Tudd. I want terrorists to blow people up first, so we can be sure of their intent and arrest them. The fact that you're not banned for this sort of baiting truly boggles my mind. It's disgusting that you would even insinuate that was my intent.

[QUOTE=rilez;52317806]The fact that you're not banned for this sort of baiting truly boggles my mind. It's disgusting that you would even insinuate that was my intent.[/QUOTE] someone should call a modera- wait a sec

[QUOTE=rilez;52317806]They can't arrest or deport them because they said something or waved a flag. That's not my opinion, it's just the law. I know you want them gone, but it's not something the police could have done legally. You detain them for 48 hours. Then what? What good would that have done for their investigation? [/quote] Well it would be a good start actually since extremists change over time their views and intensity, and federal agents should try to get a close as possible on observing previous suspects who been flagged again. As far as I can tell, after the neighbors reported him, there was no follow up. Please correct me if I am wrong on this though. If that is the case, then there should have been a follow up/detaining for questioning, otherwise there really is almost no point to a hotline to report suspicious activity if one guy who was flagged by neighbor, and had these previous ties, wasn't looked into further. If anything that discourages people from utilizing such preventative measures. [quote] You're right Tudd. I want terrorists to blow people up first, so we can be sure of their intent and arrest them. The fact that you're not banned for this sort of baiting truly boggles my mind. It's disgusting that you would even insinuate that was my intent.[/QUOTE] And no I don't think you want terrorists to blow up people, but really I am curious if you have an alternative or personal stance on the matter besides any more police intervention is incorrect. Nobody made this a moral argument until you basically said I disrespect victims and that is not the case at all. The only reason someone brings up such an argument is to grab whatever possible moral high ground they can get at that moment. Especially when the conversation has been completely cordial and not disrespecting at all on here. I really would have rather focused on policies and kept it objective. And finally: I am sorry, but there is no designated "right time" to talk about such things; Only the hope that atleast people talk cordially about such issues. And with terrorist attacks now happening within weeks of each other, I think what your asking for is impossible to fulfill without it either falling out of relevance or being deemed "too early".

I'm amazed by how many people on here defend terrorism and extremism. Is it possible to be so left wing that you actually end up supporting the extreme far right?

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;52317882]I'm amazed by how many people on here defend terrorism and extremism. Is it possible to be so left wing that you actually end up supporting the extreme far right?[/QUOTE] Whose defending terrorism?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317856]And no I don't think you want terrorists to blow up people, but really I am curious if you have an alternative or personal stance on the matter besides any more police intervention is incorrect. Nobody made this a moral argument until you basically said I disrespect victims and that is not the case at all. The only reason someone brings up such an argument is to grab whatever possible moral high ground they can get, especially when the conversation has been cordial and not disrespecting at all on here. I really would have rather focuses on policies and keep it objective.[/QUOTE] I don't want the moral high ground. I just don't want people speculating about tragedies when we've barely had time to even process them. It's fucking nonstop speculation, whenever stuff like this happens. I'm not trying to argue that these people shouldn't be watched, and caught. They're monsters. I certainly don't want to [B]wait[/B] for them to do something. I also don't want the authorities to work outside the law. I don't think there's any permanent solution to this problem that doesn't involve the police doing something illegal. If you think the law should be changed that's a different argument. I don't feel like talking about this anymore. Sorry I took it out on you.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;52317882]I'm amazed by how many people on here defend terrorism and extremism. Is it possible to be so left wing that you actually end up supporting the extreme far right?[/QUOTE] I see noone defending terrorism, I see people defending logic. You can't arrest and deport people because "oh they MAY act on their views" without any more concrete proof of them planning to do so. Put them on a list and observe until further notice, that's really all the police can do. Do you think the cops should just arrest everyone with extreme views? If we flip the coin now and say neo-nazis are out there, which they are, should they be arrested for holding their opinions and views, without having actually acted on them? Or do you maybe think that this should only apply to muslims?

[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] police need more money if they're expected to watch every single 1 of those creeps or the standards of evidence on which we convict people need to be lowered which might lead to false positives and innocents going to jail (which might serve to push people over the edge in itself) Maybe the causes (identity imo) need to be investigated and addressed. Tackle the cause not the symptoms.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;52317882]I'm amazed by how many people on here defend terrorism and extremism. Is it possible to be so left wing that you actually end up supporting the extreme far right?[/QUOTE] "You haven't committed any crime yet, but I think you're a terrorist and should be deported immediately." That's your "logic"

