and please use their services
Woolwich
- Thread starter neil_g
- Start date
- Status
Grizu
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 328
- Name
- Grahame
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for putting down in words precisely what I would have liked to have written. A bitter pill for alot of British people to swallow but our involvement in world events post 2001 and our continued involvement in Afghanistan can and will result in backlash attacks either on our soil or abroad.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
I will give you one very important, example relating to your last paragraph, an incident which we NEVER hear about from our media, and one which affects our relations with the country concerned to this day.
In 1953, Iran had elected a new prime minister - Mossadeq. This made Iran the only democratic country in the Middle East, but unfortunately the US/UK were not happy with that, because the new prime minister was very popular and wanted to nationalise the oil industry in Iran, so that the Iranian people could benefit from the profits of THEIR resource.
So, in 1953 the US/UK got together and organised something called "Operation Ajax", whereby the CIA/MI6 would organise a coup in Iran, get the military to overthrow the democratically elected government, and instal Reza Pahlavi Shah as the leader.
Fast forward to 1979, and the Iranian people, totally sick of the brutal dictator who we had installed, had a revolution and kicked us (the US/UK) and their Shah out of Iran.
Another example of "cause" and "effect", but also another example of a pivotal moment in Middle East history/politics which our politicians choose to ignore/acknowledge.
An interesting article on the above:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/post
Headless Lois
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,883
- Name
- Anna
- Edit My Images
- No
I think sometimes it's easier to believe 'this has happened because of x' than it is to think 'this has happened because some people are randomly evil, and they have chosen to blame x for their actions'.
If we can put something in a box labelled terrorism, then we've made a decision that we have some kind of explanation for what happened.
There is far more violence in Iraq now, than when Saddam Hussein (evil tyrant that he was) was in power. Hundreds are being killed every day, largely in attacks by the Sunni against the Shia.
There was no "gameplan" for Iraq after the occupation, the infrastructure had been destroyed, the Iraqi army disbanded, and the borders left open.
We created that problem, and we did not try to clean up after us.
The situation in Afghanistan has not improved for ordinary people. Women are still not being educated or allowed to work in the majority of the country, and when we leave, a deal will be struck with the Taliban and they will end up ruling with violence again.
cambsno
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,999
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Racist murders of all types (black on white, white on black etc) happen. It is not news. Doing what happened yesterday is virtually unprecedented.
This was a terror attack, and not just because the victim was a soldier. It could have been anyone of us, like the 7/7 bombings.
I dont know if you are implying that the media and public dont care if black or asians die in attacks, but the fact that Stepehn Lawrence case is still newsworthy suggests otherwise.
pepi1967
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
cambsno
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,999
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Do we really know that more are killed now in Iraq? Saddam needed removing. The process was not right (as Laudrup says should have been in 1st war) but it should leave the country in a better place in say 20 years time.
More people were killed going to war with Hitler than Hitler would have killed had we left him alone, so were we wrong in going to war?
Cheers Phil, it is interesting to note the comments at the end of the article, where not one person talks about Iran, but focuses instead on the BP oil spill off the coast of the US - pricelss, you couldn't make it up.
He was a murderous dictator that used chemical weapons on his own people and was the reason they were subjected to strict sanctions. His removal and death was a deliverance. To think life was better off under him is warped.
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
They're calling it a terror attack because of the motivation behind it as far as I can see. But what it was, was the brutal murder of an individual.
It is nothing like the 7/7 bombings which targeted a massive number of people and aimed to disrupt an entire city.
I don't think you can label them as anything but terrorists.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Andy
Cause and effect really are not just relevant to now, but equally apply to the activities of Islamic fundamentalists since at least the early 90's.
You mention Afghanistan & Iraq, and link these to the spread of terrorism since 2001.
