Poakey Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Shocked, saddened. You can't even really say things about this as someone will claim that you're being racist. A golfer makes a joke about chicken and theres outcry!!Just be careful what you say Bert!!
Deucalion Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 EDL on their way to Woolwich. Like or hate them they are at least taking action with a protest. This story is just so shocking, this should not be happening on any street in our country. If the EDL want to protest about radical Islam, why don't they get tickets to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban? Instead, they will probably give the first brown kid they come across a good kicking. The EDL and Muslim extremists are cut from the same cloth.
Munshi Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Just because you can't hear it it doesn't mean he didn't say it. From the sun. He says: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you...Your people will never be safe. But He doesnt say that, he only says your people will never be safe.
leicsmac Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 For me, neither the lad walking down the street nor a family caught up in a drone attack are combatants, so both are pretty heinous acts. Neither deserve to die the way they do. But personally, I do find it particularly cowardly to kill someone from 1000s of miles away, with no chance of your enemy being able to kill you. Couldn't agree more. Again, the intent is different. A drone strike does not seek to kill non-combatants, whereas actively seeking a non-combatant to kill with your own hands is a different beast entirely. Of course you could try explaining that to the families of those killed by drones and you'd have a hard time, but the fact is intent is different. EDL on their way to Woolwich. Like or hate them they are at least taking action with a protest. This story is just so shocking, this should not be happening on any street in our country. Fantastic - we'll have a nice little race riot on our hands then as extremists on both sides get stuck in. Just because you can't hear it it doesn't mean he didn't say it. Can't see that standing up in a court of law.
Larry_LCFC Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Just because you can't hear it it doesn't mean he didn't say it. Only a clip has been released. He makes reference to allah etc before this clip starts according to the news channels
lavrentis Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 I wasn't endorsing the EDL but I think people have had enough. Cameron needs to tackle the issue of islamic extremism just so occurences like this do not happen.
Bugg Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 What exactly are the EDL going to do by travelling down? Stand around and give abuse to any non-white person they see like they do at their marches? They come across as people who are exploiting grief for their own personal gain.
purpleronnie Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 I wasn't endorsing the EDL but I think people have had enough. Cameron needs to tackle the issue of islamic extremism just so occurences like this do not happen. How can you possibly stop a man attacking another?
Kitchandro Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 I wasn't endorsing the EDL but I think people have had enough. Cameron needs to tackle the issue of islamic extremism just so occurences like this do not happen. By doing what though?
KFS Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 This has whipped me into a frenzy. At first I thought it was a joke because of that guy tweeting about it, I had it in the same bracket as that "Hide yo kids" guy. But it's become a lot more serious now. Whoever you are; race, creed or colour, if you act like that then in my eyes you deserve everything you get when you get thrown away in prison.
lavrentis Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 How can you possibly stop a man attacking another? It really isn't as simple as that is it. This is religiously motivated by islamic extremism, a home grown islamic extremist which is worrying. I'm not going to get in a debate anyway. RIP to the man and thoughts are with his family.
Tielemans63 Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 If the EDL want to protest about radical Islam, why don't they get tickets to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban? Instead, they will probably give the first brown kid they come across a good kicking. The EDL and Muslim extremists are cut from the same cloth. Absolutely right.
StanSP Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 People saying Cameron should stop radical extremism of certain religions (Islam, of course). Surely he should stop radical extremism of organisations such as EDL at the same time? They're both as bad as each other...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 I wasn't endorsing the EDL but I think people have had enough. Cameron needs to tackle the issue of islamic extremism just so occurences like this do not happen. How do you think he should tackle it?
