Support NeoGAF

[PJV3]

I think it's also for those tasked with responding to the situation to worry about too, however. Motivations behind actions (and understanding these motivation) are the first step in working out how to respond to it.

I mean all the guessing that occurs in the immediate aftermath, it's human nature to worry about the why's I suppose.

I'd prefer it to be left to the trial or a proper investigation to sort out. We should be united in disgust at a beheading, not divided over words.

 

[jimi_dini]

What about this definition here:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

If the victim was really a soldier, then he wouldn't be a noncombatant target. Which means it couldn't be terrorism.

Is it horrific? yes of course. Would it be more or less horrific in case it would have happened in Iraq and/or Afghanistan? If the answer is yes, then why? Because those 2 are far far away?

 

[BeerSnob]

What about this definition here:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html



If the victim was really a soldier, then he wouldn't be a noncombatant target. Which means it couldn't be terrorism.

http://www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/about-us/what-we-investigate
The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The FBI further classifies terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. We investigate terrorism-related matters without regard to race, religion, national origin, or gender. Reference to individual members of any political, ethnic, or religious group does not imply that all members of that group are terrorists. Terrorists represent a small minority in any large social context.

And how did the killers intimidate or coerce anyone by just killing the assumed soldier? They didn't capture him and threaten to kill him. They just killed him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-two-shot-in-police-incident-live-coverage
"We swear by the Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reason we have killed this man this is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth ... We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don't care about you."

 

[Stinkles]

so the two people kill a man serving the country, and the killiers are then rushed to hospital and will proberlly survive thats disgusting

If we want to be better than killers, we have to be better than killers.

 

[jimi_dini]

http://www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/about-us/what-we-investigate
The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

And how did the killers intimidate or coerce anyone by just killing the assumed soldier? They didn't capture him and threaten to kill him. They just killed him.

 

[Polari]

And how did the killers intimidate or coerce anyone by just killing the assumed soldier? They didn't capture him and threaten to kill him. They just killed him.

I guess it was kind of like "this is what happens if you continue your imperialist policies".

 

[jimi_dini]

I guess it was kind of like "this is what happens if you continue your imperialist policies".

They will get locked away and that's it. How is this a coersion? It would be pretty silly - "we will kill more in case you don't stop your imperialist policies ... and release us from prison"

If they had killed him in secret, put him somewhere where people would find him and then wrote a letter to the government and said exactly this (which would have meant that more people would get killed if the government didn't gave in their demands), it would be different.

Or maybe I missed something and those 2 killers are actually part of a really big group. And that group actually sent in their demands.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Horrific attack. Poor soul.

I feel like it's been brewing for a while though. I mean Britain's stance in Iraq and Afghanistan is bound to bring out the nutters eventually.

Hopefully there isn't anymore.

 

[Wes]

On a semi related note, the #EDLThat that is doing the rounds on twitter is amusing.

 

[Polari]

They will get locked away and that's it. How is this a coersion? It would be pretty silly - "we will kill more in case you don't stop your imperialist policies ... and release us from prison"

If they had killed him in secret, put him somewhere where people would find him and then wrote a letter to the government and said exactly this (which would have meant that more people would get killed if the government didn't gave in their demands), it would be different.

Or maybe I missed something and those 2 killers are actually part of a really big group. And that group actually sent in their demands.

Oh man, I agree. But that's probably the justification. That the attack was politically motivated (even though it very possibly wasn't).

 

[Jackson]

And how did the killers intimidate or coerce anyone by just killing the assumed soldier? They didn't capture him and threaten to kill him. They just killed him.

Their response after doing it was clearly motivated against the government. They were terrorists. Stupid ones, but still terrorists.

See link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[kobashi100]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634095

 

[jimi_dini]

Their response after doing it was clearly motivated against the government. They were terrorists. Stupid ones, but still terrorists.

See link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"The only reasons we killed this man this is because Muslims are dying daily," he added, in video aired by CNN affiliate ITN. "This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth."

Around the same as other people killing muslims (not even soldiers, but regular civilians that just happen to be muslims), because they assume that muslim == terrorist. Same logic behind it. I don't think that we call the latter "terrorists", maybe we should?! So we also shouldn't call the former terrorists. I would call them both hate murderers or lynch justice.

For example:
http://www.examiner.com/article/muslim-hating-erika-menendez-charged-hate-crime-subway-push-killing

"I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I've been beating them up."

has to be a terrorist, right?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

On a semi related note, the #EDLThat that is doing the rounds on twitter is amusing.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mmm, oh yes.

