Woolwich attack: MI5 'offered job to suspect

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
The point is the two that murdered the soldier are NOT terrorists...far from it.

They ARE murdering scumbags though and deserve everything they get for what they did to their victim.


There is no universal definition of Terrorism agreed upon by all governments, so you have to rely on the individual nations and what their legal system has set in place. In the UK, the actions of these men clearly fall under the title of Terrorism...




1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(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 [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 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 [F2, racial]F2 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.


Clearly, under UK law, these two men are terrorists, and their actions were indeed a terrorist act.

You can apply your own logic and reasoning to come to your own conclusions too, but I think most would agree that the legal definition in the UK is pretty much in line with reality and what the majority of reasonable thinking adults also believe.




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


My mum is terrified by bees. Should they be added to the watch list?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MysterX
 


My mum is terrified by bees. Should they be added to the watch list?



No, because they do not meet the LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE UK of a Terrorist, and their actions do not meet the requirements to be described as such.

What do people not understand about this? You guys do understand the concept of LAW, right? And that every criminal act needs to have a definition to enable prosecution?

This is not a matter of "what scares someone", it's about the legal definition of an act of terrorism.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MysterX
 


My mum is terrified by bees. Should they be added to the watch list?



No, because they do not meet the LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE UK of a Terrorist, and their actions do not meet the requirements to be described as such.

What do people not understand about this? You guys do understand the concept of LAW, right? And that every criminal act needs to have a definition to enable prosecution?

This is not a matter of "what scares someone", it's about the legal definition of an act of terrorism.

Thanks for the clarification. Okay, two members of the EDL run over a person who was obviously a muslim, in a busy street, then jump out and begin chanting EDL slogans... is that an act of terrorism?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by marky1
oh god the conspiracy nuts will jump over all this and claim it was mind control


Hush your tongue.

If they do, why I'm staring at you now!!!!!

Oo



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Do you think governments can benefit by fabricating false flags?

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel


Can you spell Scopolamine?

F.T.G.




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MysterX
 


My mum is terrified by bees. Should they be added to the watch list?



No, because they do not meet the LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE UK of a Terrorist, and their actions do not meet the requirements to be described as such.

What do people not understand about this? You guys do understand the concept of LAW, right? And that every criminal act needs to have a definition to enable prosecution?

This is not a matter of "what scares someone", it's about the legal definition of an act of terrorism.

Thanks for the clarification. Okay, two members of the EDL run over a person who was obviously a muslim, in a busy street, then jump out and begin chanting EDL slogans... is that an act of terrorism?


That depends on the use of the law being applied!




(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 [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 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 [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.


So in this case, it would fall under subsection two because it is violence against a person.
It is then up to the law to decide if the other criteria are met.
Is the intention to influence government, intimidate the public or a section of the public, or intending to advance a political, religious or ideological cause?

I guess it would depend what those EDL nutters ate shouting when they get out of the car, and whether it can be proven that they intended to cause fear in the community or influence our government.

If you look at the definition, and the actions of those men, you can clearly see that it falls under the definition of a terrorist act. You are no offering a fictional scenario that hasn't actually happened and expecting the same form of decision.

Depending on whether it can be proven that they intended to scare other Muslims and whether they intended to influence government or an organization, it could be terrorism, or it could be a racially/religiously motivated hate crime.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dam00
reply to post by MysterX
 


It was Ji had,so maybee we should make Ji had a crime in itself
any form of it should be classed as a crime against humanity
edit on 25-5-2013 by dam00 because: (no reason given)


Umm but then you are no better than the rest of the people who don't try to understand something before judging it.

jihad is not simply a fight, or holy war. It's the struggle to be the best you can. Personally, spiritually, socially, religiously, etc.

It's when the struggle is taken and applied to the fighting in their 'holy lands' that it then becomes halal to kill the enemy. You'll hear time and time again that killing innocents in islam is strictly haram. And it is.

What you don't hear is how suddenly you have become the enemy.

I also love how if someone says "Islam is evil." people will berate this with claims of prejudice and ignorance. "They're not all like that, it's only the minority."

