Actually the DWP makes sense. They do investigations into false claims (fraud) for various benefits or other credits which are paid to people. This can lead to criminal charges, potentially. As one way to identify fraudulent claims is through online activity (e.g. "I can't work because I'm disabled" -> pictures of someone on an action holiday), or claiming to be single and posting relationship updates on Facebook, this can help with actual criminal (or civil) charges.
In that case they should have been happy to promote this type of thing as the purpose of the act instead of hiding it behind terrorism.
I merely quoted the poll that I presumed that the previous commenter had remembered. Not offering an opinion - just supplying facts.
Other Al-Jazeera polls are broken down by country and don't include Saudi so it may not be included in that one anyway. However I don't think you can dismiss such a poll quite so easily when it gives such a high percentage.
a legitimate grievance is the strongest fuel for insurtherection.
Unfortunately the facts don't fit your theory. Of course you have to perceive a grievance BUT it is also necessary to perceive some chance of success.
Many people throughout the world and through history have had legitimate grievances but have not rebelled until they could see some chance of success. Good examples are the peoples of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc who suffered for centuries under the Ottomans but were not in a position to rebel successfully until the Ottomans had declined and Britain, France and Russia were in a position to help out.
But greater scholars than you
Nice combination of argument from authority and ad hominem. Two logical fallacies in one sentence - good work!
The critical period is the period immediately before the baby boom - the dip from 1929-~1945.
And of course the bay boomers following along immediately behind increased the demand in all sorts of professions - especially in education - which in the UK forced the government to expand the universities and provide mainrenance grants.
Oppressive copyright laws existed long before most people started to see them as a big problem. Most of the problematic extensions had already happened long before anti-copyright activism started. New since ~1980 has been the increased ability of people to fight against such laws. We now have the means to route around them and protest against them. Once again the change is not in the level of oppression - it lies in the ability to oppose it.
Huh - there is SO much wrong with your response - let me go through it for you and all those who thought it was insightful:
Terrorists have that agency. They are humans. This is part of what makes their actions so hard to accept. Terrorists make a choice, and no matter how much our foreign policy may make us a target, the *decision* to murder innocent civilians lies with the murderer.
The so called "serenity prayer" is relevant here.
Remember what is says about "accept the things we cannot change". Well we cannot easily change the fact that terrorists will act like they do - so we have to accept that one. Simply heaping moral opprobrium on them does nothing other than giving us a warm - but ultimately pointless feeling.
However we CAN change the things we do - that is where we have to focus our attention. The similarity between the tiger and the terrorist lies in the fact that from our point of view both are predictable and beyond our control.
To suggest otherwise is not only victim blaming, but also racist.
When you suggest that islamist terrorists coming over from middle eastern countries can't be judged to the same standards that we judge our more local peers and colleagues, you are guilty of the racism of lowered expectations.
You are absolutely dead wrong there. Islam is a politico- religious ideology not a race (did you not notice that some of these terrorists have been white european converts?). To imply (as you do) that Islam is a race is itself racist and a slur on those of Arab or Asian origin who are atheist, agnostic follow other religions!
But in any case the process of (so called) radicalisation mirrors in many ways the well known Milgram experiments ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) which shows clearly that your statement " the *decision* to murder innocent civilians lies with the murderer." is dubious.
The fault lies with the authority figures and ideologies that control the terrorists and those on our side who succumb to political correctness and make no effort to respond to the ideology.
So long as the ideology exists there will be people who follow it. Blaming those individuals will get you nowhere.
No matter what the country, it seems the problem with the police remains the same. They care more about protecting their own, no matter how bad the actions are, than protecting their reputations and relationship with the public.
The root of the problem lies in "confirmation bias". Police recruitment procedures tend to prefentially attract and select individuals who are particularly prone to this problem - when in fact they should reject such people.
To be fair there are many senior officers who are aware of this and are taking steps to counter it (and many related failings) see for example this article:
It does seem strange to me that when excellent articles like the one I linked are circulating within the senior law enforcement community we still have cases like that described by Tim here.
although it might be a good idea not to use computers for this particular work....
You think that manual methods are less suspect!
With a computer program at least the same result (correct or erroneous) happens every time the line is executed. With a manual system you get to put in a whole new error every time! I'd say that's a whole lot worse!