 

[SUPREME1]

Around the same as other people killing muslims (not even soldiers, but regular civilians that just happen to be muslims), because they assume that muslim == terrorist. Same logic behind it. I don't think that we call the latter "terrorists". So we also shouldn't call the former terrorists.

Why are you so preoccupied with defending pieces of shit from being labeled as terrorists?

Because the target was not a civilian? How would they have known if he was not in fatigues, or apparently not on duty?

They did this as a political statement.

They killed in the name of their moon god, even though their moon god says they shouldn't kill.

As far as "their lands"... I'd be willing to bet they've lived in England a lot longer than their anywhere else.

Terrorist pieces of shit.

 

[spiderman123]

lets just all group murders, serial killers, pedophiles and terrorist into one word..SHITBAGS. Save us the trouble

 

[CHEEZMO™]

We have now entered Chick Tract territory.

 

[captainnapalm]

Just watched the clip of this guy. His mouth was completely dry, he seemed like he was either insane or extremely high. Drug addled or just addled. I don't see how this can be labelled a terrorist attack. Seems like the work of complete nutjobs. Two nutjobs filtering their insanity through politics and religion, but still nutjobs.

So what can we expect, label this a terrorist attack, and make some other poor defenseless middle-eastern country pay? Or create harsher laws, tougher surveillance, less freedom for those in the UK? Why try and link this guy, who seems like he is himself British and even served in the British armed forces, to Al-Qaeda? Why put the whole country on high alert, why create fear and speculation over more attacks, why mobilize this whole anti-terror infrastructure when the crime is so seemingly aberrant? It all seems very kneejerk and hysterical.

 

[jimi_dini]

Why are you so preoccupied with defending pieces of shit from being labeled as terrorists?

Defending? Do you consider being labeled as a terrorist as some kind of punishment?

If they actually were terrorists, they would love to get called terrorists. If we just call them murderers or lunatics, we actually break their terrorist tactic.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Defending? Do you consider being labeled as a terrorist as some kind of punishment?

It's not a good thing to be labeled as. Being a terrorist is a bad thing. I'd hope you'd agree with that.

If they actually were terrorists, they would love to get called terrorists.

No? They like to call themselves martyrs or freedom fighters or holy warriors or things along those lines, no one is ever proud of the terrorist label.

If we just call them murderers or lunatics, we actually break their terrorist tactic.

Your logic has gone off the rails completely.

 

[justjohn]

David cameron must be happy that the whole snivel eyed loon fiasco is no longer centre of attention. Great timing

 

[feel]

I've been ingnoring this thread all day because the "tame" title didn't really give away what went down, and just now noticed because of the other thread with a much more explanatory title. Shit, this is insane stuff. RIP soldier.

 

[jimi_dini]

It's not a good thing to be labeled as. Being a terrorist is a bad thing. I'd hope you'd agree with that.

If they were terrorists, they wouldn't care about what WE call them - we would be the enemy you see. Do you care what the devil thinks about you?

You really think Osama Bin Laden was sad, because we called him a terrorist? You can't be serious.

No? They like to call themselves martyrs or freedom fighters or holy warriors or things along those lines, no one is ever proud of the terrorist label.

You got that wrong. Actually our news media and politicians call some terrorists "freedom fighters". They do that in case the terrorists are believed to be acting in "our" favour.

Look - those terrorists in Syria - those are "freedom fighters" - repeat - "freedom fighters". These are good. Those are not terrorists! Even in case they kill civilians or use sarin gas or eat the heart of an enemy. If they would use sarin gas in England, they would be terrorists of course.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

You got that wrong.

No. I don't know what reality you're from but in ours no one "loves" to get called a terrorist.

You really think Osama Bin Laden was sad, because we called him a terrorist? You can't be serious.

You are the one who thinks that not calling them terrorists will "break" their "tactics" and now you are projecting your bad logic onto others.

Actually our news media and politicians call some terrorists "freedom fighters". They do that in case the terrorists are believed to be acting in "our" favour.

Look - those terrorists in Syria - those are "freedom fighters" - repeat - "freedom fighters". These are good. Those are not terrorists! Even in case they kill civilians or use sarin gas or eat the heart of an enemy. If they would use sarin gas in England, they would be terrorists of course.

This is where you ramble on a tangent like a crazy person. If you really think that terrorists don't prefer to think of themselves as "freedom fighters" than "terrorists" then you should get out more. These are not mustache twirling cartoon villains. They believe they are doing the right thing.

 

[hym]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634095

Despite agreeing with a lot he says, he's wrong about the causal relation between radicalization and failed foreign policy, if it was simply that you wouldn't see radicalization in Switzerland. I'm absolutely certain it can have an amplifying effect but this is not the origin. And history has examples of radicalization before the West ever touched the Middle East, the Kharijites who turned against the caliphate for example.

