That's what you call an isolated incident. There aren't militant aethiest groups with websites full of spreaches encouraging more attacks. And you don't have radical aethiests on TV expalining that you have to understand his anger and theat the goverment needs to disestablish the CoE or whatever. There is a big difference between looking this and balming Muslims in general or immigration or so one and saying that this was part of a pattern or radical islamist terrrorism. Just beacuse we don't want the EDL moron setting fire to mosques (or Sihk temples for that matter a the may not be able to work out the difference) doesn't meant we want to try and censor our reference to the ideology/theology that motivated this murder. He did it because of his exterem beliefs. There is no evidence yet that he was mentally disturbed. He was committing an act of terror in order to try and frighten people into wanting a change of goverment policy. He alos likely belived that his act was morally correct and that he was going to go to heaven provided the police killed him in the act. Now you may consider this to be insanity, but does that mean that every suicide bomber is that does the act becuase he belives he will go to heaven is mentall ill? Were the 7/7 bombers mentall ill, or the others that tried the same act later that year all mentally ill? Is all religious faith a mental illness in your definition? Britons died in the World Trade Centre bombings before we send any troops to Afganistan. Would the world have been a better place if the intervention in Afganistan in 2002 had not taken place. Or would just rather it had been done by the US alone so we didn't get the blame for it?
I agree with Guinevre, this press sensationalism is my biggest gripe, and I would go much further than rely on the press to self-police. As was said before, Terrorism's goal is to terrorise, and the media are helping, and I dare say: carelessely encouraging further acts. I would support strong laws, where terrorist acts can only be reported factually, names and DOB of victims, name and DOB of perpetrators only after conviction. No pictures, videos, witness/family interviews, etc... And then perhaps, all restrictions lifted after 3 years. Not sure how feasable this is without descending in outright censorship, but there has to be a way. We are fanning the flames, freaking people out, pushing for stupid laws (and stupid wars), and playing in the hands of Terrorists and racists alike.
The biggest difference is that if this had occurred in certain parts of the US, many of the onlookers would have been better armed than the perps. So things might have ended differently.
You can always tell who has never been directly affected or who has never actually been in a war against it. You just have to read what some people have written. But we must ask why we are in Afghan and why not Zimbabwe for example.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22650053 Preaching long before your 12 years Nexxo. He mentions the nineties and noughties. I suppose that fact coming from the horses mouth will spur another detraction of pointless figures eh. Making excuses of mental instability for something that cannot be covered up any longer is not helping. The guy was radicalised and proceeded to perform a politically/religious hate fuelled butchering in public. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-24/friend-suspect-wasnt-someone-monstrous/ http://www.itv.com/news/2013-05-23/ingrid-loyau-kennett-woolwich-london-attack-soldier/ 12 years does match up with Labour's unchecked open door and spiteful Immigration policies, Funny that. 12 years was enough time for the electorate to influence or change the foreign policy. Some then and still now prefer the head in the sand method. Draw conclusions now. Of course people don't want the spotlight shone on problems (take your pick) we have in this country, Even if that means a media blackout. It's hard to keep your head buried in the sand when the media are telling us about religious extremists butchering people in broad daylight, That have been attending extreme political seminars for the 20 years. Nasty details like spoil the image of a happy multi cultaral society all living side by side in peace. The reality is we have segregated communities which have certain influential elements that have no interest in making things work, The use dogma to suppress any criticism from within and the "race card" to quell any resistance from the outside. And then resort to extreme violence when they don't get what they want. That has no place in any society, And there are more than just religious elements that use this strategy in this country, As is becoming clearer by the day. Good thing people are waking up. Even decent law abiding muslim's want these idiots sorted out. Farooq Murad puts it very clear....Hat's off to him. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151925108569535&set=vb.645364534&type=2&theater Thankfully good folks like him know when to shake off political parasites who try and attach themselves to thrive or survive. People will be voting very carefully when the chance comes up.
Could you imagine what would happen if we had this in there countries preaching how great the church of England was and how much we hate them. You would all be executed. I believe if you live in another country you abide by its laws and if you don't like the country go back where you come from. Trust me this is still going to get worse, we are soft targets here very soft.
There wasn't a terrorist group based in Zimbabwe with the support of the government that just killed 3000 people in New York. Then there are regional issues - if South Africa wanted to intervene we would definitely have supported them if asked. As South Africa wanted a soft line taken he could get away with it. Then you could ask why we intevened in Kosovo to protect the largely Muslim population from the Yugoslaw (Serb) goverment and army?
Excellent point mate, I have mates that served in that conflict, Taking bullets FOR muslims. Short memories here, It seems "the big bad west" only applies when you have a higher political motive.
Someone will point out that if this were the case, the perps would have been better armed as well. Which is entirely possible. Bottom line. These guys are mentally ill(and religious). And cutting someone's head off(did that really happen? Because everything seems to be saying "stabbing" now) is a much more brutal statement then a shot to the back of the head. A knife is much more "personal". Which I'd guess is why they chose to use a blade.
