London - Suspected Terrorist Incident

Al_Coholic

Bodhisopha wrote: »

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

full kit racist wanker

colossus-x

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I would imagine when your walking down the street and if you had eyes at the back of your head , and if you had guns in each hand while you were randomly going about your business , you wouldn't have had the time to take them out of your pocket ( unless you had them in your hands at the time which would have looked a bit weird ) you hardly would have had enough time to react to save yourself and hence while you were alive you could have spend your hard earned cash on few beers instead of wasting it on bullets ya never got to use in the first place.

Bodhisopha

Blay wrote: »

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

https://twitter.com/nicohines/status/337316328794882050

colossus-x

Gatling wrote: »

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

I agree they are loon's - but fundamentalist religious loon's - which you can find in UK , Ireland..anywhere. But it's not defined by country thus has no borders.

BlueJohn

The breaking point is coming and every one but liberals will acknowledge it. You will be called a racist and what not. But this **** will only continue to happen more frequently.

Stockholm is having riots over the police shooting dead a man with a knife and what do you have a load of immigrants destroying cars and buildings in parts of the city which are bloody miles from the mans death.

Yet we are the racists cause these people are welcomed into European countries with open arms by are governments.

Everyone knows what the problem is and it is Islam. Yet the Liberals will have none of it.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Mod:

There are plenty of recent threads to talk about guns, this one has been derailed enough, so enough of the gun talk everybody, thank you.

Timmyctc

BlueJohn wrote: »

The breaking point is coming and every one but liberals will acknowledge it. You will be called a racist and what not. But this **** will only continue to happen more frequently.

Stockholm is having riots over the police shooting dead a man with a knife and what do you have a load of immigrants destroying cars and buildings in parts of the city which are bloody miles from the mans death.

Yet we are the racists cause these people are welcomed into European countries with open arms by are governments.

Everyone knows what the problem is and it is Islam. Yet the Liberals will have none of it.

It's Islamist extremists, or extremists of any variation. You're making a rash generalisation by saying the religion itself is the problem. Its basically the same thing as if I blame the problem of paedophilia on the Catholic church.

Witcher

Timmyctc wrote: »

It's Islamist extremists, or extremists of any variation. You're making a rash generalisation by saying the religion itself is the problem. Its basically the same thing as if I blame the problem of paedophilia on the Catholic church.

Bloody liberal!:pac:

Gatling

colossus-x wrote: »

I agree they are loon's - but fundamentalist religious loon's - which you can find in UK , Ireland..anywhere. But it's not defined by country thus has no borders.

UK is a special place for loons seen a story about a loon from Congo or Rwanda that admitted butchering 100-400 people with a machete yet can't be sent home to face trial ,
The whole going to any country and preaching kill kill kill in the name of religion and freedom of speech and claim they escaped oppression and threat of violence in there own country

MonaPizza

Rascasse wrote: »

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.

Well I haven't heard anything about intimidating the public or influencing the government with regards to this episode. I always thought that terrorism was the infliction of violence against civilians to further a political goal. On the news right now the victim is being referred to as a "supposed" soldier. Well either he was a soldier or he wasn't. If he was, the attacking him (a military target) can hardly be classified as terrorism.

But reading through your definition of terrorism...that could be applied to two tons outside a chipper or even a guy beating his wife if you wanted it to.

If violence perpetrated to influence the government or the public constitutes terrorism then does that not include government action against other states and/or populaces?
Again, if such violence, when delivered upon civilians constitutes terrorism, then why is this a terrorist attack if the target was military?

colossus-x

MonaPizza wrote: »

Well I haven't heard anything about intimidating the public or influencing the government with regards to this episode. I always thought that terrorism was the infliction of violence against civilians to further a political goal. On the news right now the victim is being referred to as a "supposed" soldier. Well either he was a soldier or he wasn't. If he was, the attacking him (a military target) can hardly be classified as terrorism.

But reading through your definition of terrorism...that could be applied to two tons outside a chipper or even a guy beating his wife if you wanted it to.

If violence perpetrated to influence the government or the public constitutes terrorism then does that not include government action against other states and/or populaces?
Again, if such violence, when delivered upon civilians constitutes terrorism, then why is this a terrorist attack if the target was military?