And invariably these are the same people who will say "Well it's no wonder they attack the west you're invading their countries and killing their children."

.... not all the same when muslim.
.... all the same if western.

Next time I'm in the middle east I'll make sure not to control any drones. If I promise this, can I get a reciprocal promise that people in western countries who have no control over the actions of the 'few' in power, will not be harmed?

Ahh.. oh well.. back to the ol' drawing board...



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by seasoul
 


If they were under the influence of drugs, be it crack, psycho-weed or something more exotic, wont that be picked up while they are in hospital?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MysterX
 


My mum is terrified by bees. Should they be added to the watch list?



Are the bees bombing you on purpose?

Or are you suggesting that terror is just the nature of a muslim?

Hmmm.. funny how things work out..
edit on 25-5-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by seasoul
 


Never let a good crisis go to waste, does not infer a false flag attack. Everyone uses these crises to further their own agenda,

Crisis in Chineses writing represents danger and opportunity. I know this is a conspiracy site, but there real is no conspiracy here,



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


That seems reasonable enough. Anyone attacking random muslims in retaliation should also be deemed as a terrorist and given the harshest prison sentences available.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


That seems reasonable enough. Anyone attacking random muslims in retaliation should also be deemed as a terrorist and given the harshest prison sentences available.



That's just going to the opposite extreme though, isn't it?

This should be about the application of law, not generalized statements. If an EDL supporter beats up a Muslim in the street, it's more adequately going to be described as a hate crime, not terrorism.

Ultimately this should just be about the application of reasonable law.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

That's just going to the opposite extreme though, isn't it?

This should be about the application of law, not generalized statements. If an EDL supporter beats up a Muslim in the street, it's more adequately going to be described as a hate crime, not terrorism.

Ultimately this should just be about the application of reasonable law.


If 2 non-muslims who had been radicalised by the EDL went and took the life of a muslim in a public place, how would that be markedly different than what these 2 men did?
edit on 25-5-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dam00
reply to post by MysterX
 


It was Ji had,so maybee we should make Ji had a crime in itself
any form of it should be classed as a crime against humanity
edit on 25-5-2013 by dam00 because: (no reason given)


Well said! Jihad is the problem!

It is not a holy war. It is a stupid war! Muslims are killing more of their own than us. How ironic is that?

How many Muslims have died since the advent of Jihad?; millions!!!

How many Western Troops and civilians?; a fair few thousand!

They are just being their own grim reaper upon themselves mainly. Stupid!

Well they are right now alienating the whole of The West. Russia don't like them anyway so really they don't have many friends other than a handful of deluded liberals who think Allah Akbar can be tamed, hahahaha!!!

Dear Muslim people. Stop this silly war. We can't help you while it is like this. You will just keep being bombed back to the stone age to keep you in check.

Don't you get it? I don't hate you. I hate what you are doing to each other, to a few Western Troops and civilians and how you want to destroy Israel.

ISRAEL is here forever now until The Kingdom come! Understand?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Rocker2013

That's just going to the opposite extreme though, isn't it?

This should be about the application of law, not generalized statements. If an EDL supporter beats up a Muslim in the street, it's more adequately going to be described as a hate crime, not terrorism.

Ultimately this should just be about the application of reasonable law.


If 2 non-muslims who had been radicalised by the EDL went and took the life of a muslim in a public place, how would that be markedly different than what these 2 men did?
edit on 25-5-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)


It wouldn't be a whole lot different, but I don't think you're reading and understanding the legal definition of terrorism under UK law.

In order for it to be classed as terrorism, it has to conform to that legal definition. If those two EDL members just attack someone based on religion or race, it would be a hate crime. But if they express political motivations, with an intention to influence policy, or to intimidate a community of people, then it can be called terrorism. It's all about the legal definition of it in UK law, as detailed in previous posts.

I'm not justifying anything or excusing anything, I'm just telling you what the legal definition of terrorism is in the UK and how this differs from violent acts that would otherwise be hate crimes.

