The Streatham Islamist terrorist attack

Streatham attack knifeman named as Sudesh Amman who had a previous terror conviction




Freed terrorist strikes again: here's what happened
'The lady was walking down the street - he stabbed her in the back'
Analysis: Attack shows weakness of terror sentencing crackdown
Boris Johnson to announce 'fundamental changes' to terrorist prison release system

Police shot dead a man in Streatham, south London, on Sunday afternoon after three people were injured in a terror attack. Here's what we know so far:

The incident happened just before 3pm on Streatham High Road when a man attacked people with a knife.

One man, in his 40s, is no longer considered to be in a life-threatening condition following treatment. A woman, in her 50s, who had non-life threatening injuries has been discharged from hospital. A second woman in her 20s, who received minor injuries believed to have been caused by glass following the discharge of a police firearm, continues to receive treatment.
The suspect was wearing a fake bomb vest.
He has been named as "knife-obsessed" convicted terrorist Sudesh Amman, who was released from his previous conviction after serving half his sentence.
Amman was under active counter-terrorism surveillance.




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/02/streatham-attack-latest-police-say-stabbing-incident-south-london/






He was freed from prison only a few days ago having been serving time for other terrorism offences... And although he was considered such a high risk that he was under constant surveillance by anti terrorist police and MI5, he was freed from prison after only serving half his sentence...

How can it be that he was freed at all given that it was considered that he posed such a high risk that he was under such surveillance!?

Surely he should not have been released at all...!!!???

Nobody got anything to say about this...!!!???



Not even "it's only a few"...!!!???

My solution, build more Prisons, the only solution if there's no death penalty !Life should mean life !

nicko wrote: My solution, build more Prisons, the only solution if there's no death penalty !Life should mean life !

The contradiction, from the right, is that more prisons will mean more costs in government. Wouldn't you rather have more tax breaks, nick?

This is what fuels the anti-tough-guy sentiment among conservatives. When you heft the costs of your programs, the austerity folks start grumbling. Government costs too much already!!

Eventually, the left sees the issue, and starts arguing healthcare or prisons...which helps society more? We've seen this cycle before.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote: My solution, build more Prisons, the only solution if there's no death penalty !Life should mean life !

The contradiction, from the right, is that more prisons will mean more costs in government.  Wouldn't you rather have more tax breaks, nick?

This is what fuels the anti-tough-guy sentiment among conservatives.  When you heft the costs of your programs, the austerity folks start grumbling.  Government costs too much already!!

Eventually, the left sees the issue, and starts arguing healthcare or prisons...which helps society more?  We've seen this cycle before.

1.There is no view or need of more prisons at such at present

2. The issue with Islamic extremists. Is that when released, and based on their beliefs. A number have a death wish and are quite happy to take out any number of people doing so. Its called martyrdom. Hence they more than any other group are a high level risk of being allowed into society

3. You think people are bothered about paying more in taxes, that this terrorists remain behind bars. Ensuring society is safer?

4. Sadly the left never see the real issue, mainly as they simple do not understand Islamic extremism. Its not something you can have diplomacy with

phil wrote:3. You think people are bothered about paying more in taxes, that this terrorists remain behind bars. Ensuring society is safer?

Yes, austerity is generally of great concern in the UK. And, alas, prisons cost money. What goes around comes around, and eventually the auditors forget about patriotic missions, and ask, Why are we paying for this?

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:3. You think people are bothered about paying more in taxes, that this terrorists remain behind bars. Ensuring society is safer?

Yes, austerity is generally of great concern in the UK.  And, alas, prisons cost money.  What goes around comes around, and eventually the auditors forget about patriotic missions, and ask, Why are we paying for this?

Austerity is a greater concern?

Is that why the Uk voted for a Conservative Government overwhelmingly?

You are so clueless Quill

What matters more to the majority of this country. Is the belief to place this country first.

Hence again, being as you are so out of touch with realty here.

Wanna try answering the question again?

You think people are bothered about paying more in taxes, that this terrorists remain behind bars. Ensuring society is safer?

phil wrote:What matters more to the majority of this country. Is the belief to place this country first.

Ah, but first in anti-terrorism? Or, first in austerity? Unfortunately, they are different values, and they arise at different times.

phil wrote:You think people are bothered about paying more in taxes, that this terrorists remain behind bars. Ensuring society is safer?

