Incident with a lorry in Stockholm, shots fired, armed police at the scene

[Sidney1st]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72521.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reports that 3 people have been run over by a lorry in Stockholm and armed police are on the scene where shots have been fired.


(Just thought I'd beat C&J to it)

[ClaretEngineer]

There is only so much barricading you can do to prevent these things from happening, where do you stop?

Where do we go from here in countering this modern threat?

[Sidney1st]

Honestly, I don't know.

It isn't going to be an easy issue to resolve.

[Sidney1st]

Now saying it's 5 dead and gunman opened fire first.

[Wile E Coyote]

murdering b******s at it again, sub human ****. Bloody innocent people losing their lives because of some lunatics with crazed ideologies.

[Sidney1st]

Are you referring about the muslim fanatics or the yanks/brits who invaded them first?

[Vegas Claret]

There is only so much barricading you can do to prevent these things from happening, where do you stop?

Where do we go from here in countering this modern threat?

all pedestrianized areas are gonna have to have bollards for starters

[conyoviejo]

all pedestrianized areas are gonna have to have bollards for starters

That's a load of Bollards

[Wile E Coyote]

Are you referring about the muslim fanatics or the yanks/brits who invaded them first?

the murdering **** who did this today Sid, I wasn't being cryptic.

[ClaretEngineer]

all pedestrianized areas are gonna have to have bollards for starters

But where do you stop? It would be impracticable to bollard every area where pedestrians are able to walk.

For instance you couldn't bollard along the edge of pavements to prevent this type of thing happening (as on the Westminster bridge).

The target has to be the source, but how? You can't declare war on something that exists in the minds of a few.

Sure we can attack the IS strongholds in the Middle East using traditional methods but that only goes so far (and is what IS want us to do). The power of the internet means that their ideology can be spread far and wide from multiple sources without fear of being decommissioned by traditional methods of engagement.

A very tough task faces the powers that be to counter and suppress this threat.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Are you referring about the muslim fanatics or the yanks/brits who invaded them first?

Stockholm is in Sweden.

[Sidney1st]

Thanks for the geography lesson.

[claret3561]

We don't need bollards, what we need is proper border controls and a government who aren't afraid to do something about the ones they know are here.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Thanks for the geography lesson.

Perhaps I was mistaken. It seemed you were implying that there was some level of justification in this attack because British and American governments had been complicit in attacks in the Arab world.

I was merely pointing out that Stockholm is neither in America or Britain so it seems odd to post that here.

[Imploding Turtle]

all pedestrianized areas are gonna have to have bollards for starters

So really these bastards are job creators.

[Imploding Turtle]

But where do you stop? It would be impracticable to bollard every area where pedestrians are able to walk.

You don't. Not with bollards at least. What you do is subsidise the advancement of self-driving vehicles. You get all the benefits of improved traffic flow, safer transport and it will also almost eliminate this low-tech threat.

Semi-related - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sidney1st]

Perhaps I was mistaken. It seemed you were implying that there was some level of justification in this attack because British and American governments had been complicit in attacks in the Arab world.

I was merely pointing out that Stockholm is neither in America or Britain so it seems odd to post that here.

I'm not justifying anything, but have a little think about the chain of events that have led to where we are today.
That's the reason for mentioning the yanks and British.
The chain of events led to the creation of Al Qaeda, then Isis and has got us to this point where random attacks will happen and little can actually be done to stop it now, I believe we've crossed the point where it could be halted.

[Sidney1st]

You don't. Not with bollards at least. What you do is subsidise the advancement of self-driving vehicles. You get all the benefits of improved traffic flow, safer transport and it will also almost eliminate this low-tech threat.

Semi-related - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good thinking, but self driving cars will be susceptible to hackers.

[Imploding Turtle]

Good thinking, but self driving cars will be susceptible to hackers.

More so than current cars are susceptible to bad drivers?

[Sidney1st]

More so than current cars are susceptible to bad drivers?

If the CIA and other intelligence agencies were looking into it, you can be sure terrorists will be.

There was a panic the other year when Mitsubishi realised their current SUV was wide open to hackers.
The new Discovery can be driven by using your mobile whilst you're stood next to it.
Yes its restricted in regards to speed, as its meant for when you're looking to park the motor, but I've no doubt some clever sod will be able to hack it and change it all.

Normal vehicles are easier to steal and drive at people with intent yes, but given time taking control of a car remotely will be easy enough.

[randomclaret2]

Turtle's answer to trucks being used to murder innocent people... self driving vehicles.

[Imploding Turtle]

If the CIA and other intelligence agencies were looking into it, you can be sure terrorists will be.

