Woolwich Attack

  • 39 Replies
  • 4940 Views
?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Woolwich Attack
« on: May 26, 2013, 01:12:11 AM »
I'm not sure why we don't have a topic on this; this may be a little old now (happened on Wed) but still, it's pretty shocking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303


Two men run over an off-duty soldier in the street and proceed to stab him to death. Some sources claim he was beheaded but other sources don't make any mention of it, so it's doubtful.

Apparently they said 'Allahu Akbar' a lot. Both British, of Nigerian descent.

They remained at the scene until the police arrived, asking members of the public to photograph and film them in the meantime:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


Scary stuff.

?

Thork

Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2013, 02:08:42 AM »
I think Islamic militants have worked out they can kill soldiers far more easily when they are at home without their guns.
Knife attack on soldier in Paris treated as terrorism

*

Genius

  • 2180
  • Professor of Geniustology
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2013, 02:09:15 AM »
I want to get on my angry boat and start blaming religions again, but I know people will just hound me with "It's not the religion, it's them, they were crazy anyway, blah blah blah", which, honestly, is probably true, but it doesn't make for good 'ol fashioned complaining.
The earth is round because the space man said so.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2013, 03:28:57 AM »
Why didn't anyone do something? Even if it meant personal injury, I would've rushed those fuckers with anything I could find.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2013, 06:46:30 AM »
I don't think there was any hope for Lee, the soldier, the attack on him was very quick. Afterwards, the attackers made it clear they weren't going to attack anyone else. Besides, one had a gun. So I think waiting for the police was the best bet.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44393
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2013, 07:50:52 AM »
I want to get on my angry boat and start blaming religions again, but I know people will just hound me with "It's not the religion, it's them, they were crazy anyway, blah blah blah", which, honestly, is probably true, but it doesn't make for good 'ol fashioned complaining.

They don't sound as if they're crazy to me, and I'm sure their religion is partly to blame, but I think they probably also view themselves as soldiers, or something like that. They seem angry at the government, I'm sure they're angry at all the Western governments who've been meddling in Africa and the Middle East for decades, and in some cases, centuries.

How much do you guys think this can be blamed on taking in immigrants faster than they can be assimilated into your culture? I think it is beginning to happen in the US.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2013, 08:06:01 AM »
Like I said, these guys are English, of Nigerian descent. One was raised Christian.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44393
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2013, 10:46:56 AM »
Did the Christian one convert to Islam?
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2013, 11:14:35 AM »
Why didn't anyone do something? Even if it meant personal injury, I would've rushed those fuckers with anything I could find.

Because people there do not carry guns.  Police had to come with guns to stop them. 

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2013, 12:02:52 PM »
Did the Christian one convert to Islam?

Yeah he did.

It's weird, it turns out there is other footage available of the guy, as he has been interviewed before, but as a peaceful muslim.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44393
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2013, 12:29:35 PM »
What do you think about this article? http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/france_leads_way_in_tackling_terrorism_2lDBNftXOWdjoTcHJqBq6N  It's hard to judge from over here, but the author seems to be making a lot of sense.  I've read a few things about Muslims in the UK, and a little about "one law for all" but I don't really know enough about the politics over there to understand why the UK has allowed such tolerance for extremists.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2013, 12:41:34 PM »
They need to do something about the radicalisation going on.


They're stirring up hatred within the community and it needs to stop, and that doesn't just apply to Muslim groups either.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2013, 03:18:52 PM »
Radicalisation is an issue, but these guys were explaining themselves to onlookers and asking to have their pictures taken. It strikes me as delusional behaviour.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2013, 04:03:19 PM »
What do you think about this article? http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/france_leads_way_in_tackling_terrorism_2lDBNftXOWdjoTcHJqBq6N  It's hard to judge from over here, but the author seems to be making a lot of sense.  I've read a few things about Muslims in the UK, and a little about "one law for all" but I don't really know enough about the politics over there to understand why the UK has allowed such tolerance for extremists.

