chang50 wrote:isolated pockets of Buddhists in Western societies are a tiny percentage of the total number worldwide and give a false impression.
More generally, isolated extremists worldwide give a false impression of all religions.
--Andy
Absolutely and if there were no religions these extremists would still exist just attatched to something else..
Certainly, since there are indeed many extremists attached to causes that have little or nothing to do with religion.
Basically, we should send all these folks, regardless of their affiliation, to "Federation Rehabilitation Centers" like on Tantalus V, in the episode "Dagger of the Mind."
It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Yeah well the "shoot to kill anyone who looks foreign" policy hasn't really played out well with British police recently.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
saxitoxin wrote:It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Yeah well the "shoot to kill anyone who looks foreign" policy hasn't really played out well with British police recently.
Well, you're leaving out the "had bloody cleavers in their hands" and "had blood all over their clothes" and "we're trying to get bus passengers to take their pictures" and "were holding up the head" from the "looks foreign" part. But I guess that's all circumstantial evidence.
"Oh wait... the bloody cleaver, head-holding guy with the bloody clothes is running at me... better shoot him in the leg."
By "bloody" I mean covered in blood, not the British curse word. Just to avoid confusion.
This whole thing is kind of making me shake my head.
2 nutters killed 1 bloke and it is now a terrorist attack? That people are supposed to be worried about? Seriously? More people probably get knifed to death than that an hour on a Friday night in London.
And this part made me laugh.
Daily Mail wrote:When the old pistol was shot towards police it backfired and blew the thumb off one of the men.
No wonder they didn't manage to kill more off duty soldiers.
Islamic fanatics wielding meat cleavers butcher and try to behead a British soldier, taking their war on the West to a new level of horror
I read this and at first thought, "What the hell is wrong with London"? Then considered a bit, realizing this could have been New York, Chicago, Philly.... it wouldn't have surprised me.
It makes me think of Rwanda, to be honest. Though obviously on a far smaller scale. <sigh>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Whole story makes me feel sick. Seems like something out a Tarantino movie, the guy standing there with the bloodied hands and meat cleaver talking to the public following the incident.
saxitoxin wrote:It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Yeah well the "shoot to kill anyone who looks foreign" policy hasn't really played out well with British police recently.
Well, you're leaving out the "had bloody cleavers in their hands" and "had blood all over their clothes" and "we're trying to get bus passengers to take their pictures" and "were holding up the head" from the "looks foreign" part. But I guess that's all circumstantial evidence.
"Oh wait... the bloody cleaver, head-holding guy with the bloody clothes is running at me... better shoot him in the leg."
By "bloody" I mean covered in blood, not the British curse word. Just to avoid confusion.
I don't think knee-capping is a shoot-to-kill policy, dude.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
UK soldier in 2006 wrote:"I either wasted vital seconds changing the magazine on my rifle or went over the top and did it more quickly with the bayonet. He was alive when it went in – he wasn't alive when it came out – it was that simple."
saxitoxin wrote:It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Yeah well the "shoot to kill anyone who looks foreign" policy hasn't really played out well with British police recently.
Well, you're leaving out the "had bloody cleavers in their hands" and "had blood all over their clothes" and "we're trying to get bus passengers to take their pictures" and "were holding up the head" from the "looks foreign" part. But I guess that's all circumstantial evidence.
"Oh wait... the bloody cleaver, head-holding guy with the bloody clothes is running at me... better shoot him in the leg."
By "bloody" I mean covered in blood, not the British curse word. Just to avoid confusion.
I don't think knee-capping is a shoot-to-kill policy, dude.
Sorry to quote myself (well, kinda sorry), but I meant to offer this as a point of contrast.
nagerous wrote:Whole story makes me feel sick. Seems like something out a Tarantino movie, the guy standing there with the bloodied hands and meat cleaver talking to the public following the incident.
I was thinking more "Natural Born Killers", but what's the public gonna do?
That's what I found the most bizarre. There are people just standing around. I was thinking these guys probably could have killed everyone who was there if they wanted to. Or at least a lot until the shock wore off the crowd and whoever didn't run for the hills may have been able to spontaneously rally with 1 or 2 or 3 other members of the public to subdue one or both of these guys, but then of course you are likely to suffer a few puncture wounds even if you do restrain both of them at the same time. If you don't restrain them both at the same time, I suppose once you get one of them, the other one with come stab you until you let go.
And another thing, were people referring to these guys as "Malians?" I heard they were born and raised in the UK. Which is it?
betiko wrote:well that's not what islam is, that's what some fanatics think it is. What are they really trying to acheive with all this seriously? moderate muslims to be persecuted by national extremists in western countries? then these moderate muslims might turn extremists after being persecuted. quite sad. Too bad buddhism isn't the most popular religion on this planet.
Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Within the context of Islam it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Islamic God (Allah).[1] It is based on the definitions provided in the Quran.[2] 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. 2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
Phatscotty wrote:That's what I found the most bizarre. There are people just standing around. I was thinking these guys probably could have killed everyone who was there if they wanted to.
If they had attacked civilians they would just have been criminals/thugs. By restricting their attack to military targets - and making an effort to avoid civilian casualties - they acted as soldiers legitimately engaging British troops in armed combat, no different than the British military engaging Libyan troops in armed combat.
I do take exception to the fact they did not wear uniforms and didn't overtly declare allegiance to some fighting group, which is a violation of the law of war ("feigning of non-combatant status") and - on that basis - I think they should be tried as criminals. However, that's my only hold-up. Everything else strikes me as being a perfectly legal behind-the-lines commando assault against an opponent's war resources.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Yeah well the "shoot to kill anyone who looks foreign" policy hasn't really played out well with British police recently.
