EPTUK Soldier beheaded in London - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK | ||
|
Sekijitsu
United States47 Posts
| ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On May 23 2013 13:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: You're a real funny guy. Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex? I wonder how Osama would have felt about you telling him he was doing things for non religious reasons? I can't imagine he'd agree. For what it's worth, this brings to mind a quote from one of his videos, something along the lines of: Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?"..... .....We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On May 23 2013 14:15 Warlock40 wrote: For what it's worth, this brings to mind a quote from one of his videos, something along the lines of: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html Pretty sure that this won't convince him, He claims to know bin ladens mind more than any of the greatest experts in the world on the topic. | ||
KwarK
United States41956 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 23 2013 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote: http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.html Every single war in the middle east has been politically motivated, except in part, the crusades, where were waged by the christian nations against islamic nations. but even those were politically motivated, in that the area in which the wars were fought were a primary trade route and the key to economic superiority. The only time that religion was a basis for violence in the middle east was islam vs islam purges of different sects. there was never a war against christian nations or christianity for non political motives. Even the Crusades were a war for control and domination. The origins of it were that Arab conquest was hurting European (especially Italian) trade in the Mideast. Some of the origins was that it hurt Italian trade in the Mediterranean. Venice was extremely vocal about this, as it had established a great trade empire in the eastern Mediterranean by the time of the Crusades. The Byzantines were terrified at the loss of most of their empire to the Arabs and Seljuqs and Constantinople was constantly at risk. Overall, the opportunity was seen to stem Arab growth of power and counter by establishing counter-conquest in the Mideast. So the Crusades were called, and the Arabs, who had fragmented into various nations by this time, were attacked in Palestine. Interesting fact: Had logistics not been an issue, all of Barbarossa's 100,000 German soldiers would have made it, and the Third Crusade would have gone much differently. The German army was so large that he couldn't take it by sea, and had to travel over land. Rather, he handily defeated the Turks in war in his land trek to Palestine (as no one had the ships to move his army), but almost all of his army scattered when he suddenly died. His army was easily the largest and the most effective of the conflict, and would have effectively shattered all Ayyubid presence in Palestine. Had that not happened, the Crusaders would have taken Acre much sooner, and with an immensely large attacking army, Saladin would have been ultimately defeated. Ah history is so interesting. | ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
I'm talking about before the police arrived, during the OP's Youtube video. From watching another interview online, apparently the murderers were even telling witnesses to call the police. What the fuck, did they honestly need to be told to call the police? | ||
|
Uni1987
Netherlands642 Posts
On May 23 2013 14:48 TheToaster wrote: I can't even understand the pedestrian witnesses at all. They clearly see the dead guy and the murderer walking about, so they just keep standing on the sidewalk like a flock of sheep, staring at both the murderer(s) and the body? Wouldn't they either want to call and go get help, run away, or even try to beat up the murderer? Instead they stand around like a flock of sheep. I'm talking about before the police arrived, during the OP's Youtube video. From watching another interview online, apparently the murderers were even telling witnesses to call the police. What the fuck, did they honestly need to be told to call the police? Yes, let's attack two men that just chopped of a man his head on the streets. The first reason why they do not attack is probably typical group behavior where everybody is expecting someone else to help. Secondly, yeah, let's attack two men covered in blood that just beheaded a man on the streets, armed with a knife and hatchet | ||
|
BeaSteR
Sweden328 Posts
| ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
On May 23 2013 15:04 Uni1987 wrote: Yes, let's attack two men that just chopped of a man his head on the streets. The first reason why they do not attack is probably typical group behavior where everybody is expecting someone else to help. Secondly, yeah, let's attack two men covered in blood that just beheaded a man on the streets, armed with a knife and hatchet I guess gun control in the UK would make it very difficult for a pedestrian to do anything in that situation. But that doesn't explain why they would stick around and remain to be the potential next victim. Also, out of curiosity I looked up UK laws on other types of non-lethal weapons like stun guns, night sticks, etc. All are apparently illegal to possess, so I guess you're right. Makes me glad I live in the U.S. where I at least have some sort of self defense at my disposal. | ||
