EPThttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-watch-shocking-video-1907772
UK Soldier beheaded in London - Page 39
| 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 | ||
|
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-watch-shocking-video-1907772 | ||
|
CptCutter
United Kingdom370 Posts
On May 24 2013 16:23 teapot wrote: The Mirror has released a video of the attackers getting shot by the police. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-watch-shocking-video-1907772 heres to hoping they die in hospital. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
He ran into the police car and got took out by the door. Wow wtf, so stupid | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On May 24 2013 16:50 Pandemona wrote: LOL WTF He ran into the police car and got took out by the door. Wow wtf, so stupid Apparently it was actually that he was shot by hollow point rounds from a machine gun by a male police officer in the back of the vehicle. I don't really understand what that means, but it said the stopping power of them was what caused his body to react like that. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On May 24 2013 18:12 Pandemona wrote: Really? I read the report and it said a total of 8 shots were fired, but i thought it was after he fell to the floor they shot him as he wouldn't let go of a weapon. I believe that number is still right, but it was the other guy that had the gun that they shot on the floor I think. The one by the car only had a knife. Taken from the article above (I originally read it elsewhere, but seems a good link to use). The driver, unable to draw her firearm, is saved by a male colleague in the back who fires his machine-gun through his window at a suspect who is charging at her. The film of the 10 seconds of terror shows how Adebolajo got within two feet of the WPC who was driving the armed response BMW X5. As he is sent sprawling to the ground by the force of the two shots, two officers jump out to cover him. Just as he is within touching distance, two shots ring out and he is sent sprawling. The officers took a split-second decision to open fire with hollow point bullets while they were sitting in the car, either through open windows or partially opened doors. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
Thor.Rush
Sweden702 Posts
On May 24 2013 16:23 teapot wrote: The Mirror has released a video of the attackers getting shot by the police. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-watch-shocking-video-1907772 Looks like they failed pretty hard. | ||
|
frontliner2
Netherlands844 Posts
I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done? | ||
|
BjoernK
194 Posts
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why? I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done? Well option two is also possible. They grow even more hateful in prison and somehow help radicalize other muslims via internet correspondence. | ||
|
Thor.Rush
Sweden702 Posts
| ||
|
frontliner2
Netherlands844 Posts
On May 24 2013 18:48 BjoernK wrote: Well option two is also possible. They grow even more hateful in prison and somehow help radicalize other muslims via internet correspondence. Obviously prisoners that performed such hideous acts will be put in a special program with special monitoring, am I right? Besides, the dead serve nothing | ||
|
frontliner2
Netherlands844 Posts
On May 24 2013 18:48 Thor.Rush wrote: ^Also trying to get more information out of them is important Indeed I forgot to mention this as well  | ||
|
Ponera
Canada596 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why? I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done? Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die. How often does #4 happen? Yeah.... When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources. Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible) The only way they are worth anything alive is if you could torture/brainwash them into becoming something like a double agent that would infiltrate radical groups and murder leaders/members from the inside, which seems highly risky so I vote for the former. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On May 24 2013 19:06 Reason wrote: Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die. How often does #4 happen? Yeah.... When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources. Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible) Even if you want them to suffer most, you can argue death is less of a punishment than prison. You can't punish someone if they are not in this world anymore. The UK had a life of hard labour as a punishment in the past. You could wish for something like that to be reintroduced instead of a death sentence. | ||
|
GaNgStaRR.ElV
Canada535 Posts
On May 24 2013 12:53 Kimaker wrote: Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes". ^_^ All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed. A fair summation: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates. And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his? Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it. This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled. On May 24 2013 16:03 Jockmcplop wrote: Your sentence at the bottom completely destroys the meaning behind the original quote. What about the pacifists in world war 2 who became army medics? Degenerates? Compare these pacifists to someone who orders a drone strike to kill 1 guilty guy and 100 innocents from the safety of his big ass office. Who is the degenerate? Who has regard for their own personal safety? There are stats on drone strikes, I did a basic google, found the numbers and did some basic math to prove how silly, aggrandising and out of touch your statement about 1:100 is. All Stats here: http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis I have omitted the stats on "unknowns" as frankly we don't know what group they belong to and present an unnecessary variable. So from 2004 to 2013, there have been: 2,214 militants killed in drone strikes. 286 civilians kiled in drone strikes. So rather than 1 bad guy for 100 civilians, a more realistic and fact-based assessment states that drone strikes kill 20 bad guys for every 1 civilian they kill. Surely you can see here how ridiculous your statement is? You are buying into the propaganda released by these people which say we are killing innocents by the masses. You know why they say this? Because with drone strikes it makes it fucking dangerous to be conduct anti-coalition operations, obviously we have got to the point where the strikes are taking tolls on their numbers, and they know all they have to do is plead to the soft pacifist heart of Americans, and the US will defeat itself like they did in Vietnam(not that I think we had any business in that particular war, the South should have merged with the North much earlier as nearly 80% of their citizens sympathised with the Viet Cong, and the SV government were pretty horrible dictators themselves. Trust me I did a lot of essays/research on the topic.) On May 24 2013 16:22 fight_or_flight wrote: Here's the full quote (and pic of the guy as he was saying it): + Show Spoiler + "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace. That’s all I have to say. [in Arabic: ] Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you." ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SZS74Im.jpg) It seems, quite frankly, like a rational argument and potentially even rational actions based on his reasoning. And yet at the same time, look at the picture and the situation. It's totally insane. This is an insane person who nevertheless has underlying reasons for his behavior. Maybe we've got the same issue? Totally rational reasons and actions which logically follow, but maybe it's totally insane as well? I mean we take out tons of people all the time, soldiers and families. But we have our reasons for it. It seems rational until you start to think about it, and realize that his statement is full of shit. British soldiers don't kill muslims for following Shari'a, we don't label them terrorists for that(although they are extremists for believing in a form of law that goes against the conventions of civil rights in such a basic way). Have you heard researched why they turned against the West? At one point we were feeding them weapons, then when they defeated Russia at the cost of thousands upon thousands of their lives, obviously the US stop providing weapons and support as they had intended, and the country went into a state of turmoil. Osama Bin Laden initially declared a holy war on the United States for two reasons, 1. because the Saudi sheikhs "snubbed him" and violated holy law by rejecting OBL's offer to bring his Afghan Mujahiddin to defend from Saddam Hussein's aggression following the invasion of Kuwait, instead employing American "infidel" forces to defend the holy land, and 2. The US support of Israel and the alienation of millions of Muslims who were living in that country before the Allies made the worst decision of WW2, and decided to erect a nation-state for the Jewish in order to make up for the fact that they had just lost 6 million of their people in the horrors of the Camps and many of them could have never went back to their old lives. We are not fighting in any countries to get rid of Sharia law; in any place where this happens, we are in these countries to eliminate the deep-rooted terrorist forces there who when left untouched pre-9/11, repeatedly organized to blow up US warships/embassies, and even today you see attacks like the failed bombing of Union Station in Toronto etc. These people are clearly not going to go away if we "leave them alone". | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
People advocating violence are what shaped the West's actions. The West always made decisions and had strong involvement just like you want it to, and it was a failure. In hindsight, there surely should have been a better way to navigate through the last 100 years. Something diplomatic resulting in a world with still just as good economic development in the West and without the headache of the current War On Terror. Business relationships make everyone involved very interested in not rocking the boat so that should be very good for peace. I don't know how to get out of that mess, but that War On Terror could for example just be old fashioned police work instead of military involvement. | ||
|
J1.au
Australia3596 Posts
| ||
| ||