If it is part of a bigger movement, why are there not more radicals out there chopping people's heads off? You are conflating now. First, religious faith is not the same as religious extremism. Second, not all religious fundamentalists are going around chopping people's heads off. They may hold unsavoury beliefs and proselytise intolerance, but generally they seem to stop at slaughtering people at random in the streets. Which brings me to point three: suicide bombers, the 9/11 conspirators, the Boston bombers, these two nutters are a tiny group compared to the group of Muslims embracing fundamentalist ideology. Obviously there is something else going on. Unless you think that murdering random strangers and yourself in a messy histrionic act because you think that is really going to make people and politicians see your point of view is an act of rational sanity. I can't help but thinking how glibly a connection is made between school shooters and violent video games. Just because they may have played a lot of, say, CS:SF does not mean that it is the violent FPS video games that turned them into homicidal maniacs. Homicidal maniacs may be attracted to FPS shooter games, but FPS shooter games do not turn sane people into school shooters. Obviously something else is going on. The 9/11 conspirators were almost all Saudi. The ideology that they embraced came from Saudi Arabia. The money to fund their little enterprise came from Saudi Arabia. Most of the fundamentalist Madrassa are in Pakistan (which is why Osama was there too). So why are we in Afghanistan again? Did it make the world a safer place? It is the consensus of world experts on terrorism that it made the world a more dangerous place. On a more pertinent note, the War on Terror gave disparate terrorist groups a powerful coherent public image that disenfranchised nutters could identify themselves with and align themselves with, and gave them a focus for their paranoid hostility and violent behaviour. Thinking about it from the perspective of your concerns, if I understand correctly you are arguing that Islamic extremism is responsible for their actions in as far as it empowered them to do what they did. I agree, but I also think that we are contributing to that dynamic if we give Islamic extremism too much power. If we state that these men did what they did because they were Islamists, it makes Islamism appear a powerful force to be feared by society. What disenfranchised angry young man could resist joining that? But if we state that these were the acts of lost, mentally ill individuals, then they are revealed for what they are, and have no power over society.
MyeahOK, you're just spouting rhetoric now, which is not a meaningful conversation. So forgive me if I do not respond to this. But in answer to Risky's query: your mates took bullets to protect Muslims because we're supposed to be the Good Guys, and it's the sort of thing Good Guys do. Then Bush came along and made some serious Bad Guy decisions. So I guess that nations, like people, are neither all bad or all good. But we are defined by our actions, and the bad ones come back to haunt us.
Nope, they're not. Like with any dictator, the business of a war lord is to stay in business. There is no room for religious ideology; it is they who they want to be feared and obeyed, not Allah. Religious extremists are unwelcome competition for power an they have opposing views on opium production, which is a significant source of income for any war lord.
Out of curiosity what makes them clearly mentally unhinged? All i see is someone who has taken Islam far far to seriously. Its hard for non religious and semi religious people to grasp but some people really do take their religion to be 100% truthful. Unless of course we are associating total belief in your religion as being mentally unhinged? I agree with Islam not being the main cause of what happened but it is still a factor, the 2 men were not shouting religious stuff just for the sake of it... You wouldn't encounter a Jainist killing people and proclaiming their religion at the same time. To declare that Islam not a problem or being the main problem is just as bad as each other.
So what do you propose? Let's start executing some vocal heathens here? Become as bad as the extremists? Gosh, that's civilised, and won't escalate the situation at all. I think you may want to think this through some more.
No need to respond, It was a response. At least we can all rest well at night knowing that our soldiers will be targeted by people with selective memories in a righteous fashion. You are correct, The bad actions will always come back to haunt us.
Is chopping some random stranger's head off the act of someone who is rational and sane? Even in these enlightened times you have nutters like Rev. Phelps proseletysing pretty harsh intolerance. Bush waged his War on Terror proclaiming God was on his side. And how have the Protestants and Catholics been getting along in Scotland and Northern Ireland lately? So no, Islam is not the main problem. Extremist beliefs of all kinds are. This includes the belief that immigrants are responsible for extremism and civil unrest, that all Muslims are extremists, that someone with a personality disorder who claims to kill in the name of Islam must obviously be killing in he name of Islam and not because he is mentally deranged (I mean, if he said that the Devil made him do it, would we be blaming the Devil?), and, incidentally, that intolerance and violence must always be met with intolerance and violence. Note that the murderers were not shot in the head by police. They were disabled, and now their injuries are being treated in hospital. Then they will have a fair trial where their mental accountability will be taken into account. They may go to prison, or they may end up in a psychiatric secure unit. But we will not be publicly beheading them. Because this is Western civilisation, where we do things differently than in fundamentalist countries. If we cannot be true to out ideals when they are being tested most harshly, then they mean nothing at all.