So dealing with that, Extreme Islamic terrorism didn't start on 9/11. The 1993 attack on the WTC was the same root. The attacks on USS Cole, and the US Embassy bombings attacks in Saudi Arabia, all long predate 9/11, but are at the feet of Al Qaida. You think AQ ignored the UK? No, it didn’t. Granted there’s no attack I can think of that was down to them, that didn’t stop planning and preparation which was certainly going on.
That particular group based themselves in Afghanistan (after Sudan), and although they are not a 'group' in the same way as for example the IRA were, being more of a loose alliance, they certainly controlled and suggested and planned attacks by or on behalf of those allied to them.
Invading Afghanistan, a country which we would all acknowledge was oppressing its inhabitants in the name of extreme and perverted Islam, was a way of keeping the lid on the problem. No one should be under any illusion there is no way of beating the issue, and all we can and will ever be able to do is try and minimise it. I doubt even the US thought they were going to ‘Win’ a war there in the conventional sense, both the UK and the Soviet Union had failed to do so, and even the US is aware of history.
So invasion was intended to an extent distract AQ from the big attacks. Was that a success? That's impossible to say, but there have been no huge spectaculars since. On the other hand, it may be that none would have happened anyway. Personally, and based on a Special Branch Briefing I went to before 9/11, I suspect there would have been, and a large number at that.
Yes, there have been attacks, were they 'spectacular' in the same way that some IRA (and no they were not angels before anyone suggests it!), attacks were? The London bombings while horrific were serious, but no worse than the IRA tried to do, and luckily failed in general.
Obviously though AQ hasn't gone away, it's never going to unless they get what they want. It still has influence over those who are open to suggestion, in the same way as extreme right wing groups have.
Would they have that influence if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan along with the US? Of course they would, and they would still be exploiting that influence. What’s worse is that they may have been in a better position to plan, fund and train for far worse than we have seen to date.
So cause and effect, AQ bomb US, US invade their main operating base. A spin off from that is that there is a ‘justification’ in the eyes of some for more terrorism, albeit at a lower level that we would probably otherwise have.
We have an attack like yesterday, and groups like the EDL, using EXACTLY the same justification as AQ use, now have a recruiting boost. That’s great for AQ, who can point at groups like that saying “See, told you, the West want to rid themselves of Islam”. That generates more recruiting for them, and more attacks.
And so it goes on in an every spinning circle.
The obvious question now is, how do you stop it. There is no obvious answer though. For that you have to understand the reasons for Islamic terrorism.
It’s ironic they make much of the Crusades of the middle ages in their vitriol against the West. Those were an attempt to ‘Christianise’ the Middle East. In the same way AQ’s aim is to spread their brand of Islam throughout the world, so a sort of Extreme Islamic Crusade”. In other words, they’d only be happy if every country was as Afghanistan was before the US led invasion.
The problem is of course that Islamic fundamentalism is a perverted view of Islam, and flies in the face of much of Islamic teachings. That’s why we don’t see Muslim representative groups coming down on AQ’s side. That’s why they condemned yesterdays attack. But again, that minor fact escapes the right wing groups, and helps them gain ‘legitimacy’ in their own eyes. And is ignored by the AQ brand too.
So while some may not have agreed with invading Afghanistan, and not fully understand the reasons behind it, I doubt it would make any difference to what happened yesterday. Except if it hadn’t happened I think we’d be far more used to worse by now. Did it provide a ‘justification’ for AQ, yes. Is that a valid justification? No. Does it matter one jot? No, they would have used something else if we hadn’t been involved in the invasion.
So in summary, yes, cause and effect, but it’s far less clear cut than it has been touted, and applies equally. Does it matter? No, because no matter what we would still be facing the problem of attacks on the UK.
Cause and effect really are not just relevant to now, but equally apply to the activities of Islamic fundamentalists since at least the early 90's.
You mention Afghanistan & Iraq, and link these to the spread of terrorism since 2001.