I don't know. I'm not British. But I hear a lot of British talk about ‘dislike of Muslims and terrorism’, on the one hand, and I hear a lot about ‘austerity’, on the other. The two seem to oscillate back and forth, depending on which has more recently been provoked by events.

The irony is that both are conservative sentiments. Perhaps you conservatives ought to get your act together before you pose the question to the public.

there is of course an answer. Its a bit brutal and the lefty's wont like it.......................

Victorismyhero wrote:there is of course an answer. Its a bit brutal and the lefty's wont like it.......................

Is this the answer that was proposed by Attila the Hun, in a toast?

"Here's to you, and here's to me,
Let's hope we never disagree.
But if we do, to hell with you,
And here's to me."


You guys are the one's who oppose the death penalty.  And since the dispute is between conservatives, we'll just pull up lawn chairs and watch with our rum-and-cokes.  

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:What matters more to the majority of this country. Is the belief to place this country first.

Ah, but first in anti-terrorism?  Or, first in austerity?  Unfortunately, they are different values, and they arise at different times.

phil wrote:You think people are bothered about paying more in taxes, that this terrorists remain behind bars. Ensuring society is safer?

I don't know.  I'm not British.  But I hear a lot of British talk about ‘dislike of Muslims and terrorism’, on the one hand, and I hear a lot about ‘austerity’, on the other.  The two seem to oscillate back and forth, depending on which has more recently been provoked by events.

The irony is that both are conservative sentiments.  Perhaps you conservatives ought to get your act together before you pose the question to the public.

Lets start again. I have seemed to have lost you. Just confirm you are clueless

1. You are not British and yet you are part Scottish. Which is why like Scotland, you wish to be a part of a fable like them. Like them you wish to have a divorce from the major majority populace. Hence you have that freedom fighter gene in you

2. people have no actual issue with British Muslims. They integrate are very much a part of society. What people have an issue with. Is extremists Muslims. Those that want to impose their backwards beliefs on to society

3. So like Scotland, like Britain, like California. All want a divorce and for all the same reasons

4. Quill has not grasped this yet. Even though he fights and yearns for this

Irony

phil wrote:1. You are not British and yet you are part Scottish. Which is why like Scotland, you wish to be a part of a fable like them. Like them you wish to have a divorce from the major majority populace. Hence you have that freedom fighter gene in you

I am 100% Island Scot. I just had the misfortune of being born in the US.

Divorce is not in the picture. I was never a British subject in the first place. I am merely commenting on an apparent antinomy in conservative aims in the UK. On the one hand British conservatives want more prisons to deal with anti-Muslim sentiments. On the other hand, British conservatives want austerity.

One can't have both.

phil wrote:2. people have no actual issue with British Muslims. They integrate are very much a part of society. What people have an issue with. Is extremists Muslims. Those that want to impose their backwards beliefs on to society

So, it's a criminal problem, not a Muslim problem. Does that make any difference?

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:1. You are not British and yet you are part Scottish. Which is why like Scotland, you wish to be a part of a fable like them. Like them you wish to have a divorce from the major majority populace. Hence you have that freedom fighter gene in you

I am 100% Island Scot.  I just had the misfortune of being born in the US.  

Divorce is not in the picture.  I was never a British subject in the first place.  I am merely commenting on an apparent antinomy in conservative aims in the UK.  On the one hand British conservatives want more prisons to deal with anti-Muslim sentiments.  On the other hand, British conservatives want austerity.

One can't have both.

1. 100% Scot and thus zero Californian

2. I think you are confused mate

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:2. people have no actual issue with British Muslims. They integrate are very much a part of society. What people have an issue with. Is extremists Muslims. Those that want to impose their backwards beliefs on to society

So, it's a criminal problem, not a Muslim problem.  Does that make any difference?

Its an extremist Muslim problem in many parts of the world. Vastly the Muslim world

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:there is of course an answer. Its a bit brutal and the lefty's wont like it.......................

Is this the answer that was proposed by Attila the Hun, in a toast?

"Here's to you, and here's to me,
Let's hope we never disagree.
But if we do, to hell with you,
And here's to me."


You guys are the one's who oppose the death penalty.  And since the dispute is between conservatives, we'll just pull up lawn chairs and watch with our rum-and-cokes.  

No, more the answer of Aranaud Almaric................. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, it's a criminal problem, not a Muslim problem.  Does that make any difference?

Its an extremist Muslim problem  in many parts of the world. Vastly the  Muslim world

So, no new prisons in Britain, eh? Fair 'nuff...nick, there's your answer.

