Woolwich attack

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:22 PM, RichieBees said:

 

watmm: dont post about poo or feet or anyting that reminds people of sexual acts but u can be a complete lunatic racist prick and not get banned

 

Exactly this. Fucked-up morality JR and the gang have.

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:30 PM, Iain C said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:22 PM, RichieBees said:

 

watmm: dont post about poo or feet or anyting that reminds people of sexual acts but u can be a complete lunatic racist prick and not get banned

 

 

Exactly this. Fucked-up morality JR and the gang have.

 

what? maybe they haven't seen it yet.

it's up to you to report the post if you think action should be taken.

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:29 PM, jules said:

what a bizarre situation this is

fucked up joules. i was getting my daughter into her pj's and this blood soaked nutter came on the news.

my position on most of this has already been stated, but i wanted to drop in to say chunky, cut out the Zionist shit already, please.

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:48 PM, SR4 said:

my position on most of this has already been stated, but i wanted to drop in to say chunky, cut out the Zionist shit already, please.

shegetz

good yiddish word

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:56 AM, lumpenprol said:

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...

I meant to respond to this earlier, but it reminds me of a napster panel from 1999 or so in which Jello Biafra was brainstorming about the pitfalls of how to sell music digitally and "legally." He said that that the idea of streaming mp3s being paid with by ads seems feasible but doomed to be contradictory, like his spoken word "Die For Oil Sucker" piece being played after a recruiting ad for the US Marine Corp. I see that kind of absurd juxtaposition all the time now on youtube.

get adblock plus u fucking noobs

  On 5/23/2013 at 6:09 PM, RichieBees said:

get adblock plus u fucking noobs

  On 5/23/2013 at 6:15 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 6:09 PM, RichieBees said:

get adblock plus u fucking noobs

 

And now for a good muslim / jew story

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/in-one-hard-knock-british-city-a-secret-muslim-donor-helps-save-a-synagogue.premium-1.525183

Somebody unban Compson.

We need him in this thread!

  On 5/23/2013 at 6:21 PM, Ceerial said:

Somebody unban Compson.

 

We need him in this thread!

he's here if you want him and let him stay banned...

http://Fred's Island for Misfit Toys™.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90

great article

"When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it "terrorism" given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that "terrorism" means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that "the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and warned that "you people will never be safe. Remove your government", the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it "terrorism".

That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn't that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?"

It's an easy way to tell who your country's government is aligned with. "Freedom fighters"/"opposition"/"fight for democracy" vs. "terrorists". That's all, as far as I'm concerned. But yes, you're correct, both are violent acts aimed at policy or leadership change. The West just does it on such a grand scale that it seems removed from these individual acts.

  On 5/23/2013 at 3:12 PM, Iain C said:

 

And lumpenprole - I don't like Islamic extremists. I don't have any "patience" for them. But I'm realistic about the threat they face (which is vanishingly small) their prevalence (which is tiny) and disgusted by the racist, divisive and reactionary coverage and political rhetoric and actions that they are used to justify. The EDL and the rest of the fascists in our midst, and their views, represent a far graver threat, not least because they are stoked, appeased and justified by politicians and the press.

 

I think on a global scale, Islamic extremism has become a far larger threat than 'fascism' in the last 1-2 decades. Of course, this is difficult to quantify, but we could start out based on the number of governments ruled, terrorist incidents, global connections, money, degree of fanaticism et cetera.

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:30 PM, Iain C said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:22 PM, RichieBees said:

 

watmm: dont post about poo or feet or anyting that reminds people of sexual acts but u can be a complete lunatic racist prick and not get banned

 

 

Exactly this. Fucked-up morality JR and the gang have.

 

First off, just because you are not privvy to what we do behind the scenes (yes, we read the reports from you lot, and yes, we warned him - not that's any of your business to begin with), so to assume our morals are misguided is just as offensive.

We take racism and anti-semitic speech very seriously around here (ask Compson), so if Chunky continues down this path, he'll be banned as well (as will any of you who think this is acceptable behaviour). You can express your views without being offensive to others.

  On 5/23/2013 at 7:09 PM, funkaholic said:

great article

 

"When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it "terrorism" given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that "terrorism" means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that "the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and warned that "you people will never be safe. Remove your government", the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it "terrorism".

 

That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn't that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

 

The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?"

good thoughts IMO

Help for Hero's t-shirt down to £2.99!

(eeeesh too soon?)

  On 5/23/2013 at 1:53 PM, vasio said:

A guy getting beheaded (?) in broad daylight by two foreigners shouldn't happen, this shit doesn't happen in Canada. Even Swedes are getting a taste with the ongoing riots happening in Stockholm, it's exactly the same thing everywhere. Canada works because it's mostly East Asians and Indians, if they got West Africans instead of all the Chinese the story would be very different.

 

lol

Chinese guy beheads Canadian guy on Greyhound bus.

What a depressing day for me, I usually listen to LBC (talk radio) at work in the mornings before switching over to BBC6 at 1pm, but today I just had to keep listening to LBC though I wanted to tear myself away, I couldn't.

Boards of Canada has been my only chink of light in what otherwise has been a sad and upsetting time. If I could I'd just move out to the middle of nowhere to Cornwall and leave all these nasty cunts behind.

  On 5/23/2013 at 9:29 PM, DerWaschbar said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 1:53 PM, vasio said:

A guy getting beheaded (?) in broad daylight by two foreigners shouldn't happen, this shit doesn't happen in Canada. Even Swedes are getting a taste with the ongoing riots happening in Stockholm, it's exactly the same thing everywhere. Canada works because it's mostly East Asians and Indians, if they got West Africans instead of all the Chinese the story would be very different.

 

lolChinese guy beheads Canadian guy on Greyhound bus.

lol

  On 5/23/2013 at 6:26 PM, keltoi said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 6:21 PM, Ceerial said:

Somebody unban Compson.

 

We need him in this thread!

 

he's here if you want him and let him stay banned...

 

http://Fred's Island for Misfit Toys™.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90

 

that just makes me insanely sad to see. Not to mention that all(?) his posts on that forum are about Islam.

  On 5/23/2013 at 2:04 PM, keltoi said:

 

  On 5/23/2013 at 1:51 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

why are they saying he was beheaded, when he wasnt. help clear up my confusion

 

because in the heat of things there is confusion. eye witnesses described them trying to hack his head off with machetes.

 

it's now come out they were known by security services and sworn jihadists. also the victim served in afghanistan.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-latest-developments-live

 

 

 

 

 

 

im just asking why the story had to be trumped up so hard to make it seem like they beheaded the guy when they didn't. I just see it as another example of the sensationalist bullshit media.

don't want to derail, but compson is seriously a cause for concern lately. if he isn't trolling he needs some help.

i think some know him irl?

  On 5/23/2013 at 10:20 PM, theSun said:

don't want to derail, but compson is seriously a cause for concern lately. if he isn't trolling he needs some help.

 

i think some know him irl?

i think Luke knows him, and i posed the same question on the forum but I don't think people who know him in real life are concerned.