It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police respond to 'serious incident' in Woolwich

page: 41
159
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Just to clarify once more;




Although there is no generally agreed definition of terrorism internationally, in the UK the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as: The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes: serious violence against a person; serious damage to a property; a threat to a person's life; a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system


UK Definition of terrorism

The British definition does not make a distinction between a serving military man and a civilian. I also think it would be a stretch to consider the off duty soldier to be a combatant either.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 




The day that I am in a place where someone is being be.ed in the middle of the street, with the attackers screaming Aluha Ahkbar, is the day I will gladly take on the role of 'Judge, Jury, and Executioner' - if I must be damned for that, damn me now, or damn me then, or lock me up for those sins, it will not change the actions I will take.


It must be a cultural thing, but my fantasy of revenge in this scenario involved me taking a decent sized iron bar and slamming it over the back of the mouthy guys . as he was talking to the camera. It never once entered my . to think I could have shot him if I'd had a gun.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
This entire incident is surreal. I can't believe this would happen in London and that it would take 20 minutes for the police to get there. If someone had told me this had happened and I had yet to see it on the news I wouldn't have believed them.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by spacedog1973
The British taxpayer is also paying for soldiers and bombs to kill innocent people day after day, year after year. it would be the height of ignorance to ignore that as also being a factor.

The chickens do indeed come home to roost.


This is the price of globalism, but I don't think anyone is going to back up and go down another road, unfortunately.

If it were up to me, immigration laws would be much different and no NATO troops would be doing globalist errands in the Middle East or Africa.
edit on 22-5-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)


We have to accept that no-one can kill people without some form of consequences and we in the West have been doing that for too long. When the consequences come we are up in arms like something unholy has occurred, like we are Untouchables. We're not.

Globalism is just enlarging what community is. Community is just a wider social group as compared to friends and family. If we act like we do in the smaller groups when we are globally active; i.e respect for our neighbours, treating people how we would expect to be treated ourselves etc, these actions would simply not occur in the way they have done.

Actions such as these are to be expected and absorbed whilst we are also actively violent. In fact, we really don't receive anywhere near the amount of harm we dish out globally, so we should quit while we are a..

We started immigration, now have to live with the consequences like it or not. We reap what we sow etc. We will ever learn or just go a. continuing to chase our tails? The latter I expect.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedog1973

Although there is no generally agreed definition of terrorism internationally, in the UK the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as: The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes: serious violence against a person; serious damage to a property; a threat to a person's life; a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system


If these men are guilty under this definition of "terrorism", so are the British government and many of it's institutions, only on a much grander scale.

Pot calling the kettle black.
edit on 22-5-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You must be a unique mind, as it seems there were several by-standers who tried to stop the attacks by doing just what you suggested. Had any one of them carried a lethal weapon that could have downed the attackers from a distance, this soldier's . may still be attached to his body...

Then again, it must be a cultural thing. In my culture, we look for the tools that will get the job done the quickest and most efficient way with the lowest risk of personal injury. In this instance, a gun would have been #1 on that list. Besides, I don't know that many people who carry a 'iron bar' around with them where ever they go...

Do you have access to a gun now? If not, that may be the reason it never crossed your mind to use one. Why consider using something you do not have? No one ever thought about travelling by air when they didn't have access to airplanes either.







edit on 22-5-2013 by esteay812 because: tyops



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys

Originally posted by spacedog1973

Although there is no generally agreed definition of terrorism internationally, in the UK the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as: The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes: serious violence against a person; serious damage to a property; a threat to a person's life; a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system


If these men are guilty under this definition of "terrorism", so are the British government and many of it's institutions, only on a much grander scale.

Pot calling the kettle black.
edit on 22-5-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)


I quite agree.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


No it does not talk about self defence in war. That is YOUR interpretation of the words. The words, however you dress them up, are very clear (even with your very liberal interpretation that you are using - that is not the literal translation of the words).

Let's dissect this verse, using the full verse in context, as you presented it:



[8:12-13] Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved.

- Here we have the motive and the intention of the god of the qu'ran. He will support those that believe, but will instil terror into the hearts of those who do not.



You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger.

-Here we have the execution of the motive and intention.



" This is what they have justly incurred by fighting GOD and His messenger. For those who fight against GOD and His messenger, GOD's retribution is severe.

-Here we have the legitimisation of the execution of the motive and intention. It says that those who will have their .s and fingers cut off, will do so, because they have fought against the god of the qu'ran and his messenger, not because those people have attacked the Muslims (thus self defence-like you say), but because they have attacked the god of the qu'ran and his messenger. How does one attack a god? Is it by disbelieving him and his messenger? I think so, as the motive and the intention clearly state that the god of the qu'ran supports those whom believe, but instils terror into the hearts of those who do not.



