To not be surprised that the so-called terrorist had killing urges for a long time

[Lweji]

London attacker Khalid Masood: how hard-drinking, drug-taking village thug sought help over his urges to kill

I've just seen these headlines and just really need to post here after the discussion about this man on the Katie Hopkins thread.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/24/london-attacker-khalid-masood-hard-drinking-drug-taking-village/

Yes, terrorism is a problem, radical Islamic terrorism is a problem, as is radical white supremacist terrorism and violence.

But how many of these disturbed men are using such groups as excuses?
Is it a problem with these men or with those inciting them?

And if it's those inciting them, what's the difference between angry radical imams and ISIS calls for actions, and people spouting minority hate online or calling for military action that doesn't give a shit about civilians?

Coalition air strikes 'kill more than 200 people' in Mosul

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/23/coalition-air-strikes-kill-100-civilians-one-building-mosul/

I may be a bit angry with some twats that have gone on Fox, yes.

Until then, you can keep your insulting whataboutery.

First, what whataboutery?
Then, why insulting? To whom?

My reasoning to start the thread was that this was a violent man that had always been a risk and finally acted on his darkest thoughts. That his overt motivation was secondary to his murdering leanings. But that more attention was initially given to his religious affiliation.

The rest is part of the conversation on how these men with violent tendencies use or are used by organisations that want to create fear between groups.

You can engage in the discussion or choose to throw insults.

Fighting wars against extremists is not terrorism.

What do you call killing masses of civilians?
Not bothering if your planned raid will kill children or not?

Lweji, I'm not sure I would really class you as a moderate person though. I think you're towards the extreme end of liberalism TBH.

I've also been around the board long enough to know what you get a bee in your bonnet about and it's pretty obvious you're trying to interpret events in a way that doesn't unbalance your worldview which tends towards men = bad, Muslims = good.

The problem is that you're trying to separate things which can't and shouldn't be separated. You can't separate male violence and religion. The two are completely intertwined and have been used to encourage and justify each other for millennia.

You can't separate those who enjoy mindless violence from those who are politically violent because there is such an overlap between them. Mindlessly violent people attract political terrorists who want to manipulate that violence for their own ends. And political terrorism attracts those who enjoy violence and need justification, encouragement and a heightened sense of grievance in order to get the most pleasure out of it.

Pretending all these factors are exclusive and events like Wednesday's aren't a huge mixture of factors is just wilful blindness intended to minimise the other factors for political reasons.

It's a patriarchal organisation that does not permit women to fight, so by default they will be looking for male recruits only.

(Women are separately groomed for roles as wives, mainly, though various other forms of service in an idealised Caliphate are possible).

So what sort of recruit are they after? The sort who display both vulnerability to grooming, and a willingness to use force. So I suppose an ex-con living in Saudi would seem to be a prospect, even though he is way older than the typical age of those convicted of terror offences in UK.

There is a lot of info about what is known of the radicalisation process (and counter-messages to it) both in book form and free online. The Quilliam Foundation is a good place to start if you are interested in this.

Lweji

First, what whataboutery?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were levelled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world

So, in this case, you are deflecting criticisms about this terrorist attack by saying "What about ... Trump ... Breitbart ... US healthcare ... US environmental regulations..."

That is whataboutery / whataboutism / deflection.

HTH

When people listen to people like Hopkins and Trump and hear the dog whistle in their words and tweets and then attack and kill others, I do think that those people should reflect on their rhetoric.

At what point does saying it how it is become hate preaching? Who gets to define that?

Ego I must have missed Katie Hopkins murderous exhortations to her "followers".

But you heard all that far right stuff she has said. What effect does that have on people who are the kind people likely to believe people like them are and their way of life is under threat?

Compare her brain dumps with the publications of isis and their level of support and consequent murders within their Caliphate and beyond.

I can t believe any one could sensibly mix up the two tbh.

I don't think it's worth commenting further here. We are clearly too far apart to communicate successfully.

We are clearly too far apart to communicate successfully

I think that a lot of the stuff said by people like Hopkins, Farage and Trump does have a real effect on people who think they are 'losing their country' and act out their fears and anger in the way that we saw with the murder of Jo Cox as well as with the awful shootings in Norway.

