If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Cadet soldier butchered on London street by terrorists - who then hang around the body, ask the public to film them, and are then shot by police   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 360
    More: Sick, Woolwich, security service, Help for Heroes, Home Secretary  
•       •       •

15909 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 3:34 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



360 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 04:34:10 PM

DeathCipris: Joe Blowme: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Inb4 JoeBlowme stereotypes over 1.5 billion peo-

too late.

Tolerance of evil is a crime. Im talking about islam, not the people who are brainwashed.
Its like saying Nazis bad but not all germans are, see the difference? or are their good nazis?

/member?
//dhimmi?

What a good Nazi may look like in springtime...

www.athensbars.gr

I bet she's pretty good.....

Papachristou is a known supporter of Greece's Golden Dawn party, which is so far-right it's loosely defined as a Neo-Nazi political group. So Greece was just covering its bases here.
 
2013-05-22 04:34:57 PM

eraser8: super_grass: A note to all the fark racists...

The people blaming this attack on Islam aren't being racist.  Islam is not something you're born with; it's something you're taught.


You are TECHNICALLY correct.

/The best kind of correct!
 
2013-05-22 04:35:29 PM

Ned Stark: lennavan: olithon20: I will concede that this act would likely fit the bill for the definition of 'terrorism'. At the end of the day, any violent act committed could probably be argued to be an act of terrorism.

No, it can't.  Terrorism is a word.  Words have meaning.  Terrorism is a word with a meaning.  The meaning of terrorism is not "any violent act."  The meaning of terrorism is "any violent act/thread to coerce."  Unless you can tell me who OJ Simpson was trying to coerce, that was not an act of terrorism.

olithon20: I don't think it's worth getting too concerned over in the long term

I don't either.  It's still terrorism.  If you've got it stuck in your head that all acts of terrorism demand high amounts of concern, that's your problem.  It doesn't change the definition of the word terrorism.

Your definition of terrorism is absurd. [Intentionally targeting civilians] needs to be inserted, at the very least.


I would argue for adding 'by a non-state actor' as well, since if it's by a government or a government sponsored actor then it's an act of war rather than terrorism, regardless of it's intent.

Kind of getting off track, but if we're going for pedantry let's not screw around.
 
2013-05-22 04:35:39 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


ter·ror·ism  noun\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of cohesion.

Funny, Webster's doesn't say anything about civilian or military targets.


And its a shiat definition because it includes far more thing that everyone on the planet would agree aren't terrorism than it does things we would agree are terrorism. F'er instance, every police force on the planet.
 
2013-05-22 04:37:33 PM

lockers: From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.


Muslim= al-Qaeda = jihadi, I guess. Of course, if you're a dumbass murderer who needs a quickie excuse for randomly butchering a complete stranger by the side of the road, then Muslim = jihadi if that will get you some points.
 
2013-05-22 04:37:52 PM

Joe Blowme: exhibit 112317418976890602349783545


Great, you got froth and spittle all over the inside of my monitor.
 
2013-05-22 04:38:38 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Miss me yet?
 
2013-05-22 04:38:46 PM

Bontesla: It still doesn't seem like terrorism. Definitions vary but usually when we study terrorism or talk about terrorism - we're speaking about a person or group that uses terror to leverage change (usually political).


So I will agree with you that terrorism has not been explicitly proven here.  We agree on the definition for sure.  I certainly hope we can agree a public beheading constitutions use of terror.  The video I linked you can hear him talk about the government and social issues.  It's not 100% proof that he wants change, but that's not a far leap to make.

The video I linked was from ITV.  Here are the stories ITV has on it.  http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-05-22/woolwich-police-incident/

From that link:

"...we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe   He goes on: "...the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

He beheaded the guy in public.  Rather than run away, or try to make a getaway, he went straight to a camera and made a statement.  His statement pretty clearly asks for a political change.
 
2013-05-22 04:40:09 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: 21-7-b: at the moment we have nothing to go on, but it's likely something, or someone, radicalized them.

Meth?


It was my understanding that there would be no meth.
 
2013-05-22 04:40:39 PM
First the Boston attack and now this.  I'm beginning to think that we have dealt with all the pure ideological terrorists and all that are left are the nuts.
 
2013-05-22 04:40:40 PM
Ned Stark:

Uhh you just wanna spit out what's got you rustled about what gets called terrorism these days? You're clearly being facetious in your comments.
 
2013-05-22 04:41:39 PM

Smeggy Smurf: DeadPuppySociety: Smeggy Smurf: Religion of Peace

Aren't they all?