So dealing with that, Extreme Islamic terrorism didn't start on 9/11. The 1993 attack on the WTC was the same root. The attacks on USS Cole, and the US Embassy bombings attacks in Saudi Arabia, all long predate 9/11, but are at the feet of Al Qaida. You think AQ ignored the UK? No, it didn’t. Granted there’s no attack I can think of that was down to them, that didn’t stop planning and preparation which was certainly going on.
That particular group based themselves in Afghanistan (after Sudan), and although they are not a 'group' in the same way as for example the IRA were, being more of a loose alliance, they certainly controlled and suggested and planned attacks by or on behalf of those allied to them.
Invading Afghanistan, a country which we would all acknowledge was oppressing its inhabitants in the name of extreme and perverted Islam, was a way of keeping the lid on the problem. No one should be under any illusion there is no way of beating the issue, and all we can and will ever be able to do is try and minimise it. I doubt even the US thought they were going to ‘Win’ a war there in the conventional sense, both the UK and the Soviet Union had failed to do so, and even the US is aware of history.
So invasion was intended to an extent distract AQ from the big attacks. Was that a success? That's impossible to say, but there have been no huge spectaculars since. On the other hand, it may be that none would have happened anyway. Personally, and based on a Special Branch Briefing I went to before 9/11, I suspect there would have been, and a large number at that.
Yes, there have been attacks, were they 'spectacular' in the same way that some IRA (and no they were not angels before anyone suggests it!), attacks were? The London bombings while horrific were serious, but no worse than the IRA tried to do, and luckily failed in general.
Obviously though AQ hasn't gone away, it's never going to unless they get what they want. It still has influence over those who are open to suggestion, in the same way as extreme right wing groups have.
Would they have that influence if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan along with the US? Of course they would, and they would still be exploiting that influence. What’s worse is that they may have been in a better position to plan, fund and train for far worse than we have seen to date.
So cause and effect, AQ bomb US, US invade their main operating base. A spin off from that is that there is a ‘justification’ in the eyes of some for more terrorism, albeit at a lower level that we would probably otherwise have.
We have an attack like yesterday, and groups like the EDL, using EXACTLY the same justification as AQ use, now have a recruiting boost. That’s great for AQ, who can point at groups like that saying “See, told you, the West want to rid themselves of Islam”. That generates more recruiting for them, and more attacks.
And so it goes on in an every spinning circle.
The obvious question now is, how do you stop it. There is no obvious answer though. For that you have to understand the reasons for Islamic terrorism.
It’s ironic they make much of the Crusades of the middle ages in their vitriol against the West. Those were an attempt to ‘Christianise’ the Middle East. In the same way AQ’s aim is to spread their brand of Islam throughout the world, so a sort of Extreme Islamic Crusade”. In other words, they’d only be happy if every country was as Afghanistan was before the US led invasion.
The problem is of course that Islamic fundamentalism is a perverted view of Islam, and flies in the face of much of Islamic teachings. That’s why we don’t see Muslim representative groups coming down on AQ’s side. That’s why they condemned yesterdays attack. But again, that minor fact escapes the right wing groups, and helps them gain ‘legitimacy’ in their own eyes. And is ignored by the AQ brand too.
So while some may not have agreed with invading Afghanistan, and not fully understand the reasons behind it, I doubt it would make any difference to what happened yesterday. Except if it hadn’t happened I think we’d be far more used to worse by now. Did it provide a ‘justification’ for AQ, yes. Is that a valid justification? No. Does it matter one jot? No, they would have used something else if we hadn’t been involved in the invasion.
So in summary, yes, cause and effect, but it’s far less clear cut than it has been touted, and applies equally. Does it matter? No, because no matter what we would still be facing the problem of attacks on the UK.
The US was supporting Saddam Hussein in their war against post revolution Iran, it was the US who funded his military, and he regularly met with US diplomats - Donald Rumsfeld for instance.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
The US were fully aware of what Saddam Hussein was up to, but neglected to do anything because he was their freind.
I think that you need to read up on Middle East politics before commenting.