Well, you're leaving out the "had bloody cleavers in their hands" and "had blood all over their clothes" and "we're trying to get bus passengers to take their pictures" and "were holding up the head" from the "looks foreign" part. But I guess that's all circumstantial evidence.
"Oh wait... the bloody cleaver, head-holding guy with the bloody clothes is running at me... better shoot him in the leg."
By "bloody" I mean covered in blood, not the British curse word. Just to avoid confusion.
I don't think knee-capping is a shoot-to-kill policy, dude.
Sorry to quote myself (well, kinda sorry), but I meant to offer this as a point of contrast.
The gist? 5 or more law enforcement agents manage to lose control of a witness and shoot him dead.
"It was all quite unexpected of course. He managed to surprise all five of us, and then...uh...he got ahold of one of our weapons...oh wait, that doesn't sound good...uh...he pulled a weapon on us...so we had to fire. It was self-defense. Purely an accident."
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
saxitoxin wrote:It's getting increasingly hilarious ... the UK police are now saying police were "on scene" within 9 minutes of the first 999 call and an Armed Response Unit within 10 minutes after that. But the British press, apparently, are loyally not asking what the unarmed officers did while they were "on scene" with the suspects for 10 minutes. Did they write them a citation? Play a game of cribbage with the suspects? Flee - leaving the bystanders to fend for themselves? What? (I suspect the last answer is the real one which is the reason for the cryptic timeline.)
Yeah well the "shoot to kill anyone who looks foreign" policy hasn't really played out well with British police recently.
Well, you're leaving out the "had bloody cleavers in their hands" and "had blood all over their clothes" and "we're trying to get bus passengers to take their pictures" and "were holding up the head" from the "looks foreign" part. But I guess that's all circumstantial evidence.
"Oh wait... the bloody cleaver, head-holding guy with the bloody clothes is running at me... better shoot him in the leg."
By "bloody" I mean covered in blood, not the British curse word. Just to avoid confusion.
I don't think knee-capping is a shoot-to-kill policy, dude.
Sorry to quote myself (well, kinda sorry), but I meant to offer this as a point of contrast.
The gist? 5 or more law enforcement agents manage to lose control of a witness and shoot him dead.
"It was all quite unexpected of course. He managed to surprise all five of us, and then...uh...he got ahold of one of our weapons...oh wait, that doesn't sound good...uh...he pulled a weapon on us...so we had to fire. It was self-defense. Purely an accident."
"He was totes about to confess too, in his apartment (where apparently we take signed confessions now)."
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
The gist? 5 or more law enforcement agents manage to lose control of a witness and shoot him dead.
"It was all quite unexpected of course. He managed to surprise all five of us, and then...uh...he got ahold of one of our weapons...oh wait, that doesn't sound good...uh...he pulled a weapon on us...so we had to fire. It was self-defense. Purely an accident."
"He was totes about to confess too, in his apartment (where apparently we take signed confessions now)."
"Well of course we do. If it's convenient. But that doesn't matter, because we read him his Miranda rights and he decided to convess. But we forgot to record it before we sieved hi...err...we didn't have time to record it before he pulled his weapon on us. Yeah, that's the ticket."
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Symmetry wrote:I think I like the UK police on this. Securing the area, then shooting the legs.
more like ...
1 - showing up 10 minutes after the attack, then panicking and fleeing to leave everyone to fend for themselves 2 - being rallied by the Chief Constable with a pep talk, returning 9 minutes later and starting to shoot so wildly they miss and end up hitting them in the legs
fortunately for the Met, FOI laws in the UK exempt the police so they'll never have to embarrassingly divulge how many rounds they fired in their hysterical salvo against a one-handed man armed with one antique, non-working pistol ... I'm gonna guess about 100 or so
I base this on the new bystander video that Sky has released showing the Met response -
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Symmetry wrote:I think I like the UK police on this. Securing the area, then shooting the legs.
more like ...
showing up 10 minutes after the attack
After they were called, no?
Right.
Are there any two locations in the whole UK that are more than 10 minutes drive from each other? We can only speculate on the timeline ...
(1) multiple 999 calls saying the most horrible violence seen in London in the last week is occurring
(2) Constable Basil finishes his tea, walks to the locker and picks-up his swagger stick and begins smartly marching to the scene of the crime.
(3) attackers continue hacking at felled man
(4) Inspector-Constable Alistair stops Basil him and sternly remands him for the scuff-marks on his shoes.
(5) attackers continue hacking at felled man
(6) Basil attends to his dress code violation; realizing it's been five minutes at this point, he marches at double-time to Woolwich
(7) attackers finish man off
(8) Basil arrives in Woolwich and blows his traffic whistle three times and states loudly and clearly "Here then - what's all this commotion about?"
(9) Basil notices attackers have an antique gun and runs away leaving bystanders alone with attackers.
(10) attackers and bystanders have a pleasant conversation for ten minutes
(11) Basil returns with the Band of the Coldstream Guards, a mounted colour party of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, three c. 1880s saluting cannons and 5 Royal Navy admirals in full court dress ... everyone begins firing wildly, hundreds of rounds ... two manage to hit the attackers in the foot
(12) the Viscount of Woolwich - whom no one knew existed until now - arrives and awards 17 Victoria Crosses; a 3-hour parade is staged over the crime scene
(13) once the parade is over, evidence technicians try to recover whatever hasn't been trampled underfoot
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