. Certainly looked like they had some 'political goal' from watching the rant.

They intimidated the public ( clearly ) . There was certainly violence against civilians - the civilian victim is dead. There is no evidence that the fundamentalists knew this guy was a soldier.

Killer Wench

I am curious to see the rant and the interaction with bystanders after the murder, but I do not actually want to see them in the act of murdering someone. Nor do I want to see the body lying on the ground.

Mysteriouschic

It's so awful that this man killed those people and then he's trying to defend himself afterward try to prove what he did was okay. Can't believe one of the men that the guy killed chopped the guys head off :eek: .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-two-shot-in-police-incident-live-coverage

starviewadams

Stupid move by the meat cleaver lads,will just give the braindead anti muslim racist element more ammunition.

Gatling

starviewadams wrote: »

Stupid move by the meat cleaver lads,will just give the braindead anti muslim racist element more ammunition.

Anti Muslim racist's aka British public

Vs

Psycho murdering Islamist /racist 's

Piliger

Gatling wrote: »

Anti Muslim racist's aka British public

Vs

Psycho murdering Islamist /racist 's

Pathetic.

Royal Irish

Enoch powell was right.

Timmyctc

Royal Irish wrote: »

Enoch powell was right.

Elaborate?

Royal Irish

His rivers of blood speech against unchecked immigration in the UK.

EuskalHerria

Royal Irish wrote: »

His rivers of blood speech against unchecked immigration in the UK.

Are you sober? Or are you just speaking to soon after this event and reacting extremely badly?

Agreeing with Enoch Powell is some statement to make and it seems reactionary at best.

stretchdoe

Royal Irish wrote: »

His rivers of blood speech against unchecked immigration in the UK.

Some Irish people left some 'rivers of blood' over there, alright; and i suppose we could argue about the reasons for it/justification, etc..
Thankfully, though, many other Irish people emigrated to the UK at that time with no intention of leaving 'rivers of blood' and have done since, to this day.

Cody Pomeray

Royal Irish wrote: »

His rivers of blood speech against unchecked immigration in the UK.

Just curious...what is the royal irish IRL CLAN signature about?

Gatling

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Just curious...what is the royal irish IRL CLAN signature about?

Gaming Clan

Norwesterner

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Are you sober? Or are you just speaking to soon after this event and reacting extremely badly?

Agreeing with Enoch Powell is some statement to make and it seems reactionary at best.

Of course he was right, and several Labour M.Ps have implied as much in recent documentaries.
He was derided by the media who claimed his projections and forecasts of future immigration numbers were ridiculously exagerrated.
Turned out his figure were underestimated by as much as 50%.

Watch this interview with David Frost and tell me who was ultimately right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPze0dRgW8

BTW, he was NOT a racist or anti immigration.
He was simply calling for control
Total common sense.

Manic Moran

space_man wrote: »

oh dear.
somebody trying to justify the beheading of an innocent lad in broad daylight.

i was wondering how long it might take AH?:o:o:o:o:o:o

If he was in the military, he wasn't an innocent lad, though.

I don't know why people have this bizarre idea these days that geographic borders should provide immunity to the hazards of warfare. Just because the predominant fighting is in another country does not make soldiers less of a legitimate target in their home country, and I dearly wish this was a concept that our politicians understood.

I am in the military. I am a legitimate target. Killing me wouldn't be 'terrorism', if it were part of the military campaign. Unfortunately, current operations don't have an easily defined 'enemy', so the threat could be anyone.

NTM

Manic Moran

Seachmall wrote: »

The guys had knives and a gun, they were probably told to wait for the armed response unit.

Was awfully nice of them to wait around for the ARU to show up before going and threatening anyone else with their knife and gun, though.

I wonder what would have happened had they been less accommodating?

NTM

Zambia

I beg to differ the guy was walking around in a t shirt. He should not be a target for anyone.

Nodin

Norwesterner wrote: »

Of course he was right, and several Labour M.Ps have implied as much in recent documentaries.
He was derided by the media who claimed his projections and forecasts of future immigration numbers were ridiculously exagerrated.
Turned out his figure were underestimated by as much as 50%.
..............

