Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Woolwich

SystemSystem Posts: 8,627 Staff Team
Very surprised to see there hasn't been a topic on the Woolwich murder yet. What do people think?

I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner, and I'm now concerned that it shows how shockingly bad our armed response to incidents like this is.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm appalled and upset by it.

    Why do think this would have happened sooner? I don't think there has been a precursor to this.

    Also from what I have read I don't know what the police or armed response could have done differently. It was a very fast and very violent attack. It was over by the time they got there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It'll play out with the same desperately sad tedium that all the other terrorist attacks have done: the reactionary right will get all het up and grossly oversimplify a complex issue into "muzlamics" and us; the liberals will fall over themselves not to acknowledge the pervasive elements of Islam manifested by a dangerous fringe of Muslims; the media will go over and over the attack talking to just about anyone who was within fifty miles of the incident and making sure that the next would-be terrorist knows he'll get the coverage he's looking for; politicians will haemorrhage meaningless soundbites like "we'll never give in to terrorism".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I'm appalled and upset by it.

    Why do think this would have happened sooner? I don't think there has been a precursor to this.

    Also from what I have read I don't know what the police or armed response could have done differently. It was a very fast and very violent attack. It was over by the time they got there.


    I say I'm surprised it hasn't happened before now because of what happened in Mumbai and the scenes of chaos that can be caused by a very small number of determined attackers. This attack also shows our woeful inability to protect ourselves from this kind of attack without routinely arming police officers with something more than a hollow metal stick.
    This attack probably couldn't have been prevented, but it's only a miracle more people weren't killed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arming all police offices with rocket launchers and fully automatic machine guns wouldn't have stopped this attack. Two guys left home, got in their car with knives and ran a man over before stabbing him to death. The police weren't on the scene for 5-6 minutes according to people on the BBC yesterday.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just said it wouldn't have stopped the attack. I said it was a miracle nobody else was attacked. According to the MET it took 5 minutes for unarmed officers and 15 minutes before armed officers arrived.

    In those 15 minutes all those nearby were at risk.

    Look at the Derek Bird incident in Cumbria where unarmed officers had to resort to trying to ram his car off the road because there was nothing else they could do to stop him randomly shooting people.
    This nation is woefully incapable of doing anything to stop active shooting incidents before an unnecessary number of people are killed or injured.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I just said it wouldn't have stopped the attack. I said it was a miracle nobody else was attacked. According to the MET it took 5 minutes for unarmed officers and 15 minutes before armed officers arrived.

    In those 15 minutes all those nearby were at risk.

    Look at the Derek Bird incident in Cumbria where unarmed officers had to resort to trying to ram his car off the road because there was nothing else they could do to stop him randomly shooting people.
    This nation is woefully incapable of doing anything to stop active shooting incidents before an unnecessary number of people are killed or injured.

    I just want to make a point on what's in bold. From the footage I've seen, tons of people we just walking around, watching what was happening, even a woman just walked past the guy as if nothing had happened. People seem to have become desensitized to this kind of thing, and that's terrible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    I just want to make a point on what's in bold. From the footage I've seen, tons of people we just walking around, watching what was happening, even a woman just walked past the guy as if nothing had happened. People seem to have become desensitized to this kind of thing, and that's terrible.

    I know, I saw that and thought it was crazy. Either we're desensitised, or a hell of a lot tougher than we're given credit for.

    "Crazed pyscho with a machete? Pfft, I need to get to the shop".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    This nation is woefully incapable of doing anything to stop active shooting incidents before an unnecessary number of people are killed or injured.

    And how frequent are they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It'll play out with the same desperately sad tedium that all the other terrorist attacks have done: the reactionary right will get all het up and grossly oversimplify a complex issue into "muzlamics" and us; the liberals will fall over themselves not to acknowledge the pervasive elements of Islam manifested by a dangerous fringe of Muslims; the media will go over and over the attack talking to just about anyone who was within fifty miles of the incident and making sure that the next would-be terrorist knows he'll get the coverage he's looking for; politicians will haemorrhage meaningless soundbites like "we'll never give in to terrorism".

    This.

    a fair debate would help but it'll just be filled with racism and people reacting to it, or using an accusation of it to deflect from some very real issues. Not just in terms of the faith and followers either.

    As part of it the EDL, BNP, Britain First bottom feeders will just grown from the hatred.

    Happy days.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't even want to debate it right now. It's so raw and horrible and I think sometimes pause for reflection before trying to point fingers or telling everyone what needs to be done is more useful and productive.

    Also wish the media would stop whipping it into a frenzy. They're loving it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    a media party was likely, but the video footage made it unavoidable.

    Clearly their plan was to kill someone who was to them clearly guilty, and then be martyred - I find some irony with them being shot by a female police officer given the likely sexism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just so glad that they got shot, fair play to the officers who did it.


    And to the person above, I don't think you realize how quick 5 minutes of police and 15 for armed police is. That's a result the police should be proud of. Because i promise you, the next time you call an emergency service like the police, for them to be there in 5 seconds you'd be lucky.
    It's well known that in this country, you can order pizza quicker than the police can get to you.

    When will people realise that multicultural societies don't work?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Shikari wrote: »
    And to the person above, I don't think you realize how quick 5 minutes of police and 15 for armed police is. That's a result the police should be proud of. Because i promise you, the next time you call an emergency service like the police, for them to be there in 5 seconds you'd be lucky.

    ^ so true. 5 minutes? They must of bloody flown, we have a panic button at work, directly connected to local police, and we've never had that kind of a response time before!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what makes it a terrorist attack rather than a normal murder?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Terrorism is anything with the aim to terrorise people / instill fear. A normal murder by contrast is an unlawful deliberate killing under any circumstance.

    Then again, we don't know any details yer, only the itv video.

    In my mind they should be treated like Breivik was. Don't give them the platform they crave.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Shikari wrote: »

    When will people realise that multicultural societies don't work?

    Err.... What?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Grace wrote: »
    what makes it a terrorist attack rather than a normal murder?

    An interesting piece in the guardian about this.... http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Grace wrote: »
    what makes it a terrorist attack rather than a normal murder?

    The attackers were brown men and the victim was a white man.

    Exhibit one: an Italian woman was badly wounded by a samurai sword on the Holloway Road on Christmas Eve: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/samurai-sword-slashing-on-holloway-road-1504696

    Exhibit two: Mohammed Saleem, 75, was stabbed to death by two white men after leaving Friday prayers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The attackers were brown men and the victim was a white man.

    The textbook definition of terrorism is the use of violence to further political ends. Cutting a man's head off in the street then immediately giving interview to camera about your political motives satisfy that definition. This insidious faux-liberal attitude of pretending that someone's who's brown is being discriminated against simply because they're brown, regardless of the facts, is dangerous and lazy-minded.

    This man was known to hold extreme Islamic views and butchered man to death in the street while spouting these views. Calling a spade a spade isn't symptomatic of racism or prejudice. And I resent the implication that I'm some sort of lazy racist because I call a "brown man" a terrorist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wrong. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a form of coercion. Stabbing someone with a samurai sword is many things, all of them unpleasant, but it is not exactly a systematic use of terror as a form of coercion.

    Exhibit three: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240552/Knifeman-stabbed-police-officers-rampaging-meat-cleaver-shouting-God-help-kill-enemies.html. This man wasn't treated as a terrorist despite stabbing four police officers and begging God to give him the strength to kill his enemies. This man was white.

    Exhibit four: Dale Cregan deliberately plotted a situation in which he could kill police officers in "revenge" for supposed wrongs that happened in the past. Dale Cregan has not been treated as a terrorist. Dale Cregan's actions haven't had the PM wittering on about the dangers of extremism in the UK. Dale Cregan is white.