Therefore, even in this liberal translation we can clearly see, despite the obfuscation of it's true meaning with a less literal translation, the intent of the god of the qu'ran. That being, it is acceptable for an unbeliever to be decapitated, simply for not believing. Unless of course you are saying it is a form of self defence from the god of qu'ran...


It does not matter if there are 1000 verses like this or 1. If it's there, then it is there.

edit on 22-5-2013 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: formatting



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You must be a unique mind, as it seems there were several by-standers who tried to stop the attacks by doing just what you suggested. Had any one of them carried a lethal weapon that could have downed the attackers from a distance, this soldier's . may still be attached to his body...



He was NOT be.ed, and he was NOT a soldier!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 

I agree. Western hypocrisy on the subject of "terrorism" is colossal.

Having said that, just as all news is ultimately local, all war is ultimately personal. If the globalist war comes to me, I don't want to be just another victim. I will go down hard, if I can.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You must be a unique mind, as it seems there were several by-standers who tried to stop the attacks by doing just what you suggested. Had any one of them carried a lethal weapon that could have downed the attackers from a distance, this soldier's . may still be attached to his body...

Then again, it must be a cultural thing. In my culture, we look for the tools that will get the job done the quickest and most efficient way with the lowest risk of personal injury. In this instance, a gun would have been #1 on that list. Besides, I don't know that many people who carry a 'lead pipe' around with them where ever they go...







edit on 22-5-2013 by esteay812 because: tyops


Its not as simple as that. If the criminals knew that the wider public had access to firearms, then its likely that their tactics would have changed, to take that into account. Their ability to access firearms of reliable quality would also increase and your scenario of a free shoot, could have turned into a shoot out, a blood bath.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
religion of peace



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
Did not read the long thread but how to deal with human animals is the main question. I think Islamic immigration to west and other countries should be deeply curtailed until such acts stop happening.

Al-Queda has lost frontal war on terrorism, so now they have come down to walking behind the common person and doing animalistic acts. This is more dangerous. Moderate Islamic leaders should step up and calm their people down or Islamic nations will be left on their own to fend off with no trade or technology passing to them.


I would say moderate Islamic leaders, have a moderate following. and what the feck has fictional Al Qaeda to do with it per se.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

They are not soldiers, two against one armed with gun and knives is thuggery,


How about, men with Kalashnikov Rifles facing down F-15 fighter jets and remotely controlled unmanned bomber drones.



Hilarious, aint' it?

Thuggery is perception.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


You must be a unique mind, as it seems there were several by-standers who tried to stop the attacks by doing just what you suggested. Had any one of them carried a lethal weapon that could have downed the attackers from a distance, this soldier's . may still be attached to his body...



He was NOT be.ed, and he was NOT a soldier!



You know this how?

The full details haven't been released yet (on his person) and the witnesses at the scene saw his . removed.

Please look into things before you make SHOUTING comments you know nothing about this is about facts.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by spacedog1973
 

I agree. Western hypocrisy on the subject of "terrorism" is colossal.

Having said that, just as all news is ultimately local, all war is ultimately personal. If the globalist war comes to me, I don't want to be just another victim. I will go down hard, if I can.



Yes, but what are you fighting for? Who's war is it anyway? Are you currently invested in war? Is there a country who you personally would like to war against?

When politicians create war, then they should go fight in them. Since they are so protected from terrorists, they instead have no choice but to harm the general public. Why should we suffer, or even fight for concepts, reasons and peoples who we personally don't have an interest in?

If you really need to fight, use the vote, vote out this philosophy that war is ok for some concept we don't understand, for reasons not fully explained. Politicians who keep repeating this philosphy are getting US killed.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


What does religion promote other than..... Religious indifference/intolerance? Hatred of your fellow man?....Love?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 


He may not have been a soldier, but I believe he was some sort of enlisted person.

but HE WAS be.ed, along with other unthinkable injuries.

I would share the pics, but that is far beyond the ATS T&C.


edit on 22-5-2013 by esteay812 because: tyops



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
You know the bizarre thing.

Is that this guy with the knives in his hands goes up to the camera man and says "No, no ,no, It's cool!"

Like that is going to mean anything after you hacked a guy to death.

And what does he mean "Our lands". If he is talking about British soldiers fighting in some place outside of England with HIS ENGLISH ACCENT, then they aren't his lands! Unless he is referring to Britain. But the British lands belong to the crown!

And why didn't he attack a BLACK BRITISH SOLDIER?

I don't think this was entirely political. If he wanted to prove a political point a black British soldier would have demonstrated his desire to indicate that this was purely political.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ramcheck
Clear picture of the other attacker.




That picture was Tweeted by the proud daughter of the fair haired woman standing there, presumably questioning him on his motives.


Just casually having a chat! Madness.



new topics

top topics



 
159
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join