Webbo Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 From the sun. He says: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you...Your people will never be safe. But He doesnt say that, he only says your people will never be safe. He might have said it before the filming started. You don't see him actually chopping off the blokes head, doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Deucalion Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Again, the intent is different. A drone strike does not seek to kill non-combatants, whereas actively seeking a non-combatant to kill with your own hands is a different beast entirely. Of course you could try explaining that to the families of those killed by drones and you'd have a hard time, but the fact is intent is different. Fantastic - we'll have a nice little race riot on our hands then as extremists on both sides get stuck in. Can't see that standing up in a court of law. Is it about intent or capability? A common theme with states which employ terrorism is that they are not able to strike back at more powerful and richer states through equal means, therefore they bomb airliners or other such low tech ways of taking battle to their enemies. The purpose of Al Qaeda was to provide quasi-state backing to allow the fight to be taken to their 'enemies'. Al Qaeda is pretty much a dead duck now, so these low tech attacks by isolated individuals is the only way Islamic extremists are able to fight back, as they see it.
Munshi Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 He might have said it before the filming started. You don't see him actually chopping off the blokes head, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Well Imo I think the guy aint even a muslim, its all an act.
leicsmac Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 It really isn't as simple as that is it. This is religiously motivated by islamic extremism, a home grown islamic extremist which is worrying. I'm not going to get in a debate anyway. RIP to the man and thoughts are with his family. Fair enough. But I think 'Islamic extremism' is exactly the same as other kinds of extremism and not the monolithic entity covering almost the entire religion that many people perceive it to be. It's lone nutters - just like other lone nutters with different ideologies, and should be treated as such. Is it about intent or capability? A common theme with states which employ terrorism is that they are not able to strike back at more powerful and richer states through equal means, therefore they bomb airliners or other such low tech ways of taking battle to their enemies. The purpose of Al Qaeda was to provide quasi-state backing to allow the fight to be taken to their 'enemies'. Al Qaeda is pretty much a dead duck now, so these low tech attacks by isolated individuals is the only way Islamic extremists are able to fight back, as they see it. It is about intent. Extremists are perfectly capable of killing defined combatants by using a bomb or a gun etc in a way that would not risk non-combatant life. The fact that some of them deliberately target civilians, and use particularly brutal ways to kill them, makes them different.
purpleronnie Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 It really isn't as simple as that is it. This is religiously motivated by islamic extremism, a home grown islamic extremist which is worrying. I'm not going to get in a debate anyway. RIP to the man and thoughts are with his family. smart move.
brockmyster Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 "So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace.â€Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938197/shooting-in-woolwich-london.html#ixzz2U3EkjjbP He said OUR, hes sounding more and more British absolute ****
Deucalion Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Fair enough. But I think 'Islamic extremism' is exactly the same as other kinds of extremism and not the monolithic entity covering almost the entire religion that many people perceive it to be. It's lone nutters - just like other lone nutters with different ideologies, and should be treated as such. It is about intent. Extremists are perfectly capable of killing defined combatants by using a bomb or a gun etc in a way that would not risk non-combatant life. The fact that some of them deliberately target civilians, and use particularly brutal ways to kill them, makes them different. I suppose my problem with what you are saying is it suggests that states killing people is warfare and individuals killing people is terrorism. I'm not prepared to give any state the level of trust required to believe their intentions are honourable. Plenty of civilians are killed by states. But I don't want to debate it all night. I'll just have to respectfully disagree. As someone else has pointed out, what matters is someone has been brutally killed while peacefully going about his business.
Wycombe Fox Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Terrorists? Simple cold-blooded murdering scum bastards who don't deserve to share the air that the rest of us breathe, whatever their creed, colour, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc etc. Bastards.
Wymsey Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Is it not right to say ''bring back the death penalty'', based on these circumstances?
leicsmac Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 I suppose my problem with what you are saying is it suggests that states killing people is warfare and individuals killing people is terrorism. I'm not prepared to give any state the level of trust required to believe their intentions are honourable. Plenty of civilians are killed by states. But I don't want to debate it all night. I'll just have to respectfully disagree. As someone else has pointed out, what matters is someone has been brutally killed while peacefully going about his business. Fair enough then. Perhaps I haven't been making myself clear then. I abhor killing of any kind, but I do think there are several degrees of difference in killing, whether it is done by the State or an individual.
johnny the fox Posted 22 May 2013 Posted 22 May 2013 Irony of Ironies.. they were shot by a police woman. ha ha.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.