http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303 It seems that a solider was killed by 2 men in Woolwich in a machette attack. According to BBC News 24 the attackers first ran him over, then they attacked him with machettes and then got into a gun fight with police who incapacitated both of them.
As yet there is no motive for the attack but the victim was supposed to be wearing a Help For Heroes T shirt.
Looking at the live text feed they're saying it was 2 black Muslims attacking a white soldier, while scaring off witnesses. Multiple reports say they shouted "Allahu Akbar", fethed the soldier up like animals, dragged his body into the street, and then attacked the cops when they showed up. This is all up for debate because its not an official police source, but I'd give it decent credibility with what we know of Islamic extremists.
That was classed as workplace violence, not a terrorist attack, for some reason
As for the story my thoughts and prayers go to the soldier's family. You expect a member of the armed forces to be most at risk when deployed, not walking down the street.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: That was classed as workplace violence, not a terrorist attack, for some reason
As for the story my thoughts and prayers go to the soldier's family. You expect a member of the armed forces to be most at risk when deployed, not walking down the street.
It had something to do with the way the trial is being worked. All of the victims are pretty much denied a Purple Heart because of that as well, which sucks, but I guess if it keeps the guy from walking...
And that is also why I hate hearing stories like these. We face enough risks in our job. We shouldn't have to worry about getting machete'd while walking down the street...
That arsehat Hasan. That was a serious breakdown in communication between dept's before he went off on the deep end. He's getting life. To execute him is to make him a martyr. I was mainly refering to civilians attacking military....hhmmmm...better description probaly everyday ordinary people with a vendatta against military vets...not sure I would label this a terrorist attack though. Has a group claim responsibility for it?
Jihadin wrote: That arsehat Hasan. That was a serious breakdown in communication between dept's before he went off on the deep end. He's getting life. To execute him is to make him a martyr. I was mainly refering to civilians attacking military....hhmmmm...better description probaly everyday ordinary people with a vendatta against military vets...not sure I would label this a terrorist attack though. Has a group claim responsibility for it?
There was a recruiter here who was stabbed a few years ago. I remember in Seattle a soldier was mugged (possibly killed) just outside of Ft. Lewis a number of years ago as well. There are instances in the US where we are specifically targetted, but I don't know if outside of the Hasan incident, there has been a militant islamist attack thats succesfully gone off.
Not yet, they seem to think it might be lone wolves from the BBC program I'm watching on it at the moment. An Emergency meeting of COBRA has just started being led by the Home Secretary. No doubt Islamic militants will be coming out of the woodwork soon, spouting please don't circumvent the language filter. Reds8n
uk_crow wrote: Not yet, they seem to think it might be lone wolves from the BBC program I'm watching on it at the moment. An Emergency meeting of COBRA has just started being led by the Home Secretary.
kronk wrote:The CCW talk is getting a bit off topic, gents. We have enough CCW threads, I think.
Since this was an attack on a soldier, how will they be treated in the courts over there or will that have any impact on procedures?
If found guilty, will they be seeing life in prison?
Not too sure, the public will be calling for the harshest possible sentence rightfully. Also because it is a terror attack i think there are special clauses such as holding without charging them for more than usual.
LordofHats wrote:
uk_crow wrote: Not yet, they seem to think it might be lone wolves from the BBC program I'm watching on it at the moment. An Emergency meeting of COBRA has just started being led by the Home Secretary. .
Wait wait wait wait wait.
You guys are working with COBRA?!
Heh, unfortunately not. It's an emergency meeting of government when an unexpected event happens.
According to the PM this is almost certainly a terrorist attack.
A video has also surfaced showing a black man with a London accent covered in blood and brandishing a blood stained cleaver gibbering about bringing down the government so it may not be a jihadist attack.
People getting murdered with bladed weapons on the open street by people chanting (misguided) religious outbursts...that starts to sound like a freaking Chaos cult on Cadia.
Orlanth wrote: That sort of vermin is national, and the victim was targeted.
They might be local, but might have come in to get the the barracks area. Woolwich is a scum area though.
On another board its noted at least one has a heavy British accent from ranting on camera before the police came.
Yeah the main terrorist who spoke to the camera (black beanie hat) had an fully English London accent, i'd be very surprised if he was a first generation immigrant.
They and anyone else who share their view and motivations should be removed from this world.
Nope, you do not protect civilisation by becoming uncivilised. They should be receive a fair trial that is open to the pubic and suffer the same punishment as any other murderer. Making martyrs out of people isn't the way to stop this from happening again.
Orlanth wrote: That sort of vermin is national, and the victim was targeted.
They might be local, but might have come in to get the the barracks area. Woolwich is a scum area though.
On another board its noted at least one has a heavy British accent from ranting on camera before the police came.
Yeah the main terrorist who spoke to the camera (black beanie hat) had an fully English London accent, i'd be very surprised if he was a first generation immigrant.
the alleged attacker says: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."
He adds: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same.
"You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."
'In our land' By the looks and sound of him his land would appear to the UK,
'You people' what? me, you mean you? I am confused.
Orlanth wrote: That sort of vermin is national, and the victim was targeted.
They might be local, but might have come in to get the the barracks area. Woolwich is a scum area though.
On another board its noted at least one has a heavy British accent from ranting on camera before the police came.
Yeah the main terrorist who spoke to the camera (black beanie hat) had an fully English London accent, i'd be very surprised if he was a first generation immigrant.
the alleged attacker says: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."
He adds: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same.
"You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."
'In our land' By the looks and sound of him his land would appear to the UK,
'You people' what? me, you mean you? I am confused.
If he had been living there 10-15 years the accent would have come, but that doesn't mean he'd consider himself British.
What would be the point of sending them to prison, rehab? Send them there for life? Death sentence in itself and waste of tax payers money.
Quite simply because we don't execute people in this country anymore, if we did we would simply regress closer to the level of the very people we are trying to fight. Maybe we should start cutting off the hands of theives and stoning adulters as well?
unmercifulconker wrote: I think removing the bad people of society would be quite civilised.
An Austrian chap thought something quite similar.
*Slow clap*
Didn't even take 2 pages. Is that a record?
Hah, my thoughts exactly.
Back to the original subject matter though. I'm still just perplexed at 2 things: A) Why did they just stand there and not attack anyone else? B) Did no one perform a citizens arrest? There were 2 of them and a group of 10 or more could have easily swamped them. People just stood by and watched it happend and took pictures on their iPhones.....
You called for the extermination of people based on the ambiguous term "bad".
What would be the point of sending them to prison, rehab? Send them there for life? Death sentence in itself and waste of tax payers money.
The point is to remove them from society, which is what you called for. The waste of money argument is flawed as the costs of appeals on death row will show you.
Did you see that woman just walk past him with the weapons in plain sight, she has (balls?) of steel. It is pretty wierd why no one did anything but I cant blame anyone for not wanting to confront 2 guys with weapons, you would clearly lose.
It's weird when you see it second hand, it's not when it happens in front of you.
For all peoples posturings of "I would help" in a situation, they usually do not have any idea on whether they actually would or not if they actually witnessed it first hand.
They'll certainly know they'll have wanted to. Sometimes.
Back to the original subject matter though. I'm still just perplexed at 2 things: A) Why did they just stand there and not attack anyone else? B) Did no one perform a citizens arrest? There were 2 of them and a group of 10 or more could have easily swamped them. People just stood by and watched it happend and took pictures on their iPhones.....
Would you citizens arrest someone who was armed with various knives and a gun?
The filming thing is a little odd, but I've heard that in stressful situations people will film things as it feels less real, as though they are watching it and not there themself.
unmercifulconker wrote: Did you see that woman just walk past him with the weapons in plain sight, she has (balls?) of steel. It is pretty wierd why no one did anything but I cant blame anyone for not wanting to confront 2 guys with weapons, you would clearly lose.
MrDwhitey wrote: It's weird when you see it second hand, it's not when it happens in front of you.
For all peoples posturings of "I would help" in a situation, they usually do not have any idea on whether they actually would or not if they actually witnessed it first hand.
They'll certainly know they'll have wanted to. Sometimes.
I don't think I would rush up and attack two big men who had knives, cleavers and a gun and had just chopped a man's head off. I think I would walk away and call the police.
MrDwhitey wrote: It's weird when you see it second hand, it's not when it happens in front of you.
For all peoples posturings of "I would help" in a situation, they usually do not have any idea on whether they actually would or not if they actually witnessed it first hand.
They'll certainly know they'll have wanted to. Sometimes.
Yeah being in the situation is entirely different, no doubt some of those people wanted to do something. Thankfully though they didnt attack anyone else which I dont know why because I assume they feel our way of life is 'wrong' and should be punished by Allah or something like that.
Back to the original subject matter though. I'm still just perplexed at 2 things: A) Why did they just stand there and not attack anyone else? B) Did no one perform a citizens arrest? There were 2 of them and a group of 10 or more could have easily swamped them. People just stood by and watched it happend and took pictures on their iPhones.....
Would you citizens arrest someone who was armed with various knives and a gun?
The filming thing is a little odd, but I've heard that in stressful situations people will film things as it feels less real, as though they are watching it and not there themself.
Not individually, but in the past groups have overpowered successfully armed indivduals in the UK.
There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
ProfessionalAmateur wrote: There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
unmercifulconker wrote: Did you see that woman just walk past him with the weapons in plain sight, she has (balls?) of steel. It is pretty wierd why no one did anything but I cant blame anyone for not wanting to confront 2 guys with weapons, you would clearly lose.
This lady? Very brave, along with others who shielded the soldiers body.
Nah it was on the video were he is talking to the camera and a woman in a blue outfit just walks right past him like nothing happened but holy crap what a woman she is, very brave indeed and should be rewarded for such courage.
110% certain that it was a soldier that got opted out? That be main reason for it. The civilians have no part fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan so would not make a big splash on the news.
ProfessionalAmateur wrote: There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
Which is sad and yet completely expected.
I know, apparently the bloody EDL were planning a demonstration at the site at some point, don't know if that went ahead.
Besides if they tried that here in the USA with all our gun owners...you think they pose there for pics and salutations? Just be two more body bags to fill. Me personnaly...I knee cap the Hell out of them
Jihadin wrote: 110% certain that it was a soldier that got opted out?
Its not been officially confirmed but the local MP has said that it is a soldier and it is right outside a barracks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Besides if they tried that here in the USA with all our gun owners...you think they pose there for pics and salutations? Just be two more body bags to fill. Me personnaly...I knee cap the Hell out of them
Nah, there would have been a massive shootout and there would be a lot more bodybags.
They done what the insurgents wouldn't do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Advertise on TV the killing of military personnel. Wonder how the Brits in Bastion/RC South Afghanistan going to handle it.
ProfessionalAmateur wrote: There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
ProfessionalAmateur wrote: There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
Yeah, except, the unfortunate thing is, it's not just two lone individuals. It's thousands of them. Yes, I've read the Koran in its entirety and many of the Hadiths, and no, Islam is not a "religion of peace". Neither is Islam a race, before the inevitable cries of "racist" go up.
Time to take the blinders off, everyone. How long will it take? A 1400 year history of aggression. Thousands of Islamic terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. Riots in the streets over depictions of Mohammed. Theo van Gogh beheaded in front of his home for daring to criticize oppression of women in Islamic societies. And no condemnation of any of this from the Muslim world at large. It's plain as day. But everyone just wants to cover their ears and say "lalalalala".
But, hey, enjoy your Sharia Controlled Zones in London, I guess.
You would not have ten plus so many people standing around here in the US watching a soldier get opted out. Be a few that would Iphone it but I'm sure quite a few Americans would
1. Opted out both with gunfire (I go knee caps; less paperwork)
2. Dumptruck load of people have bats....crowbars...nice length of steel pipe....
unmercifulconker wrote: I imagine if this was in the US, the attackers would more than likely have used guns and caused more damage.
Quite possibly. Although non-citizens might find it a little difficult to get ahold of guns and ammo as most sellers tend to be unwilling to sell to people with foreign accents who can't pass the background check.
ProfessionalAmateur wrote: There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
It's interesting that "black muslims" in America are generally unwilling to perpetrate stuff like this even though their rhetoric seems pretty radicalized at times. It's almost always either crazy anti-government types or people with connection to foreign radical muslims.
Jihadin wrote: Non citizens are not allowed to own fire arms.
Incorrect. As long as they are a legal resident with a resident work visa, green card, etc. and thus an Alien ID number, then they are OK to own firearms. They just have to go through some extra hoops to get the paperwork all correct and legal before they can purchase their firearms.
Jihadin wrote: Besides if they tried that here in the USA with all our gun owners...you think they pose there for pics and salutations? Just be two more body bags to fill. Me personnaly...I knee cap the Hell out of them
You would not have ten plus so many people standing around here in the US watching a soldier get opted out. Be a few that would Iphone it but I'm sure quite a few Americans would
1. Opted out both with gunfire (I go knee caps; less paperwork)
2. Dumptruck load of people have bats....crowbars...nice length of steel pipe....
Glad we've got the internets tough guy to tell us how he'd have knee capped them and saved the day, and himself the paperwork. Phew, good job stuff like this doesn't happen in the US.
Jihadin wrote: Treesong. Done four deployments. Since this is the internet I might be lying
Since this is the internet, it doesn't particularly matter, here you're no way better than anyone else.
Ah the interweb, where Gods and men dwell as equals, where opinions mean nothing, and where countless flame war are raged on a daily basis. It's a wonderful thing.
1 If they hate us and our country so much why do they insist on living here.
2 Why don't they go back to there homelands and fight the invading forces.
I just don't get it I am sorry but I find it harder and harder to except any of this .
They can't take over conventionally, so they want to do it from the inside.
This is not from the inside this is just plain murder, don't get me wrong there is never a winner in war.
These so called people are living among us claiming to be ordinary folk, then acting in cowardly ways and attacking the innocent.
This is a sick world we are living in I have to say, I wish our government would bring our troops home then they could protect our borders from lunatics like these.
1 If they hate us and our country so much why do they insist on living here.
2 Why don't they go back to there homelands and fight the invading forces.
I just don't get it I am sorry but I find it harder and harder to except any of this .
They can't take over conventionally, so they want to do it from the inside.
^^^ This. That's why it's a terrorist attack. It's more than just killing those soldiers like that... it's the fact that it can be done within the UK right outside of the base.
My cuz, who's just back from Afghanistan and was previously a prison guard, thinks these two are prison converts to Islam and were radicalized inside prison, he says there are Islamic kingpins operating inside the major UK prisons who convert young black prisoners to the cause and brainwash them on the inside.
It would certainly explain the accents and the 'our lands' refers to the already muslim nations.
1 If they hate us and our country so much why do they insist on living here.
2 Why don't they go back to there homelands and fight the invading forces.
I just don't get it I am sorry but I find it harder and harder to except any of this .
They can't take over conventionally, so they want to do it from the inside.
This is not from the inside this is just plain murder, don't get me wrong there is never a winner in war.
These so called people are living among us claiming to be ordinary folk, then acting in cowardly ways and attacking the innocent.
This is a sick world we are living in I have to say, I wish our government would bring our troops home then they could protect our borders from lunatics like these.
The Islamic immigrant population has almost doubled in the last 10 years in the UK. In that time there has been a marked increase of hate crimes commited by said population. The populations are trying to "shariah" the population centers they move into. And if you think I'm wrong, look at how homophobic crimes have risen 80% over the last 5 years in areas with heavy populations of immigrants.
Stuff like that has been happening in a lot of places. Why do you think France has cracked down so hard on it? Even in the US we've been seeing things like this with strong pushes in places like Minnesota to get Shariah Law to become a legal thing.
Jihadin wrote: Treesong. Done four deployments. Since this is the internet I might be lying
I would like to thank you for your service.
But also like to point out that if we all had guns in the UK, the radicalized islamics would all have guns, and we might well be looking at hundreds dead today instead of one poor bastard.
These two fethers were shot up with hollow point, so, fingers crossed, the death sentence may yet be carried out.
lone dirty dog wrote: Yes and our government knows this and what do they do about it ………………………………… sweet FA
I was reading a story that police were accused of trying to cover up crimes committed... it seems like your government is trying to do nothing about it.
This is what it looks like to me as an outsider, I'd be really curious to hear how you guys feel about it.
lone dirty dog wrote: Yes and our government knows this and what do they do about it ………………………………… sweet FA
I was reading a story that police were accused of trying to cover up crimes committed... it seems like your government is trying to do nothing about it.
This is what it looks like to me as an outsider, I'd be really curious to hear how you guys feel about it.
To be honest our government is completely out of touch with its people, I was reading only a few weeks ago that the military now has in place a procedure for civil unrest / revolution or uprising.
I think that explains pretty much what the feeling is if they have that in place, I can honestly say I have no love for my country or the people elected to run it.
They are leaving us to the fate of others and are more concerned about what the courts of the EU think or demand.
and yes cops are many minutes away with all those people standing around, no one with any ability to comprehend that yes, it can happen to you, or someone near you, and yes you might be all that stands between a stranger, or yourself, or a loved one dying.
its not being an internet tough guy to suggest the very real situation of someone in the states with cww actually stopping this, it happens all the time in the states that stuff like this is stopped by ordinary people And its not just "terrorist" attacks, its normal people getting hurt/robbed/raped being prevented/stopped before it gets worse.
citizens are almost always the first responders to any crime, fire, injury or accident.
ensuring that the public at large has access to the tools/training of cops/emts/firemen/ect (ie guns band aids, fire extinguishers, ect) at least gives people a chance someone will be able to help until "help" arrives.
the idea of an empowered capable population isn't very popular with some people unfortunately.
Even if you dont like the idea of normal people being able to fight back, or defend their fellow normals from the crazies, at least be first aid trained and carry a reasonable kit in your car/purse.
What gets me. I know what I would do if confronted/witness to a situation like this. I have no issue nor hang ups on drawing down on these two. Reason why I would knee cap I rather not have more "memories" to add with what I already down when I saw the "Elephant". I've no issue of rendering aid to the vict....in this case seems like a poncho cover be all that I do but I don't know what I could I've done to render aid. Whats getting/bothering me. It seems some on here would stand back and Iphone video it instead of "Doing Someting" to prevent.
No fair using them thar five dollar words on us colonials!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: My cuz, who's just back from Afghanistan and was previously a prison guard, thinks these two are prison converts to Islam and were radicalized inside prison, he says there are Islamic kingpins operating inside the major UK prisons who convert young black prisoners to the cause and brainwash them on the inside.
It would certainly explain the accents and the 'our lands' refers to the already muslim nations.
Seriously, feth this religion.
Thats sounds right unfortunately. It happens here too.
On the bright side Frazz at least they have soldiers guarding the barracks. In Northern Ireland they had rent-a-cops. who went diving for cover as two soldiers were shot collecting a pizza from the front gate.
whembly wrote: Barbarians and cavemans (that's me) live an awesome life here!
I do have to say that the food over here is excellent I don't think I've been disappointed yet
lone dirty dog wrote: Yes and our government knows this and what do they do about it ………………………………… sweet FA
I was reading a story that police were accused of trying to cover up crimes committed... it seems like your government is trying to do nothing about it.
This is what it looks like to me as an outsider, I'd be really curious to hear how you guys feel about it.
To be honest our government is completely out of touch with its people, I was reading only a few weeks ago that the military now has in place a procedure for civil unrest / revolution or uprising.
I think that explains pretty much what the feeling is if they have that in place, I can honestly say I have no love for my country or the people elected to run it.
They are leaving us to the fate of others and are more concerned about what the courts of the EU think or demand.
Come to America and be a prepper! For enough money you can buy an old missile silo...
Plus I think you'll find all the best food is made by barbarians. Why do you think Britain conquered so much of the world - to get quality munchies. Have you seen English food???
lone dirty dog wrote: To be honest our government is completely out of touch with its people, I was reading only a few weeks ago that the military now has in place a procedure for civil unrest / revolution or uprising.
I think that explains pretty much what the feeling is if they have that in place, I can honestly say I have no love for my country or the people elected to run it.
They are leaving us to the fate of others and are more concerned about what the courts of the EU think or demand.
I always thought that the UK's problem was that the government frequently forgot that the country carried on outside the London Metropolitan area
Medium of Death wrote: These guys should not be allowed to speak in court. they've already said enough.
You can't not allow someone to speak at their trial, that goes against what the law stands for. What would be the point, it's not televised so only those present would hear them. I can understand the reasoning in not allowing an interview for tv or reporting their statements, but you absolutely have to treat them within the law.
These guys aren't oppressed, they have legitimate Democratic means of voicing their concerns.
Instead they chose to go out and hack a man to death and go on a rant. I wouldn't think that a trial would be necessary or long with such damning evidence. Obviously they'll have to speak at their trial, but I hope the media chooses not to publish their words.
My initial reaction wants their blood to be spilled, but that's just anger. I really want to see them thrown in Isolation for the rest of their lives. Removed from society, forgotten, without becoming martyrs.
Going say this in a light way.To them they commited a "Jihad" killing by targeting a soldier............oh and I watch the video....anyone else see the female lying by the body?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like she was having her pic taking by the other chubby female?
It's that accent that gets me. When he says 'in our land women have to see the same' I keep thinking that things in South London can't be that bad.
Anyhow, this looks like just another donkey-cave who's decided he wants to go on a crusade for the cause of that vague idea of a homeland that he's probably never even been too. And some poor bastard ends up dead because of it. Just fething awful, really.
unmercifulconker wrote: I think removing the bad people of society would be quite civilised.
That's what Robespierre argued, and for a while people listened to him. In hindsight, most people consider the terror wasn't a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Yeah, except, the unfortunate thing is, it's not just two lone individuals. It's thousands of them. Yes, I've read the Koran in its entirety and many of the Hadiths, and no, Islam is not a "religion of peace". Neither is Islam a race, before the inevitable cries of "racist" go up.
Sure, I won't call you racist, but grossly ill-informed.
Time to take the blinders off, everyone. How long will it take? A 1400 year history of aggression. Thousands of Islamic terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. Riots in the streets over depictions of Mohammed. Theo van Gogh beheaded in front of his home for daring to criticize oppression of women in Islamic societies. And no condemnation of any of this from the Muslim world at large. It's plain as day. But everyone just wants to cover their ears and say "lalalalala".
No, I just understand how numbers work. There's a billion muslims in the world. If it is 'thousands of them' as you yourself stated then, making your 'thousands of them' say, 10,000, then that's one muslim per 100,000.
And when something is something is a few as one in a 100,000 its fething stupid, and completely useless to condemn them all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith"
- Winston Churchill, Hero.
Oh for feth's sake. fething Churchill?! I mean, the guy did a great many good things, but his out and out racism was a goddamn embarrassment in the 1940s, let alone today.
"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
ProfessionalAmateur wrote: There's been a bit of racist backlash from this as well, people getting REALLY angry at the muslim and black communities over the actions of just two individuals.
Yeah, except, the unfortunate thing is, it's not just two lone individuals. It's thousands of them. Yes, I've read the Koran in its entirety and many of the Hadiths, and no, Islam is not a "religion of peace". Neither is Islam a race, before the inevitable cries of "racist" go up.
Time to take the blinders off, everyone. How long will it take? A 1400 year history of aggression. Thousands of Islamic terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. Riots in the streets over depictions of Mohammed. Theo van Gogh beheaded in front of his home for daring to criticize oppression of women in Islamic societies. And no condemnation of any of this from the Muslim world at large. It's plain as day. But everyone just wants to cover their ears and say "lalalalala".
But, hey, enjoy your Sharia Controlled Zones in London, I guess.
Do you not see the irony in your preaching hate against a religion you claim preaches hate? Historically, there are many atrocities committed in the name of religion, so the solution is to reciprocate?
Yes, there is a branch of Islam that poses a problem and threatens people's safety, but there are extremist elements in other religions, and it doesn't take religion to perpetrate evil acts.
We recently saw the conviction of a man who burned his own children alive, in an effort to secure a larger house from the state. There is currently a trial ongoing of a man who may well have stalked, abducted and murdered a little girl. His defence is he didn't murder her, he was just so drunk he ran her over in his car and can't remember where he hid the body.
My point is, people are evil and do bad things. Some will try to justify it, but they are just as misguided as those who try and persecute the many for the actions of the few.
A soldier being killed in the street is unfortunately nothing new in this country. Religion is never a reason its only an pathetic excuse like all the others, its the same crap we have had to deal with for decades. Just now most of them aint white and have a thing for beards.
Don’t hold Britain’s entire Muslim population responsible, there no more responsible than I am for every crime committed by socialist agnostics.
There just worthless scum bags who instead of becoming martyrs for there BS cause ended up shot and in custody. They will go to prison for life and get a “proper” seeing too and be forgotten.
What the poor fellas family must be going through with the rather graphic media coverage I can only imagine. Death is never easy but to have global media show pictures of it......feck.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Yeah, except, the unfortunate thing is, it's not just two lone individuals. It's thousands of them. Yes, I've read the Koran in its entirety and many of the Hadiths, and no, Islam is not a "religion of peace". Neither is Islam a race, before the inevitable cries of "racist" go up.
Sure, I won't call you racist, but grossly ill-informed.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: LOL. Buddy, I *promise* you I am better informed on the subject than you. Read the Koran, read a couple of Hadiths, read a couple of thousand pages about Mohamed and the history of Islam, read up on the Shia Sunni divide, and then we can have a proper chat.
I have the Koran, I know the history of Islam, and I've taken uni courses on the Sunni/Shia divide. But I doubt a proper chat will suffice, because unfortunately your starting position is simply bonkers crazy nonsense.
Sorry, you are right, by the way - I should have said millions, not thousands.
And if it were millions of evil people, well then it'd still be one in a thousand. And it simply isn't millions, if it were we'd see a hell of a lot more violence and death than the sporadic incidents we actually see.
Seriously, your numbers make no fething sense. Your whole argument collapses in the face of third grade division and multiplication.
I think your western inclination to want to see the good in all people is noble, but it is entirely misguided.
No, I see selfish apathy in people. We look after ourselves and our immediate families, and very rarely do anything to jeopardise that. And I see that the number of people who act outside that, for good or for bad, is extremely rare.
Whereas you see a great rising tide of people raised on a religion of violence... and it is plainly and simply a nonsense worldview, born of emotion and irrationality, that just ignores the basic demography of the world (seriously, if even 10% of a population of a billion people are violent crazies, we'd see a hell of a lot more violence) and ignores the basic realities of human nature.
Islam in its current form is a vile, domineering political ideology under a thin veneer of religion and it has no place in a civilized world. The Muslim world needs to get with the times. They are in desperate need of a reformation. The onus is on them, not on us.
There is no 'onus' on anyone. Culture is emergent, not designed.
Let's stop pretending that this is just some "fringe" of crazy Muslims or that they are justified in their actions.
No, seriously. Basic fething numbers. Try using them, it's fun.
These are probably just another couple of crazies, much like the boston bombers. Not really affiliated with anyone, no real sense of what they were doing. More just garden variety crazies than religious fanatics.
You know the first time I heard "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." I kind of laughed at the ignorance of it. But more and more...........
It's sad because personally I know a lot of Muslims that would never hurt anybody.
Like so many others this story has really, deeply upset me. I hadn't really figured out how to deal with it yet in my own mind so I figured I'd see what Dakka had to say. I was hoping for some heart felt condolences to those directly effect and a little intelligent back and forth about where we go from here.
I'm truly disgusted to my core by the misinformed and unintelligent racism, condoning of violence and entirely medieval attitudes expressed here. So much so I vomited in my mouth a little.
I'm completely shocked that all this thread has really done is made the story more depressing. -1 for my faith in the average man. I really can't express how upsetting this is. My thoughts are with the family and friends right now.
I'll remember to find another forum of discusion in future for such important and serious matters.
I think that your perception of reality is skewed. Your arguments are baseless, if you are going to cherrypick bits from the koran that advocates violence will you also do the same with the bible?
Sebster is one of the most knowledgable on Dakka so I think that you need to pick your battles with more care,or not post bs.
I think that your perception of reality is skewed. Your arguments are baseless, if you are going to cherrypick bits from the koran that advocates violence will you also do the same with the bible?
Sebster is one of the most knowledgable on Dakka so I think that you need to pick your battles with more care,or not post bs.
I think that your perception of reality is skewed. Your arguments are baseless, if you are going to cherrypick bits from the koran that advocates violence will you also do the same with the bible?
Sebster is one of the most knowledgable on Dakka so I think that you need to pick your battles with more care,or not post bs.
He didn't claim that he did, he just wanted to know if he was going to cherry pick the Bible to show that Christians are also violent, terrible people at their core. When you cherry pick, it isn't that hard to do.
He didn't claim that he did, he just wanted to know if he was going to cherry pick the Bible to show that Christians are also violent, terrible people at their core. When you cherry pick, it isn't that hard to do.
He didn't claim that he did, he just wanted to know if he was going to cherry pick the Bible to show that Christians are also violent, terrible people at their core. When you cherry pick, it isn't that hard to do.
Great, so do it. Go on and cherry pick from any of Jesus's sayings.
The bible encompasses more than just Jesus's sayings. Have you never seen a bible?
Please, demonstrate to me your extensive knowledge on the subject. Bring it. I am calling you out.
Tell you what, I will do so IF you can demonstrate to me your extensive knowledge of statistics and political history which is something that so far you have singularly failed to do.
Was just watching Daybreak then and they interviewed the woman who confronted the scum and damn she is a legend. She just got off the bus and the only reason she decided to leave was because she thought she would miss her bus. What a legend.
Please, demonstrate to me your extensive knowledge on the subject. Bring it. I am calling you out.
Tell you what, I will do so IF you can demonstrate to me your extensive knowledge of statistics and political history which is something that so far you have singularly failed to do.
Well if you cherry pick the bible and skip the whole first testament, it actually comes off as a pretty peaceful book. The old testament however.......some pretty evil stuff in there.
Violence with the koran involve....well....verbal violence....You know most of our insurgents/terrorist foot pounders are not highly educated and are easily influence for lack of reading comprehension. Their Imam is a powrful influencing figure in their life. Certain passage if preach just right and with conviction will in turn create a Jihadist. I'm glad you both read the Koran and all that. Now go over it again and see what passages in it that can create a radical muslim...strike that..radical muslim is a hardcore practicing muslim....go with insurgent/terrorist willing to fight. They fight with conviction and firmly believe God is on their side. Hopefully you can look at the Koran with a differet perception. and see what passages are powerful enough to give motivation and dedication to the cause
Sorry for the bit of confusion. hopefully I got my point across. Chemo and pains meds running riot on me
I dont really act as the wannabe mod but I think its better if we end this pointless debate as everyone is so fixed on their opinion, you can never persaude them. As Crassus said from the show Spartacus, both men believe themselves the hero and the other the villain.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: My cuz, who's just back from Afghanistan and was previously a prison guard, thinks these two are prison converts to Islam and were radicalized inside prison, he says there are Islamic kingpins operating inside the major UK prisons who convert young black prisoners to the cause and brainwash them on the inside.
It would certainly explain the accents and the 'our lands' refers to the already muslim nations.
Seriously, feth this religion.
I have seen this and heard about this happening directly as well. Not just young blacks but whites as well. I opine that with a lot of hatred already amongst prisoners for things such as law and order it is easy to nudge some of them towards radical path way. It isnt about religion either as individuals with enough problems will latch onto something to justify their own actions.
Casey's Law wrote: Like so many others this story has really, deeply upset me. I hadn't really figured out how to deal with it yet in my own mind so I figured I'd see what Dakka had to say. I was hoping for some heart felt condolences to those directly effect and a little intelligent back and forth about where we go from here.
I'm truly disgusted to my core by the misinformed and unintelligent racism, condoning of violence and entirely medieval attitudes expressed here. So much so I vomited in my mouth a little.
I'm completely shocked that all this thread has really done is made the story more depressing. -1 for my faith in the average man. I really can't express how upsetting this is. My thoughts are with the family and friends right now.
I'll remember to find another forum of discusion in future for such important and serious matters.
From your thread count I'm amazed that you are amazed at this tread.....I mean it's actually pretty tame for Dakka.
I don't see anyone here being racist. Muslims and by default Muslim terrorists come in the full rainbow of colors. The Boston bombers were Caucasian, like form the Caucuses Caucasian, you don't get much more Caucasian than that.
Now, you could say they are being ignorant, but the numbers do point to there being and overwhelmingly amount more terrorists that ascribe to being Muslim than other religions. Is it the religions fault or does it have to do more with the cultures that embrace Islam. I don't know the answer, but the numbers are the numbers.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Sebster - ah yes, ad hominem attacks. "Bonkers crazy nonsense", accusations of being unable to perform basic math etc etc.
I never said you weren't able to perform basic math, I simply pointed out that you weren't doing it. I'd love it if you were to do the maths, and figure out how, with a billion muslims, you either end up with a ratio that makes it fair to criticise all Muslims (but produces a number of total terrorists in the millions, and you'd have to wonder how lazy the must be to perform so many acts each year), or you end up with a sensible number of actual terrorists and terrorist sympathisers, and produce a ratio that makes any attempt to make this an issue inflicted on all muslims as complete nonsense.
And yeah, as long as you don't do the maths and keep pretending it isn't true, I'll keep calling your claims 'bonkers crazy nonsense', because that's what you call things that can't be reconciled with the basic numbers of the situation.
You "have" the Koran (but have not read it). You've "taken a few uni classes" (and I am assuming still are in uni).
I have read the Koran. And your assumption is out by more than ten years.
You're simply outclassed in this debate, "mate".
Wow. Normally it's only after days of debate, when the argument has completely collapsed that people try the 'nuh uh I win' thing. Trying that after like three posts might be a new low for the internet.
There are thousands of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims each year. Fortunately, most of it is against other Muslims in Muslim countries. You ought to do a little more research.
You think I don't know the numbers?
I can tell you that after the Taliban, the groups responsible for the second and third most number of terrorist attacks were the Communist Party of India, and FARC. Now, in case you know nothing about the Maoist in India or FARC in Columbia, I'll give the cheatnote version for this thead - they ain't Muslims.
And if you want to measure it by fatalities, well then you've got the Taliban at number 1 again, then two Islamic groups operating in Iraq, and then the Lord's Resistance Army and then those Maoists in India again. In case you don't know, the Lord's Resistance Army are Christian.
And in case you're actually letting any of that sink in, you should start to realise that what connects all those groups isn't religion, because two of them don't have one and another group are Christian, but the nature of the countries they are in - politically unstable countries with histories of violence and/or human rights abuses.
So it turns out there's nothing as simple as an evil book making this happen, but instead terrorism is the product of failed human systems in a complex world.
But it's ok, I've gotten into this with enough people to see that there is nothing I can do or say that will convince you where overwhelming evidence will not. All I can say is that once you are out of your early 20s, hopefully you will outgrow your blind idealism.
Really, that's it? No response to my argument that most people basically just look after their families, and that anything outside of that, for good or for evil, is unusual? Just some empty assertion that I must be an idealist in my 20s? That's just fething lazy man.
I'll leave you with this -
Yeah, well done. Never mind the same stuff exists in the bible, or any other book of faith.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: My cuz, who's just back from Afghanistan and was previously a prison guard, thinks these two are prison converts to Islam and were radicalized inside prison, he says there are Islamic kingpins operating inside the major UK prisons who convert young black prisoners to the cause and brainwash them on the inside.
It would certainly explain the accents and the 'our lands' refers to the already muslim nations.
Seriously, feth this religion.
I have seen this and heard about this happening directly as well. Not just young blacks but whites as well. I opine that with a lot of hatred already amongst prisoners for things such as law and order it is easy to nudge some of them towards radical path way. It isnt about religion either as individuals with enough problems will latch onto something to justify their own actions.
Not just in prisons is this happening either.
We have the same thing in the US with the Nation of Islam. Which is a whole other issue. Malcolm X was a part of the Nation of Islam, then he went to Mecca and changed his whole thought process after discovering what he called real Islam. Which for him seamed like a real positive influence, so again, I think it's hard to blame Islam for all the terrorists. Even so, there still seams to be some correlation between Islam and terrorists, but it could be a million other factors too.
Andrew1975 wrote: You know the first time I heard "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." I kind of laughed at the ignorance of it. But more and more...........
But that isn't true, not all terrorists are muslims. One could say 'the only terrorist incidents that get reported in mainstream, Western media are those committed by Muslims', though.
It's sad because personally I know a lot of Muslims that would never hurt anybody.
That real world experience is probably a lot more important than the skewed image provided by single media events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Sure, let's go toe to toe. Bible vs. Koran. Bring it on. Let's do this. I can do it all day. Go on. Find quotes from Jesus or any of the Apostles advocating violence. I'll be here waiting.
Oh look, weasel words. First you say the Bible, and then you qualify your request by saying the quote can come only from Jesus or the Apostles.
Those kinds of little tricks might fly elsewhere, but we aren't idiots here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, NO, I am not a Christian. But all religions are NOT equal.
No, they probably aren't all equal, but the concept of trying to assign values to one religion or another is beyond stupid, and the kind of thing someone could only try if they really, really don't understand how religion works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Huh. Funny. I graduated with a degree in Political Science from one of the top 10 universities in the world.
Political science? Oh I am sorry. Perhaps that's why you're so angry?
That real world experience is probably a lot more important than the skewed image provided by single media events.
Oh absolutely. I've personally met more wackos and violent wackos that use the bible to legitimize their views (more so since I moved to Alabama, so glad to be leaving soon). While I wouldn't call them terrorists, they are not far off. But still even taking skewed coverage into account the are a lot of terrorists that are Muslim.
Look, any book can be corrupted. The clan uses the bible, and I can tell you Jesus was not a WASP!
Last night there were demonstrations by the English Defence League (EDL) and there were also several attacks on mosques in the night.
Andrew1975 wrote: We have the same thing in the US with the Nation of Islam. Which is a whole other issue. Malcolm X was a part of the Nation of Islam, then he went to Mecca and changed his whole thought process after discovering what he called real Islam. Which for him seamed like a real positive influence, so again, I think it's hard to blame Islam for all the terrorists. Even so, there still seams to be some correlation between Islam and terrorists, but it could be a million other factors too.
Weirdly enough, the Nation of Islam isn't really an Islamic group. The rituals of Islam are not required (no prostrations at prayer, fasting of Ramadan is optional etc), and I don't believe there are any major Islamic groups that recognise the Nation of Islam as an Islamic group (and some that outright reject them).
Instead, the NOI can be seen as yet another hate group formed as an unfortunate by-product of oppressed people. And, sadly, it shows that once such a hate group is formed, it is likely to live on after the original oppression is largely removed.
Andrew1975 wrote: We have the same thing in the US with the Nation of Islam. Which is a whole other issue. Malcolm X was a part of the Nation of Islam, then he went to Mecca and changed his whole thought process after discovering what he called real Islam. Which for him seamed like a real positive influence, so again, I think it's hard to blame Islam for all the terrorists. Even so, there still seams to be some correlation between Islam and terrorists, but it could be a million other factors too.
Weirdly enough, the Nation of Islam isn't really an Islamic group. The rituals of Islam are not required (no prostrations at prayer, fasting of Ramadan is optional etc), and I don't believe there are any major Islamic groups that recognise the Nation of Islam as an Islamic group (and some that outright reject them).
Instead, the NOI can be seen as yet another hate group formed as an unfortunate by-product of oppressed people. And, sadly, it shows that once such a hate group is formed, it is likely to live on after the original oppression is largely removed.
Yeah that's kind of my point. A lot of stuff gets blamed on Islam. I don't believe the blame really lies there. I don't think Islam necessarily creates terrorists, more like terrorists may be drawn to it, or use it. Catcher in the rye isn't about killing people, but for some reason assassins are drawn to that book.
NOI has about as much to do with Islam as the Klan has to do with Christianity.
Andrew1975 wrote: Oh absolutely. I've personally met more wackos and violent wackos that use the bible to legitimize their views (more so since I moved to Alabama, so glad to be leaving soon). While I wouldn't call them terrorists, they are not far off. But still even taking skewed coverage into account the are a lot of terrorists that are Muslim.
Sure, a lot of the attacks are, and the number of violent attacks even more so. But not all are, not by a long shot, and if you take the time to look at the perpetrators of the attacks, what you see overwhelmingly isn't a faith, but chronic political instability and failed states. Some Islamic terror groups have globalised and spread that violence out in to the West, and this has massively changed how terrorism and Islam is seen here, while the reality of terrorism remains crazy donkey-caves of all kinds of persuasions* blowing up unfortunate people in incidents we never even hear about.
Look, any book can be corrupted. The clan uses the bible, and I can tell you Jesus was not a WASP!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote: Yeah that's kind of my point. A lot of stuff gets blamed on Islam. I don't believe the blame really lies there. I don't think Islam necessarily creates terrorists, more like terrorists may be drawn to it, or use it. Catcher in the rye isn't about killing people, but for some reason assassins are drawn to that book.
Well, you look at the middle east, and you see a load of politically unstable countries. No surprise that you'd see plenty of terrorism there. And no surprise that terrorism spikes when countries get a lot less stable, like say Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years. The LRA in Uganda and surrounding countries, or FARC in Columbia have been fed by local instability just the same.
What's different about Islamic terror, I think, is the conviction that their problems are caused by the West and that attacking us will somehow solve them, or be some kind of revenge. And so recruiting local donkey-caves becomes an organisational goal, and then setting off a bomb at the Boston marathon becomes a media event in a way that, say, derailing a train in India never would be.
And I think everyone ends up wanting to shoot Holden Caulfield by the end of that book. He's only fictional, so someone else will have to do.
NOI has about as much to do with Islam as the Klan has to do with Christianity.
I guess, what iIm trying to say is blaming Islam for violence is like blaming guns for violence. Certain people in certain situations are drawn to things. It's not the "things" fault. Granted the base nature of a gun is violence, but it does not necessarily need to be used for such, and no I'm not saying Islams base nature is violence.
Well, you look at the middle east, and you see a load of politically unstable countries. No surprise that you'd see plenty of terrorism there. And no surprise that terrorism spikes when countries get a lot less stable, like say Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years. The LRA in Uganda and surrounding countries, or FARC in Columbia have been fed by local instability just the same.
What's different about Islamic terror, I think, is the conviction that their problems are caused by the West and that attacking us will somehow solve them, or be some kind of revenge. And so recruiting local donkey-caves becomes an organisational goal, and then setting off a bomb at the Boston marathon becomes a media event in a way that, say, derailing a train in India never would be.
.
Yeah, but its strange though that it just happens to always be Islamic countries that are so unstable. Not exclusively obviously. But Islam does seam to bring violence and chaos to regions, that cause them to be unstable. Now again it could just be other factors, but I'm just calling them as I see them. It seams that once a population becomes heavily influenced by Islam, it becomes unstable. Now it could also be the inverse, where Islam becomes a heavy influence because of instability.
Andrew1975 wrote: I guess, what iIm trying to say is blaming Islam for violence is like blaming guns for violence. Certain people in certain situations are drawn to things. It's not the "things" fault. Granted the base nature of a gun is violence, but it does not necessarily need to be used for such, and no I'm not saying Islams base nature is violence.
True, I think when people have some things going wrong in their lives, and need for a cause, then they often find it in extremist religion.
Yeah, but its strange though that it just happens to always be Islamic countries that are so unstable. Not exclusively obviously. But Islam does seam to bring violence and chaos to regions, that cause them to be unstable. Now again it could just be other factors, but I'm just calling them as I see them. It seams that once a population becomes heavily influenced by Islam, it becomes unstable. Now it could also be the inverse, where Islam becomes a heavy influence because of instability.
Looking at the middle east, I've got a hard time saying it was a religion that's caused all that instability. There are underlying economic and social factors, and a lot of history leading to these issues.
I mean perhaps in some countries it could be argued that Islamic principles have hurt economic growth, and that decline compared to elsewhere in the world has led to a fall in power and then to instability, but I think that might even be something of a stretch (as in most cases the poor economic growth is tied to weak governments).
I'm very surprised that there hasn't been any more "revenge" attacks in the night. I think this could definitely be the catalyst that some very angry people needed. Certainly when I heard it made my blood boil, so certain elements in our country must be apoplectic.
I'm posting this again, as I think this guy made some very good points.
Muslim organisations have failed to teach young people that there is a democratic route to express discontent, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.
Asghar Bukhari said that while organisations are "rightly" condemning the suspected terror attack in Woolwich, they have "washed their hands" of the youth.
But he also blamed the government for failing to admit that there is a link between foreign policy and radicalisation.
Good interview, thanks Medium of Death for that contribution. Why do young Muslims feel that they can't express their anger in a constructive manner? They live in our society, where every month or so there are demonstrations etc about a wide variety of social issues. The masses just get angry and less understanding and will begin to tar everyone with the same brush. The attacks on mosques being a case in point. We're on a slippery slope indeed.
Andrew1975 wrote: Well if you cherry pick the bible and skip the whole first testament, it actually comes off as a pretty peaceful book. The old testament however.......some pretty evil stuff in there.
Yea:
Old Testament - badass angry young Dad God thats a little high strung with his first kid.
New Testament - older Dad God who's had many children, and just wants everyone to graduate high school already and get out so he can play ball with the Great Wienerdog without someone asking him for keys to the family car.
uk_crow wrote: Good interview, thanks Medium of Death for that contribution. Why do young Muslims feel that they can't express their anger in a constructive manner? They live in our society, where every month or so there are demonstrations etc about a wide variety of social issues. The masses just get angry and less understanding and will begin to tar everyone with the same brush. The attacks on mosques being a case in point. We're on a slippery slope indeed.
There are plenty of young muslims who don't have anger, because they are integrate into British society and have good jobs and so on.
There are plenty of young muslims who can express anger in a constructive manner. Look at the current campaign against female genital mutilation.
Conversely, if there are attacks on mosques, that would show there are non-muslim Britons who are unable to express their anger in a constructive manner.
People see the inaction of the Muslim community as a sign of acceptance, even if it isn't. People attack Muslims not because their faith tells them to, but because of the way the radical elements conduct themselves. It's not like we have organised Christian mobs descending on Mosques. You could probably define them as "Christian" in that loose catch all sense, but they certainly aren't using the words of the bible to justify their retribution. They most certainly aren't being guided by a Priest/Minister/Bishop/Whatever. Hate, Anger and Fear are all they need.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm very surprised that there hasn't been any more "revenge" attacks in the night. I think this could definitely be the catalyst that some very angry people needed. Certainly when I heard it made my blood boil, so certain elements in our country must be apoplectic.
I'm posting this again, as I think this guy made some very good points.
Muslim organisations have failed to teach young people that there is a democratic route to express discontent, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.
Asghar Bukhari said that while organisations are "rightly" condemning the suspected terror attack in Woolwich, they have "washed their hands" of the youth.
But he also blamed the government for failing to admit that there is a link between foreign policy and radicalisation.
Ahhhhhh yes, I saw Bukhari on the BBC... I've little time for him myself.
During the Gaza War, Bukhari wrote in a Facebook thread: "Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are 'Mujahadeen' and are blessed by Allah. And any Muslim who fights and dies against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise ... There is no greater oppressor on this earth than the Zionists, who murder little children for sport."
In 2006, Bukhari had sent David Irving a £60 cheque and a letter headed with a quote from John Locke, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to stand idle".[2] This was reported in The Observer as David Irving had made statements in the past supporting Holocaust Denial.
And I noted his repeated insistence during the interview in getting a 'the west brought this on it's self' snipe in about wars in the Middle East, which is also what the fether with the hatchet was saying with his hands covered in that young man's blood.
Guys confirmed known to the security services due to their radical views, but weren't under direct surveillance.
EDIT:
I think we should remove ourselves from these conflicts, it isn't doing us any good, isn't winning us any friends and is costing an absolute gakload. Unfortunately I wasn't aware that the speaker on the BBC held some questionable views. In saying that I agreed with most of his sentiments (during the BBC interview), however I think the "we brought this on ourselves" is a bit nebulous. It could really be applied to anything, if we were to pull out of all Muslim countries the next thing would be being allied to Israel (a country we should distance ourselves from IMHO) etc. etc.
Medium of Death wrote: People see the inaction of the Muslim community as a sign of acceptance, even if it isn't. People attack Muslims not because their faith tells them to, but because of the way the radical elements conduct themselves. It's not like we have organised Christian mobs descending on Mosques. You could probably define them as "Christian" in that loose catch all sense, but they certainly aren't using the words of the bible to justify their retribution. They most certainly aren't being guided by a Priest/Minister/Bishop/Whatever. Hate, Anger and Fear are all they need.
The Muslim community hasn't been inactive. Their community leaders and spokesmen have been all over the serious news denouncing this kind of violence, etc.
It's not like we have organised Muslim mobs doing anything, basically. We do have the EDL threatening hate marches, though. It doesn't matter one bit to a victim what ideology their attacker might have used to justify himself.
uk_crow wrote: Good interview, thanks Medium of Death for that contribution. Why do young Muslims feel that they can't express their anger in a constructive manner? They live in our society, where every month or so there are demonstrations etc about a wide variety of social issues. The masses just get angry and less understanding and will begin to tar everyone with the same brush. The attacks on mosques being a case in point. We're on a slippery slope indeed.
There are plenty of young muslims who don't have anger, because they are integrate into British society and have good jobs and so on.
There are plenty of young muslims who can express anger in a constructive manner. Look at the current campaign against female genital mutilation.
Conversely, if there are attacks on mosques, that would show there are non-muslim Britons who are unable to express their anger in a constructive manner.
I haven't denied that, but i don't see any other other disaffected angry youths from any other creed or religion running down and hacking to death a soldier like a piece of meat due to our countries involvement in foreign adventures. Most stage protests, nor do i see any other faith going so ballistic over perceived mocking of their religion eg the Dutch cartoon of Muhammad or the reaction to 'Innocence of Muslims' film. That is the point i am making.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Muslim community hasn't been inactive. Their community leaders and spokesmen have been all over the serious news denouncing this kind of violence, etc.
That's the point made in the interview they give all this talk of denouncing the actions of the select few but then wash their hands down the line when it should be their responsibility to show the misguided youth how they've twisted the faith.
uk_crow wrote: but i don't see any other other disaffected angry youths from any other creed or religion...
So what exactly were the Irish troubles then if not angry young men attacking soldiers, torturing and in some cases trying to decapitate people while also bombing innocents?
uk_crow wrote: but i don't see any other other disaffected angry youths from any other creed or religion...
So what exactly were the Irish troubles then if not angry young men attacking soldiers, torturing and in some cases trying to decapitate people while also bombing innocents?
I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
uk_crow wrote: I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
That simply doesn't wash. You can't make a statement about how you 'don't see people from other races...' and then try and qualify it by saying you only meant about the conflicts that only involve Muslims.
Oh and have a guess how many British Muslims are members of the Stop the War Coalition, and then have a guess at how many British Muslims are, were or plan to be terrorists. Now, which do you think is the higher number?
What is your exact question? I see you complain that people protest about something you feel is trivial. But I think lots of things are trivial, like background checks and safe storage of guns, the religious based opposition to abortion or equal marriage. Just because I think those are trivial doesn't mean I don't agree with people protesting about them. The vast majority of protests regarding the Dutch cartoon, or the non existent film, or the Salman Rushdie book were peaceful, but that doesn't get reported. As sebster said, do the maths, 1 billion Muslims and 50 deaths, it's hardly prolific.
What is it with white British, every time there's a crime that might have been perpetrated by a Muslim they blame an entire religion, don balaclavas, take to the streets and attack police. Except of course, the vast majority of us don't.
uk_crow wrote: I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
Perhaps it is because our country and Sweden haven't been invaded by a coalition of foreign powers , working on false evidence, who occupied the countries for nearly a decade and directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people.
uk_crow wrote: I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
Perhaps it is because our country and Sweden haven't been invaded by a coalition of foreign powers , working on false evidence, who occupied the countries for nearly a decade and directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people.
uk_crow wrote: I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
Perhaps it is because our country and Sweden haven't been invaded by a coalition of foreign powers , working on false evidence, who occupied the countries for nearly a decade and directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Blaming America for all of this already?
Last time I checked America wasn't a coalition of foreign powers, and the false evidence came from an Iraqi and was compiled by the Brits.
uk_crow wrote: I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
Perhaps it is because our country and Sweden haven't been invaded by a coalition of foreign powers , working on false evidence, who occupied the countries for nearly a decade and directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Blaming America for all of this already?
No. I'm just saying that an important difference between the western population and the Islamic one is that we haven't experienced an invasion and occupation recently.
uk_crow wrote: I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?
Perhaps it is because our country and Sweden haven't been invaded by a coalition of foreign powers , working on false evidence, who occupied the countries for nearly a decade and directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Blaming America for all of this already?
No. I'm just saying that an important difference between the western population and the Islamic one is that we haven't experienced an invasion and occupation recently.
It does tend to influence people's attitudes.
Well... by all accounts these people were born as British citizens, so... your point is?
And when did we invade Dagestan? Or Saudi Arabia? Etc...
Kilkrazy is talking sense.
Nobody "deserves" to get murdered, but at the same time, soldiers go "over there" and kill people, and have been doing so for a decade. If they can "come over here" and do the same, I don't think it's that hard to understand the motivation. Even if "coming over here" is by methods like radicalising idiotic British youths.
As for the whole "Wargh, Muslims!" thing, I bet the IRA killed a lot more people with terrorist acts in the UK than any muslims but I don't see many people claiming that Catholicism is a religion that engenders terrorism or claiming that all Irish people secretly have the seed of terrorism in their hearts. Is that because of familiarity combined with cultural and racial similarity? If you're a british person with no problem with Irish Catholics, it's worth thinking about why your perception of Muslims might be different.
Da Boss wrote: As for the whole "Wargh, Muslims!" thing, I bet the IRA killed a lot more people with terrorist acts in the UK than any muslims but I don't see many people claiming that Catholicism is a religion that engenders terrorism or claiming that all Irish people secretly have the seed of terrorism in their hearts. Is that because of familiarity combined with cultural and racial similarity? If you're a british person with no problem with Irish Catholics, it's worth thinking about why your perception of Muslims might be different.
Or maybe it was because the IRA didn't often make religious statements, or acknowledge religion as a major motivation? Their goal was politically, not theologically, driven (not that it makes what they did right)
Da Boss wrote: Well, it is a good point, but I think my point still has some validity to it, too.
Bar the fact that one is a theologically driven terrorist group, whereas the other is politically driven.
Also, you left out the Free Presbyterian Church which; "For many outside the church, political and religious opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, considered by the Free Presbyterians to be a Protestant Reformation principle, represents the single most distinctive characteristic of this denomination, not least because this is a distinctive characteristic of Ian Paisley's own theological outlook."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Ulster
And yes, a great many of them believe that being a Catholic is a mortal sin
Whembly: My brother used to have to get a "civilian" style haircut before coming home on leave and was advised to keep what he did for a living a secret when he was in the Royal Marines. My dopey sister told people anyhow, and he was given a lot of grief and had a few people start fights with him over it. The British armed forces generally have to be fairly careful about this sort of stuff, even at home. They've been dealing with domestic terrorism for a good long while now.
Edit: I'm aware of Paisley's lot, but again, I'm not seeing how it completely invalidates my point? The reaction to muslims is rooted in more than just a distaste for the religion, it is also encouraged by a (perfectly human and normal) distaste for the "other" that more familiar groups wouldn't engender. I am trying to point out that reflecting on that feeling and being aware of it can help to calm down the situation and prevent people getting angry at entire groups, which solves nothing.
Da Boss wrote: Whembly: My brother used to have to get a "civilian" style haircut before coming home on leave and was advised to keep what he did for a living a secret when he was in the Royal Marines. My dopey sister told people anyhow, and he was given a lot of grief and had a few people start fights with him over it. The British armed forces generally have to be fairly careful about this sort of stuff, even at home. They've been dealing with domestic terrorism for a good long while now.
Da Boss wrote: Whembly: My brother used to have to get a "civilian" style haircut before coming home on leave and was advised to keep what he did for a living a secret when he was in the Royal Marines. My dopey sister told people anyhow, and he was given a lot of grief and had a few people start fights with him over it. The British armed forces generally have to be fairly careful about this sort of stuff, even at home. They've been dealing with domestic terrorism for a good long while now.
Okay... I'm just a red-neck 'Murrican.
That stinks the high heavens man.
Shrug. Comes with the territory if you're an Irishman who decides to join the British army. We've plenty of songs about it
Edit: Btw, the point about radicalisation in prisons is a good one. Funny thing is, institutionally, these days, the UK is really really inclusive. It's one of the more impressive aspects of the system. Individuals are a bit xenophobic, but it's not an intolerant society on the whole at all. Perhaps we only notice the incidences of radicalisation and not those of normalisation?
Da Boss wrote: Edit: I'm aware of Paisley's lot, but again, I'm not seeing how it completely invalidates my point? The reaction to muslims is rooted in more than just a distaste for the religion, it is also encouraged by a (perfectly human and normal) distaste for the "other" that more familiar groups wouldn't engender. I am trying to point out that reflecting on that feeling and being aware of it can help to calm down the situation and prevent people getting angry at entire groups, which solves nothing.
Because it shows that even with similar cultural identity (leaving race out as Islam is a religion, not a race) people can preach hatred, not just against some "other" with a darker skin, different language and customs.
Kilkrazy wrote: Think back to when the Twin Towers were attacked. Didn't you burn with anger and a desire for revenge on the perpetrators?
You don't now, and you aren't rioting in the streets or seeking for Muslims to destroy. (I hope!)
Some Muslims have that feeling of anger, even though it is from our point of view misguided, and put it into this kind of action.
Islam is a religion. The terrorists on 9/11 attacked a country. Not seeing where you're going with this.
Where I am going is that the terrorists had a motivation. They didn't just think, "We haven't got anything to do next weekend, so let's attack the USA for the lulz."
The motivation was not being muslims. There are a billion muslims in the world, including several million US citizens, and nearly two million British citizens. Almost none of them did these attacks.
If you blame all muslims for being muslims, you will alienate the ones who are on the same side as us.
You know the thought that struck me as a Former member of the British Armed Forces...
"Those two culprits wouldn't have lived more than 1minute 30 seconds, if they had done that to an American Soldier in uniform, on the busy streets of a city in the United States of America" rather than than the 20mins the Media are quoting as the response time. Nevermind the Police all being routinely Armed, the Citizenry also having the right to bare Firearms, someone would have intervened and shot them. It wouldn't have saved the Soldier, but it would have stopped or limited the inhuman desecration of his body and spared the family the knowledge of what those animals did to him. Those two should never have been taken alive, and quite right to.
This was deliberately targeted illegal attack against a Lawful Combatant obeying the law in his own Country. Their normal rights can be waved as an Illegal Combatant.
This means we do not have to do anything, and may with no recourse or legal appeal execute said individuals.
"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action"
If the culprits are UK Citizens - Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 became law, the maximum sentence for treason in the UK has been life imprisonment.
I wish they had been killed, despite the argument against Martyrdom, it deny's months of Legal wrangling and the extra Media Coverage these dogs will get from a barbaric act.
Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam.
Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam.
unmercifulconker wrote: Its the fact that its Islam which has allowed this to happen, would they have done this if they were not muslim?
This is from a couple pages back, but I wanted to make a brief comment: Religions, including Islam, don't "allow" things to happen. They aren't free agents that determine what people do or don't do. The responsibility lies with the people who made their own choices and perpetrated the attack, not on a collection of religious teachings which could be interpreted and focused on in a variety of ways.
Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam.
I like that.
little nit pick here: Westboro folks don't butcher their opponents.
mwnciboo wrote: Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam.
How many members of the Westborough Baptists have gone out and murdered someone in the name of Jesus? How many "badly interpreting Islam" dicks have murdered someone in the name of Mohammed or Allah? I'll give you a hint, the answer to the first question is "zero". So, please stop making apples & oranges comparisons to justify political correctness. Given all the incidents worldwide where Muslims (dicks or otherwise) are murdering others in the name of Islam, it cannot be considered the actions of a "fringe" element even if it the majority doesn't do it.
mwnciboo wrote: Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam.
How many members of the Westborough Baptists have gone out and murdered someone in the name of Jesus? How many "badly interpreting Islam" dicks have murdered someone in the name of Mohammed or Allah? I'll give you a hint, the answer to the first question is "zero". So, please stop making apples & oranges comparisons to justify political correctness. Given all the incidents worldwide where Muslims (dicks or otherwise) are murdering others in the name of Islam, it cannot be considered the actions of a "fringe" element even if it the majority doesn't do it.
It's not Westboro, but there are quite a few examples of militant Christians bombing abortion clinics and engaging in violence.
Right to set the Record straight read this again....
"Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam. "
At no point did I say Westboro murdered anyone, thats something some of you have created out of thin air.
My point is a very simple one, crazy fringe movements exist in all religions they always seek to "act in the name of a particular faith" but in reality they represent a tiny, tiny extremist faction and do not represent the wider Religion at all.
Politically Correct? Did you read my post I advocated Execution hardly a Politically Correct position wouldn't you say?
mwnciboo wrote: Don't blame Islam, blame dicks who interpret it badly, just like the westboro baptist church doesn't represent Christianity these fools don't represent Islam.
How many members of the Westborough Baptists have gone out and murdered someone in the name of Jesus? How many "badly interpreting Islam" dicks have murdered someone in the name of Mohammed or Allah? I'll give you a hint, the answer to the first question is "zero". So, please stop making apples & oranges comparisons to justify political correctness. Given all the incidents worldwide where Muslims (dicks or otherwise) are murdering others in the name of Islam, it cannot be considered the actions of a "fringe" element even if it the majority doesn't do it.
How many British civilians were killed by IRA bombs?
How many British civilians were killed by attacks related to Islamic extremism?
That wasn't the point of the comparison though, the point was to not make blanket assumptions regarding a religion's followers based on it's most extreme members. This isn't political correctness, it is simple common sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Two more arrests have been made in connection to the case.
Two more people have been arrested in connection with the death of a soldier in Woolwich.
It brings the total arrested to four people, including the two men shot by police.
Scotland Yard said a man and a woman, both 29, were held on Thursday on suspicion of conspiracy to murder and are being questioned at a police station in south London.
The two men who were shot, aged 22 and 28, have been arrested on suspicion of murder and remain in hospital in a stable condition with non life-threatening injuries.
Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, was hacked to death by two attackers in Woolwich, south east London, on Wednesday.
Six residential addresses are being searched as part of the investigation, three in south London, one in east London, one in north London and one in Lincolnshire.
In a statement the force said: "This is a large, complex and fast-moving investigation which continues to develop.
"Many lines of inquiry are being followed by detectives and the investigation is progressing well."
Officers have recovered a number of items from the murder scene and continue to appeal for witnesses to get in touch, and send in footage and photographs of what happened.
A post mortem examination was taking place on Drummer Rigby's body on Thursday afternoon.
The Army still maintains a presence in Northern Ireland. When I visited my friend and her husband (who is an actively serving officer) I was surprised by how wary the military still is.
My friend was briefed to never tell anyone her husband was military and instead, if it came up in everyday conversation she said he was over here as a property developer on a long term contract (English accents you see.) Car security passes needed to be hidden when outside the camp, for fear of car bombing.
There are areas of Belfast that are still very firmly off limits as well as a number of pubs which are on the black list.
Needless to say that soldiers were strongly discouraged to dress in any way which suggested they were Army while off camp.
Militants would routinely discharge firearms along the camp perimeter, and, in one occasion while I was visiting, the local news reported a local radical group had established a road block, and were stopping traffic while armed with a rocket launcher, presumably looking for targets.
This was in 'peace' time, between 2010-11.
So, its not unusual for military personnel to go incognito in public for their safety.
I do wish to remind some of you, that 2 British Soldiers were shot dead and 4 wounded, not so long ago (2009) outside a base collecting Pizza the night before they were due to go to Afghanistan.
The British Army's and wider MOD policy is not borne out of some crazy Neo-Liberal Political Correctness or Big Government or any other Political Pseudo bollocks.
It is a pragmatic policy to a very real and genuine threat to our troops. Military Personnel are a Target and in many eyes rightly or wrongly, are considered legitimate. The protection of our Troops (or assets because the Tax-payer pays for them) is key to this. It isn't political, it's purely common sense and pragmatic. You invest alot in them, training them, preparing them, equipping them, therefore throwing them away because you won't take a sensible precaution is frankly reckless and stupid.
The Army still maintains a presence in Northern Ireland. When I visited my friend and her husband (who is an actively serving officer) I was surprised by how wary the military still is.
My friend was briefed to never tell anyone her husband was military and instead, if it came up in everyday conversation she said he was over here as a property developer on a long term contract (English accents you see.) Car security passes needed to be hidden when outside the camp, for fear of car bombing.
There are areas of Belfast that are still very firmly off limits as well as a number of pubs which are on the black list.
Needless to say that soldiers were strongly discouraged to dress in any way which suggested they were Army while off camp.
Militants would routinely discharge firearms along the camp perimeter, and, in one occasion while I was visiting, the local news reported a local radical group had established a road block, and were stopping traffic while armed with a rocket launcher, presumably looking for targets.
This was in 'peace' time, between 2010-11.
So, its not unusual for military personnel to go incognito in public for their safety.
A soldier who discovered a dissident republican bomb inside his car may face disciplinary action from the Army for ignoring personal security orders.
It is understood the device was planted when he left his car open outside his girlfriend's home in Blackdam Court in north Belfast's Ligoniel area.
The soldier found the device while cleaning the car before going to pick up a child from school on Thursday.
It is understood the device contained a trip wire attached to the seat belt.
The soldier is believed to have had some form of military insignia displayed in the car's rear window.
The soldier is from Scotland and is not based here, but was visiting his girlfriend and is believed to have been staying at the house, which is in a nationalist area, for a number of weeks.
PSNI Chief Inspector Andy Freeburn said if the bomb had gone off the soldier, and others in the vicinity, could have been killed.
"This has been a despicable incident," he said.
"The initial assessment we received from the Army Technical Officers was that, if it had detonated as intended, it would have killed the occupants in the vehicle. And anybody surrounding the vehicle could have been killed or seriously injured.
"We are talking about a time where, in a built up area, many children aren't back to school yet after the holidays and this could have been an absolutely horrendous start to the new year."
He said the soldier was not based in Northern Ireland, but had been visiting. He pointed out that other people had also used the car, and said it may have been left unlocked overnight.
He appealed for anyone who saw the car on Wednesday night or Thursday morning to contact the police.
Parties
North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds described the attack as an "appalling incident".
"It was designed and targeted to kill a particular target, and it's emerged now, a serving soldier. This bomb was placed in an area which could have caused a lot of damage to property and the lives of residents.
"The people who carried this out were clearly intent on murder and entirely reckless as to who else would die along with their intended target."
Mr Dodds said the vigilance of the soldier had been "one of the main factors" in saving his life.
Sinn Fein MLA for the area Gerry Kelly described the car as a "party car".
"My understanding is that there was a number of parties going on and the driver of this car hadn't been to sleep. I think the car had been left open on a number of occasions," he said.
"We could be looking at a terrible tragedy. We could have been looking at not one death but a number of deaths this morning.
"It entirely endangered not just the soldier but the passengers who may have been in the car at different times during the night and also the community. That has to be condemned."
The security alert caused a lot of disruption for people living in the area.
About 60 residents were moved from their homes, but have since returned.
On Thursday night, one resident said: "We can't get into the house, the child should be in bed. But the worst devastation is that if someone got hurt. Complete inconsideration for the locals."
Another local said: "The thought of a bomb in the street. Just scary, with the kids would have been out playing, sometimes, at that time of the morning."
DUP MLA William Humphrey said: "This was a very reckless indiscriminate planting of what seems to be a viable device in a built-up area."
The device was dealt with in a controlled explosion.
The big difference is that Northern Ireland has a long and bloody history of terrorism and attacks on security personnel. London does not.
The big difference is that Northern Ireland has a long and bloody history of terrorism and attacks on security personnel. London does not.
WHAT!!!!!!
The breath-taking ignorance in this sentence alone is worthy of utter contempt.....
Care to elaborate on that for me please. As a resident of Northern Ireland for most of my life I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on what I said
I will agree that I perhaps could have phrased it better. However my point is that Northern Ireland is well known for terrorist attacks, which were a daily occurrence at one point. London, and the rest of the UK, experiencing them less frequently. Hence the different rules for when uniforms could be worn by soldiers, and what precautions taken
Between 1969 and 2001, 3,526 people were killed as a result of the conflict.[134] In The Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland, Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry point out that "nearly two per cent of the population of Northern Ireland have been killed or injured though political violence [...] If the equivalent ratio of victims to population had been produced in Great Britain in the same period some 100,000 people would have died, and if a similar level of political violence had taken place, the number of fatalities in the USA would have been over 500,000, or about ten times the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam War."[135] In 2010 it was estimated that 107,000 people in Northern Ireland suffered some physical injury as a result of the conflict. On the basis of data gathered by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, the Victims Commission estimated that the conflict resulted in 500,000 'victims' in Northern Ireland alone. It defines 'victims' are those who are directly affected by 'bereavement', 'physical injury' or 'trauma' as a result of the conflict.[136]
In the same time frame, according to your link, 36 people were killed (excluding a member of the IRA killed by his own device). You might notice the wide difference in the figures, especially given the population differences
Mr Hyena wrote: Its also been well-known for its weakness in dealing with terrorists.
Why would you say that Britain is soft on terrorists? Care to give an example or two?
These guys murdered a soldier, on home ground, in broad daylight and were not executed by police.
We also still have radical islamists preaching here instead of deporting them (or, they're caught up in legal battles which have been far too long going) Look at Abu Hamza.
The big difference is that Northern Ireland has a long and bloody history of terrorism and attacks on security personnel. London does not.
WHAT!!!!!!
The breath-taking ignorance in this sentence alone is worthy of utter contempt.....
Care to elaborate on that for me please. As a resident of Northern Ireland for most of my life I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on what I said
Lets not turn this into a pissing contest about who had the most people blown up eh?
Mr Hyena wrote: Its also been well-known for its weakness in dealing with terrorists.
Why would you say that Britain is soft on terrorists? Care to give an example or two?
These guys murdered a soldier, on home ground, in broad daylight and were not executed by police.
We also still have radical islamists preaching here instead of deporting them (or, they're caught up in legal battles which have been far too long going) Look at Abu Hamza.
So your solution is to martyr idiots like this and, bring our society down to their level?
why are people talking about this as a terrorist attack?
If anything it is a religious based murder. Admittedly the assailants behaviour after the assault was bizarre , I don't see why it is a terrorist attack . If it wasn't a muslim (or IRA; successor organisations included) who did it it wouldn't be even be regarded as anything but a murder. I think the hysteria, whilst great for the papers (and maybe for the politicians if they want to pass a few new laws) needs to be lowered. The only people i see causing terror after this murder by a couple of nutjobs are the media and the politicians.
Bullockist wrote: why are people talking about this as a terrorist attack?
If anything it is a religious based murder. Admittedly the assailants behaviour after the assault was bizarre , I don't see why it is a terrorist attack . If it wasn't a muslim (or IRA; successor organisations included) who did it it wouldn't be even be regarded as anything but a murder. I think the hysteria, whilst great for the papers (and maybe for the politicians if they want to pass a few new laws) needs to be lowered. The only people i see causing terror after this murder by a couple of nutjobs are the media and the politicians.
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its also been well-known for its weakness in dealing with terrorists.
Why would you say that Britain is soft on terrorists? Care to give an example or two?
These guys murdered a soldier, on home ground, in broad daylight and were not executed by police.
We also still have radical islamists preaching here instead of deporting them (or, they're caught up in legal battles which have been far too long going) Look at Abu Hamza.
Our police aren't Judge Dredd, they are there to detain criminals and collect evidence, not to carry out summary executions of whoever they feel like. You cannot reasonably call for the execution of suspected terrorists, because until a conviction or a confession all people accused of a crime are treated as a suspect and not a criminal. If you have a problem with habeas corpus then its not how we deal with terrorism that is your issue, its the law of all civilised nations that you have a problem with.
Abu Hamza was brought here under the Covenant of Security and allowed by the security services to plan actions that may be considered terrorist, but was not allowed to commit those acts against British interests or on British soil. He was protected by the security services because of the covenant, but once he broke the covenant was charged under the terrorism act and eventually extradited to the US, where he now stands trial. So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.
Now, do you have any examples to back up your ridiculous claim that aren't ridiculous?
Mr Hyena wrote: Arresting these guys is a sign of weakness, when they should have been neutralised at the scene.
Balls.
They were fething kneecapped, or similar, and I would bet large amounts that if they'd wanted, the police could have taken them without firing a shot. Who's to say they just weren't lucky, and the officers did STK?
Regardless, they were caught, arrested and will be prosecuted and tried in front of a jury of their peers and will be punished to the limit of the law. as it should be.
Whether the law goes far enough is a matter for another debate.
Once they're identified in prison, how long do you think they've got?
Noone is asking them too. But if you spot a guy, clearly slaughtering someone like this terrorist, then you should shoot to kill for the sake of public safety.
So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.
Because it was allowed to happen when it could have been stopped and the fact that he was protected in the first place.
Once they're identified in prison, how long do you think they've got?
Short, if theres any justice in the world. Its just a sad state of affairs to rely on prisoners like this.
Whether the law goes far enough is a matter for another debate.
Its a debate we should be having and perhaps will, thanks to the blessing of Drones and their use in Law enforcement and military.
Bullockist wrote: why are people talking about this as a terrorist attack?
If anything it is a religious based murder. Admittedly the assailants behaviour after the assault was bizarre , I don't see why it is a terrorist attack . If it wasn't a muslim (or IRA; successor organisations included) who did it it wouldn't be even be regarded as anything but a murder. I think the hysteria, whilst great for the papers (and maybe for the politicians if they want to pass a few new laws) needs to be lowered. The only people i see causing terror after this murder by a couple of nutjobs are the media and the politicians.
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
Seems clear to me.
So any nutjob who happens to have a religious/ political afilliation and commits a violent crime is now a terrorist.
I am more than happy to wait for some kind of evidence first.
Bullockist wrote: why are people talking about this as a terrorist attack?
If anything it is a religious based murder. Admittedly the assailants behaviour after the assault was bizarre , I don't see why it is a terrorist attack . If it wasn't a muslim (or IRA; successor organisations included) who did it it wouldn't be even be regarded as anything but a murder. I think the hysteria, whilst great for the papers (and maybe for the politicians if they want to pass a few new laws) needs to be lowered. The only people i see causing terror after this murder by a couple of nutjobs are the media and the politicians.
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
Seems clear to me.
So any nutjob who happens to have a religious/ political afilliation and commits a violent crime is now a terrorist.
I am more than happy to wait for some kind of evidence first.
A nut job with a religious or political affiliation is pretty much a terrorist by definition. Sometimes they act in groups, sometimes they act alone.
Noone is asking them too. But if you spot a guy, clearly slaughtering someone like this terrorist, then you should shoot to kill for the sake of public safety.
So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.
Because it was allowed to happen when it could have been stopped and the fact that he was protected in the first place.
Once they're identified in prison, how long do you think they've got?
Short, if theres any justice in the world. Its just a sad state of affairs to rely on prisoners like this.
Whether the law goes far enough is a matter for another debate.
Its a debate we should be having and perhaps will, thanks to the blessing of Drones and their use in Law enforcement and military.
I'm curious about how you propose identifying, tracking and stopping a lone psycho with an agenda?
Edit: Wait, wha? Drones, death penalty? Are you drunk posting?
When you strike a psycho with one of these weapons you are either using a bomb (that's precision right there) or a missile. I don't think using them in your own country is advisable, you can't just brush off casualties as collateral damage like you can in other countries.
Noone is asking them too. But if you spot a guy, clearly slaughtering someone like this terrorist, then you should shoot to kill for the sake of public safety.
That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.
So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.
Because it was allowed to happen when it could have been stopped and the fact that he was protected in the first place.
The Covenant of Security was a policy designed in the Bosnia conflict to firstly fight a proxy war, and secondly to protect Britain by having them inside the tent weeing out. It was a stupid policy and the French rightly criticise us for it, but it wasn't being soft on terrorists, it was using them to further our own goals.
I'm curious about how you propose identifying, tracking and stopping a lone psycho with an agenda?
Surveillance, especially on the internet with known radicalising websites.
Unmanned drones present new surveillance technology, once it reaches more widespread use with also the potential to strike confirmed psychos.
You are aware you're espousing views which are almost every bit as extreme as those who committed this act right?
Removal of freedoms, execution without due process?
It's all going to go a bit Godwin in a minute.
Due process has a place, when catching terrorists who have not carried out their act yet, caught through surveillance. Due process should be removed when the result is absolutely clear like the animal who murdered the soldier. Unless of course, they change terrorist offences into automatic life sentences when found guilty, while putting them in gulag-like conditions. That could work too.
My views are borne out of concern of the safety of my people, my friends, my family and people like me. If it takes a heavy-handed surveillance program with drone technology and internet tracking to reduce terrorist attacks, then I'm fine with that.
When you strike a psycho with one of these weapons you are either using a bomb (that's precision right there) or a missile. I don't think using them in your own country is advisable, you can't just brush off casualties as collateral damage like you can in other countries.
With current technology sure, but I'm sure technology will improve.
That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.
So shoot to kill is a policy that should never be used in the UK, even if it will save a life?
Leave the cops out though. If they knee capped I would have done the same. Killing them is not to be taking lightly and those calling for the cops to do so have no clue on what they're willing to let the cops suffer over time.
Noone is asking them too. But if you spot a guy, clearly slaughtering someone like this terrorist, then you should shoot to kill for the sake of public safety.
That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.
So how exactly have we been soft? He broke the law and will be brought to justice for it.
Because it was allowed to happen when it could have been stopped and the fact that he was protected in the first place.
The Covenant of Security was a policy designed in the Bosnia conflict to firstly fight a proxy war, and secondly to protect Britain by having them inside the tent weeing out. It was a stupid policy and the French rightly criticise us for it, but it wasn't being soft on terrorists, it was using them to further our own goals.
I couldn't agree more, allowing police to execute people kind of ruins the whole criminal law system, who needs evidence when you can just shoot them. If the police spot someone clearly slaughtering someone they don't know the details, they are just adding one murder to another.
Isn't being civilised a sign that we are different to them?
And that, is apathy. It does nothing to stop or at least reduce future terrorist attacks or protect against them.
It's hardly apathetic to want people to be put before a jury and given a fair trial and then sentenced appropriately. Do you not understand what martyrdom is? By murdering suspects you play into the hands of radicals, you don't make the nation safer by acting in such a way, you make it more dangerous.
If the police spot someone clearly slaughtering someone they don't know the details
So in your words, a clear-cut case like Woolwich, they don't know the details?
Do you not understand what martyrdom is? By murdering suspects you play into the hands of radicals, you don't make the nation safer by acting in such a way, you make it more dangerous.
Your talking about a group of people who pick up the torches and pitchforks, in a national scale, the moment someone even drops the slightest bit of humour about Mohammed in conversation. Martyrdom is the least of our concerns as it will happen regardless. Either/or, stopping martyrdom does little to increase the countries security.
We need to start being serious about protecting citizens.
So shoot to kill is a policy that should never be used in the UK, even if it will save a life?
Shoot to kill is employed in situations where there is an immediate threat to life and no other option is available, such as a suicide bomber with a trigger. I am absolutely fine with that. This wasn't that, what you are asking for is an execution.
When they get to the scene they do not know the details , that's what investigations are for.
If someone is on the ground dead and someone is standing over them it could be a self defence manslaughter. Point is, at the scene you don't know the details so arbitrarily executing someone without evidence clearly is against the law. Upholding the law is what the police are about , not executing people on a hunch.
I'm curious about how you propose identifying, tracking and stopping a lone psycho with an agenda?
Surveillance, especially on the internet with known radicalising websites.
Unmanned drones present new surveillance technology, once it reaches more widespread use with also the potential to strike confirmed psychos.
You are aware you're espousing views which are almost every bit as extreme as those who committed this act right?
Removal of freedoms, execution without due process?
It's all going to go a bit Godwin in a minute.
Due process has a place, when catching terrorists who have not carried out their act yet, caught through surveillance. Due process should be removed when the result is absolutely clear like the animal who murdered the soldier. Unless of course, they change terrorist offences into automatic life sentences when found guilty, while putting them in gulag-like conditions. That could work too.
My views are borne out of concern of the safety of my people, my friends, my family and people like me. If it takes a heavy-handed surveillance program with drone technology and internet tracking to reduce terrorist attacks, then I'm fine with that.
When you strike a psycho with one of these weapons you are either using a bomb (that's precision right there) or a missile. I don't think using them in your own country is advisable, you can't just brush off casualties as collateral damage like you can in other countries.
With current technology sure, but I'm sure technology will improve.
That is exactly what you are asking for. That they be judge, jury and executioner.
So shoot to kill is a policy that should never be used in the UK, even if it will save a life?
STK is used if a life is in danger, but that seldom happens.
I promise you, you have absolutely no idea what you're asking for with your police state suggestions (and essentially that's what you're proposing) There is seldom, if ever, an absence of doubt, in these situations, and what would you tell the family of the first person executed in error by these miracle drones you have thought up?
Lets play what if?
What if the perpetrators yesterday were co-opted into doing what they did? Perhaps their own families were being held hostage and they were forced into those actions on pain of their execution?
If the police had gunned them down without thought, not only would the instigators got away, but two men at least would have died that perhaps shouldn't have.
Now its obvious this wasn't the case, but this situation isn't beyond possibility. So what then?
Oh, and due process does have its place, as a cornerstone of a civilised, democratic society.
Your talking about a group of people who pick up the torches and pitchforks, in a national scale, the moment someone even drops the slightest bit of humour about Mohammed in conversation. Martyrdom is the least of our concerns as it will happen regardless. Either/or, stopping martyrdom does little to increase the countries security.
We need to start being serious about protecting citizens.
Making martyrs makes more terrorists, that makes the situation worse and this country a less safe place to be. Do you really not see that?
We are very serious about protecting our citizens, just because its not some dystopic surveillance state with summary executions without evidence doesn't mean nothing is happening. Your need to see something being done is far less important than something actually being done, which of course you don't see, as its done by MI5 and Special Branch.
What if the perpetrators yesterday were co-opted into doing what they did? Perhaps their own families were being held hostage and they were forced into those actions on pain of their execution?
If the police had gunned them down without thought, not only would the instigators got away, but two men at least would have died that perhaps shouldn't have.
Now its obvious this wasn't the case, but this situation isn't beyond possibility. So what then?
If you murder someone not in self defense, you break the law. Its clear cut no matter the reason why. Though it would be a pity letting the instigators get away.
I know exactly what I'm proposing. I'm proposing it because the current solution isn't working.
Making martyrs makes more terrorists, that makes the situation worse and this country a less safe place to be. Do you really not see that?
I see that. I also said that islamists are quite able to easily become radicalised without becoming martyrs. See the ridiculousness of the Mohammed cartoon incident.
We are very serious about protecting our citizens,
What if the perpetrators yesterday were co-opted into doing what they did? Perhaps their own families were being held hostage and they were forced into those actions on pain of their execution?
If the police had gunned them down without thought, not only would the instigators got away, but two men at least would have died that perhaps shouldn't have.
Now its obvious this wasn't the case, but this situation isn't beyond possibility. So what then?
If you murder someone not in self defense, you break the law. Its clear cut no matter the reason why. Though it would be a pity letting the instigators get away.
Good Lord!
I'm leaving this thread before I get myself banned.
They say that all evil needs to thrive is for good men to do nothing, but evidently letting ignorant men think they have a right to an opinion can work out pretty crappy for all concerned as well.
Co Opting the family mostly involve money. Notice the suicide bombing tapered off in Isreal when Hussien was brought down. He was donating 10K to the family of a bomber. Same in Afghanistan except in Afghanistan seeing a clean and perfume smelling Afghan is a big clue something is not right. Its a three day "ritual" of cleansing the body, grooming, bathing and preparing to meet Allah.
These two chuckleheads did a execution for what they believe in. Played insurgents on your home turf. Which we notice is raising all kind of WTF and WTH. Since you don't expect it to happen on your "Home Turf"
dæl wrote: We are very serious about protecting our citizens, just because its not some dystopic surveillance state with summary executions without evidence doesn't mean nothing is happening. Your need to see something being done is far less important than something actually being done, which of course you don't see, as its done by MI5 and Special Branch.
Exactly, this type of incident is the kind which is incredibly hard for the security services to thwart, small groups of lone wolfs using easily available resrouces from the internet. I think the head of our security services said earlier this year a major attack has been thwarted almost every year in this country. The public doesn't know and probably for the better
I know exactly what I'm proposing. I'm proposing it because the current solution isn't working.
How do you know how many incidents have been averted? How do you know how many would be averted under your dystopic ideal?
Making martyrs makes more terrorists, that makes the situation worse and this country a less safe place to be. Do you really not see that?
I see that. I also said that islamists are quite able to easily become radicalised without becoming martyrs. See the ridiculousness of the Mohammed cartoon incident.
So what recent action has you calling for blood? Is it someone insulting your culture? Or is it murder?
We are very serious about protecting our citizens,
Their failure was quite evident in this case.
Every loss of life is a failure, that does not mean we need to become a worse society. Islamic extremists hate the liberal, civilised western way of life, what you are asking for is to completely destroy our way of life and become totalitarian and barbaric.
The goal of terrorists isn't "kill everyone!!1" They generally have stated political goals that they're trying to draw attention to.
The way you beat them is to refuse to be terrorised. When you flail around, demanding core precepts of our society be dismantled to try to make us safer by a tiny amount, immense amounts of money be spent to stop them at any cost, you are playing into their hands. Having such an immense economic impact as people demand huge amounts of money poured into stopping them for such a small investment no doubt gets them very excited.
It would also probably help to examine the reasons they are terrorists in the first place and what drove them to these lengths. I know when I think of ways I can make change politically "terrorism" isn't at the top of the list, and what they went through before it ended up there is an important question.
They're not evil people. Nobody is "evil." People choose to do evil things. Understanding why they chose that path is important if you really want it to not happen in future.
Valion wrote: Man. Is that twenty minute response time accurate? That's insane.
You've not encountered London traffic have you?
It can get so jammed that lights and sirens only help very slightly.
To illustrate, I live approx 4 hours away. I visited a friend to help her out when her husband was suddenly admitted to hospital, leaving her with a toddler and two cars that were both unusable at that time. The day the husband was discharged from hospital, I left for home at the same time as she left to collect him from hospital, approx 4 miles away.
Probably have to take in account the first response operator was probably still wrapping their head around what they hearing before thy put the call out to LEO
whembly wrote: little nit pick here: Westboro folks don't butcher their opponents.
But they do act like incredible donkey-caves. And just like it'd be wrong to say 'and therefore all Christians are incredible donkey-caves', it is equally wrong to say 'and after this attack I conclude all Muslims have a problem with being murderers'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: How many members of the Westborough Baptists have gone out and murdered someone in the name of Jesus? How many "badly interpreting Islam" dicks have murdered someone in the name of Mohammed or Allah? I'll give you a hint, the answer to the first question is "zero". So, please stop making apples & oranges comparisons to justify political correctness.
No, you stop ignoring the actual, real factors that drive terrorism.
Look at where Westboro is located, it's in a wealthy, prosperous nation with a great deal of political stability. Now look at where most terrorism is conducted - Africa, the Middle East, India & Pakistan. And oh look, in those countries it's done by every creed that happens to be there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote: Its not capital punishment if its neutralizing a rampaging terrorist.
They did that when the police shot and subsequently arrested these two guys.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The goal of terrorists isn't "kill everyone!!1" They generally have stated political goals that they're trying to draw attention to.
The way you beat them is to refuse to be terrorised. When you flail around, demanding core precepts of our society be dismantled to try to make us safer by a tiny amount, immense amounts of money be spent to stop them at any cost, you are playing into their hands. Having such an immense economic impact as people demand huge amounts of money poured into stopping them for such a small investment no doubt gets them very excited.
It would also probably help to examine the reasons they are terrorists in the first place and what drove them to these lengths. I know when I think of ways I can make change politically "terrorism" isn't at the top of the list, and what they went through before it ended up there is an important question.
