London - Suspected Terrorist Incident

Gatling

Be very interested to see how the British government reacts ,
Especially when it come to removing there jihad preaching loons now

Pug160

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Or maybe they know how to neutralise a suspect the correct way unlike their American counterparts

Perhaps. But there certainly wouldn't be much sympathy if the suspects had been fatally shot. They had just murdered a man, were covered in blood and were armed. Even the fact that the police shot them at all will probably be questioned, such is the madness.

ProudDUB

Any one trotting out the "oh now this proves that all Muslims are murderers" party line needs to cop themselves on. Its all the stupider seeing as most of us here have friends and family who live/lived in the UK, who were there when the IRA campaigns on the UK mainland were taking place in the 1980s. The discrimination and bigotry that those people had to face from their own neighbours, co workers and sometimes friends was unreal. I had a cousin who had the bad luck to be banqueting manager at the Grand Hotel in Brighton when it was bombed by the IRA. Her life was a RIGHT barrel of laughs after wards I can tell you. Get a bloody grip people ! :mad:

paddy147

Overheal wrote: »

Just wake up about the insulated views to personal defense weapons. Thats all I'm saying.

Ah did you not get your gun yet Homer????

colossus-x

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Disgusting attack. Britain needs to improve its immigration laws with more background checks etc

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with immigration.

Overheal

paddy147 wrote: »

Ah did you not get your gun yet Homer????:rolleyes:

But Im angry NOW

enda1

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, because they never shut London do- oh wait.At least! Just wake up about the insulated views to personal defense weapons. Thats all I'm saying.

London was not closed. Did you even read your own link?

Your new country will eventually come to the realisation of where the rest of us (civilised countries) came to years ago.
For some reason your attitude of armament reminds me of the us-ussr aptly named M.A.D. circumstance.

Enjoy your life of fear in the "land of the free" and let us enjoy our true freedoms.

colossus-x

Clandestine wrote: »

Thats "Cultural enrichment" for you

It has noting to do with "cultural enrichment" or immigration. Although I can see how small minded nationalist ppl would like to think so.

Herb Powell

Overheal wrote: »

Are you listening now, Ireland?

****ing butcher knife. That could have been stopped with a gun.

Maybe, but funnily enough, I don't think a gun would do anyone much good in a situation where they are rammed with a car by surprise.

paddy147

Overheal wrote: »

But Im angry NOW

Maybe you should stand in front of the mirror and practice your "Dirty Harry" poses and catchphrases....:pac:

Witcher

Herb Powell wrote: »

Maybe, but funnily enough, I don't think a gun would do anyone much good in a situation where they are rammed with a car by surprise.

I think he means a third party carrying a gun could have intervened.

Karl Stein

Overheal wrote: »

****ing butcher knife. That could have been stopped with a gun.

Or if there were loads of guns around the soldier might have been killed by a gun? And then maybe a few bystanders and a couple of police and then they could have shot themselves in the head so there'd be no intelligence to gather?

What could possibly go wrong?

Blay wrote: »

I think he means a third party carrying a gun could have intervened.

And those we call ARU's in this part of the world.

BobbyPropane

Overheal wrote: »

Are you listening now, Ireland?

****ing butcher knife. That could have been stopped with a gun.

I suggest you watch Bowling for Columbine or Stupid White Men. Both sum up your type of mentality.

Timmyctc

Blay wrote: »

I think he means a third party carrying a gun could have intervened.

No weapon whatsoever could have stopped the car hitting the guy from behind. If there were lax gun laws then the killing would have been easier on the part of the guys?

Gatling

colossus-x wrote: »

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with immigration.

What was one of the attackers quoted oh yeah revenge for invading our country (even though one sounded suspiciously English)

The fact these loon's use human rights as way to stay in then UK says it all

Witcher

Timmyctc wrote: »

No weapon whatsoever could have stopped the car hitting the guy from behind. If there were lax gun laws then the killing would have been easier on the part of the guys?

I was just clarifying Overheal's point. I've no interest in debating it.

Pug160

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Top marks from me for the armed response unit. The attackers came at them and they took them down without loss of life nor injury to themselves or any members of the public.

Indeed. They did their job.

All officers operationally deployed are routinely armed with the 9 mm Glock 17 self-loading pistol, and in some cases the X26 Taser. Despite carrying firearms, officers still carry the standard issue personal protective equipment (PPE) such as the; ASP baton, Hiatt Speedcuffs and CS/PAVA Incapacitant spray. They also have access to 9 mm Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic carbine, and L104A1 Baton gun. All ARV officers are trained to administer Ballistic First Aid and are Emergency Life Saver trained. In many instances, ARV crews can arrive at the scene of shooting before paramedics or ambulances, and are frequently required to provide life saving techniques on shooting victims.