I suppose that you realise the US supported the Mujadeen - who later became the Taliban, when they were fighting the Russian occupation of Afghanistan? The US were fully aware of what the Taliban were capable of way before 2001.
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
*sigh*
Saddam should have been overthrown in the 1991 uprising. For you to suggest it was better under him is just complete nonsense.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
This is my biggest single concern.
Leaving out the tragedy of what happened, this type of incident tends to bring out the worst in people and provides a "reason" for nutters on all sides to turn to violence themselves.
People can't be that stupid? Did anyone else notice the woman in the video of one of the alleged attackers talking to the guy with the camera video? She simply walked on past a man holding a large knife, covered in blood, apparently not even seeing him.
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm enjoying the cull on my Facebook to get rid of the bigotted, narrow-minded, hate-spouting racists that I thought were friends of some form or another.
To counter that, I've just watched the 'muslamic war' video on Youube, which cheered me up no end.
The conditions now, post war are far worse for most citizens in Iraq than they were under Saddam Hussein, particularly in places like Fallujah and Basra.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html
Blair used to talk about his "legacy" - well this is it. I don't know how he sleeps at night, although I suppose that the millions of dollars he gets from the US "speaking circuit" help ease the guilt (if there ever was any).
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
*sigh*
Apparently, I've just been informed these were all taking the mickey. I suppose there's always time for humour despite the circumstances
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
I hope so, although I did click on one of the links and she did seem rather thick.
cambsno
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,999
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am sure the Kurds would disagree.
cambsno
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,999
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What gets me is the fact people went about their everyday business, and were also filming these people!!!
Me, if I was feeling especially brave (and there was a knife lyiing on the floor) MAY have decided to do something about it... but 99% of the time i would just leg it. Very easy to get stabbed while filming!
Me, if I was feeling especially brave (and there was a knife lyiing on the floor) MAY have decided to do something about it... but 99% of the time i would just leg it. Very easy to get stabbed while filming!
Ebilpirate
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 350
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And there is my concern: SE London is an odd place, we have some very white and racist areas and some very stupid people. You have no idea how often I have sat in local pubs while people have told me that it's all "immigrants "fault that they can't find work, ( often while telling me that I am mad for commuting three hours a day).
There is a lot of local discussion here about one of the men being well known locally as being a firebrand Street preacher. Woolwich stuffed with preaching loons at the weekend, Dancing preachers, clapping preachers, pamphlet waving preachers.
Overexposed
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Reading the reports it appears the Soldiers attackers were rushed to hospital by Air Ambulance!
They should have been dragged through the streets of London roped to the back of a police car, but then we wouldn't want to breach their Human rights would we?
They should have been dragged through the streets of London roped to the back of a police car, but then we wouldn't want to breach their Human rights would we?
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
No, we wouldn't. Because that would make whoever did that just as sick and twisted as they are.
pepi1967
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's what they deserve.
- Messages
- 18,340
- Edit My Images
- No
You are far too entrenched in recent history. The cause goes back far before 911, USS Cole etc. This goes back to 1948 when the USA and the UK robbed a predominately moslem nation of their country. History since then is littered with great injustices perpetrated against the Islamic world.
The USA (and the UK) have continued to support (through inaction and the vetoing of sanctions) the illegal land grab that took place in 1967, land that incidentally belongs to moslems. The guilty party has still FAILED TO ABIDE with UNSC resolutions going back 46 YEARS demanding the return of said land. In fact they continue to aggravate the matter by excluding moslems from the territories and building new settlements. Yes, excluding moslems from their own land.
If you do your research you can also find US State Department reports online that confirm that the USA's great ally in that part of the world is an apartheid society that positively discriminates against moslems, denying the same basic rights as the rest of society. How does this look to the moslem world? The USA/UK does nothing other than support a society that discriminates against the indigenous moslem population?
How does it look to the moslem world when the USA uses Saddam's failure to abide by UNSC resolutions as a justification for war, yet happily ignores Israel's ongoing flouting of UNSC resolutions?