He was talking about black immigrants, not militant Islam. Theres absolutely no evidence as of yet that either of these people were born outside Britain.

Norwesterner wrote: »

BTW, he was NOT a racist or anti immigration.He was simply calling for
controlTotal common sense.

Have you actually read the speech?

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of
growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be
substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the
population would still leave the basic character of the national danger
unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the
total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten
years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

lunar7

Someone said ealier

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

Here is a short clip - Illegals in UK

Seaneh

Zambia wrote: »

I beg to differ the guy was walking around in a t shirt. He should not be a target for anyone.

If he is a serving soldier, he is a serving soldier, he's never a civilian, not even if he changes his clothes.

As long as the British government is engaging un-uniformed men (and teenagers, and innocent civilians at times) in the middle east and central asia, then un-uniformed men of middle eastern/central asian/East African/Muslim origin will see british soldiers as legitimate targets, whether it's in Afghanistan or Iraq or Woolwich.

You don't get to start a war halfway around the world and not expect it to follow you home, that's not how war works.

You also don't get to conquer hundreds of millions of people from Ireland to India and Zimbabwe to Canada, the Caribbean and Guiana and not expect some of the locals to follow you home, that's not how empires work.


If you're going to engage in war mongering or empire building, you don't get away with it without spilling blood on both sides and having people move in both directions. That's just reality.

What happened today is horrifying, but so is what's been happening in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past 12 years.

stretchdoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

If he was in the military, he wasn't an innocent lad, though.

I don't know why people have this bizarre idea these days that geographic borders should provide immunity to the hazards of warfare. Just because the predominant fighting is in another country does not make soldiers less of a legitimate target in their home country, and I dearly wish this was a concept that our politicians understood.

I am in the military. I am a legitimate target. Killing me wouldn't be 'terrorism', if it were part of the military campaign. Unfortunately, current operations don't have an easily defined 'enemy', so the threat could be anyone.

NTM

That's garbage, though.

I believe you're a member of the US ARMY, judging by some other posts of yours i've read.

The very point of the US ARMY's deployment in any 'fields of opertation', in recent times, has to do with the notion them being 'terrorists'.

You haven't been fighting anyone that your superiors presume to have 'legitimacy': whatever that might mean when it comes to people killing each other.

So whatever way you want to characterise whoever you might be facing up to, whether in real or some imagined combat, on whatever piece of land, it would seem, by dint of your position/contract/the semantics used by your superiors, you'll be fighting 'terrorists'.

Norwesterner

Nodin wrote: »

He was talking about black immigrants, not militant Islam. Theres absolutely no evidence as of yet that either of these people were born outside Britain.



Have you actually read the speech?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

He wasn't only talking about black immigrants.
He served in India during WW2 and witnessed communal strife based on culture and religion including Islam.
He constantly argued the religious angle of mass immigration from the corners of the World to mainly working class English areas.
It was mostly working class people and Unions who supported him in those days funny enough.

Manic Moran

stretchdoe wrote: »

That's garbage, though.

I believe you're a member of the US ARMY, judging by some other posts of yours i've read.

The very point of the US ARMY's deployment in any 'fields of opertation', in recent times, has to do with the notion them being 'terrorists'.

You haven't been fighting anyone that your superiors presume to have 'legitimacy': whatever that might mean when it comes to people killing each other.

So whatever way you want to characterise whoever you might be facing up to, whether in real or some imagined combat, on whatever piece of land, it would seem, by dint of your position/contract/the semantics used by your superiors, you'll be fighting 'terrorists'.

I don't care what anyone calls them, beyond my personal preference that they use correct terminology. Politicians rarely get it right in any other subject, why should military operations be any different?

I have legitimate targets to engage, or I do not. The word "terrorist" is not found under the definition of "combatant" or "non-combatant" in the laws of land warfare, no matter what the politicians say. (It may, however, be found as a distinguisher between 'lawful combatant' and 'unlawful combatant')

NTM

Zambia

Seaneh wrote: »

If he is a serving soldier, he is a serving soldier, he's never a civilian, not even if he changes his clothes.

