Before we descend into a classic STW bitch fest read the first page again.
I'm reminded of John Smeaton who fought the attempted bombers at Glasgow airport several years ago for example
Almost identical, apart from the missing guns, machetes and dead bodies at Glasgow and lack of burning terrorists in london.
I think he's funny. He's like a child who stands up at nursery and calls the teacher poo-head, or something, to try and be shocking.
Every time I see him and his really, really, really, really provocative protests
[img] 
?quality=80&size=420x[/img]
I'm always immediately reminded of this
[img] 
[/img]
So instead of giving him the reaction he so obviously craves, I think that every time he appears in public, people should all stand behind him, enthusiastically waving banners proclaiming "DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!!!" and "CAREFUL NOW!"
Can you imagine how annoyed he'd get? 😀
If there are any positives coming out of this, it does seem that non-extremist Muslims and/or organisations that represent Muslims are either being much more vocal in their condemnation of what happened, or, as I suspect, being given noticeably more media exposure to be able to voice such views than in the past. And I'm seeing plenty of Facebook shares of such video clips, and no anti-Islam shite, although of course everyone's Facebook news feed will differ!
Isn't Choudray entitled to voice his opinion?
The BBC should put Choudray, Farage, Starkey and Galloway in a room and allow them "free reign" to debate. Not televised or broadcast though - save us that horror. Unless we wanted some "reality TV" experience of watching four blokes not listening, manipulating what others are saying and most importantly shouting each other down ad nauseam. Give them enough food and water and they would be at it for days. BBC 3 or Dave perhaps?
Either than or just given them STW logins (temporary). They would feel quite at home!
teamhurtmore - Member
Isn't Choudray entitled to voice his opinion?
Yes, but the issue is the disproporionate time his [extremely fringe] views are given by our media.
THM - wouldn't George salute him for his courage, his strength, and his indefatigability?
Isn't Choudray entitled to voice his opinion?
In exactly the same way Nick Griffin is.
Look, at the end of the day innocent people—when we say 'innocent people' we mean Muslims—as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God.
Why he doesn't just go somewhere with Sharia is beyond me. I'd even chip in for the air fare.
wrecker - Member
Why he doesn't just go somewhere with Sharia is beyond me. I'd even chip in for the air fare.
Because he wouldn't get any attention.
Why he doesn't just go somewhere with Sharia is beyond me
I think his plan is to bring it with him and spread the word.
THM - wouldn't George salute him for his courage, his strength, and his indefatigability?
Love him or hate him I enjoyed him taking the US Senate committee to task.
Anjem Choudary refuses to 'abhor' Woolwich attack
In the interview he says that 'he hasn't been arrested yet'- i think he'd better go hide then because he will be soon if he carries on with his vile preachings.
Rip Lee Rigby. Not that they'll read this but sincere condolences to his family, especially his little-boy. So sad.
Agreed PP.
I can understand those who say the reaction is a symptom of our action, their wrong. Were the uk and us and all the other countries to have a sustained period of turning the other cheek Muslims such as this chap would continue to preach their vile hate.
There motive is not revenge for harm done to them, but to enforce the medieval rules of one of these clap trap books.
Nice Ian.. did you read that off the back of a cornflakes packet or did a bloke in the pub tell you..?
Mike LivesleySince the terrible events that unfolded in Woolwich on Wednesday, I have felt compelled to avoid this place. In the immediate aftermath I watched, with despair and hope in equal measure, as I witnessed the various posts made in relation to the event. After a few days of sober consideration, and research into this sickening incident, I have come to my own conclusions. Firstly this was not, as Whitehall suggested, within 15 short minutes of the event, an 'Islamist Act of Terror' but rather a very tragic and horrific murder carried out by two young men, motivated by a foreign policy that is, to put it mildly, draconian and barbaric. I am not for one moment excusing their disgusting actions of open and bloody murder, but I am aware of the butchery and wholesale slaughter carried out by my own Government, on innocent men, women and children, every day in their never-ending 'War on Terror'.
So, why are the Government, via their controlled media, constantly escalating the fear porn by describing this murder as an 'Islamist Act of Terror'? After all, this is the language of the far right, and guaranteed to enflame. Once again one finds oneself pondering the age old point of law which is 'cui bono' which, translated, means 'who benefits?' Well, think about it. Who would benefit from such a statement? Remember the first rule of politics? 'Never let a good crisis go to waste'? Well, this *extremely* unpopular Government have certainly followed that rule to the letter. Cameron has posed for the world's media, looking suitably distressed and anguished. and has missed no opportunity to grandstand from this poor soldier's death. However, the question still remains. Why? Cui bono. In considering this it is critical to consider just how many fronts, from Syria to Iran to North Korea, that this Government, and their Military-Industrial handlers and US Allies, would like to expand their 'War on Terror' into. In Politics this phenomenon is referred to as the 'Hegelian dialectic' or, in layman's terms 'Problem. Reaction. Solution.'