He's aslo not consistent in his argument of democratic non-violent change:

During the Gaza War, Bukhari wrote in a Facebook thread: "Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are 'Mujahadeen' and are blessed by Allah. And any Muslim who fights and dies against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise ... There is no greater oppressor on this earth than the Zionists, who murder little children for sport."

Israel kills with purpose, and those willing to answer the provocations are as instrumental in that purpose. Hamas might even be aware of this but it drives Gazans into their arms so up to a certain point its mutually beneficial. Hamas isn't interested in a Palestine anyway, they want their own Islamic emirate so to argue their aggressions are a struggle to regain occupied land is rather laughable.

 

[jimi_dini]

You are the one who thinks that not calling them terrorists will "break" their "tactics" and now you are projecting your bad logic onto others.

Sorry it's quite late here and English is also not my mother language.

I meant for example: some terrorists are supposed to hate our freedom. Which means if they do something horrible and anyone limits our freedom, they actually won. It won't matter if "we" kill tens of thousands or not. We got less freedom equals they achieved their goal. If we don't let anyone limit our freedom == they lost.

Same with being terrorized. That's the main goal of a terrorist. Get as many people as possible into terrorized state. Being frightened of being killed by a terrorist attack. Although chances are in fact minimal at least in western countries. Give in to their demands. That's their goal.

Which means a terrorist losing his life in one way or another and just being called a murderer and getting locked away without anyone being frightened is the worst possible outcome for an actual terrorist. Because that won't get him anywhere. He will not have achieved anything but a few kills. Which would be great for a murderer, but horrible for a terrorist.

This is where you ramble on a tangent like a crazy person. If you really think that terrorists don't prefer to think of themselves as "freedom fighters" than "terrorists" then you should get out more.

Thank you. Insult me. I hope it helps.

Although you don't contradict me. TERRORISTS THINK OF THEMSELVES as the GOOD SIDE. Exactly. They don't care what WE think about THEM, because THEY assume that they are good and we are bad.

Before I go to sleep, let me ask you something: Do you think Iraqi think good about us here? I would rather believe that they think we (as in the countries that invaded Iraq) are the bad guys. I mean "we" killed quite a few of them. By accident of course. Do you feel worse now? I don't think so. Although we actually should feel pretty bad. And I guess our politicians definitely don't give a shit. If they would, they would have already stopped it. And if even our politicians don't care, why should a terrorist care.

That explains it. There is probably some misunderstanding here, but I'm telling you that what you're saying doesn't make sense in English. It is a simple matter of fact that no one wants to be called a terrorist, that word has a universally negative connotation in the English language.

Actually you don't read what I'm posting. I'm saying that "terrorists" just don't care what we are saying or thinking about them. If WE were on THEIR SIDE, they would care in case we labeled them good or bad. But terrorists are always not on "our" side. If they were, they would be labeled freedom fighters by "us".

Osama Bin Laden for example definitely was a terrorist and also knew that western countries called him a terrorist. Using your logic he must have thought to himself "well shit, I should stop all of this, because they say that I'm a terrorist and now I feel bad.". Do you really believe in this?

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Sorry it's quite late here and English is also not my mother language.

That explains it. There is probably some misunderstanding here, but I'm telling you that what you're saying doesn't make sense in English. It is a simple matter of fact that no one wants to be called a terrorist, that word has a universally negative connotation in the English language.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

What about this definition here:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html



If the victim was really a soldier, then he wouldn't be a noncombatant target. Which means it couldn't be terrorism.

Is it horrific? yes of course. Would it be more or less horrific in case it would have happened in Iraq and/or Afghanistan? If the answer is yes, then why? Because those 2 are far far away?

Unless he was on duty I can't see how he/she would be considered an enemy combatant.

 

[Portugeezer]

Had they not told us their "reasoning" and/or agenda then it would just be a random attack (until police investigations uncovered otherwise).

So it's terrorism.

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

If they were terrorists, they wouldn't care about what WE call them - we would be the enemy you see. Do you care what the devil thinks about you?

You really think Osama Bin Laden was sad, because we called him a terrorist? You can't be serious.



You got that wrong. Actually our news media and politicians call some terrorists "freedom fighters". They do that in case the terrorists are believed to be acting in "our" favour.

Look - those terrorists in Syria - those are "freedom fighters" - repeat - "freedom fighters". These are good. Those are not terrorists! Even in case they kill civilians or use sarin gas or eat the heart of an enemy. If they would use sarin gas in England, they would be terrorists of course.