There was a panic the other year when Mitsubishi realised their current SUV was wide open to hackers.
The new Discovery can be driven by using your mobile whilst you're stood next to it.
Yes its restricted in regards to speed, as its meant for when you're looking to park the motor, but I've no doubt some clever sod will be able to hack it and change it all.

Normal vehicles are easier to steal and drive at people with intent yes, but given time taking control of a car remotely will be easy enough.

I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to hack things that are properly secured. The U.S. almost had to jail someone because their intelligence agencies, with their billions of USD in funding, couldn't get into someone's iPhone easily so it's pretty unlikely that terrorists are going to spend their time trying to hack a car when it's much easier to just give them all knives and send them off to martyr themselves.

Of course, without encryption self-driving cars would be pretty easy to hack. Not to mention phones, bank accounts, and literally everything on your personal computers. Perhaps we should rethink banning it.

[Imploding Turtle]

Turtle's answer to trucks being used to murder innocent people... self driving vehicles.

Errm... yes. What's wrong with it?

[Sidney1st]

I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to hack things that are properly secured. The U.S. almost had to jail someone because their intelligence agencies, with their billions of USD in funding, couldn't get into someone's iPhone easily so it's pretty unlikely that terrorists are going to spend their time trying to hack a car when it's much easier to just give them all knives and send them off to martyr themselves.

Of course, without encryption self-driving cars would be pretty easy to hack. Not to mention phones, bank accounts, and literally everything on your personal computers. Perhaps we should rethink banning it.

If all they've got left are self driving cars...

As for the intelligence agencies they cant even keep their own systems secure and I'm fairly certain there are people out there who 'd be able to hack that phone.

[Imploding Turtle]

If all they've got left are self driving cars...

As for the intelligence agencies they cant even keep their own systems secure and I'm fairly certain there are people out there who 'd be able to hack that phone.

Of course there are, but then you have to ask how many are going to be both smart enough to hack a car (one car) yet stupid enough to fall under the influence of people like ISIS. All to kill just a few people because not only is the car going to be a write-off meaning you'd have to hack another car and do it all again, but then you'd have to find another zero day vulnerability all by yourself to hack another car because the exploit for the first one will be patched over pretty bloody quickly.

There is just no way that terrorists are going to waste their time on hacking self-driving cars. They're dubing down their attacks because their bomb makers keep getting killed or captured. There's no reason to think that they will, and every reason to think they won't, use hackers to kill a few people in a few cars when if they had access to such people and skills they'd already be remotely flying airliners into buildings. It's not a rational fear.

[Paul Waine]

I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to hack things that are properly secured. The U.S. almost had to jail someone because their intelligence agencies, with their billions of USD in funding, couldn't get into someone's iPhone easily so it's pretty unlikely that terrorists are going to spend their time trying to hack a car when it's much easier to just give them all knives and send them off to martyr themselves.

Of course, without encryption self-driving cars would be pretty easy to hack. Not to mention phones, bank accounts, and literally everything on your personal computers. Perhaps we should rethink banning it.

Hi IT, I guess you've not seen this week's edition of The Economist, yet (available from Friday morning).

Front cover: "Why computers will never be safe"
Leaders: "The myth of cyber-security"

Driverless vehicles and the "Internet of Things" are mentioned.

The Economist suggests "there is no way to make computers completely safe." And, "The average program has 14 separate vulnerabilities, each of them a potential point of illicit entry."

[Imploding Turtle]

No one worth listening to will ever say that computers are completely safe. There will always be vulnerabilities that exist even in the most robust of systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to them in place of error-strewn humans. There are certainly unknown vulnerabilities in banking and e-commerce but that doesn't mean we should all store our savings under our mattresses, or stop shopping online.

Slightly off topic but these fears remind of this recent SATW comic on the English and new technology - https://satwcomic.com/new-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There's an explanation of the comic below, before anyone starts crying "racism". Naming no sidney's.

[Sidney1st]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of some of the people who've joined Isis.

There are almost certainly people cleverer then you who've joined up.

Just because they believe in a slightly mental religious cause it doesn't make them any less cleverer then they were before they signed up.

[ClaretMoffitt]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of some of the people who've joined Isis.

There are almost certainly people cleverer then you who've joined up.

Just because they believe in a slightly mental religious cause it doesn't make them any less cleverer then they were before they signed up.

Muslims in particular have a blind spot regarding their religion. They can be great critical thinkers in every aspect of their life, but will never ever allow that skill to be applied on their deepest belief, no matter how ludicrous.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of some of the people who've joined Isis.

There are almost certainly people cleverer then you who've joined up.

Just because they believe in a slightly mental religious cause it doesn't make them any less cleverer then they were before they signed up.

