Jump to content
twinair

English soldier hacked to death by a pair of savages.

Recommended Posts

It still leaves the wider and more complex question of terrorism open to much discussion, and beyond the reach of such simple reasoning.

So how does one have that discussion when some people deny some of these acts as actually being terrorism in the first place?

That's a good question considering that terrorism doesn't have a universally agreed upon definition.

 

See what I mean about complex problems?

 

 

 

 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/gal3276.doc.htm

 

 

We can make it even simpler, The British Government have come out and said it was a terrorist attack,

 

The government say all sorts of crap that meets their agenda.

 

As XF said, why get all hung up on the so called terrorism of it? It was murder either way and as such should be seen for what it is.

 

Some nutter with a big knife and a problem with the world. No different to any other nutter who kills people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Kill Jews for Allah, make a few dozen Jews paraplegics....

Or do the same thing to a few hundred thousand in a "war against terror"?

 

It's OK though, it's much less evil doing it from fighter jets where you don't have to see the kiddies limbs flying off.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the holocaust never happened either, it was just a bunch of murders by a nutter with a nation in his hands

 

No different to any other nutter who kills people.

Edited by Betzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Do you know if 'The Troubles' were called terrorism (at the time, not retroactively)?

Yes I do, I remember the term "IRA terrorists" being used frequently.

 

Do you think, if it was used, that not using it would have changed how long it took to 'resolve'?

It's speculative and beside the point.

 

As I said before, it doesn't matter what we call them. Terrorist, murderers, whatever. I'm simply saying that calling this act a "terrorist" act is a playing into the hands of the perpetrators. Let's simply call them murderers, like we'd call anyone else who wasn't Muslim and did the same thing....

 

 

 

Yeah, the holocaust never happened either, it was just a bunch of murders by a nutter with a nation in his hands.

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't work out what you are trying to get at Betzie?

 

Are you saying that Hitler was a terrorist too? Or just a murderer? Or trying to make some other point?

 

This is exactly why I have a problem with calling it a terrorist act. The word itself is just so much propaganda.

 

Whether you kill one person or almost genocide a people, it's murder. Whether you gain from it or lose, or whether you are just chemically imbalanced is irrelevant.

 

It's not terrorism. It's murder and it unfortunately happens for all sorts of stupid reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, which is why most religious "martyrs" aren't martyrs because they're not committed to the cause but are committed to the reward the cause promises. A man who's willing to die for the promise of an glorious afterlife and wealth for his children is not making a sacrifice, he's making a bargain. Only if you take away the reward, can you prove your true devotion.

 

To call them martyrs is to give them a title they do not deserve and has no way earned.

You're committed to a cause when you yell "Allah Akbar" as you blow up at a bus stop full of the kids of your enemies.

 

That's ideology.

 

If you did it for moolah, you probably won't be shouting "Allah Akbar!"

 

Kill Jews for Allah, make a few dozen Jews paraplegics....

Or do the same thing to a few hundred thousand in a "war against terror"?

 

It's OK though, it's much less evil doing it from fighter jets where you don't have to see the kiddies limbs flying off.....

 

I thought there was no terror and it was merely a war on collectively trippy Muslims who just happen to individually, and for no religious reason at all, kill the heck out of whatever definition of infidel you care to apply in any totally random situation?

 

And now that I'm done being flippant...

 

War is different to terrorism. We can talk about whether wars are good or bad but don't confuse wars and terrorism. Especially not when the terrorists are involved in and start most of the wars they're now complaining about and when we don't enter them to save their butts they scream blue murder and slaughter 90,000 people in Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't work out what you are trying to get at Betzie?

You multi quotied xyzzy and I, within you will see I was trying to get past the semantics so the discussion can progress.

 

 

Are you saying that Hitler was a terrorist too? Or just a murderer? Or trying to make some other point?

I think he was, and my point was he was more than just a murderer and you can't talk about the holocaust in terms of simple murder.

