Terrorist Murder In London Could Revive Snooper's Charter

judgecorp writes "Supporters of the Communications Data Bill (also known as the Snooper's Charter) have lost no time in calling for the Bill to be revived, in response to yesterday's brutal murder of a soldier on the streets of Woolwich, South London. The Bill would have allowed monitoring of all online communications — including who people contact and what websites they visit — but was shelved after Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opposed it, effectively splitting Britain's coalition government on the issue. Now the fear of new terrorism could rekindle support, based on the argument that even 'lone wolf' attackers use the Internet."

Comments

Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps I missed it, but how was this murder terrorism?

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

It was carried out to make a political statement by instilling fear. Are you dense?

Re:Fear Mongering

[serviscope_minor]

Perhaps I missed it, but how was this murder terrorism?

Because of stupid, that's why. It's shamefully common round these parts.

It's religiously motivated murder, just like Stepehen Lawrence was racially motivated murder. People ore only shouting "oe noes teh terrorists !!!11oneONE11!" because the murderer is muslim.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. They attacked a soldier because he was a soldier, not because he was a Christian (if he even was a Christian).

That makes this political. And even if it were for religious reasons would that make it any less terroristic in nature? I believe the basis of most terrorism of this nature has religious roots but ultimately it has political ties due to questions of governance and territory.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Hatta]

It wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war. The UK and the US are at war, why are you so surprised when the war hits home? People are just fine with senseless random killings of muslims half a world away, but kill one white European....

I'm absolutely not defending these people at all. I'm not fine with random killings on the street whether they are in the UK or Afghanistan. I'm just saying what they've done is no worse than our own public policy implemented by people we've elected. If you hate these people, you have to hate your own government, or be a hypocrit.

If you think this act is horrible, this is what the Afghan people deal with all the time.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that area is rife with muslim hatred against everyone else and this has been brewing for a long time. The culprits also claimed it was a reaction to the wars being waged in their lands by us Westerners. In summary:

1. religious based attack
2. muslims killing non-muslim
3. stated reason

Perhaps if the West wasn't murdering civilians with their drones on a near daily basis, these two muslims might not have been so angry?

Re:Fear Mongering

[Xest]

Dale Cregan shot and threw grenades at killing two police officers last year.

Raul Moat before that hunted for and shot a police officer in the face after having just shot two other people and said he was starting a war with the police.

Both of these were making political statements by attempting to instil fear, neither was classed as a terrorist incident.

The only difference this time is that the perpetrators identified as muslim. The fact they were talking to and not harming everyone else that was around afterwards means they were arguably less effective at instilling fear than people like Dale Cregan was, so if this was terrorism why were other such incidents not?

More realistically these seemed like a pair of London gangbangers desperate for a cause which they could use as an excuse to commit murder. They were not your usual middle eastern jihadis, they even quoted from the Christian bible which shows how poor their association with the jihadi ideology actually was.

We'd be better off dealing with London's gang problem once and for all (the one that triggered the riots) than we would pratting around treating this as a terrorist incident and investing in the security service's ability to snoop - hint: they knew about these guys anyway using existing ability and still couldn't/didn't stop them.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Bongo]

I was wondering about Sam Harris' argument in The End of Faith, basically that we have to go beyond irrationality if we're to survive, and that amongst all the world's faiths, Islam is at present the "worst" for various reasons -- there is no separation of Church and State, Islam is seen as a "complete system" (like communism or capitalism or whatever, ie. political power) and so on. One point he made as I recall, was that all the faiths have been weakened by modern secularism, and that's a good thing, but let's not forget they were weakened into being more peaceful. You can find all sorts of barbaric stuff in religions, although some histories were perhaps a bit more barbaric than others. The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini said that the West lies about Jesus saying "turn the other cheek" because, as the Ayatollah says, no true Prophet would ever be so stupid as to say such a stupid thing. Also Islam sees itself as inheriting the real truth, a truth that the Jews allowed to corrupt, and that the Christians allowed to corrupt, so the Islamic thing is to not allow it to be corrupted ie. don't modernise no matter what, remain pure. So there are variations and differences, and Harris thinks Islam is currently the worst offender, and the "peace" is actually only peace if you join the religion, be one of them, as it is monotheistic, One True God, no other way, only one right way, you're either with us or against us. The modern secular thing is, nobody has the real truth, let's enquire together and find stuff out. But in some Islamic schools, that is blasphemy. So it is complex. But how to respond when some "sick by Western standards" individuals gravitate towards the more murderous parts of certain ideologies? I guess the secular thing is to downplay religious intolerance and try to reaffirm, look, WE ALL WANT TO BE PEACEFUL. No to religious intolerance, no to religious hatred, no to hate. So called "terrorist" acts (are soldiers just a little more worried now when they walk out the gate? should they be? is that the intended effect? well, yeah) are there to incite hatred. People like that WANT to stir up hatred. And that's why we try to ignore them. But whether that will work in the long term, that's hard to see.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Xest]

I agree this wasn't terrorism but it wasn't war either. These people have no association with Iraq or Afghanistan, it seems they were most probably British.

That means it was not war. It was simple cold blooded violent murder and little else.

I'm anti Iraq/Afghanistan war too, but let's not pretend these guys were fighting for some cause, they were just killers looking for an excuse to kill.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anarchduke]

you mean Civil War? Because everyone involved was British.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Xest]

Right, and Dale Cregan shot one female police officer as she knocked on a door, and shot the other in the back as she ran away and then threw a grenade between the two of them whilst they were still alive and desperately trying to crawl away.

You'll have to excuse me if I still don't exactly see the difference even when the level of barbarism is taken into account. Even Raul Moat walking up to a police officer whose sat pulled up in his car, sticking a shotgun in his face and pulling the trigger doesn't strike me as particularly free from barbarism.