We're not talking about people who have already joined ISIS. We're talking about the legitimate geniuses who you think will join if we switch to driverless vehicles. Not only is that not going to happen, but even if they did join it would be a ridiculously inefficient use of their talents to waste it on hacking a car.

[Imploding Turtle]

Muslims in particular have a blind spot regarding their religion. They can be great critical thinkers in every aspect of their life, but will never ever allow that skill to be applied on their deepest belief, no matter how ludicrous.

No they don't, you only think they don't.

Muslims have been vocal and angry about these people doing this in the name of Islam for as long as it's been happening, only you don't read about it in the daily mail or on prisonplanet.com because that would contradict the narrative that Muslims don't condemn it enough.

[Rowls]

Are you referring about the muslim fanatics or the yanks/brits who invaded them first?

What a stupid, crass and insensitive post. An Uzbek national has committed multiple murders in Sweden.

[Imploding Turtle]

Sensitive ******. You like getting offended on other people's behalf, don't you?

[Rowls]

No they don't, you only think they don't.
Muslims have been vocal and angry about these people doing this in the name of Islam for as long as it's been happening, only you don't read about it in the daily mail or on prisonplanet.com because that would contradict the narrative that Muslims don't condemn it enough.

Have they though? I don't recall a lot of vocal anger at all.

I don't recall any "not in my name" marches bringing Muslims together. There doesn't seem to be any counter-culture to the terrorist jihadis within the Muslim culture from my perspective. From without there is government anti-terrorism schemes. From within I only know of the Quilliam Foundation and there are the small persecuted sect of Ahmadiy Muslims who regularly condemn terrorism.

The vast majority of Muslims have a natural revulsion to these acts but that is not the same as there being any kind of Muslim cultural movement against terrorism. There is, however, plenty of evidence of Muslim terrorism being ignored, brushed-over excused or even praised, nurtured and encouraged by Muslim leaders.

[Rowls]

Sensitive ******. You like getting offended on other people's behalf, don't you?

On whose behalf do you think I'm offended? You ****.

[Imploding Turtle]

Have they though? I don't recall a lot of vocal anger at all.

I don't recall any "not in my name" marches bringing Muslims together. There doesn't seem to be any counter-culture to the terrorist jihadis within the Muslim culture from my perspective. From without there is government anti-terrorism schemes. From within I only know of the Quilliam Foundation and there are the small persecuted sect of Ahmadiy Muslims who regularly condemn terrorism.

The vast majority of Muslims have a natural revulsion to these acts but that is not the same as there being any kind of Muslim cultural movement against terrorism. There is, however, plenty of evidence of Muslim terrorism being ignored, brushed-over excused or even praised, nurtured and encouraged by Muslim leaders.

I don't expect to ever hear from you a complaint that Muslims don't condemn terrorism, or anything else, enough.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rowls]

I don't expect to ever hear from you a complaint that Muslims don't condemn terrorism, or anything else, enough.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can add my couin's husband to the list because he condemned terrorism last time we had dinner together - AND HE'S A MUSLIM!!!!

Typical standard of debate from you TurtleBrains. "Look here's something somebody did on the internet."

The simple truth is this - within Muslim society there is a culture which encourages and incites this kind of murderous terrorism. Quoting US Muslim lists or people from reddit or other things you found on the internet won't change the culture or alter the fact.

[Imploding Turtle]

Denying the facts when they're right in front of your nose. That's the Rowls we all know.

[Rowls]

Denying the facts when they're right in front of your nose. That's the Rowls we all know.

"the facts"

You appear to live in a parallel world of facts.

Here's a FACT for you: The mainstream media are desperate to cover more "Muslims condemn terrorism" stories. And why wouldn't they be? We all want to see this happen.

However, following the worst terrorism attack in the UK since the 2005 bombings, this is the best that the UK's population of 2 million + Muslims could manage:



A handful of schoolgirls. That's not many is it?

Of course, it is always welcome when Muslims take an active stand against terrorism but the public showing at the organised march was very, very low on visible Muslim attendance.

I've also seen it reported in non-mainstream media that these Muslim girls are from the Ahmadiya Muslim sect (see my post above).

[Imploding Turtle]

The Muslim council of Britain condemned the attack, that's 500 mosques, schools and organisations. But because you want to have your own facts you want to pretend that as it was just a few school kids that condemned it. You're embarrassing.

[Rowls]

Theislim council of Britain condemned the attack, that's 500 mosques, schools and organisations. But because you want to have your own facts you want to pretend that as it was just a few school kids that condemned it. You're embarrassing.

But they chose not to have any public presence at the march. Words and actions are different things.

There is no visible or wider counter-terrorist culture in mainstream Muslim society that I know of. The only Muslim organisations I know of who are consistently and publicly challenging the culture of Islamism (and its associated crimes) are the Quilliam Foundation and the persecuted Ahmadiya sect.