This initial statement by the Government, and the countless polemics and editorials based upon it, ensures that they have given the British Nation their 'Problem' - the threat of 'Islamist Terror'. The same public, understandably, then demand the Government do something about it - this is the 'Reaction'. The Government then give in to pubilc demand and offer them their 'Solution' and, as always, this means something they have been trying to find an excuse for for some time. We are yet to hear what chilling shape this will take. It could mean yet ANOTHER expansion of the War on Terror, in which, I guarantee, more than one British soldier will die. It could also be the re-introduction of the so-called 'Snooper's Charter', meaning the end of the last few shreds of privacy you have, purely to protect you from Terrorists you understand. Or it may see the rolling out of the 'Stop and Search' law. for so long desired by the Government, which would mean that you can be stopped at any time, in any place and, without due cause, searched from top to bottom (pun intended). In other words accused of pre-crime. It will probably be all three. The thirst for power amongst this sociopathic elite is seemingly unquenchable. In considering such 'Solutions' the words of Benjamin Franklin always pop into me noggin; 'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
So, before you post, before you follow the herd, before you accuse, before you make your mind up, and before you repeat the fear porn, I would urge you to read the following passage, spoken at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, by the right-hand man of Adolf Hitler - Herman Goering. Read it, consider how it applies to recent events, and think. Think!
"Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
This event in Woolwich was a sickening and wanton act of murder, but it was not terrorism. As Gandhi said 'no matter how often you repeat a lie, it does not make it the truth'. So please, do not listen to fear and warmongers, and do not let them twist this incident, as terrible as it is, to suit their own ends. This was a hideous event, and my heart goes out to the family of the murdered soldier, as it does to the families of those innocents killed by our drones in the 'War on Terror' every day. So, what should you do? Well, in my opinion, don't give in to the manufactured climate of hate and fear, enjoy your bank holiday weekend, and give off nothing but love and positivity where e'er you may roam. If that means avoiding this gaff for a few days then so be it! It'll all be 'ere when you come back. My final thought is this, and it came from the mouth of the late, great Bill Hicks, who said - 'It's a simple choice, right now, between fear and love' - make sure you pick the right side!
There is an irony in you accusing me of repeating someone else's view, then copy pasting some rambling text.
So to be clear I don't like Islam, I don't much like any of the other lot either. They incite the weak minded to violence and oppression and just like you they get really pissed off with people who disagree with them.
If you don't like that , tough.
I can understand those who say the reaction is a symptom of our action, their wrong
Can you just remind me how many of these attacks we were having before we started invading their countries and their lands?
The fella even said why he did it but hey you know best about his motives.
There motive is not revenge for harm done to them, but to enforce the medieval rules of one of these clap trap books.
Again they would disagree but they you keep telling them why they are doing it.
You will be saying our foreign policy is a beacon of light and consistency in a troubled region what with support for Saudi doing nothing about Syria and then invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
What are we trying to impose on them via war - is it peace in their hearts - do you really think this will work ?
IanW - MemberIf you don't like that , tough.
It's not a question of not liking it, it's more a question of you appearing to be wrong in your analysis of the motives when you state :
[i]"There motive is not revenge for harm done to them, but to enforce the medieval rules of one of these clap trap books."[/i]
According to Adebolajo's radical muslim friend, who has now been arrested, and who undoubtedly would wish the real motives to be understood (after all what would be the point of misrepresenting those motives when publicity is such an important aim of terrorists ?)
[b][i]Adebolajo did not want to see sharia law imposed in Britain, but thought it more sensible for someone like him to go and live in a Muslim country, according to the interviewee. "He wanted to be qualified to teach and to do fitness training. He could use that to go abroad and live in a Muslim country."[/i][/b]
So [i]"revenge for harm done"[/i], at least as perceived by the terrorists, appears to be very much behind the motive. I'm assuming that you personally did not know the alleged killers and are not in a better position to understand what motivated them or their thinking than their own friends.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-suspect-kenya-torture
Disappointed that after nine whole pages this hasn't been sorted yet.
Firstly this was not, as Whitehall suggested, within 15 short minutes of the event, an 'Islamist Act of Terror' [b]but[/b] rather a very tragic and horrific murder carried out by two young men, motivated by a foreign policy that is, to put it mildly, draconian and barbaric.
Why the dichotomy?
You are viewing things too complicatedly, it is rather simple really ...
1. Foreign policy (I am equating this to everything the developed nations/West do ...) - to prevent more death with the concept of democracy to curb wars etc, then whatever is left is the bonus such as trade, business, oil and whatever you wish to think etc. The underline tone is to dominate.
On the opposing end ... they want a piece of the cake too ...
2. Expansion of religious belief - insistence on their way of life like it or not they want to assert that by various means even if it means force. The rest is just various arguments to justify their views/actions ... the underline tone is to dominate.
... So the former try to impose and while the latter wants to assert on everyone in around the world bits by bits to a "new" way of life.
Nobody gives way so the only way out is to fight to the death. To the death!
One cannot live without the other ... they are counter balance to each other.
🙄
🙄
The question that i really don't have an answer too, and in fact i can't even make up my own mind is:
"In the year 2013, do the so called "civilized" 1st world nations have a "duty" to interfere in other countries when they know that the basic human rights of the populations of those countries is being abused by the powers that run them"??
There is enough evidence in these days of social media/internet etc that many countries ARE treating their subjects very poorly, and that those subject do not have any method of protection (they do not have a democracy). For example, being shot in the head because you had the audacity to go to school is just one example.
So, do we "turn a blind eye" so as to not cause ourselves problems or do we intervene in the best way we see how ?(which of cause will always cause friction)
That is not a question i can answer.
^ the trouble is the inconsistent way that we (western governments) apply our rules, Saudi - turn a blind eye, they play ball. Libya - use military force to intervene, Gaddafi didn't play ball.
I'm pretty ****ing disgusted that theres a suggestion that there's even a hint of justification for this.
Have a word with yourselves.
Hmmm. I hesitate to post this; I really don't wish to be seen as disrespectful, or attempting to argue petty points. But. I am curious to understand, how the HELL can this tragic episode be seen as anything other than terrorism? It was a vicious murder, certainly, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the motives appear to be both to gain political attention and to attempt to strike fear and stir up hatred within British society. Whilst I can see the sense in people calling for the oxygen of publicity to be withdrawn (fat chance), I don't understand this common theme of denying that it was a terrorist act. It's not like the label of terrorism adds any legitimacy after all; it's still a heinous crime that the perpetrators should receive the maximum permissible punishment for. And whether it is a result of an organised 'cell' (doubtful) or just some random fruitcakes with too much aggression pent up in their drug addled brains, getting a little inspiration from Inspire, that pleasant how and why to kill infidels magazine (much more likely), it's still fairly plainly a terrorist atrocity, as well as a disgusting murder.
Sorry, I just don't understand the motives for anyone to deny the terrorism label.
EDIT;
Wrecker, of course there is a justification for it. It's fairly clear that it was very far from a random attack. I don't think ANYONE is suggesting that they agreed with the justification though, or that it was correct, proportionate or anything other than down right evil.
Wrecker v8 your spot on we can argue all the reasons behind it but it is so wrong in every way how that lad died
Wrecker, of course there is a justification for it.
No. Justification requires reason. If these [i]people[/i] want to join the struggle; Afghanistan is a plane ride away. I'd chip in for their air fare.
No. Justification requires reason.
Semantics. The perpetrators obviously had their reasons, and their justification, however warped that they may be. To simply dismiss their justifications as insane, barbaric, perverted or whatever, would seem at best somewhat shortsighted, and at worst be woefully negligent, for to understand what has happened is to be able to work to decrease the chances of this sort of thing happening again.
**** that. The enablers/encouragers/brainwashers need to be identified and made an example of. That's all.
I think spending a lot of time and effort trying to rationalise the behaviour of these two individuals is almost certainly a waste of time. The crime they committed suggests the culprits had serious psychological problems and that their minds were further poisoned by a hate based ideology.
UK foreign policy might be the excuse but it was not the reason for this crime.
There are a couple of million Muslims living in the UK many of whom, like much of the rest of the population, will be strongly opposed to UK foreign policy (which is ironic as the helping Muslim people overseas is the reason our government gives for much of it) they don't however cold-bloodedly murder people in the streets. It is therefore clearly much more than just UK foreign policy.
Mindless acts of violence are often the ultimate expression of bigotry and hatred. To minimise their occurrence bigotry and hatred should be challenged and not tolerated, wherever it originates from. I do not recognise that expressing hatred is a democratic right.
I do agree with you v8ninety that what occurred in Woolwich was very much an act of terrorism, as the term is widely understood to mean. And I too find it bizarre that anyone should argue that it wasn't.
Bloody well said Ernie. And for the record, I'm no fan of following the us into whatever shitstorm they choose to create.
I shall be glad when we're out of afghan and Iraq completely and I'm happy that we haven't waded into Syria (we should keep our noses well out).
wrecker - MemberIf these people want to join the struggle; Afghanistan is a plane ride away.
