Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
reports of a decapitation and police shooting of suspects in broad daylight
#woolwich on twitter
if a beheading followed by police gunning down suspects was 3?
ey yo what's up it's yo boy boyadeeeeeee daaaaaahahahahaaa
Been a decent knock. Hope ya miss me
You'd probably treat yourself to a Lion bar as well after seeing all that to go with a nice cup of tea
Predictably the Comments section is well on its way to becoming a full on bellend sanctuary
I'm not making this up.
says on comment.
No, actually it's not. That's why it's big news. You twat.
"Bring back our soldiers from Afghanistan. Give them a pay rise and get them on the streets of every major city in the UK." rating 860
Ah. yes. Martial law. The use of the military in peace time to police British streets. Fucking hell.
*Hate it when stories like this are published. I have close friends in london, as im sure many people do. I hope whoever has been hurt will be okay.*
What's riled Mail readers about that? Having friends in London?
Maybe everyone thought that "hope whoever has been hurt" was sympathy for the attackers? Because the victim is dead so obviously won't be OK, but the attackers were shot by feds and are in hospital. I suspect the author wrote it before we knew the victim was dead.
Though actually, it's the Mail: London is a hellhole and anyone with friends there is suspect.
but in these circumstances, I can excuse people for mincing their words a bit.
Isn't being shot at the scene by police kind of zero tolerance?
might explain a thing or two eh?
obviously has massive respect that the female copper can take the guy out "like Robocop". Can't buy that sort of PR with the kidz.
How can we get the distrustful and alienated youth back on the side of the police?
Get our officers to act like badasses and shoot people like in 80's action movies. They love that shit.
Make it policy.
why... its almost a Victory For Feminism.
The guys had guns, according to the first link, but hacked the guy up with kitchen knives instead of shooting him?
But I figure a gun would be easier and more effective, you know?
they weren't going for efficiency, it was a "terror attack". Shooting someone isn't as effective as unsettling the public and making world headlines as a brutal stabbing/beheading.
My original post was before it was confirmed as a terror attack, before the video was published. So wasn't sure what the motivation was, could have just been a random(ish) incident.
My other half was working at the school right by this a while back, very glad she missed all this. Woolwich is a scummy, horrid area.
thia is a truly shocking story. It's being treated as a terrorist attack. Horrible.
the media seem to be focusing on his Help for Heroes t-shirt and the army barracks nearby which implies they think it could be targeted terrorism*. Esp with Cameron calling a COBRA meeting, which I'm sure doesn't happen if it's normal gang violence.
*In fact Nick Robinson is saying just this right now. Uncomfirmed police reports that the attackers were ''Muslim looking'' and shouted Alla Akkba.
The attackers were in the car, waited outside the army barracks for a target and crashed while chasing after him? The police response must have been ridiculously quick to get there before they'd run off?
I wouldn't read too much into them
are classing it as a terrorist attack.
I mean, it's no more terrifying than your normal east London machete attack is it?
2 men of Muslim appearance, shouting 'Allahu Akbar', filming an attack on a British soldier.
That's what BBC news have been saying. "According to unconfirmed reports etc..."
shouting 'Allahu Akbar' – according to people who weren't there
filming an attack on a British soldier – according to people who weren't there
These "senior Whitehall sources" can go fuck themselves, and so can Nick Robinson. What does "Muslim appearance" even mean?
Which the "attacker" on ITV certainly wasn't wearing.
politically or religiously motivated violence maybe.
as in, it's clearly a serious incident and they want to get to the bottom of what's happened as quickly as possible.
is that the Government are considering it as a terrorist attack and Cameron is coming back early (from wherever he is) to attend a COBRA meeting which doesn't happen for murders in london even if they involve guns and machette. Hence the government seem to be classing it as a terrorist attack.
Of course it's only ''suspected'' atm but Occam's Razor and all that.
given that "Occam's razor" in this context means "jumping to the most obvious conclusion without waiting for the facts"
As for the unconfirmed reports that the perpetrators were "Musim looking", check out how "Muslim looking" this guy is (FAIRLY GRAPHIC IMAGE: https://twitter.com/ReformAgenda/status/337262349121626113/photo/1)
but that also disproves some of Nick Robinson's other bits of wild speculation. Which is why it's best to wait for the facts before accepting the narrative that the government, police and/or media are trying to present.
Isn't that kind of inherent in their nature?
Anyway, it feels kind of wrong to be quibbling over the details when this is obviously a really, really horrific story. But some of the kneejerk reactions and speculation in the news have been appalling.
I agree about the knee-jerk reactions and the ''muslin apperance'' comment made me cringe.
`I only said that he was a Muslim because someone from THE GOVERNMENT said he was don't blame me for it wasn't my fault see it was someone else`
Fucking moron. Someone of his journalistic experience should know better. But I guess he mostly just writes about hearsay and gossip in Westminster doesn't he so... what are we to expect.
not my post up there that says ''wild specuation''.
Everything else I've posted is simply mentioning what the BBC is saying just for info to add to the discussion.
