Another London terror attack

[Scot Dutchy]

Where does he get it from?

They are just youtube vids.

[Brian Peacock]

Galxian is a supreme anti-hoax hoaxer.

[Scot Dutchy]

Oh I know but it always amazes me where he gets it from.

[pErvinalia]

He gets it from his government handlers.

[Forty Two]

Staged anti-ISIS protesters? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06 ... rotesters/

[NineBerry]

It's not "staged" when the media tell a group of people where to stand do they can get a good shot.

[Brian Peacock]

I find some of my concerns of yesterday echoed far more eloquently in this article...

We can feel pretty certain that the London Bridge attackers did the following things: owned smartphones; and used Google, YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp. That isn’t because owning those things and using those services marks you out as a terrorist: it’s because it marks you out as someone living in the west in the 21st century.

The problem, as those companies (actually only two: Google owns YouTube, and Facebook owns WhatsApp) are discovering, is that politicians aren’t too picky about the distinction. Speaking outside 10 Downing St this morning, Theresa May was much more aggressive in her tone than previously. The London Bridge attack had its roots in Islamic extremism, she observed: “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services, provide.” She continued: “We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorism planning.”

Which goes to show that when you need a scapegoat, the internet will always be there, as will big internet companies.

...

“The kneejerk ‘blame the internet’ that comes after every act of terrorism is so blatant as to be embarrassing,” commented Paul Bernal, a law lecturer at the University of East Anglia who has worked with the police. The pressure, he says, comes from the politicians. For an example look no further than John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw since 2001, who this morning said: “I repeat, yet again, my call for the internet companies who terrorists have again used to communicate to be held legally liable for content.”

Perhaps he has forgotten the 1970s, when in the pre-mobile phone era the IRA would use phones to organise its attacks – without anyone calling for (nor were there online social networks to “radicalise” would-be IRA members, but still they joined). The authoritarian sweep of Mann’s idea is chilling: since legal liability is meant to deter, the companies would need people to monitor every word you wrote, every video you watched, and compare it against some manual of dissent. It’s like a playbook for the dystopia of Gilead, in The Handmaid’s Tale (which, weirdly enough, most resembles Islamic State’s framework for living).

The problem is this: things can be done, but they open a Pandora’s box. The British government could insist that the identities of people who search for certain terror-related words on Google or YouTube or Facebook be handed over. But then what’s to stop the Turkish government, or embassy, demanding the same about Kurdish people searching on “dangerous” topics? The home secretary, Amber Rudd, could insist that WhatsApp hand over the names and details of every communicant with a phone number. But then what happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia? What’s the calculus of our freedom against others’?

Similarly, May and Rudd and every home secretary back to Jack Straw keep being told that encryption (as used in WhatsApp particularly) can’t be repealed, because it’s mathematics, not material. People can write apps whose messages can’t be read in transit, only at the ends. Ban WhatsApp, and would-be terrorists will find another app, as will those struggling against dictators.

It’s true that the internet companies’ business models, of selling adverts against your attention, means they never had an incentive to be careful about what gets on to their platforms. We’re living with the unintended consequences. Yet speaking to people in those companies, one still hears enormous resistance to the idea of pre-filtering. It’s instead becoming an article of faith that “artificial intelligence” or “machine learning” will learn to spot this stuff and act. That’s far from proven, however. These companies are struggling with a problem they made that dwarfs their present capabilities.

...

So what can be done? It might seem obvious, but while (to quote a famous hacker) “You cannot arrest an idea”, you can certainly stifle its attractiveness. Driving Isis out of Mosul and into the desert will cut its funding and its voice. Not helping countries that help jihadi groups would be smart too. Theresa May mentioned working with “allied democratic governments”. But it’s really the undemocratic ones – Saudi Arabia, for example – where one might start work. Ideas fade. The internet, though, isn’t going anywhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... don-bridge

[JimC]

There was an Islamic terror attack in a suburb of Melbourne today, with one man shot and his attacker (who was ranting that "this is for ISIS) killed by police.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brigh ... wl3pd.html

Police have confirmed they are treating the Brighton siege as "an act of terrorism". Two men, including the alleged offender, were killed in the shooting. Islamic State has taken responsibility. The gunman has been identified as 29-year-old Roxburgh Park man Yacqub Khayre.