    Calling this "terrorism" suits the Government agenda. I'm assuming they'll get more anti-liberty legislation through in the very near future.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ter·ror·ism
    Noun
    The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
    Synonyms
    terror

    I'm not arguing that other violent examples have been correctly or incorrectly labeled as terrorism. But you're wrong on this one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have to agree with CptCoatHanger on the terrorism aspect. It's terrorism because they're terrorising people, not because they're brown.

    Also going over the line with Shikari. Can't think of many who would agree with his multiculturalism is futile argument on here, but your retort isn't justified.
  • *Seany**Seany* Moddin' Posts: 51
    Arctic Roll,
    Disagreeing with someone is fine - but for everyone's sakes let's try and actually have a debate rather than hurling insults around. There was no need for this.


    Shikari, if you want to spark an intelligent conversation about immigration and multiculturalism, then can I suggest that
    a) You elaborate a little instead of making quite inflammatory statements, and that
    b) You might consider starting a new thread about it to frame the debate a little better - the last thing we want here is a flame war.

    I've deleted both your posts for now, so let's carry on what was quite an interesting discussion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not arguing that other violent examples have been correctly or incorrectly labeled as terrorism. But you're wrong on this one.

    Depends which dictionary you choose to read:
    the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes
    systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

    These murderers don't seem to have any more of a discernible political aim than any other street murderer, and stabbing someone then milling around waiting for PC Plod to turn up can hardly be described as systematic.

    If we're going to start defining terrorism as any act which causes someone to get scared, then MI5 are going to be very busy.



    As for Shikari, if you're a racist then I think you're a cunt. Amazingly simple. Just like Shikari, come to mention it.
  • *Seany**Seany* Moddin' Posts: 51
    This might help frame the debate a little:
    The present definition of terrorism used in UK legal systems is to be found in
    section 1, Terrorism Act 2000, as amended
    :
    1 Terrorism: interpretation

    (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where--

    (a) the action falls within subsection (2),

    (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an
    international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public
    or a section of the public, and

    (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
    religious or ideological cause.

    (2) Action falls within this subsection if it--

    (a) involves serious violence against a person,

    (b) involves serious damage to property,

    (c) endangers a person?s life, other than that of the person committing
    the action,

    (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section
    of the public, or

    (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an
    electronic system.

    (3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the
    use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b)
    is satisfied.


    (4) In this section--

    (a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,

    (b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person,
    or to property, wherever situated,

    (c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country
    other than the United Kingdom, and

    (d)"the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a
    Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United
    Kingdom.

    (5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes
    a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.


    [N.B. The words in subsection (1)(b) "or an international governmental
    organisation" were inserted by the Terrorism Act 2006,s 34(a),and came into force
    on the 13th April 2006.]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have they done psych evaluations of these guys yet?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Agree with AR.

    This was labelled a terrorist attack the second it became clear that it was a muslim whodunnit.

    The 75 year old killed in Birmingham has had no such label nor has it received anywhere near as much coverage.

    But it appears to me it was just as politically motivated as the Woolwich incident.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neddy wrote: »
    Agree with AR.

    This was labelled a terrorist attack the second it became clear that it was a muslim whodunnit.

    The 75 year old killed in Birmingham has had no such label nor has it received anywhere near as much coverage.

    But it appears to me it was just as politically motivated as the Woolwich incident.

    It possibly is, but there's been a delierate attempt for years to treat racist violence as thuggery rather than glamourise it as 'political' - defining things as terrorism is a double edged sword and risks giving legitimacy to a couple of tanked up half-wits killing someone of a different colour/race/religion and then claiming once they're nicked that they're martyrs for a political cause...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Racist violence is only treated as thuggery when it is white on black. If it's the other way round it is either terrorism or gangsterism. That's where the racism kicks in.

    Looks like the filth haven't moved so very far after Stephen Lawrence after all...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    Have they done psych evaluations of these guys yet?

    Are they still alive? I haven't kept up with the news, I hardly do.
Sign In or Register to comment.