I think you need to study the definition as described in UK law, you're just not getting it.
edit on 25-5-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013
Funny, the statistics I have seen show lower numbers than that.


A poll carried out for Channel 4 by NOP Research revealed that just under 4 in 10 British Muslims were either hardcore Islamists or aggressive defenders of Islam.

CBS


• NOP Research survey reports, "hardcore Islamists" constitute 9% of the British Muslim population.

A slightly more moderate group is composed of "staunch defenders of Islam." This second group comprises 29% of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined.


SOURCE

Slightly under 4 in 10 British Muslims are either hardcore Islamists or aggressive defenders of Islam. It is all quite worrying.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Lets also not forget that there were links between Anders Behring Breivik and the EDL too.


The Swedish police have stated that there was no link between the EDL and Anders Breivik.

Police: No link found to Breivik


"There is no evidence of links between mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik and the English far-right, according to Norway's domestic intelligence chief.Janne Kristiansen, director of the Norwegian Police Security Service, said no proof has yet been found to link the 32-year-old gunman to right-wing extremists in the UK."


It looks as if you are wrong again.

On the other hand, the Muslim Council of Britain does have links to Islamic terrorism.

Ha zel Blears cuts ties to Muslim Council of Britain


Hazel Blears cuts ties to Muslim Council of Britain after it refuses to condemn controversial senior member

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears is angry that the Muslim Council of Britain has refused to condemn a senior member who signed a public declaration in support of Hamas.

The document, signed by the council's deputy secretary-general Daud Abdullah, also seemingly advocated attacks on the Navy if it tried to stop arms intended for Hamas being smuggled into Gaza.

These were heightened further when Dr Abdullah, who has also served as a member of the Government-backed Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, was one of 90 Muslim leaders around the globe who signed the controversial 'Istanbul declaration'.

The declaration was interpreted as calling for violence against Israel and condoning attacks on British troops. In response, Mrs Blears wrote to the MCB saying Dr Abdullah should 'resign his post'.

Li nk


They say you can judge a man by the quality of his friends.

Some of the British Muslim Council of Britain are friends with Islamic terrorists.

The moderate face of the religion of peace?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Breivik boasted about his links to the UK far-right group in his 1,500-page manifesto, written in English under his Anglicised name, Andrew Berwick.


Source

So h explicitly mentions the English Defence League in his OWN MANIFESTO and we're supposed to believe there was no link?


In the words of an EDL member...



One alleged EDL activist posted a comment online on Sunday stating: "[B]ar one or two doubt the rest of us ever met him, altho he did come over for one of our demo in 2010 … but what he did was wrong."


So he mentioned them in his BS manifesto, and then someone in the EDL actually admits to him having attended a demonstration.

I think I know which version of the truth is more plausible and based in more evidence.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Firstly I must say I am disappointed in how most threads on this subject have deteriorated into personal political views. Some of these threads on the subject have been completely derailed. Personal political views just blur the crime scene. ATS offers a chance to store and share information that comes to light that directly affects our lives.

 I am unable to offer any solutions of any conviction on this subject as of yet.

Here are some interesting background facts to the terror attack:

One of the terrorist's was attacked many years ago which resulted in his friend being stabbed to death by a "bare knuckle fighter" who was suspected to be on drugs. My view on this story is that the terrorist was involved in drugtaking/selling which brought him to the attention of the local nutcase who either attacked them because he wanted their money and drugs or because he was highly disturbed by their behaviour and was on to something  or because of both reasons. 

www.independent.co.uk...

Here is some more info on actual attack in 2008. Strange how accusations of terror links had been made. Was he the local right wing drug taking racist knuckle head or did he know more? He later states he remembers nothing:

www.murdermap.co.uk...

More info on boy murdered. It's sad that life seems to be worth so little. These are real people and I pass no judgement only observe:

www.newsshopper.co.uk...

The thing I noticed from the above (which sent a shiver down my spine) is the fact that the "bare knuckle fighter" who killed the terrorist's friend was Lee James. The victim of the terror attack in woolwich was called Lee James Rigby.

Peace to all.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join