One thing is for sure... We can't carry on releasing dangerous terrorists into society only to pay for 20-30 highly trained counter terrorist police to carry out round the clock surveillance on each of them...


There are hundreds of these terrorists being watched at the moment at a cost of around a million pounds a year for each ones surveillance teams...



And, as seen in recent events, the terrorists are still able to inflict carnage onto the innocent members of public!!!


Surely the interests of public safety are paramount!?

I'v changed my mind about building more Prisons, just hang 'em or shoot 'em , cheaper all round. After all they'd shoot us ,given the chance !

nicko wrote:I'v changed my mind about building more Prisons, just hang 'em or shoot 'em , cheaper all round. After all they'd shoot us ,given the chance !

Hanging is not efficient...too much time spend on each individual. Also, you might note the Germans determined that use of ammunition was too expensive...gas was much cheaper.

Austerity, you know.

A 9mm round in England is around 25 pence each, cheap at the price !

nicko wrote: A 9mm round in England is around 25 pence each, cheap at the price !

It's not the price of a unit, but the cost of so many. The Germans did a study back in the day, and they found that gas is better in volume.

That's true Quill, but there aren't millions are there? a few thousand at the most. I'm sure a crowd funding would cover it, i'd chip in wouldn't you ?

"It's only a few"


Maybe we could go green and use renewable solar or wind electricity on a recycled electric chair, to do the deed on them...?

nicko wrote:That's true Quill, but there aren't millions are there? a few thousand at the most. I'm sure a crowd funding would cover it, i'd chip in wouldn't you ?

That's what the Germans said at the beginning. But in the end, it turned out to be 6-million of 'em.

Quill seems to be comparing the execution of dangerous convicted islamist terrorists to the nazis murdering of Jews...


Let's not forget that there are plenty of islamists around who would like to see the extermination of Jews too...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill seems to be comparing the execution of dangerous convicted islamist terrorists to the nazis murdering of Jews...

Let's not forget that there are plenty of islamists around who would like to see the extermination of Jews too...!

You are getting ahead of yourself, tom You are arguing the example, and missing the point. The analogy is in the situation, and not in who or what was at stake.

Once you embark upon a program of extermination, you don't get to control the magnitude of your genocide. That's like the argument that Red once made, that you can pull a gun and control by threatening to shoot. Once you pull a gun you don't have any control over what will happen.

Similarly, once you start exterminating Muslims, you don't know how many you will end up having to kill.

" Once you pull a gun you don't have control" ? you do if the other person doesn't have one !

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill seems to be comparing the execution of dangerous convicted islamist terrorists to the nazis murdering of Jews...

Let's not forget that there are plenty of islamists around who would like to see the extermination of Jews too...!

You are getting ahead of yourself, tom  You are arguing the example, and missing the point.  The analogy is in the situation, and not in who or what was at stake.

Once you embark upon a program of extermination, you don't get to control the magnitude of your genocide.  That's like the argument that Red once made, that you can pull a gun and control by threatening to shoot.  Once you pull a gun you don't have any control over what will happen.

Similarly, once you start exterminating Muslims, you don't know how many you will end up having to kill.

Nobody has to embark on a path of extermination

I see where tommy and Nicko are coming from, as to a method to combat this actual threat, but I agree with you how flawed it is. As you never continually swipe strikes at the body of a snake. That will never kill this problem. You have to cut off the very head of the snake metaphorically

What now happens is that we have reached a position to take, where its unsafe to releases any person incarcerated for terrorism. They place a major threat to society when released. In just about 100% of examples of said prisoners released. Those that sought to murder people

So the first priority is to ensure the safety of a people right quill and that unless we can find a way to understand who is a threat and who is not a threat based on this extremist belief system. How can we decide to let any one of these incarcerated prisoners to be released?

All are a  potential danger to society, based off the amount of attacks by those who were incarcerated. We are talking about a risk factor of near 100% of harm occurring from such releases happening

I choose your path, that until we find a method to differentiate those capable of murdering to those who are all talk is found. Then the best policy in this. Is to ensure those ardent followers incarcerated in this belief.

Remain in prison

Seems common sense to me right?

The law allays has exceptions to the rule and this is one of those cases.

Hence the only way to cut off the head of the snake, is for people to see for themselves the illusion they are living within. To then rise up against this peacefully. Then the venom is rendered useless

Quill is deliberately misrepresenting what is being said...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill is deliberately misrepresenting what is being said...