Look at the stance we have taken over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Again another huge case of double standards that works against us. The USA postures and threatens military might if Iran pursues its goals, yet does NOTHING when its ally not only develops nuclear weapons, but refuse to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Sickening double standards.
We (and I mean the USA and by proxy the UK) have been engaged in an anti-Islam crusade that began in the modern era with the dissolution of Palestine. That wrong could have been mitigated if we had then treated both sides with parity. But we didn't. We have since then been alienating the moslem world by treating them in a very different way to the other side.
It's a tragic, and sad situation that we continue to fail to address.
onomatopoeia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,430
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Who gets to make the decision whether someone in need of urgent medical treatment is taken to hospital by the fastest means possible or dragged through the streets? You? Based on what?
Did you actually think about what you wrote?
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
History is littered with great injustices full stop, but maybe you could name a (different) great one against Islam since 1948. While I would agree with you about some of the events leading to, and following 1948 causing a great deal of suffering I'm also willing to bet the vast majority of people committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam are neither particularly religious, nor do they give a hoot for the people in Palestine. Simply they are evil men looking for an excuse to do evil
Last edited:
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For someone who appears to show some insight into the Islamic world I would have thought you would be aware many Muslims find the word "moslem" to be quite derogatory as the old colonialist spelling that can also translate as being evil or unjust.
Overexposed
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Anyone who can behead another human being in the name of religion loses any right to compassion or empathy
Last edited:
Overexposed
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Anyone who he slashes someone to death in the name of religion on the high street in view of witnesses doesn't deserve an ounce of compassion or medical intervention. They should have been left to bleed out.
Last edited:
pepi1967
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would presume he based it on the fact they killed an innocent guy and hacked him up.
onomatopoeia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,430
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So, you are implicitly arguing for an end to trial by jury then, as by refusing medical treatment you have in effect convicted without trial (since you are imposing a "punishment").
Presumably you also want to tell medical professionals which lives they are allowed to attempt to save and prevent them from treating people that fail to meet some criteria that you lay down.
I just want to be absolutely certain of what you want to happen and the circumstances in which you want it to happen.
- Messages
- 18,340
- Edit My Images
- No
I already have. We went to war against an Islamic nation because they failed to abide by UNSC resolutions.
We have continued to support another nation (in that region) that has continued to defy UNSC resolutions whilst they continue to illegally occupy and develop land that isn't theirs whilst subjugating their indigenous moslem population. That's not a great injustice?
- Messages
- 1,659
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh FFS. Pack it in squabbling.
End of the day it was a horrific attack on one of our boys. There are no excuses for it. I don't give a toss about who did what to who first. ****ing playground speak. There are arguments for and against all wars. We don't know all the facts. Fact!
No matter what, we need to support our troops. My thoughts are very much with the family of the soldier. I'm sure we all agree on that?
End of the day it was a horrific attack on one of our boys. There are no excuses for it. I don't give a toss about who did what to who first. ****ing playground speak. There are arguments for and against all wars. We don't know all the facts. Fact!
No matter what, we need to support our troops. My thoughts are very much with the family of the soldier. I'm sure we all agree on that?
Overexposed
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
FFS Comments like yours demonstrate exactly why this country is in the state its in!
Perhaps the fact that they charged the police after beheading someone in front of witnesses wasn't enough? The police marksman who dropped them would have had the choice to kill them - that was probably a mistake because other than finding out the reasons for the attack and any accomplices they are absolutely no use as human beings and are a waste of oxygen - the fact of the matter is these zealots will now have to be housed in maximum security at the tax payers expenses for the rest of their lives why should we waste resources on them. If they were trioed under Sharia law it would be eye for an eye
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
No! If they had been shot dead they would have been hailed as 'martyrs' by those with the same distorted minds - as it is they will stand trial and be subject to the law, not the savagery that they themselves promote.
- Status