So, in this case, you are deflecting criticisms about this terrorist attack by saying "What about ... Trump ... Breitbart ... US healthcare ... US environmental regulations...

I didn't ask what it was. :)

I asked in what way was I doing it. And explained why I wasn't. If you read what I wrote, I didn't what you just accused me of.

What I said was that there is dangerous extremism. ISIS is a concern. And so is the other side. And not in relation to this attack.

The point of this thread was that my concern in this attack was this man's personality, more than any indoctrination he might have had.

After reading the times today it sounds like he was an aggressive, violent man who found his own version of justifiable crazy, and was most likely pushed in this direction by his 'handlers'.

I wonder where his current wife and eldest child (who converted and went to live with him) and young kids are now.

Well it might influence them to vote for parties to the right

But that is far removed from extremist groups that incourage or celebrate people being murdered

That would be like comparing very conservative Muslims wits Isis as at times their beliefs may overlap but their belief as a whole isn't the same

Well it might influence them to vote for parties to the right

I think it might influence some people even more. Being told your country is changing, your way of life is under threat and then being given 'reasons' why....

Dog whistles

Iirc, a certain raid in Yemen that killed children was considered a success. With high fives from those who ordered it. I can't remember sorrow from them for the innocent lives lost.
No apology.

I imagine the hate we feel for terrorists acting in Europe must be similar to the hate these children's families have for those who ordered the attack.

And it's not othering. It's despair for being in the middle of these people in power on eithet extreme who don't care about human lives.

At this time there are two clear fronts we should fight and stand against.

I imagine the hate we feel for terrorists acting in Europe must be similar to the hate these children's families have for those who ordered the attack

Yoda had it right

“Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering"

It is easy to see how the actions of 'the other side' and fear and anger can lead some people to follow violent paths.

We need to be careful of those who stoke fear, who add fuel to the fire and to understand how actions can be perceived.

The rise of Trump is a gift for ISIS.

I can't remember sorrow from them for the innocent lives lost

I don't even think Spicer or Trump showed any concern over the civillians killed - but they did make a big display over the US soldier killed.

You can see how their lack of concern would have been used by ISIS and generally seen by those who are angry at the West.

OP, you are just repeating what you said for 40 pages on the other thread. What's the point of this one? Is it just to create another safe space for you to pat yourself on the back for being so liberal and tolerant?!

You're not the only person to make the "white man mental illness" point. There are literally hundreds of Facebook posts and pictures saying this, for just one media example.

But just because people of other backgrounds and beliefs also commit horrible crimes - and lots of them, sadly - does not change the fact that at the moment the western world faces a threat from radical violent "Islam". The deliberate attempts to kill as many people as possible are incited by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram etc. What possibly compares to 9/11 so far?

Pretending that there isn't a problem means that it can't be fixed. Refusing to accept that there is a problem that must be stamped out for the benefit of the 99.999999999% of Muslims who hate the extremism is frankly bizarre!

It was mostly because of the profile of the attacker that came out after the other thread was closed. I thought it would be worth putting it here and continuing the discussion, as it was no longer mine and others' impressions, but his actual background.

Also, please tell me where I said ISIS wasn't a problem.

does not change the fact that at the moment the western world faces a threat from radical violent "Islam

How big a threat do you think it faces?

The UK generally seems to be doing the right thing at the moment - and seems to have been quite successful in stopping attacks.

I do worry that any over reaction might make the threat even worse - and suggestions on other threads which include interning people would be a gift for ISIS recruiters and sympathisers.

Pretending that there isn't a problem means that it can't be fixed

The danger with some of the proposed solutions to 'fix' the problem is that it's very likely to just add fuel to the fire and make things a whole lo worse.

Indeed, ego.
There's recognising the problem and then there's making it worse.

And why do you think someone of his background and tendencies to violence was driven to convert to Islam in prison?

What do you think attracted the other extremists in the prison to him - and we know this is a real issue in British prisons that they are trying to tackle - or vice versa?