That's from Wikipedia. She probably shot them with a 9mm pistol. Probably more forgiving on the body than a 12 gauge loaded with slugs.

Plazaman

Overheal wrote: »

Are you listening now, Ireland?

****ing butcher knife. That could have been stopped with a gun.

Nah, we're fine 'Merica, we're quite happy where we are on the CHART OF DEATH

Ye just keep killing ye're stupid off with ye're guns, we'll find a solution quicker.

Witcher

Pug160 wrote: »

Indeed. They did their job.

All officers operationally deployed are routinely armed with the 9 mm Glock 17 self-loading pistol, and in some cases the X26 Taser. Despite carrying firearms, officers still carry the standard issue personal protective equipment (PPE) such as the; ASP baton, Hiatt Speedcuffs and CS/PAVA Incapacitant spray. They also have access to 9 mm Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic carbine, and L104A1 Baton gun. All ARV officers are trained to administer Ballistic First Aid and are Emergency Life Saver trained. In many instances, ARV crews can arrive at the scene of shooting before paramedics or ambulances, and are frequently required to provide life saving techniques on shooting victims.

That's from Wikipedia. She probably shot them with a 9mm pistol. Probably more forgiving on the body than a 12 gauge loaded with slugs.

I would imagine it was actually a rifle. It's a lot easier to miss with a pistol and in a built up area that's not acceptable.

Micky Dolenz

Seriously? Using this thread to try and justify gun law in the States?.

Gatling

Blay wrote: »

I would imagine it was actually a rifle. It's a lot easier to miss with a pistol and in a built up area that's not acceptable.

Blay I believe she the firearms officer used a glock
Posted in twitter apparently

darced

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Blay wrote: »

I think he means a third party carrying a gun could have intervened.

If London was a US city it would have one of the lowest murder rates in the US.

Guns are a nono over here.

Besides this pair had the guy hit with the car and had done the damage before anyone realised it was anything other than an accident

Overheal

enda1 wrote: »

London was not closed. Did you even read your own link?

Read my own link?

Maybe you're too young to remember dear, but people had to hoof it out of london that day, or sleep in their office chairs. There was no mass transit out of london and the cellular networks were slammed, not shut down, but crippled.

You also need a little context: those were suicide bombings, not deposited devices like Boston - and yes, theres a vast difference in responses to one or the other.

Witcher

Gatling wrote: »

Blay I believe she the firearms officer used a glock
Posted in twitter apparently

I would have thought they'd use a rifle. Anyway they know what's best:pac:

colossus-x

I also got abuse working in a kitchen where an English guy who was head chef shouted at me all day long "That's your lot that's your lot". I quite sure he knew I wasn't a terrorist.

It just goes to prove that terrorists attacks are not the result of immigration or multiculturalism.

Gatling

Blay wrote: »

I would have thought they'd use a rifle. Anyway they know what's best:pac:

Was thinking MP5 or G36c at least
There been so much info posted on Twitter I'd say it will take a few days to get the actual details

enda1

Overheal wrote: »

Read my own link?

Maybe you're too young to remember dear, but people had to hoof it out of london that day, or sleep in their office chairs. There was no mass transit out of london and the cellular networks were slammed, not shut down, but crippled.

You also need a little context: those were suicide bombings, not deposited devices like Boston - and yes, theres a vast difference in responses to one or the other.

Basically London reacted proportionately, Boston acted grossly disproportionately.

Take your patronising tone and political and social ideologies somewhere else please. You're not really welcome here inferring putting blame on UK and Irish societies.

I'm well old enough to remember the London bombings. In fact I was ironically in Boston at the time as an adult mind you.

anncoates

Let's please not use a horrible, random and thankfully rare attack as a dumbass soapbox for allowing any nutcase to arm themselves in England

Bodhisopha

https://twitter.com/NicoHines/status/337316328794882050/photo/1

Two Tone from Limehouse

ProudDUB wrote: »

Any one trotting out the "oh now this proves that all Muslims are murderers" party line needs to cop themselves on. Its all the stupider seeing as most of us here have friends and family who live/lived in the UK, who were there when the IRA campaigns on the UK mainland were taking place in the 1980s. The discrimination and bigotry that those people had to face from their own neighbours, co workers and sometimes friends was unreal. I had a cousin who had the bad luck to be banqueting manager at the Grand Hotel in Brighton when it was bombed by the IRA. Her life was a RIGHT barrel of laughs after wards I can tell you. Get a bloody grip people ! :mad:

Ok, but the Irish community were very forthright and quick to condemn those attacks. In my opinion the Imams could be a lot stronger in their condemnations of Islamic motivated attacks/plots/hate preachings....