I'm pretty sure Pastafarians practice peace


R'Amen brother
 
2013-05-22 04:41:45 PM
i.imgur.com

White IRA terrorists kill thousands in bombings over the decades, and no one worries.  But if two black men kill one white man, and cry "something something Allah"... then EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS.
 
2013-05-22 04:43:16 PM
Obama to blame Limbaugh and YouTube in 5...4...3...
 
2013-05-22 04:43:53 PM

way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.
Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.


The British can call them whatever they damn well please. That don't make it so.

You're probably right about how little protection they can lay claim to. They are pretty thin for the self-motivated and non existent if you haven't made a uniform for yourself.
 
2013-05-22 04:44:43 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: And for Christ's sake, don't pretend there isn't a strong undercurrent of racism involved in Islamophobia. How many times does "white people" come to mind when you say the word "Muslim"? The Daily Show did an entire bit on how freaking weird white Muslims are and how America had trouble assimilating it post-Boston.

And nobody gives a shiat about the Balkans.


Actually the color of someone's skin doesn't come into play at all when I hear the word "Muslim".

PROTIP: Based on the classification of humans known as typology, Arabs are considered Caucasoids. It really has very little to do with skin color.

I'll just leave this here for you and kindly ask that you not play the race-card.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-22 04:45:27 PM

jst3p: DeathCipris: Joe Blowme: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Inb4 JoeBlowme stereotypes over 1.5 billion peo-

too late.

Tolerance of evil is a crime. Im talking about islam, not the people who are brainwashed.
Its like saying Nazis bad but not all germans are, see the difference? or are their good nazis?

/member?
//dhimmi?

What a good Nazi may look like in springtime...
[www.athensbars.gr image 500x521]

I bet she's pretty good.....

Papachristou is a known supporter of Greece's Golden Dawn party, which is so far-right it's loosely defined as a Neo-Nazi political group. So Greece was just covering its bases here.


Read that as Mythic Dawn for some reason...

images.uesp.net

Oblivion!
 
2013-05-22 04:45:53 PM

lennavan: Bontesla: It still doesn't seem like terrorism. Definitions vary but usually when we study terrorism or talk about terrorism - we're speaking about a person or group that uses terror to leverage change (usually political).

So I will agree with you that terrorism has not been explicitly proven here.  We agree on the definition for sure.  I certainly hope we can agree a public beheading constitutions use of terror.  The video I linked you can hear him talk about the government and social issues.  It's not 100% proof that he wants change, but that's not a far leap to make.

The video I linked was from ITV.  Here are the stories ITV has on it.  http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-05-22/woolwich-police-incident/

From that link:

"...we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe   He goes on: "...the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

He beheaded the guy in public.  Rather than run away, or try to make a getaway, he went straight to a camera and made a statement.  His statement pretty clearly asks for a political change.


Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism. Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.

Terrorism is a tool of leverage used to convince your opponent that it's too costly to not give in to your demands.

Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.
 
2013-05-22 04:46:07 PM

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 512x384]

White IRA terrorists kill thousands in bombings over the decades, and no one worries.  But if two black men kill one white man, and cry "something something Allah"... then EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS.


Media thesedays. PANIC EVERYBODY PANIC. I doubt people in america even know they bombed out the middle of manchester. Wasn't too far from that, which sucked. Loud.
 
2013-05-22 04:47:07 PM

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 512x384]

White IRA terrorists kill thousands in bombings over the decades, and no one worries.  But if two black men kill one white man, and cry "something something Allah"... then EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS.


But we like the Irish, they gave us St. Patrick's day and green milkshakes.
 
2013-05-22 04:49:43 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


ter·ror·ism  noun\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of cohesion.

Funny, Webster's doesn't say anything about civilian or military targets.


I think this is where the problem lies with labeling this terrorism so quickly.   We don't seem to have any evidence at this point that these two are connected to anything that has employed terror before now.

If we find out that they're tied to a specific organization linked to previous terrorist acts, then I think terrorism is a fair label.  Otherwise, even if its politically motivated or intended to cause fear, it's a single (horrifying) criminal incident.

/and no, being Muslim is not sufficient.
 
2013-05-22 04:50:27 PM

Ned Stark: way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.
Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.

The British can call them whatever they damn well please. That don't make it so.

You're probably right about how little protection they can lay claim to. They are pretty thin for the self-motivated and non existent if you haven't made a uniform for yourself.


Well if we are going to bring the (non-applicable) Geneva Conventions into this, why not just kill the perpetrators on the spot at the scene? No need for a trial if they are enemy soldiers in a war.
 