Making silly lists and noting what you have done above will not change that. You're simply being oppositional without understanding why.

Goodbye for now.

[Imploding Turtle]

But they chose not to have any public presence at the march. Words and actions are different things.

There is no visible or wider counter-terrorist culture in mainstream Muslim society that I know of. The only Muslim organisations I know of who are consistently and publicly challenging the culture of Islamism (and its associated crimes) are the Quilliam Foundation and the persecuted Ahmadiya sect.

Making silly lists and noting what you have done above will not change that. You're simply being oppositional without understanding why.

Goodbye for now.

So now condemning terrorism isn't enough any more? Now they actually have to march every time a terrorist act happens?

"Muslims don't condemn terrorism enough"
"yeah they do, here look"
"yeah but they don't march enough"

Those goalposts have wheels on them, dont they?

[Rowls]

So now condemning terrorism isn't enough any more? Now they actually have to march every time a terrorist act happens?

Nope and nope.

Yet again, for the millionth time - you miss the point.

To spell it out for you (as I always have to) here is the point:

There is no widespread opposition to the culture that breeds terrorism from within the wider Muslim population.

[Rowls]

Original Post

So now condemning terrorism isn't enough any more? Now they actually have to march every time a terrorist act happens?

Edited Post

So now condemning terrorism isn't enough any more? Now they actually have to march every time a terrorist act happens?

"Muslims don't condemn terrorism enough"
"yeah they do, here look"
"yeah but they don't march enough"

Those goalposts have wheels on them, dont they?

"The goalposts have moved!" screams poster who edits his post 13 minutes after posting it, without even a hint of irony.

And you STILL haven't acknowledged or even apparently understood the very simple thing I've said.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Its not worth debating, all you can really do it sit down and wait for the next attack.

[Imploding Turtle]

Nope and nope.

Yet again, for the millionth time - you miss the point.

To spell it out for you (as I always have to) here is the point:

There is no widespread opposition to the culture that breeds terrorism from within the wider Muslim population.

No widespread opposition? I just linked you to a massive spreadsheet full of prominent Muslims and Muslim organisations denouncing terrorism and a host of other things and you said it wasn't good enough. Then I pointed out that 500 mosques, schools and organisations in Britain denounced the Westminster attack and apparently that wasn't good enough either. You're just full of ****. Nothing Muslims do will be good enough for you or the people who think like you.

[Rowls]

No widespread opposition? I just linked you to a massive spreadsheet full of prominent Muslims and Muslim organisations denouncing terrorism and a host of other things and you said it wasn't good enough.

This is all daft.

You linked a silly long list of things, most of which appears to be central to the USA which is not relevant to our discussion centring on British Muslims. As I pointed out, you could add my cousin-in-law to that list.

Then I pointed out that 500 mosques, schools and organisations in Britain denounced the Westminster attack and apparently that wasn't good enough either.

You think you've pointed out that "500 mosques, schools and organisations in Britain denounced the Westminster attack" - but you haven't. You have pointed out that the MCB issued a statement doing that.

Either way, it's irrelevant.

It does not change the point I have made. To illustrate, the BNP could issue a statement saying "We're not racist - look here's that Sikh guy who supports us!" but it wouldn't mean the BNP weren't suddenly a party full of racists.

You're just full of ****. Nothing Muslims do will be good enough for you or the people who think like you.

Despite the fact that I've already noted very favourably the excellent work of the Quilliam Foundation and Ahmadiya Muslims? That's a very weak argument isn't it? Unless you don't think these groups are "real Muslims"?

[Imploding Turtle]

This is all daft.

You linked a silly long list of things, most of which appears to be central to the USA which is not relevant to our discussion centring on British Muslims. As I pointed out, you could add my cousin-in-law to that list.

and now you're moving the goalposts yet again by saying you were only talking about British Muslims.

[Rowls]

and now you're moving the goalposts yet again by saying you were only talking about British Muslims.

US Muslims are not representative of Muslims globally.

A statement of condemnation from an umbrella organisation does not equate to a culture of intolerance towards the doctrines that encourage terrorism.

You only appear to be able to regurgitate arguments made by others on the internet. If a debate does not tread along the well-worn paths of reddit forums you lose all track of logic and reasoning. You're all over the place.

You apparently can't understand the very simple point I've made. You imagine I'm saying all kinds of stuff which I haven't. You attribute to me views I do not hold. You accuse me of stupid, prejudicial and insulting views that even a cursory glance of my posts demonstrate are not true.

I doubt you'll ever be able to debate properly yourself. You flounder whenever you have to try to think for yourself.

Goodnight.

[Rileybobs]

Seriously guys, when you argue with each other on the internet the terrorists have won.