|
porkRaven
United States953 Posts
 | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On May 23 2013 15:20 TheToaster wrote: I guess gun control in the UK would make it very difficult for a pedestrian to do anything in that situation. But that doesn't explain why they would stick around and remain to be the potential next victim. Also, out of curiosity I looked up UK laws on other types of non-lethal weapons like stun guns, night sticks, etc. All are apparently illegal to possess, so I guess you're right. Makes me glad I live in the U.S. where I at least have some sort of self defense at my disposal. The guy also had a revolver, if anyone had a gun or tried to stop them the death count would have tripled. | ||
|
SpaceFighting
New Zealand690 Posts
On May 23 2013 03:13 mainerd wrote: Mental instability and sickness comes in many forms and can manifest itself in violent, gruesome ways. Here's hoping everyone stays calm and this doesn't trigger any further violence. this exactly, if it starts some sort of domino effect with people who are easily persuaded or what not, then its not good news | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 23 2013 15:20 TheToaster wrote: I guess gun control in the UK would make it very difficult for a pedestrian to do anything in that situation. But that doesn't explain why they would stick around and remain to be the potential next victim. Also, out of curiosity I looked up UK laws on other types of non-lethal weapons like stun guns, night sticks, etc. All are apparently illegal to possess, so I guess you're right. Makes me glad I live in the U.S. where I at least have some sort of self defense at my disposal. The way we see it: one guy died and people having guns would not of prevented that death. What gun control did was stop a second person from dying. As for the sheep thing: it's London. Half the people would of been oblivious to the incident. Of those who noticed, several would of called the police. There is no point in every single person calling the police as they only need to be called once. Why run away from a guy with a gun? By staying calm there was less chance of them being attacked. | ||
|
Geneq
Poland165 Posts
| ||
|
ThaSlayer
707 Posts
TLDR: An alarmist media/government isn't helping much | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On May 23 2013 15:48 ThaSlayer wrote: I can't comprehend why would the British government and the media would jump at labeling this a "terror attack". This appears to be more of a hate crime of sorts directed towards one individual, followed by ranting. Labeling crimes committed by Muslims as an act of terror so hurriedly wouldn't help much to soothe public anxiety and probably adds to the growing rift. Until investigations are completed and are conclusive, they should be treated as criminals for now. TLDR: An alarmist media/government isn't helping much I agree with all of this. The only reason that I can see for them calling this a terror attack is if they already knew the guys were involved in extremism or had terrorist contacts. | ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
On May 23 2013 15:44 hzflank wrote: The way we see it: one guy died and people having guns would not of prevented that death. What gun control did was stop a second person from dying. As for the sheep thing: it's London. Half the people would of been oblivious to the incident. Of those who noticed, several would of called the police. There is no point in every single person calling the police as they only need to be called once. Why run away from a guy with a gun? By staying calm there was less chance of them being attacked. That's assuming that the murderers didn't decide to kill someone else who was watching. Maybe they decide to get mad at one of the pedestrians trying to help the victim. It was reported they were only allowing women to come near the victim, threatening any other men who tried to help. There could have easily been another incident before the police arrived. The point being that I'd rather not trust someone who just committed murder and started preaching like a madman. Anything could have happened before the police arrived, especially since the murderers probably knew they were the only ones around with lethal weapons. "Why run away from a guy with a gun?". Besides the fact that's just a blatantly stupid question in itself, there were plenty of reasons to run away in that situation. Edit: Now that I think about it, the comparison to sheep was my mistake. At least sheep know how to escape from a deadly threat. Comparing them to the pedestrians would be an insult to sheep. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
On May 23 2013 16:12 Psychobabas wrote: And off they go to prison for the rest of their lives (maybe out in a couple of decades?) to be pampered with flat screen televisions, 3 meals a day, billiard, football and prayer rooms. All of which you pay for with taxes. No wonder European tax rates are so high. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On May 23 2013 16:12 Psychobabas wrote: And off they go to prison for the rest of their lives (maybe out in a couple of decades?) to be pampered with flat screen televisions, 3 meals a day, billiard, football and prayer rooms. Have you got any evidence that this happens to murderers? | ||
| ||