I'm not going to defend this murder, but this is pretty cockeyed thinking- we can go off to afghanistan to kill people but if someone else wants to fight us, they can't do it here?
Can the army fight it here? Want a bit of martial law?
Good for one is good for the other.
Absolutely agree Ernie.
In certain part of the world the assertion of this religious ideology has changed the way of life for many ... but for the worst.
They will Not negotiate nor back down until they dominate absolutely. Those who do not belong to their ideology will systematically be marginalised until they submit. Those who can afford to leave the country will but those who are poor will have no choice but to "slave" their way through life with no prospect of a peaceful life.
Force convergence to their religion is rather common amongst the uneducated natives. Some have no choice others simply could not bear it any longer so succumb ...
That is one reason why negotiation is futile in that part of the world and always end in bloodshed.
[b]Those two should meet the punishment imposed by Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia.[/b]
Therefore, try not to criticize countries that are in conflict with this ideology ... they know how to deal with them effectively their ways so let them be.
Spot on Ernie. Imho etc. One of the best analogies i've seen is that kkk is to christians what radical islamic fundamentlism is to muslims. Tiny horrible minorty, which are mostly a joke, till they kill someone they hate for no real reason.. It's a very sad state of affairs the whole thing. It just makes me sad. Nice one humans
Can the army fight it here? Want a bit of martial law?
Good for one is good for the other.
That worked out really well in Northern Ireland. Total victory over terrorists. Principles upheld. Job was a good un.
Exactly. But if its seen by the radicals that the uk is a legitimate theatre, then that's how the forces will need to treat it.
Why?
They will Not negotiate nor back down until they dominate absolutely. Those who do not belong to their ideology will systematically be marginalised until they submit.
which ideology are you talking about here...? 'Them' or 'Us'?
yunki - MemberThey will Not negotiate nor back down until they dominate absolutely. Those who do not belong to their ideology will systematically be marginalised until they submit.
which ideology are you talking about here...? 'Them' or 'Us'?
Them. Try and see if you get anyway ...
As for "US" (as in the West) we know that the more we try to shape them in our thinking the more we lost ourselves ...
ernie-- it wasn't a mindless act though was it-- however deluded, it was not mindless-- and as both were brought up in 'strong' christian beleifs-- yet they were swayed by the nihilistic venom of some rich saudis-- but for me these are consequences of imperial warmongering-- so blair/brown/cameron/clegg have some responsibility here-- its never straightforward, but if the uk was not hanging off US coatails this and other terrorist attacks here would not have occured.
ernie-- it wasn't a mindless act though was it
Well I haven't claimed that it was. It was clearly perceived as an act of revenge by the perpetrators, they made that very clear in their comments after they had carried out the cold-blooded murder.
I don't however see it as an inevitable 'consequence of imperial warmongering'. Millions of people in the UK, in fact the majority according to opinion polls, are now opposed to UK military involvement in Afghanistan, they don't however, as I previously suggested, go around murdering members of the armed forces.
What happened in Woolwich might of been the inevitable consequence of imperial warmongering [b][i]and[/i][/b] sick minds, poisoned by a hate fueled ideology, but that's as much as I'm prepared to give you.
Having said all that Al-Qaeda inspired terrorism is indisputably the monster created by the West, ie Western foreign policy. When Al-Qaeda, or the mujahideen as we liked to call them back then, were beheading, skinning alive, castrating, and disemboweling, Russian soldiers and civilians, we were cheering them on claiming that they were "defending their ancient way of life", when they targeted schools and teachers because girls were being taught we supplied them with weapons, vast quantities of highly sophisticated weapons, and money, and training, in fact everything they could have wanted.
And still the lesson hasn't been learnt. Today in Libya, Benghazi, birthplace of an Al-Qaeda backed and Western supported rebellion, is a complete no go area for westerners, as is most of the rest of the country, in a few places such as Tripoli the situation is very slightly better and the F.O. advices against all but essential travel. Al-Qaeda backed terrorists from Libya are now carrying out terrorist atrocities in neighbouring countries such Niger.
In Syria of course we are doing what we can to help an Al-Qaeda backed opposition overthrow the government, whilst causally brushing aside embarrassing reports such as the one last week when an Al-Qaeda opposition commander had himself videoed as he disemboweled a Syrian soldier, cut out his organs, and bit into them.
In fact apparently one of Lee Rigby's killers was recently publicly urging committed Muslims to help in the fight in Syria. So a position rather similar to that of the British Prime Minister David Cameron then.
agree ernie-- its all so flicking hypocritical of our 'rulers' --but i is an optimist, and that the greater good shall prevail-- eventually-- maybe not in my lifetime, but you can't fool all the people all the time !!