 

This is exactly why I have a problem with calling it a terrorist act. The word itself is just so much propaganda.

 

Whether you kill one person or almost genocide a people, it's murder. Whether you gain from it or lose, or whether you are just chemically imbalanced is irrelevant.

 

It's not terrorism. It's murder and it unfortunately happens for all sorts of stupid reasons.

Those stupid reasons are worth understanding and discussing to help make sure it doesn't happen again don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Australia was wrongly invaded by Indonesia and they bombed our wedding parties would you have a problem with killing one of their soldiers who wasn't on duty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP.

 

I actually thought the attackers proposition was sound. He basically said that people in england didnt understand what was happening in the countrys Britain had declared war on. And that he wanted to show them what was really happening. And to some level i agree, the media is more centrlized, people are apathtic to the wars going on.

 

His target was a admirable choice too. He didnt chose any random person, he chose a soldier. (terroists are indiscriminate and are not so selective, so we can rule out terroism)

 

I do not agree that he should kill someone to get his point across, but when you are at war there really is no rules to follow (which england are)

 

He didnt really seem to be fighting for anyone but honesty and justice, he just didnt know how to express himself. It is rather a sad case, the man despite holding a machete and a clever and covered in blood seemed like he could possibly be reasoned with.

 

It is a sad case when some one has a issue that weighs heavily on them and cant seem to express in soceity and feels his only avenue to show it is to use violence to express how he feels and how others should feel about the tradegdy that is war in Iraq, Afganistan etc..

 

It kind of reminds me of the protest of the buddist monks during the vietnam war. I realise they took there own life, but the 2 guys seemed to be just waiting to have there lives taken once they had brang to the english doorstep what they claimed was happening on there own but with innocent people not soldiers.

 

I dont condone them killing people, but i think alot more thought went into there attack than just labeleing it terroism, it was more a protest, a miltary protest, this was not a murder because it was a soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those stupid reasons are worth understanding and discussing to help make sure it doesn't happen again don't you think?

I'm not trying to shut down the discussion of the reasons behind any murder. What I do want to shut down is the rhetoric that goes along with the word terrorism. And the pedantry which gives an elitist foothold for those who perpetrate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Leo on this one.

 

That man would be alive now if there wasn't someone trying to send a message, make a point, terrorise people.

 

He wasn't stabbed because someone wanted to stab a person at random.

 

Reasons matter, people caught out for murder and still questioned on motives, yes?

 

I see it as part of war, the man was a soldier afterall.

it really gives me the shits lately how innocent lives in the western world suddenly matter so much more than in the middle east, I don't see any bleeding hearts going on about innocents murdered wrongly by the day over there....

 

Western world gets a taste of their own medicine, suddenly its the most horrific thing since the Holocaust....

 

Disclaimer: I don't support murdering eachother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those stupid reasons are worth understanding and discussing to help make sure it doesn't happen again don't you think?

I'm not trying to shut down the discussion of the reasons behind any murder. What I do want to shut down is the rhetoric that goes along with the word terrorism. And the pedantry which gives an elitist foothold for those who perpetrate it.

 

 

You get that from all comers it seems, so what is it? a spade or a shovel?

 

edit:

 

We probably don't need further posts on pedantry so I'll answer myself...

 

They look the same

Edited by Betzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: FIRST TIME POSTING IN THE WRONG THREAD.. I THINK.

 

Oh, and death to america.

Edited by bushi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought when this happened was that the guys had guns - albeit rusty old things that apparently failed when they charged the cops - but if this was the "eye for an eye" they talked up on the phone vids, then why not just shoot the poor guy?

 

Because your 'people' are shot, mostly, after all.

 

Fair even stevens justice means if your taliban soldiers get shot, you shoot a coalition guy. I can see the crazy balance in that.

 

Ramming him with a car then slashing him in the face til his head is off when you have a gun in your pocket seems to me to be the sort of thing someone with a deranged bloodlust would do.

