Terrorist Attack in London

[Dravin]

But.... Don't you have a Tardis on every corner? lol

There is only one Doctor.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Dravin

[Mahone]

Are they entirely unarmed? Or just armed with things like batons, tasers, or pepper spray (aka 'non-lethal' weapons) rather than firearms?

Yeah, they carry pretty much all of those, just not firearms.

At least they'd have beat the pizza guy...

Once more, imagine how differently this would have turned out if the soldier had been permitted to carry his own sidearm for personal defense.

We need to be allowed to stand up against oppression, however it chooses to reveal itself. We also need to be allowed the best tools available to hold off oppression, up to and including physical assault.

Chances are, it wouldn't have been any different at all. They ran him down in a car first. I'd like to see anyone try to put up a defense against two armed men after just being run over, regardless of what weapons they have. Lets not turn this into yet another thread about whether citizens should be armed or not, please?

[Mahone]

How can the response time be that long? I thought (perhaps this is one of those broad generalizations to which we Yanks are so prone ) that there were cameras on, like, every street corner in London?

The response time is one of the questions being raised, and I'm sure the met will respond to that question in due course.

[bytor2112]

My one great caution in this...because I suspect there will be similar incidences in the near future...is not to take a broad brush and paint all of Islam with this evil. It will be tempting to do so. However, that indiscretion will later be used against Christians--and perhaps all who practice a rigorous faith. "militant" "radical" "politicized"--we must use these adjectives to show we know that these terrorists are a small subset--a faction. Again, if we are not careful, others will certainly not be careful with us.

Anyone claiming to be a Christian that committed these acts is obviously NOT a Christian at all. So it stands to reason the same should apply to Muslims or any other religion as well.

The problem is that these acts are done in the name of that faith and I suspect that these people who end up killing others or themselves and others all have been taught to believe they are carrying out the will of Allah and are devout Muslims.

How small a subset? Frankly, I am not so sure it is that small and while there are certainly a great many that would never commit these acts themselves, they may in fact sympathize with the attackers and their reasoning.

The Muslim community has done very little in my opinion to shape or change their image with Americans or other nations that have ongoing issues with them like France and England. A concerted campaign to denounce and vilify the mad ideology and those clerics that inspire others to do these heinous acts would be a great start.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm guessing there are dozens of stories like this: Muslims condemn savage attack on British soldier | Religion News Service

They don't fit our overarching narrative, so these get reported on the inside pages. There is also sometimes a fear that they louder we denounce the yahoos in our faith groups, the more we give them attention and influence. People start to think we are opposing a significant and pervasive faction, rather than a loud but miniscule group of extremists.

Also, the more we denounce, the more our opponents say, "Great! Now do something about them!"

How can we apologize for those we are not connected to? How can we control those we disavow? Moderate Muslims are caught in a whole series of impossible choices. Denounce off-base brethren, and seem disloyal. Be quiet and be accused of being sympathetic or complicit. Call out, and have people think the problem is mainstream.

So...I honor those moderates who bravely speak out. My guess is that each one that does represents 1000s.

[LittleWyvern]

The Muslim community has done very little in my opinion to shape or change their image with Americans or other nations that have ongoing issues with them like France and England. A concerted campaign to denounce and vilify the mad ideology and those clerics that inspire others to do these heinous acts would be a great start.

The lack of a central organizational structure in Islam makes this much more difficult than a similar process in Christian religions. Individual imams in the UK and the US will almost universally condemn the attacks, but because mosques are usually self-contained (think of what the Church would be like if the highest authority figure was a Bishop), don't expect a unified campaign against violence unless it's from a large organization (like CAIR in the US). For instance, what would Muslims excommunicate this man from, exactly?

EDIT: Also what prisonchaplain said.

EDIT 2: I also want to make it clear that I do believe that it is the responsibility of Muslims to root out extremism. It is, however, an ideological battle that is being fought on many fronts and at much smaller scales than what we may think.

Edited May 24, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Jamie123]

There are unarmed police officers in UK?

The British police do not carry firearms as a matter of normal routine. Some officers are authorized to use firearms, but these are specialists who are brought in to deal with specific incidents like this.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Jamie123

[NeuroTypical]

There is also sometimes a fear that they louder we denounce the yahoos in our faith groups, the more we give them attention and influence. People start to think we are opposing a significant and pervasive faction, rather than a loud but miniscule group of extremists.

Also, the more we denounce, the more our opponents say, "Great! Now do something about them!"

It's good to apply such tests to ourselves, to make sure we're not being hypocritical in our demands of adherents to the Islamic faith.

I think Mormons pass this test. Two examples of many:

Polygamist Sects Are Not “Mormons,” Church Says

A Conversation on Spouse Abuse

How can we apologize for those we are not connected to? How can we control those we disavow? Moderate Muslims are caught in a whole series of impossible choices.

I don't believe that disavowing evil is an impossible choice. I am starting to hear in my conservative circles, a growing appreciation for the Islamic groups that swiftly do so. I do not hear calls to apologize or control, but calls for more groups to publicly disavow evil acts, and stop justifying them and teaching them in your mosques.

When I'm arguing with Athiests and agnostics who bring up the crusades, and so-called christian white power people, and hate crimes against homosexuals in the name of God, I have absolutely no problem distancing myself. Heck, when someone brings up the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I have no problem admitting those people did evil things. When critics tell me mormons are just prone to such atrocities, I ask them to name one that has happened in the last 150 years.

Denounce off-base brethren, and seem disloyal. Be quiet and be accused of being sympathetic or complicit. Call out, and have people think the problem is mainstream.

I see that scenario as valid, only when there are no mainstream groups actively justifying and defending the terrorists. I guess it's important to define what percentage of a population needs to be extremist, before it can be considered a mainstream problem. Ten percent? Five? Two? If someone took a poll in London of people professing to be Muslim, and for every 100 responses you found half a dozen people willing to justify the terror acts and blame the British government, do Muslims not have a mainstream problem?

So...I honor those moderates who bravely speak out. My guess is that each one that does represents 1000s.

Me too and me too. And the numbers seem to be growing, and that's good too. When every outspoken moderate represents tens of thousands, I will be much more happy. Edited May 24, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon