Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mwnciboo**

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?

**Hordini**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Not to mention ethnically cleansing muslims in the Balkans, and so on.

Another unfortunately good example.

**dæl**

Breotan wrote:
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.

Source

**Azreal13**

whembly wrote:
The what, the wut?

o.O

Troops advised not to wear uniform outside bases.

Unless order'ed not too... feth that.

Slightly OT but still in the ballpark.

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.

**mwnciboo**

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7930837.stm

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

azreal13 wrote:
whembly wrote:
The what, the wut?

o.O

Troops advised not to wear uniform outside bases.

Unless order'ed not too... feth that.

Slightly OT but still in the ballpark.

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.

You mean like this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16437834

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.

**mwnciboo**

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.....

Read this.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

**Dreadclaw69**

mwnciboo wrote:
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

**mwnciboo**

Read the link above.

EDIT - Read it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

This is just the last 100 years and London alone. Northern Ireland doesn't have exclusive rights on terrorist outrages you know.

So other than the list above, yeah, London has no experience of a long and bloody history of Terrorism. SERIOUSLY....

As a whole the UK has a very long and Bloody History with Terrorism, both Foreign and Domestic.

**Mr Hyena**

Its also been well-known for its weakness in dealing with terrorists.

Not surprised this happened at all quite frankly. Seems Islam's 'calming-down' period is a loooooooong ways off.

**dæl**

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?

**Dreadclaw69**

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

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]

See also;

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

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**

dæl wrote:
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.

**Azreal13**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:
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?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
dæl wrote:
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?

Spiffing.

**Bullockist**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Mr Hyena wrote:
These guys murdered a soldier, on home ground, in broad daylight and were not executed by police.

Petty sure that capital punishment hasn't been legal for a long time in the UK

**Mr Hyena**

So your solution is to martyr idiots like this and, bring our society down to their level?

Spiffing.

Better than spitting on the grave of a dead soldier and allowing more of these attacks to happen no doubt in greater frequency.

Petty sure that capital punishment hasn't been legal for a long time in the UK

Its not capital punishment if its neutralizing a rampaging terrorist.

**Azreal13**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
So your solution is to martyr idiots like this and, bring our society down to their level?

Spiffing.

Better than spitting on the grave of a dead soldier and allowing more of these attacks to happen no doubt in greater frequency.

That's your argument?

Go on, go back and have another go.

**Mr Hyena**

So how is the present situation any better? Isn't being soft a sign of weakness to terrorists?

**Azreal13**

Mr Hyena wrote:
So how is the present situation any better?

You're not making any sense.

**Mr Hyena**

Arresting these guys is a sign of weakness, when they should have been neutralised at the scene.

**dæl**

Mr Hyena wrote:
dæl wrote:
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?

**Dreadclaw69**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Its not capital punishment if its neutralizing a rampaging terrorist.

Evidently the highly trained armed police who were at the scene disagree with you

**Azreal13**

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?

**Mr Hyena**

Our police aren't Judge Dredd

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**

azreal13 wrote:
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.

**Azreal13**

Bullockist wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Our police aren't Judge Dredd

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?

**Mr Hyena**

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.

**dæl**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Its not capital punishment if its neutralizing a rampaging terrorist.

Looked to be a pretty sedate rampage after the first attack.

Mr Hyena wrote:Isn't being soft a sign of weakness to terrorists?

Isn't being civilised a sign that we are different to them?

**Azreal13**

Mr Hyena wrote:
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.