As long as the British government is engaging un-uniformed men (and teenagers, and innocent civilians at times) in the middle east and central asia, then un-uniformed men of middle eastern/central asian/East African/Muslim origin will see british soldiers as legitimate targets, whether it's in Afghanistan or Iraq or Woolwich.

You don't get to start a war halfway around the world and not expect it to follow you home, that's not how war works.

You also don't get to conquer hundreds of millions of people from Ireland to India and Zimbabwe to Canada, the Caribbean and Guiana and not expect some of the locals to follow you home, that's not how empires work.


If you're going to engage in war mongering or empire building, you don't get away with it without spilling blood on both sides and having people move in both directions. That's just reality.

What happened today is horrifying, but so is what's been happening in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past 12 years.

Its warped world views like this one that got us to this point, because somewhere some retard reads it and decides to try and behead people in retaliation.

It may have happened for the last 120 years in Iraq, it does not give anyone an excuse to do it somewhere where it does not happen.

Seaneh

Zambia wrote: »

Its warped world views like this one that got us to this point, because somewhere some retard reads it and decides to try and behead people in retaliation.

It may have happened for the last 120 years in Iraq, it does not give anyone an excuse to do it somewhere where it does not happen.

And you missed the point of my post entirely.

Well done.

Norwesterner

BBC described it as a terrorist attack, yet when reporting similar incidents in Syria, they bizarrely put the word terrorist in inverted commas.

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

It may have happened for the last 120 years in Iraq, it does not give anyone an excuse to do it somewhere where it does not happen.

Bizarre 'logic'.

Zambia

Seaneh wrote: »

And you missed the point of my post entirely.

Well done.

I dont think I did, maybe you dont know what you are putting out there, the entire post read like a justification, what do you expect sort of thing.

It matters not what happened years ago or weeks ago.

The guy was just a bloke on the street wearing a t-shirt for a charity. If he was or was not a soldier it makes the act no less barbaric.

They choose to ram him with a car rendering him immobile and then got out and hacked him to death in front of women and children.

Thats what they did thats the reality, anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

AlekSmart

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.

Good point regrding proportionality.

I suggest that had the ethnicities been reversed in this grotesque tragedy we would be witnessing a somewhat different scenario this morning.

The fact is that for the most-part your average white British citizen is a remarkable tolerant individual,more so,I would suggest,than an Irish counterpart.

London is'nt burning this morning,and that's down largely to those who were attacked being of a far more reasonable and sane disposition than those who attacked them.

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

They choose to ram him with a car rendering him immobile and then got out and hack him to death in front of women and children.

So you're uncomfortable with the method of the killing rather than if he was a legitimate target or not?

Seaneh

Zambia wrote: »

I dont think I did, maybe you dont know what you are putting out there, the entire post read like a justification, what do you expect sort of thing.

It matters not what happened years ago or weeks ago.

The guy was just a bloke on the street wearing a t-shirt for a charity. If he was or was not a soldier it makes the act no less barbaric.

They choose to ram him with a car rendering him immobile and then got out and hack him to death in front of women and children.

Thats what they did thats the reality, anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

And why did they choose him?

Is the logical answer not that they knew he was a soldier? Perhaps they followed him from the barracks nearby, maybe they'd been following him for days. They choose him because they saw him as a legitimate military target, and if he was a soldier, then he was just that. A member of the armed forces of a country engaged in two wars.

How anyone can seriously think any country can be engaged in a war in any part of the world and not at least acknowledge that it's probably going to follow them home at some point is beyond me.
If you choose to engage an enemy, don't be surprised when they or their agents strike back. That's fairly basic stuff.

Are the people the US and UK have been fighting in the middle east and central asia for the last decade and a bit supposed to politely stay within their borders and only engage coalition troops in some sort of designated combat zone like a COD map or something?
Borders which they don't have, seeing as they are fighting people of multiple races and nationalities spanning from South East Asia to West Africa and Europe and aren't fighting in the name of any nation but in the name of a religion, whether legitimately or not.

War is ugly, and it follows you home, more often than not.

If you don't want it coming back to crap on your doorstep, don't engage in it.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm just pointing out reality.

Zambia

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

So you're uncomfortable with the method of the killing rather than if he was a legitimate target or not?