Witcher

Bodhisopha wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NicoHines/status/337316328794882050/photo/1

You really have to see the full image there for maximum facepalming

Overheal

enda1 wrote: »

Take your patronising tone and political and social ideologies somewhere else please. You're not really welcome here inferring putting blame on UK and Irish societies.

If you have a problem with my posts, report them.

Timmyctc

Blay wrote: »

You really have to see the full image there for maximum facepalming

My God. After you posted this I panned down. Facepalmed so hard I gave myself two black eyes.

enda1

Overheal wrote: »

If you have a problem with my posts, report them.

I you've a problem with how other countries run themselves - go there and become part of the societies and change them.

Or you could continue your cowardly whining here - we all know hat you'll do.

Overheal

Bodhisopha wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NicoHines/status/337316328794882050/photo/1

I for one feel safer

Timmyctc

Overheal wrote: »

I for one feel safer

Not sure if...

Jonny7

Here's the woman who was speaking to both men.

Very calm and frank about the whole affair

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

Overheal

enda1 wrote: »

I you've a problem with how other countries run themselves - go there and become part of the societies and change them.

Or you could continue your cowardly whining here - we all know hat you'll do.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize your keyboard was any more special than mine.

I'm entitled to my opinions and I'm entitled to express them. If you don't like them, report them or ignore me, but don't pretend to tell me where I can and cannot express myself on this site.

Gatling

Overheal wrote: »

I for one feel safer

England unveils its new football kit - minus the inbuilt sports bra

RGDATA!

Piliger wrote: »

We NEVER hear from any Imams or major community leaders condemning these acts without some kind of mealy mouthed justification.

Where is the unequivocal condemnation ? Where is it ?

quote:

The Muslim Council of Britain said the killers' use of "Islamic slogans" indicated they were motivated by their faith.

A statement from the council said: "This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family.

"We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country's Armed Forces, proudly and with honour.

"This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/22/woolwich-machete-attack-religious-groups-condemn-killing_n_3322089.html?utm_hp_ref=uk?ncid=GEP

Overheal

Timmyctc wrote: »

Not sure if...

Just laughing at the link in the spirit it was posted.

But seriously, having a cordial chat with someone who just butchered someone - out of fear or...?

Wild stuff.

MonaPizza

Why is this being called a terrorist incident? From where I'm looking it's a murder. In the same news report that I'm watching there was news on that sicko, Dale whatever..the guy with the FALSE eye. He murdered two police officers with grenades. Two women I think. Why isn't he a terrorist? And since he used explosives, why aren't they classified as WMDs like that Boston murder? What isn't a terrorist now? I'm baffled.

Micky Dolenz

Overheal wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize your keyboard was any more special than mine.

I'm entitled to my opinions and I'm entitled to express them. If you don't like them, report them or ignore me, but don't pretend to tell me where I can and cannot express myself on this site.

Mod

Do not post on this thread again please.

You have derailed it quite enough. Express your opinion in a relevant thread.

colossus-x

enda1 wrote: »

Basically London reacted proportionately, Boston acted grossly disproportionately.

Take your patronising tone and political and social ideologies somewhere else please. You're not really welcome here inferring putting blame on UK and Irish societies.

I'm well old enough to remember the London bombings. In fact I was ironically in Boston at the time as an adult mind you.

How did Boston act grossly disproportionately btw ( considering they didn't know if other bombs were planted at the time ) ?

enda1

Saw mod instruction so deleted

Rascasse

MonaPizza wrote: »

Why is this being called a terrorist incident? From where I'm looking it's a murder. In the same news report that I'm watching there was news on that sicko, Dale whatever..the guy with the FALSE eye. He murdered two police officers with grenades. Two women I think. Why isn't he a terrorist? And since he used explosives, why aren't they classified as WMDs like that Boston murder? What isn't a terrorist now? I'm baffled.

Under British law;
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The bit in bold draws the line between criminals like Dale Creegan and terrorists.

Imagine how much safer you'd feel if he had a couple of guns on him.

Killer Wench

I heard the stories of witnesses on the radio. I can't believe the brutality/insanity behind this.

That guy James was in bits. He said his OH is in complete shock.