 

That's where it all falls down, and it's clear they are just cunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much Abu-Grahib prison type things and worse are happening though?

We've got the good end of the stick as far as wartime collateral is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much Abu-Grahib prison type things and worse are happening though?

We've got the good end of the stick as far as wartime collateral is concerned.

Well yeah, and Daniel Pearl and others had their throat slit.

 

Understand your point, but this aspect is only important because as I said the guy went on and on about eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, had the means to exact like-for-like retribution, was doing it all (he says) as a symbolic statement, but while had the means to do it all bullet-military-style, chose instead to kill someone in the same way the most gruesome serial killer would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that part seems as if it was for attention, unfortunately we're unable to ask them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

I thought there was no terror and it was merely a war on collectively trippy Muslims who just happen to individually, and for no religious reason at all, kill the heck out of whatever definition of infidel you care to apply in any totally random situation?

Nobody said anything remotely like that. You're being a tosser again. It took you four pages which, to be fair, is progress.

 

Have a nice day Leonid.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you take away the reward, can you prove your true devotion.

Are we talking martyrs or altruism here?

 

 

Do you know if 'The Troubles' were called terrorism (at the time, not retroactively)?

Yes I do, I remember the term "IRA terrorists" being used frequently.

Let's simply call them murderers, like we'd call anyone else who wasn't Muslim and did the same thing....

McVeigh was also called a terrorist.

 

I'm not sure what kind of scale we should be looking at, here. Just non-gang related stabbings/knife attacks?

 

I'd say that calling a murderer a terrorist on top of it adds an extra layer of moral denouncement. You are not merely disavowing murder, but the alleged motives for it. This is probably why the word has been diluted so much.

 

 

 

If Australia was wrongly invaded by Indonesia and they bombed our wedding parties would you have a problem with killing one of their soldiers who wasn't on duty?

I don't understand your example. Michael Adebolajo was born in the UK. Are you saying the UK invaded the UK, bombed UK wedding parties, and so it was a legitimate act of guerilla warfare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

I'm with Leo on this one.

 

That man would be alive now if there wasn't someone trying to send a message, make a point, terrorise people.

 

He wasn't stabbed because someone wanted to stab a person at random.

 

Reasons matter, people caught out for murder and still questioned on motives, yes?

 

I see it as part of war, the man was a soldier afterall.

it really gives me the shits lately how innocent lives in the western world suddenly matter so much more than in the middle east, I don't see any bleeding hearts going on about innocents murdered wrongly by the day over there....

 

Western world gets a taste of their own medicine, suddenly its the most horrific thing since the Holocaust....

 

Disclaimer: I don't support murdering eachother.

While a good post, the first line is contradicted by the remainder! ;-)

 

Nobody has said this was a random attack with no motive. Quite the opposite.

 

We're getting bogged down in semantics over what constitutes terrorism. Ultimately it's subjective. I've merely put forward the opinion that I think that this act was a little low level to truly be labeled an act terrorism. Others will disagree, and that's cool and equally valid.

 

 

 

McVeigh was also called a terrorist.

 

I'm not sure what kind of scale we should be looking at, here. Just non-gang related stabbings/knife attacks?

As I remember it he wasn't called a terrorist, he was called a "bomber" as was Ted Kaczynski.

 

I'd say that calling a murderer a terrorist on top of it adds an extra layer of moral denouncement. You are not merely disavowing murder, but the alleged motives for it. This is probably why the word has been diluted so much.

That's a good point and I agree. Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an attack from the al-Qaeda handbook. The terrorist group's English-language magazine, Inspire, produced in the Arabian Peninsula, exhorts people to carry out ''lone wolf'' attacks. Articles and advertisements urged readers to use knives and run people down in vehicles, the Daily Mail reported.

The first issue of the magazine contained an article ''How to build a bomb in the kitchen of your mom'', which was reportedly used by the Boston Marathon bombers.