That is a really dumb article.  First of all, the quotes from the articles referred to have been mined out of context, and neither of them say what the author claims they say.  Second of all, it's conflating what defensive (and undoubtedly frightened, I might add) Muslims have said about terrorists not representing Islam or not being "true Muslims" and the policies that governments might adapt to combat Islamic extremism.  In fact, it doesn't even talk about government policies or the differences between what France and Britain do beyond Anjem Choudray being interviewed by the BBC (the horror) or the fact that Tariq Ramadan is an Oxford professor (Jesus, no!).  And finally, it makes the tired "hurr durr why don't Muslims speak out against terrorism" point.  To which I respond with:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/the-myth-of-muslim-condem_b_67904.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/do-you-even-hear-muslims-when-we-condemn-violence_b_3125564.html

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 10:57:50 AM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44393
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2013, 04:29:19 PM »
What? The article isn't asking regular Muslims to call out terrorists, it's talking about Muslim clerics. Also Tarek Fatah's quote is taken from this article http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tarek-fatah/uk-beheading-jihad-terror_b_3325363.html  Which does not seem to be quote mined out of context, since he is discussing the problem in the same way.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2013, 04:54:28 PM »
Why didn't anyone do something? Even if it meant personal injury, I would've rushed those fuckers with anything I could find.

Because people there do not carry guns.  Police had to come with guns to stop them.
Yet one of those guys was carrying a gun.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2013, 06:03:18 PM »
Please stop talking about gun control.

What? The article isn't asking regular Muslims to call out terrorists, it's talking about Muslim clerics. Also Tarek Fatah's quote is taken from this article http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tarek-fatah/uk-beheading-jihad-terror_b_3325363.html  Which does not seem to be quote mined out of context, since he is discussing the problem in the same way.

I know it's talking about clerics.  My point remains.

And I wasn't talking about Fatah's article being quote-mined, but the ones from the Guardian and the Observer.  But speaking of that article, it's even more ridiculous, because he's actually bringing up multiple disavowals of terrorism from the Islamic community that supposedly don't happen and handwaving them away as being inadequate, apparently because they aren't emphasizing the words "Muslim" or "Islam" enough.

Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2013, 03:12:33 AM »
Why didn't anyone do something? Even if it meant personal injury, I would've rushed those fuckers with anything I could find.

Because people there do not carry guns.  Police had to come with guns to stop them.

See:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,25745.1980.html#.UaMxV0CzfTo

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2013, 03:20:54 AM »
David Cameron describes the attack as a 'betrayal of Islam'.

Honestly, from reading the Qur'an, I'm not exactly sure how it is.

Verses 2:190, 2:191, 4:84 and 4:89 seem to permit their actions.

So was Islam the cause, or was it due to their disturbed psyches?

Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2013, 04:34:13 AM »
David Cameron describes the attack as a 'betrayal of Islam'.

Honestly, from reading the Qur'an, I'm not exactly sure how it is.

Verses 2:190, 2:191, 4:84 and 4:89 seem to permit their actions.

So was Islam the cause, or was it due to their disturbed psyches?

Radicalism is the problem, I'm willing to bet there's something in the bible that might permit their actions as well.

If there are people in the UK that are trying to insight violence against our society then it needs to be dealt with.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44393
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2013, 07:33:33 AM »
Please stop talking about gun control.

What? The article isn't asking regular Muslims to call out terrorists, it's talking about Muslim clerics. Also Tarek Fatah's quote is taken from this article http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tarek-fatah/uk-beheading-jihad-terror_b_3325363.html  Which does not seem to be quote mined out of context, since he is discussing the problem in the same way.

I know it's talking about clerics.  My point remains.

And I wasn't talking about Fatah's article being quote-mined, but the ones from the Guardian and the Observer.  But speaking of that article, it's even more ridiculous, because he's actually bringing up multiple disavowals of terrorism from the Islamic community that supposedly don't happen and handwaving them away as being inadequate, apparently because they aren't emphasizing the words "Muslim" or "Islam" enough.


