Police respond to 'serious incident' in Woolwich

Originally posted by tdk84

Also let's get with the times and use the word 'black' instead of 'coloured'. I mean, really?

Your assuming he meant just the blacks of the country... there's lots of ethnic races in the UK.

Its kicked off this time it with the public... the first time people of a certain generation will have seen anything like this amplified by modern media.

When the IRA were up to there tricks we overcame, I think our experience with that is the main reason why things have been controlled quite well.

I don't see this is being nay different... the minority of extremist will be dealt with even more so now with attacks in London.

edit on 23-5-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Again more bull. No ethnic group in the uk is referred to as 'coloured' nor is 'coloured' an appropriate generic all encompassing descriptive term. So it doesn't matter.

reply to post by Freeborn



Really ? Where did you hear this or see it please ? This does not bode well .

Does anyone else have that song going round their head ? ' There may be trouble ahead ....'

Originally posted by biggilo
reply to post by Tiger5

 

There's alot more to being 'British' than just holding a passport and I agree those guys weren't British.

reply to post by Exitt

Well you are trying to make a point about the terrorists having a non-british country of origin. I argue that that is a false argument possibly driven by your agenda of foreigner = terrorist!

My Point is that these guys are british and converts to islam which is the issue being of non british descent does not raise the risk of being a terrorist. There are many Moslem converts who were actually white and born in this country.

I repeat we must understand this phenomenon in order to defeat it.

reply to post by Rocker2013

Something everyone seems to be forgetting is that there hasn't been a death in the UK due to terrorism since 7/7 in 2005.

That’s not strictly true, one individual was killed during the Glasgow Airport bombing although it was the would be suicide bomber, its understandable that people don’t count that but it was a death as a result of terrorism. There were also many injured and a bomb in London at the same time that didnt detonate

However more that this that statistic I think only refers to Islamic terrorism, it does not include Northern Ireland were in 2009 for example 2 soldiers were killed and civilians were injured during a shooting that the Real IRA to responsibility for. There have also been British Nationals killed in overseas terrorist attacks.

The UK Security Services have actually been very good and proactive with the CONTEST strategy and the strong laws that have equipped the security services with handling terrorism. Its important not to become complacent thinking that either we are not a target or are somehow invulnerable to these types of attacks.

Originally posted by Exitt


The difference is, this particular soldier was on civil duties, unarmed,

Well how else are two people ungunned and out numberd meant to do it? Line up in uniform and attack the barrack outright?

Originally posted by Exitt
minding his own business when all of a sudden he got hit by a car -- and the use of medieval armory instead of bullets and bombs.

Knifes, guns or bombs? What the diffrence dead is dead. They just used the tool they had avalible.

Originally posted by Exitt

Warriors are not given orders to run over other soldiers with cars and then behead them and cut them up with butcher knives.

No but our SAS do trun up at known insurgents homes and shot them in there sleep.

Originally posted by Exitt

In a real war that would be called gross misconduct, breach of Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

If you are fighting a war where your enemy have far superior tec and out number you that is the only way to fight!
This is not the 18th century.

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by Exitt

 

Well you are trying to make a point about the terrorists having a non-british country of origin. I argue that that is a false argument possibly driven by your agenda of foreigner = terrorist!

My Point is that these guys are british and converts to islam which is the issue being of non british descent does not raise the risk of being a terrorist. There are many Moslem converts who were actually white and born in this country.

I repeat we must understand this phenomenon in order to defeat it.

Thinking rationally is hard work for some. They'd much rather rely on their knee-jerk reactions and gut instincts.

reply to post by crazyewok


Who are you ? It sounds like you support the slaughter of this unfortunate young man.
Personally I find it horrifying and my thoughts are with him and his heart broken family and friends.
You appear to think it is just ' one of those things' at best, at worst you seem to be supporting the brutal murderers.

Something doesn't sit right with all this. Yes it was an horrific attack. It was a bizarre attack. But people are jumping to conclusions extremely fast and that's all down to media coverage and well placed key words via our leaders to incite fear and continue to spread the fear of terrorism aroudn the world. Terrorism is government-made. Every terror group is funded by a political party and/or the CIA at the very least. War = Money so our economy requires it.

People are killed everyday in every country and it's sad and horrible but the fact that this particular attack has attracted so much attention and so quickly makes me think there is a lot more than meets the eye. It was immediately labelled as a 'terror' attack without any REAL investigation, stabbings and violent crimes happen everyday by people of all colour and religion against other people of all colour and religion.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful here or without compassion. I feel for the family of the victim and offer my heart felt condolences but just because the victim was a soldier everyone's reaction is amplified ten times over. Don't go hating on me now but just because a guy signs up to the army does not mean he is a hero. (In my honest opinion armies should be illegal and no man should have the desire to go and kill complete strangers in a foreign land all on the say so of a government who advertises this murderous violence as something to be proud of. Want to talk about sheep??)

The victim was wearing a help for heroes t-shirt but was immediately 'assumed' to be a soldier without having any confirmation of his actual identity and immediately people are honouring him as a saint without even knowing who he is!! for all we know he could be a ring leader peadophile (I'm not suggesting that he is but you get my point?)