Actually he is not Tommy

Whether these people may be the ultimate scum of the earth. Unless they are of imminent threat. How do we have the right to execute them? If we have the ability to at present neutralise their threat by ethical means?

What Quill is saying is that like the Nazi's. They saw the Jews as a threat and sought to neutralise them through unethical means.

You are choosing the unethical means, when there is no imminent threat

Does that make you a Nazi?

No way, but it means you are on the same wave length to a perceived threat

To terminate

Its treating humans as subhuman, like cockroaches and completely unethical. Its what sets us apart from the terrorist extremists. That we are nothing like them. Its what helps us in the end win this war of beliefs conflict. Fighting will not do that, but compassion, love and resolve will

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill is deliberately misrepresenting what is being said...

Actually he is not Tommy

Whether these people may be the ultimate scum of the earth. Unless they are of imminent threat. How do we have the right to execute them? If we have the ability to at present neutralise their threat by ethical means?

What Quill is saying is that like the Nazi's. They saw the Jews as a threat and sought to neutralise them through unethical means.

You are choosing the unethical means, when there is no imminent threat

Does that make you a Nazi?

No way, but it means you are on the same wave length to a perceived threat

To terminate

Its treating humans as subhuman, like cockroaches and completely unethical. Its what sets us apart from the terrorist extremists. That we are nothing like them. Its what helps us in the end win this war of beliefs conflict. Fighting will not do that, but compassion, love and resolve will

Part 2

So I am not denying that there is a threat with the release of said convicted terrorists being allowed to walk freely in society

If anything I take this as a major safe guarding issue

Those that have commit such heinous crimes in the Uk have made the authorities force their hand. That they will now make them all convicted be unable to have parole. Life will now mean life.

The extremists never wanted this and wished for the death penalty. To be seen as martyrs.

They will be robbed of this by dying of old age in prison. This is the path they choose. They tried to push the Government to be like them and failed

We are not like them Tommy and never will be. Unless one is an imminent threat. Then they should be taken out. Yet there is no need whilst they remain incarcerated in prison. Is there?

Let people die into insignificance. For what extremists yearn is to be glorified

People who yearn this, die young and often without glory

Hence those who follow this Islamic extremist past. Are best defeated by denying them death. As they believe that is there pass into heaven

By keeping them alive is a plain truth for them and torture

They will be forgotten in history

Its fame that drives them all

Those with a death wish

phil wrote:We are not like them Tommy and never will be. Unless one is an imminent threat. Then they should be taken out. Yet there is no need whilst they remain incarcerated in prison. Is there?

Didge gets it, tom.

Aren't they already in prison because they have been proved to be guilty of being a threat...!?

We don't have enough Prisons though, that's why they are let out early to make room for others !

True Nicko... And it is why most criminals avoid prison altogether after numerous offences... Which is why this country is in such a shit state with criminals roaming the streets all over the land...!

Quill would not agree with that !

nicko wrote:Quill would not agree with that !

Well, I do agree your system is f**ed up.  Y'all give in to austerity arguments too much.  You cut taxes and drive up the debt, and then you complain that infrastructure and services go missing.

What do you want?  

Shakes Head in disbelief

Labour started the soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime... And they fucked up the economy leaving us borrowing 170 billion a year by the time they got booted out of govt...


Labour also responsible for the start of early release half way through sentencing...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Labour started the soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime... And they fucked up the economy leaving us borrowing 170 billion a year by the time they got booted out of govt...

Labour also responsible for the start of early release half way through sentencing...

But those aren't the issues we are discussing here, are they? You are diverting to whataboutism, or the tu quoque fallacy (what about Labour???)

Concentrate, don't let your mind wander tommy...the issue here is austerity vs. infrastructure spending (prisons in particular).

That is all to do with infrastructure and crime rates...

Tommy Monk wrote:

That is all to do with infrastructure and crime rates...

I know. Building prisons costs money. The need for money raises taxes. It runs smack into the conservative value for austerity.

Every time you vote against something that costs money, you are withdrawing support for that 'something'. In this case, the cost is early release for those Muslims you would like to see kept in prison.

Labour fucked up a strong economy and were soft on crime... That is the disasterous legacy they left for the Tory govt to sort out over the last 10 years...

Tommy Monk wrote:
Labour fucked up a strong economy and were soft on crime... That is the disasterous legacy they left for the Tory govt to sort out over the last 10 years...

Groundless partisanship. Another bane of democracy.