Fatah says they are inadequate because they don't denounce jihad. There was nothing in the article about emphasizing the words Muslim or Islam.

Quote
Hundreds of British Muslims tweeted their condemnation of the act, but not one individual or organization had the courage to point out and admit the fact Sharia-backed doctrine of armed jihad does permit holy war on non-Muslims, specially in the land of the "kufaar."

This was an opportunity for the Muslim leadership to confess they have failed and that the time has come to admit that jihadis cannot be fought without fighting the doctrine of jihad.

Quote
Unless the leaders of British mosques as well as the Islamic organizations in the U.K. denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us.

They cannot have it both ways: promoting the teachings of Maududi and Qutb among Muslim youth, while concealing the same teachings from the rest of Britain.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2013, 08:12:41 AM »
Ah, it looks like I missed the part about denouncing the teachings of jihad specifically.  I thought he was criticizing them for, well, not bashing themselves enough.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 08:54:11 AM by Saddam Hussein »

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2013, 08:53:02 AM »
David Cameron describes the attack as a 'betrayal of Islam'.

Honestly, from reading the Qur'an, I'm not exactly sure how it is.

Verses 2:190, 2:191, 4:84 and 4:89 seem to permit their actions.

So was Islam the cause, or was it due to their disturbed psyches?

Radicalism is the problem, I'm willing to bet there's something in the bible that might permit their actions as well.

If there are people in the UK that are trying to insight violence against our society then it needs to be dealt with.


The difference between the Bible and the Qur'an, though, is that the Qur'an is believed to be the literal word of Allah.
Surely, therefore, 'radical Islam' is genuine Islam, and all other forms are actually 'half-baked Islam'.


Is there a hole in my logic here?

Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM »
David Cameron describes the attack as a 'betrayal of Islam'.

Honestly, from reading the Qur'an, I'm not exactly sure how it is.

Verses 2:190, 2:191, 4:84 and 4:89 seem to permit their actions.

So was Islam the cause, or was it due to their disturbed psyches?

Radicalism is the problem, I'm willing to bet there's something in the bible that might permit their actions as well.

If there are people in the UK that are trying to insight violence against our society then it needs to be dealt with.


The difference between the Bible and the Qur'an, though, is that the Qur'an is believed to be the literal word of Allah.
Surely, therefore, 'radical Islam' is genuine Islam, and all other forms are actually 'half-baked Islam'.


Is there a hole in my logic here?

Literally speaking the bible is meant to be the word of god as well.

Radical Christianity exists so does that mean it's the same as genuine Christianity?

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2013, 09:40:09 AM »
Actually no, the Bible is considered to be a divinely inspired work, but written by men. The Qur'an, on the other hand, is considered to be the verbatim word of Allah.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2013, 06:53:33 AM »

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2013, 07:29:58 AM »
Oh for the ever-loving state of feck. This is like the whine that "We just want to have an open discussion about immigration" as though immigration wasn't frequently on the front pages of national newspapers, being discussed on the radio and freely talked about over dinner plates up and down the land. What it actually translates to is "Shut up and agree with me!"

Same as Islam, every time there is one of these tragedies some talking head or another pops up to say that all they want to do is 'talk about Islam' and you can bet that one of the first parties to say "Great! Let's talk!" Are the Muslim communities themselves who appear in every media to denounce the attack and discuss the various and varied beliefs in Islam. Whether its the page of letters in yesterday's metro, the cleric on Radio 4 the other morning discussing the principle of not attacking those who protect you. Then there are the community leaders who come on the air to tell parents to be careful of internet radicalisation...