They're not evil people. Nobody is "evil." People choose to do evil things. Understanding why they chose that path is important if you really want it to not happen in future.
Quoted for truth, trying to divide the world into good and evil is an exercise in futility .
Mr Hyena wrote: And that, is apathy. It does nothing to stop or at least reduce future terrorist attacks or protect against them.
What? Dude, they waited for the police to show up. Islamic terrorism is frequently suicidal, suicide bombings, flying planes in to buildings, in the Mumbai terror attacks the attackers could have escaped the scene but instead stayed and attempted to take out as many police as possible over as long a period as possible.
The idea that if the police had shot these guys then future terrorists would think 'oh we'd better not do that or they'll just kill us instead of attempting arrest us and then kill us if that isn't possible' is ridiculous idea.
The 'raargh we should be as violent as possible and then we'd be safe' is a simple, direct emotion, but it's also completely irrelevant to how this stuff really works.
Bullockist wrote: why are people talking about this as a terrorist attack?
If anything it is a religious based murder. Admittedly the assailants behaviour after the assault was bizarre , I don't see why it is a terrorist attack . If it wasn't a muslim (or IRA; successor organisations included) who did it it wouldn't be even be regarded as anything but a murder. I think the hysteria, whilst great for the papers (and maybe for the politicians if they want to pass a few new laws) needs to be lowered. The only people i see causing terror after this murder by a couple of nutjobs are the media and the politicians.
The attackers made an attack in a particularly bloody way in full public view, and remained on the scene to give ideological statements invoking terror on the civilian population, calling for the overthrow of the government, and justifying their actions by reference to western military occupation of Islamic countries, which they stated they wanted to stop.
unmercifulconker wrote: Yeah, people just dont think or feel anymore, they would rather ensure a 'just' trial is carried out then to protect the public from further attacks.
Disgusting.
Yeah, so this is pretty much the perfect example of thinking 'if we're tougher and meaner then we can be safe'. But the problem is it is compeltely wrong, there's no retribution possible that will 'protect the public from further attacks'. If the police killed them, cut their heads off and left them on spikes outside of parliament it still won't stop the next donkey-cave who wants to do something like this.
They stayed on the scene, waiting for the police. You think their concern was for their own personal well being?
I want to address the idea that the Police "Shoot to Wound", I think several people have mentioned Knee-cappings or other nonsense.
The Police don't shoot to wound, they shoot for centre-of-mass e.g where the Organs are and where you have the largest target. Exceptions are when the Subject has body armour or is believe to have a suicide device, they will then shoot for the head .The Police shoot to Neutralise the threat (whether that results in death or wounding doesn't matter), there is no shoot to wound or shoot to kill Policy. It's a subtle but very important distinction.
Depending on where the suspect is hit on his chances (naturally the bullets will be spread across the centre of mass), they are heavily in the Suspects Favour, as they usually have Medical teams quickly available and get the suspects to Hospital well within "The Golden Hour".
Equally 9mm Parabellum isn't exactly a man-stopper (they were using 9mm MP5's and 9mm Glocks) it wounds but unless you hit them in the heart or the brain it's not a guaranteed killed and therefore the suspect will be wounded.
Video of take down (The whole thing happens in like 8 seconds!) NSFW - This is some serious Professionalism in a dangerous situation
Valion wrote: Man. Is that twenty minute response time accurate? That's insane.
To be fair to the Rozzers that was the Armed response team arriving and engaging the suspects. Unarmed units were on the scene within minutes and were managing the scene and keeping people away from the nut jobs. One ammes there is a plan for this sort of thing and it was enacted.
In either case I credit the police, there was an unavoidable killing but he suspects were prevented from further violence and contained until dealt with. Even more credit if this was done on the hoof.
Equally 9mm Parabellum isn't exactly a man-stopper (they were using 9mm MP5's and 9mm Glocks) it wounds but unless you hit them in the heart or the brain it's not a guaranteed killed and therefore the suspect will be wounded.
Do British firearms officers use hollow point ammunition?
mwnciboo wrote: I want to address the idea that the Police "Shoot to Wound", I think several people have mentioned Knee-cappings or other nonsense.
The Police don't shoot to wound, they shoot for centre-of-mass e.g where the Organs are and where you have the largest target. Exceptions are when the Subject has body armour or is believe to have a suicide device, they will then shoot for the head .The Police shoot to Neutralise the threat (whether that results in death or wounding doesn't matter), there is no shoot to wound or shoot to kill Policy. It's a subtle but very important distinction.
Depending on where the suspect is hit on his chances (naturally the bullets will be spread across the centre of mass), they are heavily in the Suspects Favour, as they usually have Medical teams quickly available and get the suspects to Hospital well within "The Golden Hour".
Equally 9mm Parabellum isn't exactly a man-stopper (they were using 9mm MP5's and 9mm Glocks) it wounds but unless you hit them in the heart or the brain it's not a guaranteed killed and therefore the suspect will be wounded.
Video of take down (The whole thing happens in like 8 seconds!) NSFW - This is some serious Professionalism in a dangerous situation
At last a far more satisfactory clip, thanks for reposting that mwbc.... Good robust police work not a police state, just the service we want.
I await Millibands denouncing the whole event as avoidable.
Equally 9mm Parabellum isn't exactly a man-stopper (they were using 9mm MP5's and 9mm Glocks) it wounds but unless you hit them in the heart or the brain it's not a guaranteed killed and therefore the suspect will be wounded.
Do British firearms officers use hollow point ammunition?
Yes, they have used 9mm Hollowpoints since 2005 - The Jean Charles de Menezes case when he was shot Dead by Armed Officers on the Tube was (I believe) the first time it was fired by an Officer (I maybe wrong if Diplomatic protection or another / CO / SO unit used them prior to this, but it certainly wasn't acknowledged publically) . The fundamental premise remains he was Innocent and was killed due to mistaken Identity - The suspected Suicide Bomber was Hussain Osman. This is what happens, when bad intelligence, slack operational planning, Officers engaged in High Risk Operations and false assumptions are made - The whole situation spiraled out of control and was regrettable, the Armed Officers believed he was a suicide bomber and took action. It was not a killing for killings sake, they genuinely believed he was a threat.
mwnciboo wrote: I want to address the idea that the Police "Shoot to Wound", I think several people have mentioned Knee-cappings or other nonsense.
Indeed, it's not standard police procedure in any department I've ever heard of in the United States to "shoot to wound" either. Either the situation requires lethal force, or it does not - there is no in-between. And frankly, the average policeman is such an awful shot that such a doctrine would actually endanger more lives than i saved.
mwnciboo wrote: I want to address the idea that the Police "Shoot to Wound", I think several people have mentioned Knee-cappings or other nonsense.
The Police don't shoot to wound, they shoot for centre-of-mass e.g where the Organs are and where you have the largest target. Exceptions are when the Subject has body armour or is believe to have a suicide device, they will then shoot for the head .The Police shoot to Neutralise the threat (whether that results in death or wounding doesn't matter), there is no shoot to wound or shoot to kill Policy. It's a subtle but very important distinction.
Depending on where the suspect is hit on his chances (naturally the bullets will be spread across the centre of mass), they are heavily in the Suspects Favour, as they usually have Medical teams quickly available and get the suspects to Hospital well within "The Golden Hour".
Equally 9mm Parabellum isn't exactly a man-stopper (they were using 9mm MP5's and 9mm Glocks) it wounds but unless you hit them in the heart or the brain it's not a guaranteed killed and therefore the suspect will be wounded.
Video of take down (The whole thing happens in like 8 seconds!) NSFW - This is some serious Professionalism in a dangerous situation
At last a far more satisfactory clip, thanks for reposting that mwbc.... Good robust police work not a police state, just the service we want.
I await Millibands denouncing the whole event as avoidable.
Thanks for the video. And yes i too await the inevitable denouncements from our goverment, most likely followed by the officers being charged because our goverments is so fethed up it will literally do that.
As it is i am shocked. People like these need to be put down permanently for the good of the public.
If you shoot someone in the head, neck, shoulder, torso, pelvis or thighs, there is a significant chance of hitting a vital organ or major blood vessel and killing them.
To "shoot to wound" therefore implies aiming at the arm, which is often across the torso, or the leg, which is a thin and fast moving target.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you shoot someone in the head, neck, shoulder, torso, pelvis or thighs, there is a significant chance of hitting a vital organ or major blood vessel and killing them.
To "shoot to wound" therefore implies aiming at the arm, which is often across the torso, or the leg, which is a thin and fast moving target.
Everything I learned using Fallout VATS is a lie then.
Back to no scoping in COD I guess.
More seriously doesnt every service in every country train to hit the centre mass since that is a high percentage shot? even trained 'snipers'?
In this case I would have shoot to wound just for the intel. You want the intel because you need to be sure they are acting ALONE and not part of a cell organization. Something we try to do while in combat.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you shoot someone in the head, neck, shoulder, torso, pelvis or thighs, there is a significant chance of hitting a vital organ or major blood vessel and killing them.
To "shoot to wound" therefore implies aiming at the arm, which is often across the torso, or the leg, which is a thin and fast moving target.
Everything I learned using Fallout VATS is a lie then.
Back to no scoping in COD I guess.
More seriously doesnt every service in every country train to hit the centre mass since that is a high percentage shot? even trained 'snipers'?
Yes, sniping in video games is much easier than IRL because the "bullet" does not follow a ballistic path, it works like a laser.
Pure Conjecture and speculation here, but the second suspect had what looked like a Pistol. Got hit several times, in the second group of shots, then falls to the ground, Officers approach, shouting put the weapon down.
We don't see this, but at a guess he swings the weapon around / doesn't obey. They fire a third group of shots.
I know the media say one of them is in a Serious Condition, I would speculate that is the 2nd Suspect as I think he has been hit at least 4 times.
The 1st Suspect took several rounds at the run, and you can see his legs twitching on the ground. He might be in a bad way too, but I would be very surprised if the Officers firing at the Second suspect hadn't landed several rounds in critical organs, given the proximity number of shots fired and the damage a Hollow Point does.
Pure speculation on my part, but I think it's a reasonable position. Time will tell...
I cant stand Cameron constantly saying we shouldnt bow to Terroism and we should go about our daily lives and we have all been brought closer together.
We are fighting each other over what is the right thing to do to them, scumbags are rioting with police, the men stationed in the barracks have even been told not to wear their unforms outside the barracks and new general fear amongst the public. Nice speech Cameron.
Anyone who does these crimes will be caught and punished. Literally 99.9% of all serious crime is solved these days, with DNA, CCTV and all the thousands of different methods and information available. Violent crime is relatively rare today compared with years ago, and that makes these crimes much more shocking.
The best way to deal with it, forget about it, move on, that is the best way to Honour the Fallen Soldier. Give the Terrorists the big F***-You, it changes nothing. They feed off fear, so deny them, defy them show contempt for them.
I get on the tube after 7/7 without a thought, I've got on Aeroplanes post 9/11 no Problem. It changes nothing, terrorist outrages are the occasional prices we have to pay to live in a free society it has ever been thus. It's random chance if you end up involved, You should never worry about things you cannot control, the same as I don't worry about being hit by a meteor.
Enjoy your life obey the law, and defy all that would seek to take your freedom and your life.
unmercifulconker wrote: I cant stand Cameron constantly saying we shouldnt bow to Terroism and we should go about our daily lives and we have all been brought closer together.
We are fighting each other over what is the right thing to do to them, scumbags are rioting with police, the men stationed in the barracks have even been told not to wear their unforms outside the barracks and new general fear amongst the public. Nice speech Cameron.
Chill out for a while.
The suspects will be tried in accordance with the laws of the land.
Scumbags just need an excuse to riot, nothing new here.
British soldiers not wearing uniform outside of barracks is nothing new, and has been noted in this thread on a few occasions.
Why does the BBC do this? Giving publicity to preachers with extreme views? surely all this does is anger more people? Giving publicity to their views does nothing constructive.
Irrational/ emotive hatred against Islam is going to increase exponentially this year.
There a large number of Child Sex rings coming to Court, and the perpetrators are disproportionately, though not exclusively muslims.
The more of these stories come out the more it will colour the publics view. It's not right, but it is happening and we have to watch out for that "Kristallnacht" effect and how it will radicalise society.
We have to walk a tight rope here to stop using a single Racial or ethnic group as a Scape Goat. That being said there are some massive deep seated issues to be resolved.
It is true that these rings operate in all area's of society and ethnicity however it is much higher within certain ethnic communities than others, especially when you collate the numbers of incidents relative to the % size of the population they make up.
Things like this only serve to make the Extremists like the English Defence League, stronger.
It's up to us, the decent up-standing members of society to call for moderation and tolerance and the rule of law.