As in Britain, this will fuel the fire for popular demands for harsher, more draconian laws, and will probably raise the level of general distrust of muslims of all stripes. As I've said before, I want to hear Islamic leaders not only condemn the attack, but confirm that the terrorists follow a nasty and twisted version of their own religion, that it is something they must take much responsibility for, and that they pledge unconditional support to authorities in stamping it out. Such whole-hearted co-operation would go some way to reducing the frenzied demands from the right for over-the-top actions such as indefinite detainment even for slight suspicion...

[Brian Peacock]

You know why that's so hard for Islamic moderates to do though...

[pErvinalia]

Regarding social media, remember that facebook et al already do censure stuff. They do it terribly imperfectly, but they do it. Why would it be any more worrisome if they censured ISIS propaganda than when they censure an uncovered boob?

[Hermit]

As I've said before, I want to hear Islamic leaders not only condemn the attack, but confirm that the terrorists follow a nasty and twisted version of their own religion, that it is something they must take much responsibility for, and that they pledge unconditional support to authorities in stamping it out. Such whole-hearted co-operation would go some way to reducing the frenzied demands from the right for over-the-top actions such as indefinite detainment even for slight suspicion...

Unclog your ears, Jim.

More than 130 imams from Britain are refusing to offer Islamic burials to the three men who launched attacks Saturday night in London

...

Thousands of Muslims worldwide have likewise condemned terrorism in recent years, as noted in a 712-page Google document maintained by an American Muslim student.

Link

[JimC]

As I've said before, I want to hear Islamic leaders not only condemn the attack, but confirm that the terrorists follow a nasty and twisted version of their own religion, that it is something they must take much responsibility for, and that they pledge unconditional support to authorities in stamping it out. Such whole-hearted co-operation would go some way to reducing the frenzied demands from the right for over-the-top actions such as indefinite detainment even for slight suspicion...

Unclog your ears, Jim.

More than 130 imams from Britain are refusing to offer Islamic burials to the three men who launched attacks Saturday night in London

...

Thousands of Muslims worldwide have likewise condemned terrorism in recent years, as noted in a 712-page Google document maintained by an American Muslim student.

Link

Condemning is one thing, actively rooting out terrorists that lurk within their community is another. When we see a citizen's arrest by a group of moderate muslims, dragging a protesting jihadist down to the local nick then maybe they have put their money where there mouth is. And such an action, well publicised, would make a massive contribution to their public image, which, whether he like it or not, is very much on the nose to Joe Public. Without something like this, more and more Australians and Brits will head in the UKIP or Pauline Hanson direction...

More than 130 imams from Britain are refusing to offer Islamic burials to the three men who launched attacks Saturday night in London

Good. Now put the ones who will bury them under constant surveillance...

[Animavore]

5 Muslims reported the Manchester bomber to MI5. It seems no matter what the Muslim community do it's never enough

[Hermit]

Condemning is one thing, actively rooting out terrorists that lurk within their community is another.

Terrorists, as you noticed, lurk. They don't go around with "I am a Muslim terrorist" sign stapled to their foreheads. Has it occurred to you that they are more interested in telling law abiding Muslims about their intentions than corrupt police officers are in telling law abiding members of the police services about theirs?

Also what Animavore posted.

Jim, the more you post on political matters, the more you reveal yourself to be a blindly prejudiced right winger.

[JimC]

5 Muslims reported the Manchester bomber to MI5. It seems no matter what the Muslim community do it's never enough

And it won't be enough until they have cleansed their house of the scum within it. Western society should not have to put up with endless attacks by murderous arseholes that are part of their fucking community. Get your shit together, muslims, or prepare for a downward spiral of more and more distrust, repression and draconian government action (which I know will be both counter-productive and unfair to many). If you or Hermit do not think this scenario (which I don't want, I assure you) is simply not going to happen, you've got your heads in the sand.