• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Incident In Woolwich & The Bigger Questions

While your point is "valid" - you cant also deny that it is Islamic extremist tradition to behead a non believer

Blaze - the man attacked a soldier because of our troops in the Middle East. It was a statement. We have seen before a selection of Muslims in London holding placards saying "wicked soldiers go to hell", "return of the butchers", "murderers, murderers" and "baby killers".

Its no secret that there are people, myself included, who dont approve of our troops being in these places - BUT... i'm not going to go out and hack off the head of a soldier to show my disapproval.

England can do plenty wrong, as can Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

Your most recent comment "I didn't say blowing up a hotel didn't make you a terrorist. I said IRA. In the same way the man in this attack isn't automatically a member of an Islamic terror cell, as has been assumed."

We are not saying they are members of an Islamic terror cell - but, their statements and beliefs certainally align with Islamic terror cells. Whether they were part of a larger group or not, they way they have acted and the reason for doing it makes this a terrorist attack.
 
It's 'Islamic extremist tradition' in countries where an extreme form of Islam is empowered by the state to control the people. The soldier wasn't killed for being a non-believer, but because he was a soldier.

It's still jumping to conclusions to link this to a terror cell before there's evidence. He might have been a member of a cell or had sympathies towards them. Or he might just be a psycho who's reasons for killing happened to align with the reasons of the groups but is otherwise completely disconnected.
 
Blaze said:
It's 'Islamic extremist tradition' in countries where an extreme form of Islam is empowered by the state to control the people. The soldier wasn't killed for being a non-believer, but because he was a soldier.

It's still jumping to conclusions to link this to a terror cell before there's evidence. He might have been a member of a cell or had sympathies towards them. Or he might just be a psycho who's reasons for killing happened to align with the reasons of the groups but is otherwise completely disconnected.
Click to expand...

But it begs the question, what makes you a member of a cell, by the modern definition? If he's been absorbing extremist literature online for years but never met in some bloke's basement, is he in a cell? I don't know any of you really, but I suppose I inadvertently 'represent' this forum.

I agree with Blaze, though, that a much bigger deal is being made of this than necessary. It's also faintly embarrassing that the government feel obliged to wheel out Muslims to say, "Oh no, I've never chopped a head off, and this is really grim." Yeah, we know.
 
I agree to a point with Fredward that regardless of what they are or aren't, they're clearly sickos who have done a dreadful thing (although they don't meet the criteria of psychopathy officially). But it is a sad fact that religion and politics HAVE come into this debate across the entire web. Nobody specifically has made it about either of those things except for the guys who did this and (I'll say it again) bad media coverage.
 
Some of you will be pleased to know that the news now has evidence at least one of the attackers was previously involved in prominent hate groups, which is what you wanted, it sees.

Although I love how on the BBC, the report says he had a banner saying "Crusade against Muslims", censoring the word 'Christian' at the start.
 
Blaze said:
Some of you will be pleased to know that the news now has evidence at least one of the attackers was previously involved in prominent hate groups, which is what you wanted, it sees.
Click to expand...

You seem genuinely surprised at that. The kind of ideals these men hold rarely sprout up on their own. It's usually done through years of grooming, just like most extremists of any belief system.
 
I've just read through this thread and I'm now banging my head against a wall.
These pair of xxxxxx were terrorists, Islamic terrorists don't walk around with a members card, they just all subscribe to the same way of thinking and this pair obviously did.
The only sad thing is the police were not a better shot.

RIP Lee Rigby and condolences to the family, especially his little two year old boy who now doesn't have a daddy because of these scum.
I will personally be giving £100 to Help the Hero's today as a token of my support and suggest everyone else gives what they can as well.

Together we can destroy these vermin.
 
Attacking and murdering an off duty soldier, not on any battlefield, is considered an act of terrorism under the law.

Terrorism means an act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies out of fear of violence.

"You people will never be safe. Remove your government."

Terrorism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fair enough. I've misunderstood? It seemed rather a lot like you equated donating money to the cause with 'destroying vermin' 'together' (as you put it). I assumed you meant that your money was for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers, and not actually for any of the other beneficial/more important things. Anyway, I derailed the topic a bit here.

Just to throw this out there, playing devils advocate, how would everybody feel/react if two British soldiers had run down an off duty Iraqi soldier and then brutally killed him in a street full of civilians, stating the same motivation (but from their side of the war obviously)?

I'm not asking to be like 'ha see double standards' or anything, I'm asking out of genuine interest. Some people I work with were having this conversation and the answers were so varied it was ridiculous, considering they all agreed that they disapproved of what has happened in Woolwich. Whereas others said they'd still be as shocked and disgusted, they wouldn't support the same actions in an opposite circumstance and they'd still call it terrorism. And want our soldiers trialed as terrorists just the same.
 
gosling said:
Fair enough. I've misunderstood? It seemed rather a lot like you equated donating money to the cause with 'destroying vermin' 'together' (as you put it). I assumed you meant that your money was for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers, and not actually for any of the other beneficial/more important things. Anyway, I derailed the topic a bit here.