Nothing about this incident should sit well with anyone.

Zambia

Seaneh wrote: »

And why did they choose him?

Is the logical answer not that they knew he was a soldier? Perhaps they followed him from the barracks nearby, maybe they'd been following him for days. They choose him because they saw him as a legitimate military target, and if he was a soldier, then he was just that. A member of the armed forces of a country engaged in two wars.

How anyone can seriously think any country can be engaged in a war in any part of the world and not at least acknowledge that it's probably going to follow them home at some point is beyond me.
If you choose to engage an enemy, don't be surprised when they or their agents strike back. That's fairly basic stuff.

Are the people the US and UK have been fighting in the middle east and central asia for the last decade and a bit supposed to politely stay within their borders and only engage coalition troops in some sort of designated combat zone like a COD map or something?
Borders which they don't have, seeing as they are fighting people of multiple races and nationalities spanning from South East Asia to West Africa and Europe and aren't fighting in the name of any nation but in the name of a religion, whether legitimately or not.

War is ugly, and it follows you home, more often than not.

If you don't want it coming back to crap on your doorstep, don't engage in it.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm just pointing out reality.

Was the killing of this man an act of war or a crime in your opinion?

In mine its just a crime.

Seaneh

Zambia wrote: »

Nothing about this incident should sit well with anyone.

I don't think it does sit well with anyone.

But neither do the methods that the US and UK use to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the fact that they have started two bogus wars and caused the death and displacement of millions.

But again, war is ugly, and it doesn't usually believe in borders or "right" or "wrong", on either side.

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

Nothing about this incident should sit well with anyone.

Spare me the proselytizing. Who the hell does it appear this incident 'sits well with' in the entire thread?

Seaneh

Zambia wrote: »

Was the killing of this man an act of war or a crime in your opinion?

In mine its just a crime.

Doesn't matter what my opinion is.
If in the minds of the men who killed the british soldier today, it was war, if they genuinely believe themselves or their allies are at war with the UK then they are just as legitimate in their killing of British soldiers as the UK is in the killing of Islamist militants in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact is that the UK is at war with Islamist Militants in two separate countries, and has been for over a decade, an attack from Islamist Militants on British Military Personnel on British soil was going to happen sooner or later.


And again, I'm not giving a justification for anything, I am pointing out one of the obvious reasons why this horrific attack happened.

Zambia

Seaneh wrote: »

Doesn't matter what my opinion is.

Maybe your right, your opinion doesnt matter.

Good luck

Seaneh

Zambia wrote: »

Maybe your right, your opinion doesnt matter.

Good luck

Matters about as much as yours or the dog on the street in this instance, in fairness, I'll give you that.

snaps

The social media sites and some posts on here seem to think the British army/united states/ISAF forces are in middle eastern countries deliberately murdering innocent children, women and men. Where is this s*it coming from. A small percentage may get killed in crossfire, accidents etc. Modern day weapons have an unreal accuracy for their targets.
Have we forgotton the deaths, torture, executions carried out by the Taliban on their own people? Do ISAF forces leave roadside, hidden boobytrapped bombs lying around that children, women and men get blown to bits by? The answer is no.
There is no justification to this attack, im gobsmacked this happened in broad daylight with the attackers not having a care in the world. Will be interesting to find out if they were high on something. A poster said they are also possibly 2nd generation from their ancestors, I bet when social welfare and benefits are handed out these guys are as British as they come?

nadia88

snaps wrote: »

The social media sites and some posts on here seem to think the British army/united states/ISAF forces are in middle eastern countries deliberately murdering innocent children, women and men. Where is this s*it coming from. A small percentage may get killed in crossfire, accidents etc. Modern day weapons have an unreal accuracy for their targets.
Have we forgotton the deaths, torture, executions carried out by the Taliban on their own people? Do ISAF forces leave roadside, hidden boobytrapped bombs lying around that children, women and men get blown to bits by? The answer is no.
There is no justification to this attack, im gobsmacked this happened in broad daylight with the attackers not having a care in the world. Will be interesting to find out if they were high on something. A poster said they are also possibly 2nd generation from their ancestors, I bet when social welfare and benefits are handed out these guys are as British as they come?

What a stupid post.