BS: Unarmed soldier killed, (London-May 2013)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 26 May 13 - 06:14 PM

Calling me Islamophobic (sic) now are you Greg. That shows me you are on the ropes with nothing left but name calling - but I knew that all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 May 13 - 06:03 PM

Please, don't forget to also discuss Mr. Mohammed Saleen, aged 75, who was also unarmed and on his way home from his Mosque.

He suffered many fatal stab wounds in what the police described as the most frenzied and vicious attack they have ever seen.

It's just that THIS story, for some strange reason, NEVER made it into the mainstream media, such as all over our TV or Radio..

Also, please don't forget also to mention that over 5,000 Muslims came together today at Morden Mosque to pray for Drummer Lee and to show their solidarity with many others in this country....

No Christians went to their Churches in their thousands to pray for Mr. Mohammed Saleem, a much loved elderly gentleman and grandfather,who was deeply loved, liked and respected.

His family too have been torn apart and to be honest, no-one gave a fuck...

???????????

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 06:03 PM

Care to show me where & why its false equivalence Bobad, or is your regular Islamophobic bullshit all you've got?

Keith - please show me where I mentioned the New Testament.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 26 May 13 - 05:21 PM

" it's old, it's bullshit but it's all he's got."

It is old and it is bullshit, it's such a pity that millions of people are so obsessed with such a load of old bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 26 May 13 - 04:37 PM

I see Greg's resorting to the false equivalence gambit once again - it's old, it's bullshit but it's all he's got.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 13 - 04:31 PM

Example Greg?
And what about New Testament?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 May 13 - 04:25 PM

...militant but not as militant as the Koran, I think, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 04:21 PM

Eliza- you are of course familiar with the Old Testament? Plenty of similar "contentious" verses therein.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 May 13 - 03:55 PM

You will not find any such language in WalkaboutsVerse, of course; you will find positive nationalism, fair trade, vegetable and native gardening (harvest and habitat), animal welfare, birth control, eco-travel, anti-capitalism, pro-regulationism, a love of life...http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 May 13 - 03:29 PM

...that's from Repentance, Eliza, part of which I quoted above: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 May 13 - 02:53 PM

The contentious verse from the Koran is 9:5, where followers are exhorted to 'fight' polytheists and use the sword to either force them to convert to Islam and pay a Tax or be killed. There are quite a few verses in the same vein, about 'fighting' non-believers and if they prove stubborn, to kill them. This doesn't sound to me as if 'jihad' is an 'inner struggle' but a physically violent means to eradicate people who continue to practise their religion and refuse to conform to the rules and mores of Islam. The problem is that there are also verses encouraging peace and mercy etc. However, it's the infamous 9:5 that seems to be causing fundamentalists to incite terrorism. It must be added that in the early verses, 'People of the Book' (ie Jews and Christians) might get away with merely paying a Tax to Muslim coffers.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 May 13 - 02:24 PM

Mayo ~~ Senior officers are appointed in recognition of their ability to decide on appropriate action, and hence to issue appropriate orders, in accordance with their judgment of a situation. In the circumstances you postulate, a CO would decide as to the best course of action, but would be unlikely to order his men to intervene as they could then possibly inhibit, rather than assist, the work of the appropriate authorities [in this case the Fire Brigade] -- but this would be a matter for his decision according to the circumstances prevailing. All would depend on the Colonel's assessment. In the case with which this thread is concerned, I repeat, an order from a CO to his men to intervene would be ultra vires, and I do not think any CO would assess it otherwise.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 26 May 13 - 01:46 PM

"Walkabouts Verse....I know you like people to all live in special little 'boxes' from which they must never venture out, but please, wake up and know there is the blood of the world running through your veins...But blackout glasses on, so that you can see NO colours, then just accept PEOPLE as your Brothers and Sisters..." (Lizzie Cornish)...My "venture out" before sitting down to write WAV included about 40 nations; I doubt anyone appreciates our world/our United Nations being multicultural as much as I. And I'm a 100% sure that things would be a lot better and more peaceful if humans would just trade fairly with and VISIT other nations as respectful tourists.

And do you get angry, Lizzie, when you hear people talking about emigrating to Australia, e.g., without any consideration for Aboriginal "Land Rights"? http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/476693050

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 13 - 01:33 PM


Right ----- and no-one poses a risk to the nation other tham Ismuslic Llamamentalists. No other threats out there.

Yes there are Greg, but this figure is just about them.
A couple of thousands that they know about.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 26 May 13 - 01:13 PM

MgM
are you seriously trying to tell me that soldiers aren't allowed to intervene in a civilian situation under any circumstance? Had the young man been trapped in a flat that was on fire a hundred yards from a huge army barracks would his fellow soldiers have said that it was a matter for the fire brigade ?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 May 13 - 12:37 PM

On the contrary, mayomick, if the Officer Commanding had been aware of what was going on, he would have been in trouble if he had permitted any of the men under his command to intervene in what was strictly a matter for the civilian police.

Have you, I wonder, ever been subject to military law? -- I suspect you to be too young to have done National Service like us oldies. If you haven't, I suggest you drop the topic: you are just making yourself look a bit silly.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 11:40 AM

MI5 is only interested in people who pose a threat to the nation.

Right ----- and no-one poses a risk to the nation other tham Ismuslic Llamamentalists. No other threats out there.

And the CIA is forbidden to operate within the borders of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 13 - 10:48 AM

It was not in sight of the gates.
The street is not overlooked by the barracks.

Greg MI5 is only interested in people who pose a threat to the nation.
They have a couple of thousands and these two were not considered more dangerous despite having been arrested in Kenya and tried to get to Somalia.
So, what is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 26 May 13 - 10:15 AM

I find it hard to believe that there were actually orders issued not to go to Drummer Rigby's assistance. If there were, how did the people giving the orders know that the poor kid wasn't still alive after the attack? I wasn't suggesting some sort of organized military deployment against the two terrorists ,so much as about the reaction of individuals in the army at seeing one of their own getting cut down in this way. Standing orders quite correctly make the distinction between military and civilian roles , but I can't see any officer reprimanding soldiers who disobeyed standing orders to go to the aid of Drummer Rigby in such an instance as this. If there were actual orders issued in the twenty minutes or so that it took for the police to arrive , I'd say that whoever gave the order would be in for trouble .

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 09:47 AM

Gee, Don - I wonder if they can explain - regardless of political and religious orientation - who DOESN"T have the "potential" to become radicalized?

Dead people, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 13 - 09:28 AM

Financial Times.
"Security experts argue that MI5 and the police have records on many Islamist extremists in the UK. In 2007, Jonathan Evans, former head of MI5, said there were at least 2,000 people in the UK who "pose a direct threat to national security and public safety".

However, security experts say MI5 has to constantly assess which of these might go on to plot acts of violence and therefore need to be pursued with greater intensity. "
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33d814b4-c3d3-11e2-aa5b-00144feab7de.html#axzz2UPAKLP8K
What are you taking issue with Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 13 - 08:38 AM

Don, May may have said that.
As you say, she referred to potential radicalisees.

When it emerged that the suspects were known as would-be jihadists, it was asked why a closer watch was not put on them.

"Members will examine to what extent the alleged murderers were "on the radar" and whether there was any "culpability" on the part of the security service, the source said.

But they stressed: "There are thousands of people who are on the radar as would-be suspects. Only with a very small fraction of those are you able to provide that level of surveillance so that you know what each and every one of their movements is." "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-mi5-blunder-over-woolwich-killers-we-will-never-know-8631565.html

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 May 13 - 08:15 AM

But the soldiers were under orders, Mick. They only deploy if ordered. Their orders were clearly not to do so, as interference in the situation would be contrary to their rules of engagement. It was a job for the civilian police. I agree it was regrettable that the police involvement appeared to be delayed; but if they had got there in 3 minutes I can't see it would have made a lot of difference, as Drummer Rigby was dead by then and his killers were not attempting to escape.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 26 May 13 - 06:09 AM

"Had they followed their instincts, it would have made no difference for the victim, and given the suicidal fervour of the killers, we would now be talking about six or more dead soldiers and probably the women tending to the victim as well."


Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word cowardice , but that's the very attitude I was talking about Don. Had a hundred soldiers come running out to assist their fallen comrade, it's very unlikely that six of them would have been killed . The people who killed Drummer Rigby were not supermen .

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 May 13 - 05:58 AM

Don ~~ What is your justification for "grossly misquote the Q'ran"? It is, or was, an accurate quotation from part of The Q'ran so far as I can see. As is well-known, the Book may contradict this elsewhere -- the Suras are not entirely consistent throughout. But there does not appear, then or now, to have been any "gross misquotation".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 May 13 - 05:44 AM

""That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.""

Firstly, the fact that one idiot should grossly misquote the Q'ran in a fit of boastful sabre rattling two centuries ago is of little interest.

Secondly, if you really believe that Western countries had not interfered in the Islamic world of that era and before, you are desperately in need of some basic History lessons.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 May 13 - 05:33 AM

""I'd have expected a hundred soldiers -armed or unarmed - to come running out of the barracks and confront the killers .""

Which is exactly the difference which military training makes. Those soldiers obeyed the rules because that is what they are trained to do.

Had they followed their instincts, it would have made no difference for the victim, and given the suicidal fervour of the killers, we would now be talking about six or more dead soldiers and probably the women tending to the victim as well.

I wondered how long it would take for some know nothing clown to start yakking about cowardice.

The point is that our armed forces are strictly debarred from taking military action in civil matters, and rightly so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 May 13 - 05:24 AM

""A former MI5 chief on R4 pm prog said "thousands" were known to them.
MI5 has since said about 2000.""

And the Home Secretary said, on BBC TV this morning, that the figure of "thousands" referred to all those currently known to have the "potential to become radicalised".

You understand the word "potential"?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 13 - 04:09 AM

The police think there was a wider conspiracy, and have arrested three more men, two of whom had to be tasered.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 May 13 - 10:59 PM

Fox News is crowing about the anti Muslim demonstrations in England right now. Revolting!

Well, of course it is, it's Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 May 13 - 08:14 PM

I see we've come back again, one more time, to the oxymoronic Muslim Atheist and a three-hundred year quotation that has somewhat less than zero relevance in today's world.

It was bullshit first time around, and its bullshit still, as will it be the next time you repeat it.

How many 18th Century Christian[sic]quotations expressing the same ideas would you like to have posted, Bobad?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 25 May 13 - 06:53 PM

So, you think that the root cause of Islamist Jihadism is Israel and the West's interference in Islamic countries, well think again:

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism and the Politics of Islamophobia

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 25 May 13 - 06:03 PM

So they were aware that one of their own people had just been butchered and left it to the police to arrive fifteen minutes later. I can understand rules are rules and they wouldn't perhaps have known whether the men had guns or not. All the same it sounds a bit cowardly. I'd have expected a hundred soldiers -armed or unarmed - to come running out of the barracks and confront the killers . The woman who jumped off the bus to give assistance and then remonstrated with the murderers had more guts. (Having said that , I don't know how much of a hero I would be myself in the same situation !)


There was a possible copycat attack in Paris today , according to Rte News. "A French soldier patrolling a business neighbourhood west of Paris has been stabbed in the neck and injured by a man who fled the scene and is being sought by police, President Francois Hollande said."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0525/452666-french-soldier-injured-in-paris-knife-attack/

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 13 - 05:25 PM

The army has already anticipated that point, mayomick; pointing out that, though aware of what was occurring, they are/were not authorised to make armed intervention in such a civilian context, and could not engage unarmed against armed criminals: whereas armed police were empowered to do so, subject to their own well-understood rules of engagement.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 25 May 13 - 04:53 PM

I've heard people talk about the police's slow response , but didn't this happen about 200 yards from an army barracks ?It seems odd that somebody in the army didn't know what was happening a couple of minutes walk away. Wouldn't streets so close to a barracks be carefully monitored by cctv?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 13 - 04:19 PM

Balance, they are only allowed to engage to save life.
If he did it would only be active armed combatants.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 13 - 02:53 PM

Based on what?..........
A former MI5 chief on R4 pm prog said "thousands" were known to them.
MI5 has since said about 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest balance
Date: 25 May 13 - 02:53 PM

Has anyone on this thread mentioned that the poor fellow hacked to death was a machine gunner in Afghanistan? I wonder if he ever shot anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 13 - 02:04 PM

For those, like yourself, who see only the actions of your own side as justified, there is only one side to any argument.

Your comments prove this daily.

Until you can see, recognise and understand (without condoning) the other side of the argument, you are simply not worth talking to, or for that matter, listening to.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 13 - 01:53 PM

""Don, do you believe our forces are involved in indiscriminate killing.""

Don't be a complete prat. You know very well I mean nothing of the sort.

I referred to indirect as well as direct killings.

Can you deny that many fewer Iraqis would ghave been killed in internal and insurgent actions, had we and the US minded our own affairs.

Ditto, Afghanistan!

The place for a National Defensive force, is within its own borders, and that applies equally to the US and Britain, as to Israel and its neighbours.

A common factor in the History which BB claims we don't understand, is that there is always resistance to an occupying force, and in recent history that has incuded violent resistance in the occupyer's homeland.

It is, or should be, a no brainer, except in the minds of those who believe that only their own side should be allowed to fight for their homeland.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 13 - 01:29 PM

""No, but a not insignificant minority ("thousands").""

Based on what?..........Your vast knowledge of the Muslim community in Britain?

Well, it's always good to have confirmation of your idea of "balance"!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 13 - 01:13 PM

I think it probably true Jim.
I think it a sensible policy to employ informers.

Don, do you believe our forces are involved in indiscriminate killing.
You know about British rules of engagement?
You know our soldiers are instructed in legal and illegal military actions, that they must refuse to obey illegal orders and that they are held accountable for every round fired?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 13 - 01:06 PM

I look forward with interest to see how you defend the establishment if it turns out to be true that MI5 attempted to recruit one of the killers - a Muslim plot, no doubt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 13 - 12:52 PM

"What does it speak Jim?"
It "speaks" (whatever that particular piece of gibberish means), that worldwide democratic opposition to an illegal war doesn't stand fiddler's fart of a chance when it clashes with the interests of multinationals.
Your taking over of a thread once again to trot out the party line "speaks" that you have no intention of desisting from using the body of a barely cold victim of a vicious murder as a platform for your Islamophobic rant.
Nothing changes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 13 - 12:22 PM

""and a list of those killed by British or even Western forces would be very short indeed.""

Take it a step further and consider how that list will expand, if you examine the true figures for civilian casualties as a direct or indirect result of Western (including UK) forces action in other countries, instead of staying home and defending what is our country.

Try to think honestly, without your customary Muslim = Evil filter in place.

Whether others kill more, or fewer, civilians is irrelevant. It does not excuse us if we kill fewer, nor them if we kill more.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 13 - 12:19 PM

Neither do I believe, as so many of our more detestable anonymous arseholes, that the actions of two demented bigots are in any way representative of the vast majority of British Muslims.

Do YOU?

No, but a not insignificant minority ("thousands").

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 13 - 12:16 PM

What does it speak Jim?
I very much doubt that anyone reading that would learn anything new.
Does it say anything at all about an unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 13 - 12:11 PM

""So Don, do you also believe that the killing was an understandable response to British crimes?""

NO, I DO NOT!

Neither do I believe, as so many of our more detestable anonymous arseholes, that the actions of two demented bigots are in any way representative of the vast majority of British Muslims.

Do YOU?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 13 - 11:22 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War
Speaks for itself really!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 13 - 09:58 AM

Or is it that you think the resulting catastrophe, in which innocent civilians have died in many scores of thousands, should be met with peaceful protest?
Yes I do.
I am shocked that you don't.