[QUOTE=Limed00d;52317928]Put them on a list and observe until further notice, that's really all the police can do.[/QUOTE] When someone has been reported multiple times for extremist sentiment, police can probably stand to take a more active role in investigation than 'call me if they try to leave the country', which is basically what a watchlist entails. There are plenty of options for active investigation between doing nothing because they haven't broken any laws yet and throwing them in jail immediately, so I don't know why people in this thread talk like those are the only two options. You mention neo-Nazis, and there's a long history of active intervention by domestic counterintelligence in regards to those groups. In the US, agencies like the FBI take an active role in curbing domestic terror by monitoring and infiltrating organizations that breed it (such as neo-Nazis), and use networks of informants to try to stop lone wolf attacks. By keeping an active intelligence-gathering capability in communities where radicalization is likely, they can get a heads-up if someone is planning something. In comparison to infiltrating something like a neo-Nazi cell, getting a useful intelligence apparatus in a religious community [i]openly willing[/i] to prevent radicalization isn't nearly so difficult. If there's a tip or indication that an individual is planning something, then the FBI can monitor their public activities. If there's sufficient evidence that they may be planning to commit a crime, then a warrant can be procured to monitor their communication. And if there's very good reason to believe that an attack is imminent, then a physical search warrant can be obtained. This is a continuum of response that can keep tabs on suspicious people and intervene if necessary without trampling on civil liberties. I can't comment on the specifics of this case because it's hard to tell how much investigation was actually done, but it is absolutely not valid to say that if they haven't done anything yet there's nothing the police can do. That doesn't mean draconian thought-crime punishment without due process, it means keeping a close enough eye through legally-sanctioned means that the instant they start planning something, it can be caught and dealt with before they carry out their attack.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52317777]At every point I make you have essentially said that the police shouldn't/cannot act on them without more proof, despite this group publicly supporting terrorists and violent actions. I think several governments in the world including the UK already have laws for such people to detain and investigate them since it undermines their constitutions and is a public safety hazard. So I get you want more proof to act on them, but you haven't offered any alternative ideas to tackle this issue with the available information, so I have to assume you are fine with waiting until something more serious happens. Personally I think having detectives and undercover agents to collect evidence on them would be a good start. Much like this [URL="http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/03/24/richardson-man-charged-with-lying-to-fbi-about-supporting-isis/"]case[/URL] and several others that even countries like [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-raids-idUSKBN13A0MY"]Germany do[/URL], this tactic helps collect evidence that is otherwise impossible to grab from someone who only reveals their intentions privately. I really believe a group with such public support of terrorists basically forfeits their right not to be surveilled if such a right even existed in the first place for them in the UK. That and I would hope to imagine that the UK government doesn't put such people in a low-risk category when that group has so many members directly tied to terrorism or fighting for ISIS.[/QUOTE] Whenever the UK government has used undercover police in the past it has widely been decried by the public. Granted, they were infiltrating environmental groups [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/20/met-police-apologise-women-had-relationships-with-undercover-officers"]and even having sexual relations with protesters[/URL] but in the UK, our policing model is "by consent". That's not to say that every person has to opt in, just that there's a general consensus that what the police is doing is correct and right. I'm not sure we've reached the point where the UK public would be fine with wide scale infiltration. Not to mention there is the very obvious obstacle of race to overcome. It was easier with the IRA because the police consisted pretty much entirely of white males. They would only need to adopt an Irish accent to be a convincing agent. Recruitment with ethnic minorities within the UK is still very low so the scope for recruitment of undercover agents for infiltration of Islamic extremist groups is low. Regardless, these kinds of things take a lot of resources and time. The police [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/02/inspectorate-police-engaging-dangerous-practices-austerity-cuts-diane-abbott"]are struggling to cover day to day operations[/URL], let alone free up funding for massive undertakings such as what you're suggesting. It would require a massive scaling up of the surveillance capability of the UK police forces and given that since 2011 they have had a net 20% reduction of their budget, with the end target being a 40% total budget cut in coming years, it just isn't realistic.

I come from a Muslim background, and I genuinely think just deporting these assholes who show extremist tendencies is the best option. If he has a British passport and a Libyan passport, deport him to Libya, or whatever other country he's from. Let the Muslims who coexist with British society remain, and boot all the fuckers who want to bring their extremism here.

Having ties to terrorist groups like ISIS should definitely be grounds for a chargeable offence and investigation. [editline]6th June 2017[/editline] But I don't think that Deportation is the answer, it just moves the threat elsewhere "Out of sight, Out of mind" where they pose a public threat to other people. They should be indefinitely locked up in the country

[QUOTE=Claxx;52318552]Having ties to terrorist groups like ISIS should definitely be grounds for a chargeable offence and investigation. [editline]6th June 2017[/editline] But I don't think that Deportation is the answer, it just moves the threat elsewhere "Out of sight, Out of mind" where they pose a public threat to other people. They should be indefinitely locked up in the country[/QUOTE] Not as much of a threat as it poses to Britain. The whole extremist ideology is that Western culture needs to be replaced with extremist Islam. If he's in Libya, the fuck is he gonna do? Blow up Muslims in the hopes of making people even more devout Muslims? It'd hopefully make them realise how good they had it here, and how they pissed away everything they had. Give em a few years stewing in their own country and they'll realise what they thought about it all was fucked, but good luck ever getting back in.

[QUOTE=loopoo;52318576]If he's in Libya, the fuck is he gonna do? Blow up Muslims in the hopes of making people even more devout Muslims?[/QUOTE] Literally yes they do that

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;52317882]I'm amazed by how many people on here defend terrorism and extremism. Is it possible to be so left wing that you actually end up supporting the extreme far right?[/QUOTE] Is that like a dick ouroboros? :v:

[QUOTE=Claxx;52318578]Literally yes they do that[/QUOTE] I'm calling bullshit. Only situation in which extremists would blow up other Muslims would be if they were from a different sect. And as selfish as this may sound, I'd rather they go blow themselves up somewhere else instead of in the UK. Like people have already stated in the thread, even if they have strong ties to extremist groups, it's not illegal for them to have those views, meaning they can't be preemptively locked up. It'd be a huge time and money sink having to monitor these fuckwads 24/7 to catch them in the act, or before the act. Easier to just deport them. You hate the West so much? Then fuck off out of here. You don't deserve to shop in Tesco or eat at Greggs, you cunt.

[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 think it was a French higher-up of the DGSI (the organization dealing with terrorism on French soil) that put it this way: the foiled acts of terrorism are the ones you don't hear about. The ones that do make it to the news are the few that can still make it through the cracks, and there's always gonna be some of those when the frequency of the attempts is high enough. There isn't enough funding and measures in the world, short of removing all freedoms for your citizens, that would guarantee 100% safety from terrorists if they're this set on attacking you.