2013-05-22 04:50:42 PM

thoughtless: Ned Stark:

Uhh you just wanna spit out what's got you rustled about what gets called terrorism these days? You're clearly being facetious in your comments.


Because my government and its pals(of which the UK is surly one) gave decided that an open endef war against a particular tactic is a good idea. Accepting overbroad definitions of what that tactic is is just more foolishness.
 
2013-05-22 04:51:35 PM
Joe Blowme

But it's only terrorism when muslims do it? Your beyond a stupid douche.

Proving your ignorance in thread after thread after thread after...
 
2013-05-22 04:51:49 PM

opaqueluminosity: Ned Stark: way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.
Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.

The British can call them whatever they damn well please. That don't make it so.

You're probably right about how little protection they can lay claim to. They are pretty thin for the self-motivated and non existent if you haven't made a uniform for yourself.

Well if we are going to bring the (non-applicable) Geneva Conventions into this, why not just kill the perpetrators on the spot at the scene? No need for a trial if they are enemy soldiers in a war.


OK?
 
2013-05-22 04:53:15 PM

Bontesla: Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism.


After sourced each of the required components to fit the definition of terrorism with quotes, you cannot possibly be pretending I am claiming this.  You simply cannot be.

Bontesla: Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.


If you behead a guy on the street and then run to a camera and say "shiat like this is gonna keep happening until you pull your troops out of Muslim countries" that's terrorism.

Bontesla: Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is the very farking definition of the word more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.


It sure is.  It seems you are arguing this guy's method of terrorism is ineffective.  Fair enough.  But that didn't require you to forget the definition of the word.
 
2013-05-22 04:53:46 PM

chocolate covered poop: Ego edo infantia cattus: Savage Belief: Wow. I thought only US cops shot people for filming them.

Here buddy, you could really use this.

/Just trying to help.

5/7 and to be honest the 2 I got wrong seemed rather subjective to me, but actually an interesting read. stupid SAT's took all the fun out of reading back in school when you were on the clock.  but if you think that this thread isn't going to be a troll fest then you may want to re-learn the scientific method yourself (no offense)


If you're looking to up your trolling game, you have to use the related materials effectively. Throwing something unrelated out of left field (like US cops not liking to be video taped) makes it seem like you ether don't know what is being discussed, or you're posting in the wrong thread. As for the your supposition regarding my expectations of this thread, and your assertion that it somehow correlates with an ignorance of scientific method... Well, It's a weak wristed jab at best. Again, way out in left field. Adding "No offence" to the end of it makes the attempted troll seem meek, and thus all the more obvious.
 
2013-05-22 04:53:53 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: And exactly WHERE was Obama?  Doing nothing...AGAIN!


I'm sure he's prepared to say exactly not one word about this since it didn't involve white people doing something he could blame a violent act on.
 
2013-05-22 04:54:14 PM
*Sign*

A lot of sheltered people here, being bigoted as fark.

Would you support eugenics against black people because you heard reports of them committing a crime?
 
2013-05-22 04:54:25 PM
Didn't know UK cops had guns
 
2013-05-22 04:56:02 PM
super_grass
2013-05-22 04:10:25 PM


A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

From the same person who spent weeks searching Tea-Party protests for the 1 racist (who was kicked the fark out) in order to flood fark with that one image.

... while ignoring the hundreds of black faces protesting peacefully.
 
2013-05-22 04:56:04 PM
... just can't hold their mud together, can they ... ?
 
2013-05-22 04:57:15 PM

bigwf2007: Cadet solider? Is that like ROTC?


cadets are between the ages 12 - 18 - usually still at school.
 
2013-05-22 04:58:43 PM

super_grass: *Sign*

A lot of sheltered people here, being bigoted as fark.

Would you support eugenics against black people because you heard reports of them committing a crime?


[Right wing troll mode]

No. I'm pro-life.

[/right wing troll mode]
 
2013-05-22 04:58:50 PM

OnlyM3: super_grass
2013-05-22 04:10:25 PM


A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.
From the same person who spent weeks searching Tea-Party protests for the 1 racist (who was kicked the fark out) in order to flood fark with that one image.

... while ignoring the hundreds of black faces protesting peacefully.


www.addictinginfo.org

Yup. The Tea Party.

The diverse, tolerant Tea Party.

Hint: farkers call those tax-dodgers the American Taliban for a reason.
 
2013-05-22 05:00:02 PM

lennavan: Bontesla: Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism.