I agree none of these are ordinary murders, they're particularly extreme murders, but neither case is any more terrorism than the other. There was extreme barbarism in each case, and there was a message in each case.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Hatta]

This is not an act of war. It has no other purpose but institute fear.

Isn't that the purpose of warfare? To extract compliance from a population with the fear of death?

If you are unhappy with the US/UK governments you are strongly encouraged to run for office or campaign for change following the low of the land.

Seeing how most of the populace is OK with the wholesale slaughter of brown people from third world countries, I wouldn't have much of a chance.

But justifying random killings is disgusting.

I agree. I'm as disgusted by those who try to justify the war in Afghanistan as you are by this attack in the UK.

it is a bit single sided to accuse only US

Who accused only the US?

They do it for the most part because they can.

So, might makes right? Couldn't you justify this attack with the same logic?

In case you are going to refer me to some extreme christian denominations

You missed my point entirely. Our "moderate" public policy is *more extreme* than these militants. Far, far more innocent people have died at the hands of westerners in Afghanistan than have died at the hands of jihadists in the west.

Now in the light of this there is also other ways to defend you interest without random bombings

Great, now tell the US and UK so we can defend our interests with less violence.

Re:Fear Mongering

[slim]

No, it's terrorism.

Terrorism is the act of publicising your cause by making people afraid to go about their normal lives.

The whole point of the IRA bombing shopping centres, hotels and pubs was that it would impact how people lived, and keep the Irish Republican cause in the news. "Shall we go for a booze-up in Birmingham this weekend?" "Oh, hmm, bit worried about getting killed by a bomb."

These guys committed their murder in broad daylight, then waited around for the cameraphones to come out. Then did what appears to be a rehearsed speech, outlining their grievance, and then saying (approximately) "What are you going to do when we come out with our guns? None of you is safe. Next time it will be you, or your children."

They want us to believe (I don't) that there's an army of people like them, who will follow up with more attacks like this. That is specifically designed to terrify, and that's what terrorism is.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Hatta]

Now, flip the script: British soldier in Afghanistan carves up a random unarmed person on the street, with no existing threat or reasonable belief there is a threat to himself.

That's exactly what happens all the time. Except the knife is a drone.

Or are you going to be howling for that soldier's head on a stake?

Either both should have their heads on a stake or neither. There are good cases to be made for either. I don't see any good argument that the acts are essentially different and deserve to be treated differently.

Re:Fear Mongering

[tqk]

... civilian casualties are regrettable ...

Can we value human life any less? The massacre of innocent *non-combattants* is "regrettable"? Anyone who thinks like this has lost the right to be considered civilized. You shed crocodile tears. I will not regret your demise, nor shed any tears for the likes of you.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. That means we have to kill them _all_.

Not just them - you'll have to take me and every other human with an ounce of decency as well, or we'll hang you before you finish...

Re:Fear Mongering

[Synerg1y]

Based on that logic, anybody who decides to commit a crime, can write a memo stating that they're doing it for jihad before they do it and become a terrorist?

I'm with OP this is fear mongering by the media, won't stop the sheeple from crying terrorism and whatever else the media tells them though!

Why can't we be more like Norway?

[serviscope_minor]

Why can't we be more like Norway?

The prosecutor actually shook hands with Brevik because that's how they always do it and the hell some mass murdering bastard is going to make them give in and change their ways for the worse.

Yet one person gets murdered here and everyone seems to be yelling "terrorist" and going weak at the knees in fear and stupidity.

Re:Why can't we be more like Norway?

[serviscope_minor]

You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse.

Because making new laws to prevent murders could never be a bad thing. Same goes for terrorists, peados and criminals right?

Murder is already very, very illegal. No new laws are needed.

Planning murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.

Soliciting murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.

Starting from July 7/7/2005, an average of 7 people are killed per year due to terrorist attacks. That's on the same level as eye-wateringly obscure medical diseases.

Basically, any money put into preventing those is a complete waste: the money would be vastly better spent elsewhere, such as improving road safety.

Will you welcome a new overlord from a foreign land if they simply offer you peace for submission?

No, I'll try and shoot them, just like the police shot at these murderers. And see, no new laws were needed.

Science requires Evidence.

[VortexCortex]

That the Snooper's Charter will reduce the threat of Terrorism is an untested hypothesis. Prove it will achieve such goals, THEN we'll talk about having it be a law.

The usual immoral nonsense

[gweihir]

Of course this bill would not prevent any repetition of this act and countless other ways psychopaths with religion can kill people. It will however foster a police- and surveillance-state where the whole population is kept in fear permanently. From the efforts to reclassify this act as "terrorism", I conclude that keeping the population in fear is highly desirable for the UK government, possibly because it is failing at its job in countless other areas.

Re:How about...

[afgam28]

This would be substantially less likely to work in the US because terrorists know that such acts of violence would very likely end with them being met with a hail of bullets from bystanders or the police.

You do know that it did end in a hail of bullets from police, right?

Re:How about...

[Xest]

Remind me how many people died in the boston bombings again? How did or could guns have helped there exactly?

Remind me how well your firearms trained campus cop fared against the two brothers responsible again?

If we had US gun laws then this would've looked a lot less like a random murder and a whole lot more like an Anders Breivik massacre, so no, how about we don't have US style gun laws here.

The fact the most these guys could muster was a rusty pistol that they appeared to have managed to make little use of and a bunch of knives meaning this was only a one victim attack is actually a vindication of the fact that our gun laws are pretty effective. If even determined killers can't get more than a knackered rusty pistol between two of them then great, our laws are working really well.