Woolwich attack

  On 5/23/2013 at 2:25 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

how is it possible that a murder of a soldier right outside of a military barracks took 20 minutes for the police to respond to?

 

seems like a ridiculously delayed response, and clearly these guys wanted to be filmed.

 

the whole thing is just really fucking weird. less than 1 month after the Boston bombings the UK incurs a highly televised public broad daylight terrorist attack. Haha now i'm beginning to think these Boston false flag people aren't so crazy afterall. shit's just strange as hell

 

edit: I'm not saying anything definitive or that i believe it was some kind of false flag, but it's just really bizarre to me how all of the sudden seemingly out of nowhere we have a ricin letter, boston marathon bombings and now this all with 24/7 news coverage following it.

there have been a number of copycat school shootings. Do you feel that they are similarly "bizarre"?

 

I'm sure these idiots get riled up the same way anybody else does, that there's a large element of copycatting and "me too" mentality.

 

Something like the Arab spring follows the same logic. But I don't hear you saying how it was bizarre that people in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and Libya all started acting up at the same time (actually, I'm guessing you do believe there was a significant degree of US involvement, but hopefully you get my point, that these things happen in waves, when there's "something in air" or that has been brewing for a long time under the surface, waiting for a trigger. )

 

I'm guessing these guys won't be the last copycat terrorists...that's kind of the point I guess...

"liberty graveyard"

well

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 4:14 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 2:25 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

how is it possible that a murder of a soldier right outside of a military barracks took 20 minutes for the police to respond to?

seems like a ridiculously delayed response, and clearly these guys wanted to be filmed.

the whole thing is just really fucking weird. less than 1 month after the Boston bombings the UK incurs a highly televised public broad daylight terrorist attack. Haha now i'm beginning to think these Boston false flag people aren't so crazy afterall. shit's just strange as hell

edit: I'm not saying anything definitive or that i believe it was some kind of false flag, but it's just really bizarre to me how all of the sudden seemingly out of nowhere we have a ricin letter, boston marathon bombings and now this all with 24/7 news coverage following it.

there have been a number of copycat school shootings. Do you feel that they are similarly "bizarre"?

 

I'm sure these idiots get riled up the same way anybody else does, that there's a large element of copycatting and "me too" mentality.

 

Something like the Arab spring follows the same logic. But I don't hear you saying how it was bizarre that people in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and Libya all started acting up at the same time (actually, I'm guessing you do believe there was a significant degree of US involvement, but hopefully you get my point, that these things happen in waves, when there's "something in air" or that has been brewing for a long time under the surface, waiting for a trigger. )

 

I'm guessing these guys won't be the last copycat terrorists...that's kind of the point I guess...

 

you forgot the Ricin letter though, and the well known fact that wikileaks in large part contributed to the arab spring. The reason all that happened at the same time is because of a series of events that some of the more obscure documents released by wikileaks exposed. If you need me to pull up more detail i will.

so what's your theory on the ricin letter?

 

about wikileaks being a big (possibly primary) contributor to the Arab spring, sure give me a taste...I seem to recall something about that, but don't remember the details...

 

You don't have

The US/UK governments are in the unfortunate position of having killed a lot of people, many of whom didn't do much to deserve it. To me this explains the extreme reactions, even if it doesn't justify them in my mind.

 

I'm also interested in the Wikileaks connection to the Arab Spring.

in mild lol news, I just searched for videos of the attack on youtube, but each video has the typical youtube commercials before it. Pretty tasteless to have a commercial before a brutal beheading...

there were actually videos of it happening? link?

 

well there is so much information out there when you do a google search on wikileaks and arab spring, so ill let you make up your mind for yourself without providing an editorial that echoes my own thoughts on it (which i always do anyways haha)

 

but the arab spring to my understanding started with Tunisia and spread to Egypt, Baihran and Libya from there. Apparantly one of the diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks spoke about some underhanded secret dealings with people in the Tunisian government that hit a very weak spot in their already fragile political landscape. So i wouldn't really credit wikileaks directly, id say its more just that sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes it can set you free. All wikileaks did was show people the truth.

my theory on the Ricin letter is that it was extraordinarily coincidental, since by what i can find out the Boston bombing and the Ricin letter are totally unconnected with each-other the only way they are connected is that they seemed to happen on the exact same day. I'm not going to go down the statistical probability Joseph road with this one, but the chances of that happening seem very unlikely. Coincidences happen all the time sure, but knowing what I do about the Anthrax letters i can't help but find it odd.

but just for the record i do find it somewhat bizarre that the Libyan nato attack happened so quickly and with so little resistance if it wasn't for the uprising there triggered by the Arab Spring we absolutely wouldn't have been able to get away with that kind of military action. France and the United states have been itching at the trigger finger to take out Qadafi for over 3 decades. It's very possible and perhaps even likely that US intelligence in part tried to grease the skids to help along the Libyan arab spring

Edited May 23, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

btw, did you see that some other ricin guy just got busted in Washington state? His name sounded Anglo. As a side-note, I haven't yet seen any indications of bias within the US govt against Moslems on US soil, interestingly enough. If anything, they do less "racial profiling" (or religious profiling, if you prefer) than I would expect, hence why the Tsarnev bros were able to do their thang, while the Russkies were much more on their ass.

 

Actually I've been fairly proud of the US response to domestic terrorism, in terms of "the feeling of evenhandedness." No, I don't like "the man" shooting first and asking questions later, don't like what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge etc, don't like the erosion of freedoms etc. BUT, it would be very easy to use anti-Moslem sentiment as an excuse for a witch hunt, a second McCarthyism. Really glad that hasn't happened, to my knowledge. I think there's more anti-Moslem sentiment within the general populace (see for reference, Compson), than in the actions of the US govt (domestically).

 

Internationally it's another matter of course, I don't support at all our recent bullshit neocon interventionism and all that it entails (everything from drone strikes on civilians, to depleted uranium, to destroying people's poppy fields)

I really don't think it's a terrorist attack. From the TV interview I just saw with some *** from the government it seems they are using the angle to try and push through this Communications Data Bill which is a serious threat to our Civil Liberties in the UK.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill

Edited May 23, 2013 by MadameChaos

  On 5/23/2013 at 10:50 AM, MadameChaos said:

I really don't think it's a terrorist attack. From the TV interview I just saw with some *** from the government it seems they are using the angle to try and push through this Communications Data Bill which is a serious threat to our Civil Liberties in the UK.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill

 

 

for fuck sake guys, these people were two mentally disturbed people that are no different from an awful racially motivated attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police) this shouldnt be treated like a terrorist threat or be discussed in this manner.

how's about anyone that says "false flag" from now on has to put money in a jar then at the end of the year we can all go on holiday?

 

chilling stuff btw. i was surprised they showed this blood soaked nutter on the news at dinner time.

  On 5/23/2013 at 10:57 AM, rixxx said:

 

 

for fuck sake guys, these people were two mentally disturbed people that are no different from an awful racially motivated attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police) this shouldnt be treated like a terrorist threat or be discussed in this manner.

 

 

maybe because the guy basically said they were terrorists? Though his actions were certainly "nutty", he seemed pretty calm and articulate when explaining his cause. He said he was sorry that women had to witness what they did, but UK/Western policymakers had been forcing Moslem women to witness the same (or something along those lines, sorry to paraphrase bloody killer dude). Seems to qualify as terrorism to me....

killing a soldier isn't actually terrorism

though maybe the way the killing was done was meant to create terror and therefore it does fall into some poarticular definition of the term.

Edited May 23, 2013 by eugene

  On 5/23/2013 at 3:56 AM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 2:25 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

how is it possible that a murder of a soldier right outside of a military barracks took 20 minutes for the police to respond to?

 

seems like a ridiculously delayed response, and clearly these guys wanted to be filmed.

 

the whole thing is just really fucking weird.

 

I was wondering that! Not just barracks, but barracks in the middle of a metropolitan area too. Was it that long for armed police to arrive, or just police in general? The whole incident is bizarre regardless.

 

 

There's nothing inherently suspicious about a 20 minute armed response, though the police are coming in for criticism. There was a shooting outside my front door a couple of months ago, response time was about 10 minutes. But that's Brixton in central London with a reputation for gun crime and in the middle of the night when the streets are clear. Woolwich is out in the sticks, and the roads would have had a lot of traffic. It's a shithole, but I doubt they have ARVs waiting like they do in some other parts of London.

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:31 AM, eugene said:

killing a soldier isn't actually terrorism

though maybe the way the killing was done was meant to create terror and therefore it does fall into some poarticular definition of the term.

 

they were declaring war on behalf of their people. it may be on a small scale but it was a terrorist attack... full stop.

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:36 AM, keltoi said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:31 AM, eugene said:

killing a soldier isn't actually terrorism

though maybe the way the killing was done was meant to create terror and therefore it does fall into some poarticular definition of the term.

 

they were declaring war on behalf of their people. it may be on a small scale but it was a terrorist attack... full stop.

 

id like to declare peace on behalf of my people

here's some EDL highlights:

 

 

 

 

So when a EDL person attacks a mosque is that not terrorism? They are after all, trying to create terror? Because that did happen last night- EDL also attacked four police officers whilst they 'took to the streets'. EDL have acted in a more 'classic terrorist' way than these two idiots imo.

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:36 AM, keltoi said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:31 AM, eugene said:

killing a soldier isn't actually terrorism

though maybe the way the killing was done was meant to create terror and therefore it does fall into some poarticular definition of the term.

they were declaring war on behalf of their people. it may be on a small scale but it was a terrorist attack... full stop.

 

ok but how does that place them under "terrorists" umbrella exactly ? they are the combatants of "their people" attacking a combatant of the attacking nation, in their eyes. Edited May 23, 2013 by eugene

It's terrorism.

 

It's terrorism because the news media needs an angle to sell a juicy story on a slow news week. So it's terrorism. If they didn't say anything to any camera it wouldn't be terrorism, because there'd be no great footage.

 

It's definitely not just a murder, definitely not that.

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:40 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:36 AM, keltoi said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:31 AM, eugene said:

killing a soldier isn't actually terrorism

though maybe the way the killing was done was meant to create terror and therefore it does fall into some poarticular definition of the term.

they were declaring war on behalf of their people. it may be on a small scale but it was a terrorist attack... full stop.

 

ok but how does that place them under "terrorists" umbrella exactly ? they are the combatants of "their people" attacking a combatant of the attacking nation, in their eyes.

 

 

 

Exactly, what about that gunman in Norway? he killed loads more people and said that he did it as a Christian etc people didnt call him a terrorist he echoed the same message as these guys but we called him mentally disturbed.

Did anyone in the UK catch the news last night? I couldn't believe they were showing footage of the aftermath from members of the public, especially of the guy stood there with his hands soaked in blood, waving a cleaver around and chatting as if he was just making (angry) conversation... while a mutilated corpse lies in the road a few feet behind him. Christ, there was even an old lady pulling her shopping bag along who just nudges past him as if nothing had even happened. It was surreal, just loads of people stood around on the sidelines doing nothing - neither running away or trying to intervene (not that they should when people are brandishing weapons).

 

I couldn't believe both BBC and Sky News ran that footage, especially as the guy was mentioning David Cameron and spouting off political views. To put it into perspective, they'll turn the cameras away when someone embarks on a pitch invasion at a televised football match - yet give airtime for barbaric scenes like that? Truly awful stuff.

  On 5/23/2013 at 12:12 PM, jasondonervan said:

It was surreal, just loads of people stood around on the sidelines doing nothing - neither running away or trying to intervene (not that they should when people are brandishing weapons).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genovese_syndrome

 

 

It's just an easy story. The murder is one thing, it goes without saying that killing someone is despicable. But murdering someone like that in broad daylight in the middle of the street, with the public around is not the act of someone with a message, it's the act of someone with mental issues.

This fucking guy goes up to a bus full of people and tells them to take pictures and film him, then says (in an English accent no less) that this kind of thing happens every day where he's from. Where's that? Hackney? I mean I know it's bad there, but this is ridiculous.

 

So yeah, that's one thing. But the coverage of this has been terrible, from all angles. There's so much misinformation going around, nobody I've spoken to about it and nothing I've read has told me the same story. Here's what I've heard:

 

• The guys were Muslim extremists
• The guys were English born, but have Nigerian descent.
• They attacked a man in the street with machetes
• They beheaded a man in the street
• They were shot and killed by the police
• They're currently in hospital being looked after before questioning
• They killed a man because he was a solider.
• They killed a man because he was wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt
• They killed a man who happened to be an army cadet and wearing a Help for Heroes t-shirt (struggling to see why everyone is bringing up the t-shirt except to inject more emotion)
• They shouted things like "Allah Ackbar!"
• Witnesses nearby never heard any shouts of "Allah Ackbar!"

 

So basically there's a whole bunch of fucking contradictory nonsense going around.

 

You have the PM postponing meetings to make public statements about a man killed in the street because this is apparently terrorism? Not to sound insensitive but people are killed all the time, why isn't he commenting on every single one? What is so special about this one, because they made some vaguely political statement to a guy with a camera phone? So this is terrorism now.