Just to throw this out there, playing devils advocate, how would everybody feel/react if two British soldiers had run down an off duty Iraqi soldier and then brutally killed him in a street full of civilians, stating the same motivation (but from their side of the war obviously)?

I'm not asking to be like 'ha see double standards' or anything, I'm asking out of genuine interest. Some people I work with were having this conversation and the answers were so varied it was ridiculous, considering they all agreed that they disapproved of what has happened in Woolwich. Whereas others said they'd still be as shocked and disgusted, they wouldn't support the same actions in an opposite circumstance and they'd still call it terrorism. And want our soldiers trialed as terrorists just the same.
Click to expand...

That's ok you Mis understood, I've edited with a space just to avoid confusion.

As for the other question I think it is such a hypothetical situation it doesn't warrant discussion.
These scum were not soldiers, they weren't even brave enough to confront the guy face to face, they ran him down first.
They were lucky they did it in London and not a northern town or right now their heads would be on a stake over the town hall, we don't just stand there up north, we back our armed services.
 
Ok then, if the two men weren't British soldiers but were in strong support of our troops and stating that was their reason for the act? I don't think it's too 'hypothetical' to discuss at all, it's a relevant spin on the uproar surrounding this story. And tbh, it isn't so far fetched to believe that it could happen the other way around either.
 
So if two Iraqi citizens run down an Iraqi soldier in Iraq and then claim they did it in support of the UK people who are being victimised and killed by Iraqi troops and down with the Iraqi government would they be terrorists?
Yes.

More interestingly what do think would of happened to the Iraqi's responsible, if they got away from the mob after blood and that's a big if, and the police didn't shoot them dead, another massive if, then they would be trialed and then hung like Saddam was.

Compare that with what happened here, the mob stood around and took photos and video, the police turn up and shoot them in the legs or lower body so that they live.
They are then AIRLIFTED to hospital in a charity helecopter and given the best care possible.
When they receive a trail they will be given a life sentence and be up for parole in about 20 years when they will be freed to spend their £1 million compo that no dought they will have received from their gunshot wounds.
Meanwhile the poor soldiers little boy grows up without a dad, proberbly struggling money wise because the family have lost their main earner.

Now THAT is more worthy of discussion.
 
No, no. I still mean the men are white and British, just not soldiers. That was the conversation we were having at work. Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough.

I think there is a lot of anger about this that has given people a boost in their prejudices. So it's very worthy of discussion imo.

The mob didn't 'stand and take photos' - the men who were doing the murder told bystanders to film. If a nutter with a meat cleaver comes up to me and tells me to film him, I'm probably going to, not gonna lie. There was also the lady who confronted one of the men and told them they were going to lose this supposed war on London, and the lady who sat with the dying soldier (as the men still roamed and ranted at cameras) until emergency services arrived. Just because nobody else present chose to commit murder on either of those men doesn't mean they're all wishy washy bystanders.
 
Right, I get that. But what I'm saying is what if the POLITICAL message was flipped. I haven't mentioned colour at all, so I don't know why that's even come up? It seems to be that the only people saying colour is irrelevant are the ones who keep bringing it back around to colour. I'm talking about the motives and what has fueled this tragedy. Ethnic background and place of birth aside. Perhaps I misjudged bringing this subject up here, I was able to have a sensible and reasonable chat about it in my place of work that didn't involve taking digs at foreigners, but this is internet land. My bad.
 
You did mention colour you said white :-[. I didn't, have a read back through!
And where have I taken a dig at foreigners?

We can have a sensible discussion but you have to be reasonable and see the errors in your argument when they are pointed out instead of trying to label someone as racist.

I'll go back to banging my head against the wall.
 
Erm okay #1 - I didn't say racist either. I haven't accused anybody of being racist, sorry if you got the impression that I did. But hey, if it hits the right nerve? =/ I dunno. It wasn't my intention to wail "RACISSSTSTSTSTSTS" at anybody, everybody has different opinions and there are people who probably ARE racist and will always make this about colour. What I was saying was it's weird how once you delve deeper into a discussion like this there are folks who keep peddling in circles.

#2, "Just to throw this out there, playing devils advocate, how would everybody feel/react if two British soldiers had run down an off duty Iraqi soldier and then brutally killed him in a street full of civilians, stating the same motivation (but from their side of the war obviously)?" - I don't see where I said white in reference to this particular part of the discussion? I mentioned 'white' earlier when I was saying that Blaze was correct about how this would have been reported if it emerged that white people had done it. And I mentioned white again after I confused things about the Iraqi civilian/solider thingo. I mentioned white then to clarify I was flipping the scenario to opposite politics, which granted was my own misdemeanor, I could've just said 'british' but I thought it might confuse my point, fair enough. My main point was the opposing politics.


To clarify, I agree with you that colour isn't the issue here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top