 

 

Michael Adebolajo who went by his Muslim name Mujaahid, which means “one who engages in jihad”

 

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/police-arrest-...l#ixzz2UaULQwi4

 

He was also arrested in 2010 by Kenyan police on suspicion of leading a jihadist plot to cross the border into lawless Somalia and join the ranks of the Al Shabaab terrorist group.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23...dical-2010.html

 

 

Flouncy and Morgoth, he apologized in English for the women passers-by who "have had to witness this" attack, saying that "in our land our women have to see the same."

 

So I assume despite hitting the lad with a car (hopefully he was dead at this stage and suffered no further) and having a pistol, that cutting his head off was indeed following a terrorist method.

Edited by Betzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, which is why most religious "martyrs" aren't martyrs because they're not committed to the cause but are committed to the reward the cause promises. A man who's willing to die for the promise of an glorious afterlife and wealth for his children is not making a sacrifice, he's making a bargain. Only if you take away the reward, can you prove your true devotion.

 

To call them martyrs is to give them a title they do not deserve and has no way earned.

You're committed to a cause when you yell "Allah Akbar" as you blow up at a bus stop full of the kids of your enemies.

 

That's ideology.

 

If you did it for moolah, you probably won't be shouting "Allah Akbar!"

 

 

 

That's just a slogan. They couldn't just yell "VIRGIN PUSSY!!!" now could they. Come on, you know what's what they're really thinking of at that last second. Not "finally! I will strike a blow for Allah!" but "finally! I will go to heaven get my reward!"

 

 

Only if you take away the reward, can you prove your true devotion.

Are we talking martyrs or altruism here?

 

oh you don't have to care about the welfare of others to be a martyr. You just have to care about the cause more than your own self. If you only give to the cause with the expectation of taking something greater back then that's just average human greediness with a large dose of self-delusion thrown in.

Edited by Oracle X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was no terror and it was merely a war on collectively trippy Muslims who just happen to individually, and for no religious reason at all, kill the heck out of whatever definition of infidel you care to apply in any totally random situation?

Nobody said anything remotely like that. You're being a tosser again. It took you four pages which, to be fair, is progress.

 

Have a nice day Leonid.

 

On the plus side xyzzy - we're back to that happy place where you imagine me masturbating.

 

That's just a slogan. They couldn't just yell "VIRGIN PUSSY!!!" now could they. Come on, you know what's what they're really thinking of at that last second. Not "finally! I will strike a blow for Allah!" but "finally! I will go to heaven get my reward!"

Have a look at an excellent documentary on Gaza by Ross Kemp (he did one on Israel too).

 

Forget all the propaganda - there's an excellent bit where he goes to meet a terrorist readying himself to explode in an Israeli civilian population centre. You can see what they are offered/told/brainwashed and their motivation.

 

saying that "in our land our women have to see the same."

Best bit is, both guys are English. One was born in Lambeth - the other came out to England as a kid from Nigeria.

 

Both appear to have been Xtians of some variety.

 

"Their land" is England. Afghanistan has nothing to do with them or their women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we have the differentiation between "terror", "murder" and "killing" is important.

 

At heart, all are a form of homicide but the killing a soldier does in wartime - that's legal homicide, generally speaking. Murder is killing, with intent. Terrorism is killing for a political/religious statement.

Rubbish.

 

Nitpicking and pedantry.

 

It all comes down to killing, whether "legal" or otherwise. It's all murder. And these guys are just that and nothing more.

 

I disagree.

 

Yes it's murder, but they way they stood around engaging passersby waiting for the cops to front to me displays a need to advertise their act to the rest of the world. They know that people have smartphones and will be beaming their actions to the rest of the planet, so they play the crowd and pump their message.

 

From their message their purpose is to strike terror into those who have soldiers fighting against Muslims.

 

It's not the same as a random murder, there is a purpose and that purpose is in the message they verbalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×