I agree ''Muslin looking'' is a ridiculous comment which is why I put it in quote marks and again it was a quote direct from the BBC. I am making no comment myself as to what happened, I've no idea.
Just wanted to put that out there
but it's weird how there's no blood around the body.
regardless of how he comes across the guy is an eyewitness to a very serious crime.
I wish people wouldn't broadcast shit like this
What the hell is going on???
that it be broadcast unedited without the ITV narrative of 'Baghdad Violence come to South London'
he's just killed somebody and they're standing there filming him. WAH!?!
why is he not detained already if the police are there?
I read that they wanted to be filmed. The person filming is clearly shitting themselves.
Is he on his way to a black tie dinner of something?
well whaddaya know, the attack possibly happened due to proximity to an army barracks. not because of unruly proles. fucken believe it
that was fucking stupid. Proles love soldiers. My facebooks going fucking nuts.
I'm sure there's some dodgy comments from people on it, but what's wrong with the page itself?
and especially since it must have been made within minutes of whoever started hearing about the events. I just think whoever created that page seemed to have already made up there minds on the motivations etc and wanted a piece of anti - Muslim pie as it were.
This one on the other hand... https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rip-the-Soldier-That-Was-Murdered-in-Woolwich-22513/534731376562684
though the three people who i mentioned that liked it had some pretty unsavory things to say as well. I guess i just thought i knew what was going to be on that page without looking too closely, i try to avoid blind rage on the internet as much as possible.
ironically makes it look like they're taking a different view of the whole situation
Soldiers not wearing their uniforms when they're off duty is FAR from a new policy
Maybe someone can start a thread about how it delayed their commute home or something.
calm down Chip Batch
"First thing ill do tomorrow is donate to the forces, to help fund the slaying of these rag heads"
They going to start paying more tax?
isn't necessarily how abhorrent their simplistic, idiotic views are, but just how blatantly it is that they just don't fucking THINK at all.
and six different people had either posted or inadvertently posted the pic with the bloodied guy with the cleaver.
FFS have some fucking decency.
It astounds me how little awareness some people have.
and is on most of the news websites.
there was a discussion on the radio about websites banning videos of beheadings, and whether it was up to people like Facebook to rule on the wrongness of content like that when different countries have such vastly different cultures, etc. It's not really something i've ever thought about, but this incident coming right when stuff like this is being reported by and discussed in the media, as it has been by the written press very recently as well, is very odd, but perhaps coincidental.
I don't really use social media sites so much, and if i did i'd probably steer well clear after high-profile incidents such as this as they're bound to get people heated, sometimes understandably, often not. Ultimately, if the perpetrators were Muslim, i don't think that makes the whole thing any more horrific. Likewise, i don't know if the victim being a soldier makes the whole thing any more sad.
As well, i don't know if there's a right level of outrage or even understanding about these sort of things. If people apear ignorant about issues then in all likelihood they just don't really understand the bigger picture as well as you might. Unless they're seriously vile, in which case you probably already keep contact with them to a minimum, best not to preach or pass judgement, but to try to impart your view on them as best you can, innit.
George Galloway ?@georgegalloway 2h
This sickening atrocity in London is exactly what we are paying the same kind of people to do in Syria
I don't deny there's atrocities being committed by rebel factions, I just find Galloway's connecting the two things really worrying. Not a big fan of the government and all that but we are not paying people to do this in Syria.
thinks israel was behind the sandy hook shooting
I'd have thought that everyone would have run away. Bizarre, really odd.
i can't imagine my instinct being to either film or talk to them
and I don't think that I'd be being a coward, every instinct including common sense would demand that I did it.
but I hardly think this shows peoples instinct was to film it. it sounds like an unimaginably weird situation.
ROSCOE: I am very much supporting the war against terror. We have to stand up to those Muslims.
MARLON: I am listening to what you are saying, Roscoe. Or at least, I am while I still can, before the politically correct loony right-of-centre do-gooder government takes away your voice box har har
ROSCOE: Yes, I bet they would do that. I will share 5000 badly Photoshopped images to that effect when I am on Facebook later.
MARLON: Capital. Oh, look! A psychotic man, I bet he is a terrorist.
TERROR MAN: Record what I am doing, as to fulfil every intention of what it is I am doing... uh... I mean... so you can be self-righteous in your irrational hatred of a huge group of people.
ROSCOE: I bet it is the second thing he meant.
MARLON: Too right, Roscoe. I bet that as well. The first thing must just have been a symptom of Tourette's syndrome. Let us begin to record footage.
TERROR MAN: Phew. That was my game almost rumbled!
do you think it's irresponsible of the mainstream media to them publicise the video?
i'm thinking along the lines of how gerry adams's voice wasn't broadcast for years to prevent him having a platform
that woman just walking past oblivious is bizarre
Really quite eerie
it feels as if rationally-minded people failed to invest in loudspeakers
it's at times likes this that i thank fuck i'm not on facebook.
what absolute sub-human cretins. can someone just delete them?
and i don't mean as friends on facebook. just...from life...delete them from life. take them away. they don't deserve to play the game any more, it's too much for them. put them out of their misery.
it's at times like this that i thank fuck i'm not on DiS
what absolute bell-ends. can someone just ban them?
and i don't mean as DiS posters. just...from the internet...delete them from the internet. take them away. they don't deserve to play the game any more, it's too much for them. put them out of their misery, at least for a couple of days until they've calmed down
not exactly the same, but really close.
we must be alike. hit me up a pm if you want to go for a pepsi one day or something.
you're obviously very tired. it's been a busy evening, you know how these big news events can take it out of people.
i'll let you sleep it off.
'i distilled hypocrisy to it's hyperbolic essence'
might have to mention that to sean.
Or any South Asian ethnicity for that matter.
It's a horrific event, and the death penalty is too good for whoever committed that crime, but it just shows how people will hijack tragedy to excuse being a horrible, stinking bigot who thinks everyone on the planet who isn't white is an extremist, murderous fanatic.
...but at the same time, the reaction of the liberal lefties is a bit naive. Course, we could all do without people getting all bigotted, but it's not as if, so far as the media reaction goes, nothing points towards this being a targetted terrorist incident.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with people saying the perpetrators were "muslim looking", what the fuck does that even mean, there was nothing about their appearance to suggest that, if there possibly could be, but the style of the attack, the location, the person who was targetted, and the words of the man in the video, well, there's enough there.
As i said above, i don't think the perpetrators possibly being Muslim really makes the events any more sadder or worrying, but both the reaction of the easily-swung right-wing (i'm afraid to say) majority, and the liberals whose primary reaction is that the entire British public and media are Islamophobes are each quite worrying, admittedly not in equal measure, and by no means helpful.
What the attacker says in the video isn't really that religious, and the eyewitness accounts I've read/heard (including the very detailed LBC account) don't mention that the attackers shouted religious slogans as "Whitehall sources" have suggested. Is a lot of the story being censored or something? WHERE ARE THE FACTS.
looks like he's wearing stereotypical 'muslim' clothes.
That was on the 10 oclock news.
As far as I can tell it's the only piece of information that hasn't come from a quoted witness. Suppose the feds might have heard them say it though.
Still speculation but 'our lands' and apologising for women having to witness it is quite typical of Islamic extremism. The choice of weapon and method of killing too.
There's another photo that just shows a guy wearing a long coat.
he saw than moving and using ''ritulistic language'' around the body. (Mentioned in the video here
And in the ITV film up there the suspected attacker says ''By Allah, we swear by the almightly Allah we will never stop fighting you''.
And stuff like the targetting of soliders has been the basis of other terror plots in this country, gangsters don't tend to hang around for the police and talking to cameras after a hit etc all indicates a political/terror motive.
the 'ritualistic language' thing is shite, the witness said he didn't know what they were saying, but that their tone was, in fact, 'ritualistic.'
now i'm going to have to write off some work people, or maybe just sit in my car for dinner and emit a continuous low buzzing noise to ward off racists.
rip the guy who died also.
creepy as fuck
but just come here to say i feel sorry for humanity that we can allow this to happen. Surely he must have been on an MI5 list somewhere? Also, he sounded so normal - possibly come into contact with some very ill informed people with outrageous views (or just got into it on the internet) and has committed an absolutely sickening atrocity
didn't realise scum had to speak a certain way
election and not someone who has just decapitated someone
and has managed to say something trite rather than idiotic is no reason to try and wind him up.
This isn't the thread for that.
5 mins after it happened
the brutal murder of one man by two deranged idiots is not a terrorist attack
What about 7/7? Was that a terrorist attack or was it the brutal murder of 54 people by 4 deranged idiots?
Is there a death toll it needs to go over to be classed as a terrorist attack?
does it make it terrorism?
Hacking a dude to death in broad daylight in the middle of a busy street and making statments to cameras is going to have a reaction to the general public don't you think?
WE decide the narrative, not them. We call it terrorism
We have a choice
and I think we should be VERY careful about believing government and/or police claims about what's happened until they're backed up by evidence.
that awful video of the man with bloodied hands and knives had been branded with a 'The Sun' logo.
a) imagine being the kind of prick who decided to make a tidy packet out of a horrific murder
b) imagine being the kind of prick whose job it was to re-edit footage of a bloodied murderer with your company logo all over it
c) this country etc etc
actually makes formal complaints
two individuals carrying out a savage and brutal attack do not represent anyone but themselves
I would say it's worthwhile reading up on your workplace's policy regarding such prejudice
could openly make racist comments about this. I must be living in a bubble.
and lots on my twitter timeline
you're one of the lucky ones
Her son on twitter is also awesome, especially with this tweet:
get in the way of their inherent bolshiness.
i'm WELL "liberal"/PC/centre left/etc, but i think that muslims brutally and showily murdering british armed forces in a civilian context and making public statements about it is terrorism
"uk armed forces have killed hella muslims recently", go ahead)
Murderers, plain and simple
which is bullshit
always such a great talking point
A few people play the semantic game and go ''well I think this word means that'' ignoring the fact the majority of people out there in the rest of the world think of it to mean it's common meaning.
So people on here can say ''well I think terrorism means this and it shouldn't ever be used'' but everyone else can tell it's a word used to describe a certain type of attack and one that suitably applies to this situation.
It's used incorrectly all the time
it has a meaning that your average person in the street clearly understands.
the word itself strikes terror; it frightens people
which generally leads you to the conclusion that the word isn't very meaningful or useful. If you take it as someone pushing a political, moral or religious agenda through acts designed to intimidate a population, then I guess you can apply it; but others would argue that without any wider campaign it's a bit over the top. My view would be that any word used to classify both a murder in the street (with bonus shouting) and a sustained, co-ordinated bombing campaign is not a word that's worth using.
why's everyone acting like we're elevating a brutal murder to a holy plain of ""respectable"" (organised! sustained! thorough! really putting in the hours!) terrorism, rather than denigrating all violence with a message to the same level of people getting horribly killed?
by the logic of the end of your post, the word "violence" isn't worth using
the government, media, security forces and people like the EDL will start using it to further and push their own agendas, whether it justifies it or not.
and that there's a good political motivation for not admitting that this is terrorism
but it's terrorism, cats out of the bag on that one
doesn't have the same implications for internal and foreign policy, however, not to mention doesn't have the same tendency to scare the shit out of people.
The thing is, I do agree that the word is applicable. It's just that using it in this context has consequences, innit.
or how it's worth wringing hands over the guardian using the same terminology as the mail in this instance
it's more about, well, choice. It's not about whether you call it terrorism or not; it's about whether you call it murder or terrorism. It can be - it is - both, but which is more appropriate? (Alternative questions: which one sells more papers? Which one is more in line with the policy you want to push in the next week?)
(As is obvious here guys I FUCKIN LOVES a discussion on semantics, so apologies to all for this sidetrack. Semantics is where this stuff gets politicised though, and I find it interesting)
but yeah i get you, i just dont think that the conscientious minority has any power in the semantic battle here
>me being part of the problem rather than the solution i guess
Not the body count.
Without wishing to be trite, a lot of terrorists think that they are freedom fighters.
Someone who self-identifies as a terrorist has, by implication, suggested that they have no just cause. I think you'll find very few terrorist who think that.
It's a word that has a lot of disparity between technical and observed usage. As has been said many times in this thread, if you opened up the definition to the one you've just given, you could use it for a wide range of hate-related crimes. The key determinant of whether something's called terrorism or not isn't, in my opinion, the nature of the crime: it's the views of the person labelling it.
I totally undertand what you mean (and I agree) but I do think in the interest of clear language and ease of debate that the word terrorism has a clear understanding to the average person that they would apply to an act like this instead of being a semantic debate about the ''true meaning'' of the word is.
stuff on it. It's a word that should be used with caution and care.
I just can't agree on the clarity point though: if I tell you that there's been some terrorism down the road this morning, what do you think? The full gamut of possibility is from an assault to a dirty bomb going off, but you're going to think it's something pretty bad because I've said 'terrorism' and not something else.
This is relevant to Alcxxk's point about 'violence'; which suggests a similar range of possibility, but there's the implication that it's towards the smaller end of the scale.
but it's used to ''explain*'' the motives behind that act (from the point of view of the government of that country)
* not the correct word but you know what I mean
(sorry, god, I sound like I'm just being contrary here) and it again demonstrates the complexities and difficulties with applying it to an action on the part of an individual. A person ranting about their one true god could be a member of an organised religious movement. They could also be a religious nut with a history of mental illness. They could be both.
One of the key suggestions for me is that 'terrorism' implies organisation in a way that random nutter does not. It implies that there are others. It implies that there is more on the way.
Now I totally agree with ''don't believe everything you hear'' but it seems most of the information reported points towards it being a politcally motivated jihadist attack.
Things that imply it is:
1. The video of the guy with bloody hands says ''By Allah, we swear by the almightly Allah we will never stop fighting you'' and mentions ''our lands'' and leaving ''our people'' alone. Language that is similar to that used by Jihadists.
2. The Governments reaction. This seems to be the most important bit. The Governmant are classing it as a terrorist attack, the Government doesn't have meetings of COBRA for general murders in London.
3. The fact that the two men stuck around, asked to be filmed and waited for the police. That does not sound like the usual aftermath of a gang killing. Gansters tend to be camera shy.
4. The suspected targeting of a solider. Something that has been a feature of previous foiled terrorist attacks.
These are strong hints that there is a political jihadist motivation behind the attack.
Now the ''muslin looking'' comment is obviously bullshit cos they look and sound like regular guys from South London. But again that doesn't mean there isn't an extremist Jihadist motive.
Obv we will find out more as it develops but if I had to put money down on it having terrorist motive then going by the info we have at the moment I would.
Politically motivated? Yes
Is that terrorism? Apparently not
and a brutal knife murder in the middle of the street?
There is clearly a difference. I was pointing out the EDL are a political group who cause "terror" and injure people all the time. I've NEVER heard them called a terrorist organisation or referred to terror attacks
then I bet you they'd get called terrorists really quickly.
You're not complaring like to like. A protest or riot isn't a terrorist act. All those students and public sector worker protests a few years ago weren't called terrorists because they weren't. The same applies to EDL, being morons is't the same a violent (as in leading to deaths) terroristm.
The Boston bombings were just two guys but I don't remember there being a debate as to whether we should call it terrorism or not.
is more of a terrorist attack than racist violence against minorities.
one's not necessarily worse than the other
From your post it sounds like terrorism is a unique ideology rather than a definition of an example.
Also I did quite enjoy one of your rationales being that the Government said so. Yup, well it *must* be terrorism if the government said so!
Terrorism, as loosely defined as it is, has a systemic element to it. Two blokes attacking someone in the street, seemingly working on their own, is a Jihadist inspired murder, not terrorism. My two cents
Or American drone strikes in Muslim countries?
I'm being deliberately facetious because the word terrorist has lost all meaning
i'd say that drone strikes, in their secrecy, are not so much terrorism, not sure really
jihadist violence in a muslim country against peaceful non-muslims = oppression
jihadist violence in a muslim country against western invasionary forces = debatably terrorism or freedom fighting, wouldn't want to say
as it's pretty key to the debate of terrorism vs freedom fighting
The oklahoma bomb and Omagh bombs were oppression not terrorism?
but alcxxk's talking about oppression of a minority - Oklahoma wasn't targeting a minority
omagh was catholics bombing northern ireland, yes? how does that follow in the slightest?
and oklahoma was against the US government? i have absolutely no idea how you're misunderstanding me so badly
Catholic violence in a christian country against peaceful Protestants = oppression?
was an attack by Catholics on peaceful Protestants?
pointing out that being deliberately disingenuous and vague about these types of attacks causes issue
and the religious makeup of northern island is incredibly sensitive and im no authority on it, but for your statement to make sense, "catholic" and "christian" need to be synonyms, to say nothing of the fact that northern ireland is controled by the nominally protestant uk
omagh follows my simplified rules of terrorism perfectly: religious minority kills people in religious majority to make a political point
cant see what one of us is missing here at all
Let's move on
Omagh is a 70% Catholic town.
i shall read past the first line of the wiki page now
but the target of the attacks was the peace process itself?
Everything that happened that day seemed to be one fuck up after another, from both the Police, and Republicans, so I'm not exactly sure what the intention was.
I only brought those facts up as the Omagh bomb wasn't typically an example of a "religious minority kills people in religious majority to make a political point." The fact that it wasn't a typical example is probably the main reason why it was instrumental in setting up the peace process here.
what it comes down to is whether the society in question would be broadly sympathetic to the action.
i'll admit that i'm probably conflating "jihadist violence" and "islamic religious violence" and if that's incorrect i apologise
Jihadist muslim violence in a muslim country against peaceful muslims - how does that fit into your definition?
both posted at teh same time so didn't see that
But I mean the governments subjective decision isn't really conclusive. Are the Syrian rebels terrorists, as the assad maintains, or a side in a civl war?
I said their reaction implies that they believe it to be so. They didn't have a COBRA meeting when that mentally ill lady killed someone with a knife in the middle of a street a few months ago.
''Does having a Jihadist motivation automatically make something terrorist then?
From your post it sounds like terrorism is a unique ideology rather than a definition of an example.''
No it doesn't, please lets not get bogged down in semantics, I used words like Jihadist and terrorism cos I'm not sure which other ones to use.
It doesn't mean they think it's a terror attack, it means they have enough reason to suspect that it is and have to follow proper procedures. With the mentally ill woman a while back there was no chance it was part of a terrorist campaign, with this there's a minute chance that it is, hence the meeting.
Now fuck off and be the Lord of Misinformation somewhere else for a bit.
Exactly what misinformation am I giving out? We're having a debate about what terrorism is and I've still not seen an arguement that shows calling it terrorism is incorrect.
A politically motivated attack designed to shock comes under most peoples definition of terrorism.
2. Does purely having a certain motivation (the implication of your point) make something terrorism? For me, no, terrorism is a systemic violent attack which this clearly was not. Otherwise pretty much any violence ever is terrorism
as I said just above ''A politically motivated attack designed to shock comes under most peoples definition of terrorism''
other people have different opinions, I guess that's mine, I've not really thought about the specific definition before.
I'm talking in broad strokes here, not writing a disertation. People keep jumping on certain words being used (Jihadist etc) when I'm just trying to have a surface level debate as to why people do/don't class it as terrorism.
is ridiculous, because there are so many different flavours
also what about someone who is motivated by several things (e.g. travis bickle......and people along similar lines)
FWIW, any serious violence or property damage carried out by the EDL would be classified as terrorism under this definition.