 

The ridiculous thing about it is that by calling them terrorists and calling this terrorism, you have just let them win. Give them all the attention they want. Let a pair of sick fucking murders take center stage, that's a great idea! That way other lunatics around the world (as this has been reported on CNN now this is an international event) can see what these glorious freedom fighters are doing and feel inspired.

 

No, it's a murder by a couple of mentally ill people. And they're mentally ill not because of their beliefs or whatever, it's because they killed someone in the street in front of everyone. That's literally the whole story. Notify the immediate community, have attention be given to people who were there when it happened, no doubt some people will be traumatised. Isolate the story to the local community and have it be a footnote in the wider news, because by acting like this is some major issue you're not helping anything, you're just further perpetuating the culture of fear mongering.

 

[/soapbox]

completely agree Obel, well said.

  On 5/23/2013 at 7:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

lumpenprol, on 22 May 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

 

btw, did you see that some other ricin guy just got busted in Washington state? His name sounded Anglo. As a side-note, I haven't yet seen any indications of bias within the US govt against Moslems on US soil, interestingly enough. If anything, they do less "racial profiling" (or religious profiling, if you prefer) than I would expect, hence why the Tsarnev bros were able to do their thang, while the Russkies were much more on their ass.

 

Actually I've been fairly proud of the US response to domestic terrorism, in terms of "the feeling of evenhandedness." No, I don't like "the man" shooting first and asking questions later, don't like what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge etc, don't like the erosion of freedoms etc. BUT, it would be very easy to use anti-Moslem sentiment as an excuse for a witch hunt, a second McCarthyism. Really glad that hasn't happened, to my knowledge. I think there's more anti-Moslem sentiment within the general populace (see for reference, Compson), than in the actions of the US govt (domestically).

 

Internationally it's another matter of course, I don't support at all our recent bullshit neocon interventionism and all that it entails (everything from drone strikes on civilians, to depleted uranium, to destroying people's poppy fields)

generally speaking what you say in the middle paragraph is true here on united states soil but does not jive with the 'signature patterns' which now define drone strikes. IF you live in a particular muslim country, and you behave in a certain parameter paradigm (one usually determined from arial photography) you can be targeted for assassination even if they have no idea who you are.

I think the racial profile angle is only one component of why the war on terror has been damaging to civil liberties as a whole. I'm not saying racially profiling people would solve this problem, but since these erosions now effect everybody because of a handful of people it's almost worse in the long run than a temporary WW2 japanese style racial profiling era. These are permanent, during WW2 and McCarthyism those laws that made particular groups of people basically criminalized (japanese living on the west coast, and being a professed or even suspected communist) were eventually reversed in less than 5-7 years. We are now living under over a decade of what seems to be permanent civil liberties erosion. That in my opinion dwarfs even the erosions that took place under the Civil war or in World War I simply because those were eventually reversed in a shorter time period than what we have already experienced post Patriot Act.

I don't think the war on terror by design is meant to stop muslim radicals from committing terrorism on US soil, i think it is used instead as an excuse to drastically increase the power of the US government and permanently. In all other instances in US history of extreme civil liberties curtailments they were all in response to what could be argued were ongoing coherent and concrete crisis. McCarthyism was the most ambiguous of them all, but at least Russia was a real entity that did have nuclear weapons and regardless of the absurdity of a differing economic ideology threatening the framework of american society, Russia was powerful and engaged in saber rattling with us continuously during the Cold War. Looking back on it it makes some sense, even with twisted logic why being a communist was at one time a criminal offense.

I do not believe any educated historian will look back on this era of american history and things like the Patriot act as a reasonable or even remotely proportional response to the attacks of 9/11.

Edited May 23, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:40 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:36 AM, keltoi said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 11:31 AM, eugene said:

killing a soldier isn't actually terrorism

though maybe the way the killing was done was meant to create terror and therefore it does fall into some poarticular definition of the term.

they were declaring war on behalf of their people. it may be on a small scale but it was a terrorist attack... full stop.

 

ok but how does that place them under "terrorists" umbrella exactly ? they are the combatants of "their people" attacking a combatant of the attacking nation, in their eyes.

 

 

i agree, in their eyes it was an act of retaliation. their actions were in support of their people in afghanistan > UK troops are fighting "terrorists" there > they are terrorists.

 

i'm just saying how it's perfectly justifiable to call them terrorists... they eloquently voiced their reasons for attack so it's hard to come to any conclusion other than they are sworn enemy of this country/government, whether brainwashed or mentally ill or not.

 

personally i don't care what you want to call them and it seems pointless to argue about it here.