A lot of the reporting was done to create a hype and general feeling of fear and disgust throughout the nation. And then low and behold we have a COBRA meeting planned with all our security forces in tow. They are telling soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public (how is that for standing up to the enemy?!) And as for that said enemy, the 'terrorists'. There is no actual proof these were extremists. Don't they usually kill more people in one go? Why bother with just one man? Why wait for the police to arrive instead of running? It doesn't make sense.

Look at the bigger picture, start asking the right questions and watch out for what kind of laws will be passed that infringe on our freedoms all in the name of our 'security' due to this sick attack which was probably carried out by patsies on mind controlling drugs. Look past what the media tells you. Remember that the suicide bomber is never the one pulling the strings, he is just a puppet amongst other puppets...dispensible.

Nothing is what it seems. Everything is a lie.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by crazyewok

 

The UK definition of terrorism as defined under the Terrorism Act 2000 does talk about threats and intimidations against the public however that does not mean that it is not possible for an act of terrorism to be committed against a member of the military. For instance there was a attack in 2009 (might have the year wrong) two British solider were killed by the Real IRA and that was treated as a terrorism incident.

Legally these two guys will most likely be tried as terrorists even though their target was military, it happened as well in 2007 when a plot similar to this was foiled, they were charged under terrorism legalisation even though their target was military.

It still seems hypocritical that we are allowed to kill there military target but if they fight back and kill ours its terrorism?

Fact is these men keeped the innocent out of this for once.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
That's correct. They are instead asked to shoot enemy combatants from the safety of helicopters and then the boys on the ground do the running over bit. The beheading part is admittedly frowned upon tho'. Not that it prevents some from making macho ear necklaces.

That is also correct. Enemy combatants in a combat zone are exactly that, there is a reason we have rules of combat in a combat zone.

The ear necklace part is a bit - hearsay - a bit vietnam movie'esque. Especially if you're flying in a copter ya know.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I wonder how many of those who were criticising EDL etc will also express the same opinions about the 100's of Muslim youths who are currently 'celebrating' this murder on the streets of Oldham at this very minute?

I also wonder why Sky News haven't got a reporter on site or aren't reporting it?

Have you got any pics or links to back this up apart from EDL sources? It's just that it sounds like perfect EDL propaganda to me...

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Who are you ? It sounds like you support the slaughter of this unfortunate young man.
Personally I find it horrifying and my thoughts are with him and his heart broken family and friends.
You appear to think it is just ' one of those things' at best, at worst you seem to be supporting the brutal murderers.

No I do not support it.

Im just calling it as I see it.

War is war and it sucks. Im sure some of the Taliban we have shot up with our helicopter have had family and freinds too?

If you are going to make war dont cry if the enemy hits back is my point.

reply to post by crazyewok


I can understand that perspective but I am just telling you the way the law works just now in the UK.

If you disagree with it then fair enough.

I think however that the key to what you are saying comes down to the difference between a Solider and a terrorist, that is a very complex question.

reply to post by slidingdoor


Victoria Street, Oldham.

A friend told me about it, I phoned another friend who also lives in Oldham and he said that he'd heard the same but as he was at work he couldn't confirm it.

However, a word of caution - I may have been a bit premature, someone just phoned me and told me it's not true.
Not sure what to believe and won't post anything else about it until I have more.

In response to Freeborn's mention of unrest / celebration of soldier's death by Muslims in Oldham came up with this

twitpic.com... - denying any unrest and actually going so far as to say that these are rumours being put about by the EDL & BNP

Thanks Freeborn - you just beat me to it.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by UnBreakable
I haven't read through all 58 pages of this thread so this might have already been stated to some degree, but I'm gonna puke the next time I hear Islam is a religion of peace. That's bull#. I've seen too much to the contrary especially during the last decade. The Koran explicitly states to 'kill the infidel/non-believer'. Let the crusades begin.

Well, if it was a religion of pure hate for infidels, don't you think this kind of assault on our senses would have been more common?

So flying planes into buildings and killing 3,000 on 9-11 wasn't enough of an 'assault on our senses'?

reply to post by skibtz


Yes, unfortunately that may well be the case - see my last post.

Originally posted by Exitt

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
That's correct. They are instead asked to shoot enemy combatants from the safety of helicopters and then the boys on the ground do the running over bit. The beheading part is admittedly frowned upon tho'. Not that it prevents some from making macho ear necklaces.

That is also correct. Enemy combatants in a combat zone are exactly that, there is a reason we have rules of combat in a combat zone.

The ear necklace part is a bit - hearsay - a bit vietnam movie'esque. Especially if you're flying in a copter ya know.

Well obvioulsy they decided Woolwich was a combat zone.

I mean who get to decide what is a combat zone and what is not? Only us?

"sorry but erm the USA and UK have decided that only this area is a combat zone today"

What if the taliban decided they do not want there country to be a combat zone? Does that mean the USA and UK have to leave

So they have to play by our rules then? lol if

If either side played by the other sides rules they would loose.

reply to post by Freeborn


Just had a look on twitter and seems it was a rumour. I don't know how to link on twitter but ill try.
mobile.twitter.com...