(That's not to say I necessarily agree with that as a definition of the word as it's commonly understood, but that's the legal position.)
exactly because they don't want to get caught up in semantic arguments. Like a riot being defined as 10 people or more  - it gives the police freedom to act rather than having to double-check something meets very specific criteria before they're allowed to crack out the water cannons/machine guns/etc.
as is practically every government on the planet.
I mean this is my problem with the word, its bandied around and everyone accepts it as fact
Racially motivated organised violence could be construed as something other than terrorism
Like Royter and Gorkys said, it's vague enough for the government/CPS etc to do what they like with it.
"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"
I really would have thought it would have had some notion of targetting non-combatants or of causing (mass) terror. Plus the "unofficial or unauthorised" bit is interesting - what about authorised intimidation for political aims? Is that like a what a party whip does?
Seriously though - I'm not having this event as terrorism. No terror seems to have been caused (beyond the fairly standard level for parts of our larger cities).
(cf. the mention of drone strikes higher up the thread)
the "pretend" labour supporter who hates labour.
But this blog today is superb, captures the feelings of most
but i dont get how that's good. it DOES make sense. the murderer hates the british army because the british army kills thousands of people in muslim countries, and he makes a massive show of it, gets as much attention as possible and clearly explains his motives
the fact that something like that happened on UK soil. Its just bizarre
when there have been attacks on UK soil before. There have even been several similar thwarted attempts on serving soldiers in UK cities in the past few years.
The fact is there are groups operating in the UK right now seeking to radicalise with the eventual goal of violence to further their extremist ideology. It's totally wrong, misguided, unjustifiable and strange but there is a pathology and narrative to it.
but this is so right.
considering the way the killers vocally sought publicity for their act - in a very confused way - it's logical to suggest that the very existance of the narrative of terrorism, perpetuated by our government among others and by the media, has agitated this sort of religiously-motivated aggression, by pitting Muslims and non-Muslims against each other. the killers appeared to see their act within the continuum of recent years.
tying this into the black and white narrative of terrorism detracts from the complex sociopolitical context and polarises people. it's only going to inflame the situation.
bringing about the end game in western/muslim relations.
On the other hand, there are plenty of solid reasons for questioning the narratives and definitions we're presented with by the state and the media.
Or do you think the people who are discussing how they'd define terrorism should just wait and see what David Cameron says?
(an alagory would be they are more like an analogue signal rather than digital, but i dont know if people would get that)
therefore people will be able to continue to argue about the definition of terrorism until the cows come home.....it is an argument without a distinct answer or boundaries, there are no right answers, just different views, which vary according to your pov or what factors you are aware of.......in this instance the viewers viewpoint IS very relevant to the definition as terrorism is intended to provoke some effect upon others, and perception is an effect that much terrorism attempts to change
but to say it just shouldn't be discussed is pretty ludicrous.
not a fan
and hang on, wasnt it you who posted suprise pronographic image yesterday that suprised me at work
You know the one with all the people SERIOUSLY discussing the SERIOUS t-shirts. Yeah, that SERIOUS thread. x
OK so that was trivial. (I couldnt remember cos the shock of it was out of context of the thread)
more than likely a covert EDL page
"Respect are country speak English" is an old photo, and it's from the USA – someone reposted it today or yesterday and claimed it was an EDL banner. And the "never submit to Aslan" photo is almost certainly 'shopped.
definitely said 'Allah' and they've clearly taken the other letters from the rest of the banner.
Obviously a lot of them will be edl but its gonna just be mostly random morons
but may well be morons
but i have posted a link to the article on facebook to let people know
was interesting and important .. so cheers.
Many of which have led with the murderers' message, arguably in a more rounded, well-shaped form than rambling that came across on camera?
Playing into their hands? responsible journalism? ...
Is it because of the incidents location and time? i.e. in woolwich just after lunchtime.
Please answer cooly and calmly, Im not being callous, just want to guage opinion as to what makes this so remarkable for people.
lots of footage
so its also the manner of the presentation of the news, people, being animals react more strongly to visual images than verbal reports.
With the gainsay being that without visual images people are more likely to tolerate hoorible things occuring.
The initial responses to a vaguely reported bit of extreme violence were *ahem* comparatively lighthearted, once you're confronted with the reality of it...
We are adults, not children. should people not be extrapolating verbal descriptions of news to make the events more significant than they do? rather than just be moved because of the 'dramaticness' of the mechanism that delivers the news of the events to us.
(Im trying to say that the actuality of this persons death (although shocking and cruel) may not be that different (in content to the principle people involved) from other regularly occuring shocking cruel deaths......and yet the publics response is very different.
it isn't in this case.
Im debating the public reaction to it, and the reason for what might seem to be a disproportionate amount of excitement over it (if one were a robot/computer) although obviously there may be reasons as to why it is not disproportionate, the 'reasons' being factors that grab peoples concious attention.