After sourced each of the required components to fit the definition of terrorism with quotes, you cannot possibly be pretending I am claiming this.  You simply cannot be.

Bontesla: Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.

If you behead a guy on the street and then run to a camera and say "shiat like this is gonna keep happening until you pull your troops out of Muslim countries" that's terrorism.

Bontesla: Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is the very farking definition of the word more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.

It sure is.  It seems you are arguing this guy's method of terrorism is ineffective.  Fair enough.  But that didn't require you to forget the definition of the word.


No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.
 
2013-05-22 05:01:03 PM
"...we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Unless we somehow get shot and sent to prison.... hang on, we didn't think this through did we?'' *BANG*
 
2013-05-22 05:02:11 PM

Ned Stark: way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.
Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.

The British can call them whatever they damn well please. That don't make it so.

You're probably right about how little protection they can lay claim to. They are pretty thin for the self-motivated and non existent if you haven't made a uniform for yourself.


You'll get no disagreement from me about this being one giant farked up gray zone.
The rules of war were written in favor of the governments that signed them.

There isn't room for illegal or unsponsored combatants to find legitimate ground.
If yoursovereign calls you a terrorist, it's what you are unless a competing authority steps up to claimresponsibility for you.

/The way I see it: A terror attack is a crime designed to instill fear in an audience beyond those directly harmed.
/Terrorism is the application of these attacks towards a greater goal by some organization or authority.
/Filming a murder for others to broadcast as propaganda would meet my personal benchmark for terrorism.
 
2013-05-22 05:03:08 PM

super_grass: *Sign*

A lot of sheltered people here, being bigoted as fark.

Would you support eugenics against black people because you heard reports of them committing a crime?


No, because then we wouldn't have any more black people. And I loves me some football.
 
2013-05-22 05:03:37 PM

OnlyM3: Joe Blowme

But it's only terrorism when muslims do it? Your beyond a stupid douche.
Proving your ignorance in thread after thread after thread after...


OnlyM3: ... while ignoring the hundreds of black faces protesting peacefully.



Misspelling a word is worse then using incorrect grammar. Glad to see the braniac brigade is out in force.
 
2013-05-22 05:03:50 PM

Wittenberg Dropout: Is there such a thing as Reverse-Colonialism. Because the UK could use some of that right now.


I think that one may be called ethnic cleansing, not sure if there's ever been a version that didn't involve violence.
 
2013-05-22 05:04:25 PM

Bontesla: As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.


Well sure, other than the time the attacker said the only thing that drove this attack was his political agenda.

lennavan: "the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."


Bontesla: His goal must be to leverage political change


Ummm....

lennavan: we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe

 
2013-05-22 05:05:19 PM
omnibus_necanda_sunt

And nobody gives a shiat about the Balkans.
The place the U.S. sent solders to prevent the wholesale slaughter of moon-barkers?

Yeah ... nobody cared about that. Good lord you lefties have memory mental issues.
 
2013-05-22 05:05:40 PM

super_grass: Would you support eugenics against black people because you heard reports of them committing a crime?


What?

What does eugenics have to do with anything being argued here?  How is that even slightly analogous?
 
2013-05-22 05:06:50 PM
Weltallica
White IRA terrorists kill thousands in bombings over the decades, and no one worries.  But if two black men kill one white man, and cry "something something Allah"... then EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS.

Faved.
 
2013-05-22 05:08:06 PM

super_grass: *Sign*

A lot of sheltered people here, being bigoted as fark.

Would you support eugenics against black people because you heard reports of them committing a crime?


Large immigration numbers from the third world have enriched Europe and brought prosperity, inspiring feelings of brotherhood as they eagerly assimilate and adapt to the local culture. Thankfully, Europe has not changed and will not change with their presence. Things can only improve as the highly educated and highly skilled brown people work patiently to make Europe function like their own countries.
 
2013-05-22 05:10:08 PM

way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.
Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.


Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.
Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.


Were the men who stabbed him to death in military uniform? Were they following orders from their chain of command? Has whatever "military" group they were with officially declared war on the U.K.? By your logic, isn't every terrors group a legitimate military organization, and every terrorist a solder, who should be protected by the Geneva Convention?
 
2013-05-22 05:11:40 PM

Bontesla: No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.


Oh, come on.
 
2013-05-22 05:11:59 PM

StrikitRich: I'm sure mere bullets won't stop The Kurgan


gubaba.org

You'd have to have a quad on you anyway to try.
 
2013-05-22 05:12:37 PM
Going from using planes as missiles to street crime is a pretty big fall.
 
Displayed 50 of 360 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report