If ever there was a better demonstration of this, I can't think of one than York Mosque who opened themselves up to EDL protesters, serving tea and coffee to discuss Islam. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/27/york-mosque-protest-tea-biscuits

The Torygraph article bemoans that after the attack, everyone looked at things like foreign policy, economics, etc rather than the fact that he shouted 'Allahu Ackbar!' Apart from the fact that it's obviously untrue (or else how would he have known that he shouted it in the first place?) it actually makes sense to look at the factors which would drive this Muslim to terror in addition to Islam. there are 1.5 million Muslims in Britain, that we do not see 1.5 million attacks shows that religion alone is not sufficient to drive terrorists , so how do factors like alienation, national identity, economics, ideology etc etc affect how likely one is to commit a terrorist atrocity?

If this article had appeared in 1980 it could have read:

"There is a lot of displacement on the news and in the papers, as if it's all too politically difficult and socially awkward to talk about the killers' ideology, or the place of religion in that ideology. So we talk instead about the NF, or the black and tans, or "the religion of peace" or say "Protestants kill too" or "what about Ian Paisley", or, well, anything but the brute fact that the murderers, like so very many before them, were Irish Catholics."

And doubtless there were articles written in that vein, but as should be obvious, discussing Irish Catholicism does not lead us to understand why the IRA would bomb a pub. For that we should look at his Republican ideology or his connections to the IRA.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2013, 09:28:29 AM »
there are 1.5 million Muslims in Britain, that we do not see 1.5 million attacks shows that religion alone is not sufficient to drive terrorists , so how do factors like alienation, national identity, economics, ideology etc etc affect how likely one is to commit a terrorist atrocity?

I refer to the point I made before posting this article.
Seeing as the Qur'an (not the book, the Qur'an itself) is the word of Allah, and seeing as it makes several pretty unambiguous points about killing various people, I don't see why we shouldn't view Islam as a dangerous force.
That most Muslims have enough sense to disobey the Qur'an in these instances it absolutely great, but it doesn't change that fact.
So what I'm saying is that, actually, yes Islam alone IS enough for someone to commit terrorism. It is the absence of other factors that induces it.

What the article is referencing is something that I, as a student, am all to familiar with. Try and say anything like this as a student on any level and see how quickly you get shouted (not argued) down. That's why I'm posting this here, where my livelihood isn't at stake.

I know you're above this Chris, but just in case you're not, please don't include the word 'islamophobia' in a reply. If it's used to mean 'irrational fear of muslims' then it wouldn't apply to me. If it's used to mean 'irrational fear of Islam' then I'm not sure how fear of an ideology that literally demands my death is irrational.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2013, 04:00:21 AM »
Quote
I don't see why we shouldn't view Islam as a dangerous force.
Quote
That most Muslims have enough sense to disobey the Qur'an in these instances

You just answered your own question. Most religions have fairly vile stuff in the books including:
The Bhagvadad Vita - 31. “Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles, so there is no need for hesitation.” 32. “O Partha, happy are the Kshatriya to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the door of the heavenly planets”. 33. “If however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sin, for neglecting your duties, and thus loose your reputation as a fighter”. Chapter 2
Which probably helped justify Hindu terrorism in India http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/india-hindu-terrorism-threat

I don't think I need to quote the Bible or the Torah to justify my statement.

Perhaps you get shouted down because people are fed up with dealing with the myth that Islam is the sole source of terror in the world (or even the main one*) Maybe they're on their guard because so often 'lets talk about Islam' becomes a bigoted rant.

And if a phobia is an irrational fear then being scared of a religion which is overwhelmingly peaceful (as it is practiced, in the West at least) certainly meets that definition.


*http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/india-hindu-terrorism-threat
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/tesat2009_0.pdf


?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Woolwich Attack
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2013, 08:52:16 AM »

And if a phobia is an irrational fear then being scared of a religion which is overwhelmingly peaceful (as it is practiced, in the West at least) certainly meets that definition.

Ok, you're claiming the religion and the people who practise it are the same thing.

I think the problem, again, is the fact that Islam =/= Muslims.

Also, as I have said in my post, which you didn't address, the Qur'an itself is the literal word of Allah. How is that, given a belief in Allah, open to interpretation?