It is of interest in this case because often terrorisms intention is to obtain maximum coverage, and in this case they seem to indeed have succeeded in capturing the publics attention and the public seems to be going for it in spades......who knows the jihadists might be so impressed by the interest that the public shows in this, that they might be encouraged to concentrate their efforts in this sort of area of terrorism.
(my company ordered us all to not catch flights in the week of 9/11 (thus 'giving way' to terrorism) and yet I (as did most people) ignored this and took our flights home from belgium anyway, thus not allowing it to interupt)
The lingering about, the talking to a mobile phone, the cleaver/knife as opposed to a gun .. the british born vs outsider motivations, the fact it was military focused ... loads of things add up to make it particularly impactful I think.
is also unusual.
I'm not sure that the use of cleaver/knife should be relevant (not saying it isnt, just that it shouldnt be)
Similarly regarding british born rather than outsider (do people really believe that 'foreigners' are more likely to do stuff like this than british people? Ok i know you didnt just mena this, but why is it that british people might not object to british actions, and why are british people less likely to jump to the wrong conclusions and carry out an act that is not (ultimately) going to do anything to help their stated aims.
The fact that it was "militarily focused" again puzzled by this one.....i would hav ethought that military were more likely to meat grisly ends (not saying they deserve it, just that in your line of work it is more expected, than someone sitting in an office.....again not justifying that its less horrible to the man who dies (irrelevant of whether he is or not military).....just suggesting that the publics expectation.
then hacked by machete-weilding guys who hang around waiting for the police to turn up, talking to and allowing themselves to be filmed by onllokers, and almost willingly get shot by the police.
It's really not that hard to grasp.
.....which is due to the publicity and newsworthyness alone probably.....perhaps im dissappointed with people needing infotainment to feel sorrow at someone dying? Without even going into people dying in conflicts that are from other countries, what about the numerous UK military casualties that are racked up in other countries, these soldiers do not recieve a million 'likes' to RIP messages.
Basically the public turns off and forgets what goes on elsewhere. Although it does make me pay attention when they have photos of dead uk soldiers some of whom just look like boys rather than men, and this does make me pay more attention and feel more sorry (cos I have a son of similar age) So im not being a monster, just trying to understand public hysteria.....its a weird thing, because the hysteria is not a good thing, but obviously it blurs into genuine sorry and regret for someones death too, so its a really weird thing to tackle...........and people might wonder why one needs to tackle it...........well because it is a false thing, because many people die everyday sometimes in ways that the publics influence might be able to stop, and yet it does not grab the publics attention so much.......i really don't know where im going with this, but I've briefly looked at the incident, but not gone looking for any more graphic or detailed footage, because I dont think that would be good
of accessability to see/hear the killerimmediately afterwards.....more so than the time and location, which might come next?
This was already a big event by then. A vicious killing of a soldier in broad daylight in London in front of loads of witnesses who then saw the killers get shot by police was always going to make people notice regardless of whether we saw/heard from the killers. Not sure how you can say that this kind of thing is not something people should be getting "excited" about.
I did not mean immediacy In the way you have taken it, i.e. in a timeline way, but in an immediacy of being able to see and hear the killers (in their own words, as opposed to a court where options are dictated by procedure) This is a common alternative use of the word which you must have come across in reviews of books, films, theatre.
Please dont try to put words into my mouth to put a slant on my angle here(I did not say that people shouldnt get excited by it) I am not trying to get at people, Im trying to understand the nature of the factors that get people so excited by this killing (which is what I said). Everyday people are frequently killed in such physical manners (perhaps not in this country). British soldiers are now being frequently killed by 'jihadists' (for want of a better word) in afghanistan, and previous to that, in Iraq. People seem to have become inured to that and seem to almost accept that (NO I KNOW THEY DONT REALLY, but relatively speaking (to this incident) they have) A lot of people witnessing something horrible is (again) not an unusual occurance, except in countries where horrible things are mostly shielded from public awareness.
It is not in any way suprising that the police shot two armed murderers who then rushed at the police. The police did not kill them and so the usual hoohaa about whether there is a 'shoot to kill policy' does not become an issue.
I used the words "immediately afterwards" because I was referring to seeing and hearing the killer immediately after the killing........we might actually see the video 8 days later, but still we would be seeing/hearing the visual image of the killer immediately after the killing.
Its really not that difficult, why are you so determined to misunderstand (we are not arguing over the contents of a contract here)
All I'm saying is that the incident was already gaining widespread attention before we even knew who the killers were much less seen images of them. Which means the time and location were a major factor in making the event particularly unique. It just seemed to me you were downplaying the fact this happened in London in broad daylight. Maybe I misunderstood you but I'm not determined to misunderstand.
although I think that you will find that my initial post actually wondered if this "Is it because of the incidents location and time? i.e. in woolwich just after lunchtime. " were the reason.....because I suspected that was the major distinguishing factor, however OTHER disers then pointed out the video stuff, and I then thought 'yeah how did I not think of that'.....
The initial incident was shocking enough for people to pay attention to it more than they would to a story about a soldier being killed on active duty say. The video just pushed it into completely surreal, uncharted territories (which the media have creamed themselves over.)
"When will our government start protecting us instead of criminals because the human rights says they have rights,these people are just doing what they want in this country, not one other country would take the softly approach as this country does, i need to get my child out of here, it is no longer safe for our children"
"So it begins"
- Given Up, Lincoln, 22/5/2013 18:57
amazing how many people are using cases like this to have a moan about "human rights gone mad" or some other tabloid issue. They sent armed police round and shot them ffs, they hardly took human rights into account here!
Whenever anything serious like this happens i find it hard to agree with virtually anyone on here. They're always either surprisingly questionably vocal the wrong way, or trying to hard to score lefty points the other.
but both left and right wing commentators in the press have been saying the same as me
Brenden O'Neill - pretty much as right wing a blogger in mainstream press can get
Tom Chivers - writes for the telegraph (right wing slant)
Michael White - assistant editor in the Guardian
I had to double check I was reading the same Brenden O'Neill
but BOYADEE's tweets today have been commendable:
Seems to be written in a completely different style and manner
and indeed his film and music career.
Max Clifford is probably trying to stay out of the limelight at the moment.
I did think his defense when he was being questioned the other month was, er, brave, even brazen, to say the least. Essentially he threatened to bring everyone else down with him if he gets charged.
looking back to his tweets before yesterday, they seem to be different as well
Also could be those tweets yesterday were spur of the moment
Either way, well played mr Boydee
but he, like most rappers, sounds like a smart guy, and one who knows grammar and English perfectly well - one imagines that he's perfectly capable of stringing together a grammatically correct sentence or two when he wants to.
Some kids that I know from grammar school that turned in to aweful chavs as school wore on, write perfectly on the ol Facey B. Whilst some of my less privileged friends still make basic mistakes, even thought they're far more "respectable" now.
yeah i hate it when i get stereotyped as a smart guy
and he switches between writing styles all the time; sometimes with "normal" grammar and spelling, sometimes more "street". I had a friend at school a bit like that. When he got excited he'd be all like "OHHH MMYY DAAAYYS, DON'T LIE BRUV" etc. but then he'd calm down and be like Alan Bennett.
I hope they die painful, long and tortuous deaths.
The neurons in their brain keep firing just long enough for them to realize the gaping oblivion before them isn't the hero's welcome in heaven they expected, and realize how ridiculous their brutal murder in the name of their particular brand of flying spaghetti monster actually was. And then think for a split second how wasted their lives have been rotting in jail before they're flung into the blackness.
I really really really care a lot, I really really have such a deep capacity to feel.....
Sorry guys, but Im baffled as to why people get all fierce in what they want to happen to people in particular circumstances.......I mean do you feel this about all murderers? why is this one special for your extra vehemance?
so many murders are done for pathetic reasons
In future, on dis, as generally nice people, can we just not comment whatsoever, be sad in your heart that something horrible has occurred but don't have a debate on it or get angry at each other or whine about how boring it is, or even make a comment like I am now....please
Thank you very much for listening...going to enact my point and never post in one of these news threads again.
but I think is important that people do talk about this sort of thing when it happens. Not only is it a coping thing for some people, but it's a way of trying to make sense of what happened. I think that's important. Maybe just stay away from these kind of threads in the future? There's gonna be dickheads being dickheads about any tragedy the internet over, try not to let it get to you.
a couple of weeks ago a 75 year old man was murdered in the street by being bludgeoned so hard in the back the blows came out his front, apparently in a racially-motivated killing. He was a Muslim. It would be really hard to deny we'd have heard so much more about it if the roles were reversed. As it is, I bet hardly anyone's thought about it.
Besides, that link was shared by LOADS of my Facebook friends. Everyone has thought about it. However there are about a dozen reasons why the story in Woolwich has gotten more press coverage before you even consider race.
Unless you have complete faith in the accuracy of the polices presumptions I don't see how you could argue that this incident in Birmingham should have gotten more coverage than the other seemingly random acts of horrific violence that occur everyday (especially ones without any actually known motive, suspect etc) . It's very rarely on the main pages, as wrong as that actually is.
But the fact that the link was shared with your Facebook friends doesn't mean people have thought about it at all, it really shows the opposite. If people already knew about it then it wouldn't require sending a link. I'd certainly never heard of it - not even a little bit - which is kinda the point. Not that they're equally bad - there are certainly mitigating factors that make Tuesday's more prominent for certain reasons - but that one is a front page, existential threat to Britain's very way of life, and one is invisible.
dragged his body into the middle of the road, and then hung around to wait for the police before attacking them too, I'm *fairly* sure we'd have heard a lot more about it.
Worth reading the reply to the first comment if you have doubts about its authenticity.
Most people seem to be pretty positive about it.
like people used to do with Russell Brand.
so people are asking why they didn't keep a closer eye on him – and there's speculation that they wanted him to work for them:
none of it surprises me.