Why are you equating some of the terrorists group in Syria, and generalize it for everyone fighting on the REbel sides in Syria?

Some are terrorist. Some are actually fighting for their freedom. If you generalize the terrorist for all of then, might as well go beyond that and say all muslims are terrorsit then no?

 

[Ashes]

I was at Woolwich Arsenal at the weekend.

Terrible terrible news.

 

[Timbuktu]

It doesn't feel quite right that the news and the front pages of papers are dong exactly what these two crazies want. And it doesn't help for them to stir up the likes of edl in the area.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

I really hope the victim was unconscious (after being hit by the car), before he was decapitated.
The trauma of having to suffer through something like that, while awake, would be truly terrible.
The two idiots who carried this attack out, probably didnt have the brain power to realize their actions would just reinforce negative stereotypes, rather than make the Western citizens empathize with them.

 

[velociraptor]

According to the media, a black man wearing jeans and a hoody is now considered "Muslim appearance". Interesting conclusion.

 

[DC R1D3R]

That's a London accent,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naSyBvwlXGU&feature=player_embedded

fam.

Bless.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

We have now entered Chick Tract territory.

I have that panel on a shirt, it was too funny to pass up.

 

[MarkMclovin]

I really hope the victim was unconscious (after being hit by the car), before he was decapitated.
The trauma of having to suffer through something like that, while awake, would be truly terrible.

It's one of my worse fears. It makes me feel sick just reading news like this. I really hope he was at least knocked out.

Fucking animals.

 

[Burli]

wtf man...

The decapitation just doesn't seem legit, it looks like the victim still has a head on the images and videos I've seen and there isn't any sign of a decapitated one. This is morbid to talk about. Also what the fuck at "this is in the top 3 worst things I've seen" a man being run over and decapitated only makes your top 3 when you're about 15 and live in London? Feel like this guy is a bit of a bullshit artist.

 

[SKINNER!]

Wow, I hear about muslim problem in England, but this is going too far. I know several people in England, and they are not happy about emigration problem.

Which one is it? Make up your mind.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't agree that it is Islamic terrorism. He's pissed off at the UKs involvement in wars and stabbed and murdered a soldier. That's it. It's murder plain and simple. People have motives for murder all the time, wife cheating, pissed off at an insult, to claim insurance, because of the colour of some guys skin, because they're angry at the way some guy ran some company etc etc. What makes this terrorism instead of murder? Because the guy was a Muslim? Because his motives were in line with being against the war on Islam or those in Muslim countries (axis of evil etc)? The selective use of the word terrorism has a double standard slant to it.

Violence in the furthering of political aims is terrorism.

What about this definition here:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html



If the victim was really a soldier, then he wouldn't be a noncombatant target. Which means it couldn't be terrorism.

Is it horrific? yes of course. Would it be more or less horrific in case it would have happened in Iraq and/or Afghanistan? If the answer is yes, then why? Because those 2 are far far away?

Being a soldier in your own country makes you a non combatant. It's not complicated.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

https://twitter.com/bedspolice/status/337494350105829376

lol

 

[90TilInfinity]

Well, yeah, as I said. One of the boys is British-born, of West-African (Nigerian) descent, from a "devout" Christian family. Was converted at some point.

I'd assume the same for the other dude.

 

[Igo]

That's a London accent,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naSyBvwlXGU&feature=player_embedded

fam.

Oh shit! How did I not know this show got a second season. Now I have to deal with the pos that is 4oD.

 

[Wes]

 

[SmokyDave]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BK8AeudCIAApCxO.jpg:large[IMG][/QUOTE]
There's a 'White Power' joke here somewhere.

 

[Madness]

It doesn't feel quite right that the news and the front pages of papers are dong exactly what these two crazies want. And it doesn't help for them to stir up the likes of edl in the area.

Two people beheaded an innocent soldier in broad daylight in the streets... Of course it's going to be front page news. If it wasn't, you'd have an even bigger backlash.

 

[seb_n]

Looks like the guys were known to the Security Services:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634468

 

[Metroxed]

I meant for example: some terrorists are supposed to hate our freedom. Which means if they do something horrible and anyone limits our freedom, they actually won. It won't matter if "we" kill tens of thousands or not. We got less freedom equals they achieved their goal. If we don't let anyone limit our freedom == they lost.

That's been used so much, especially in the US (I don't know where you're from). The terrorists don't "hate our freedom". I don't think they could care less about your freedom. They do what they do for political, racial or religious reasons. What the terrorists want is to cause terror and fear among the civil population and coerce the governments. Freedom has nothing to do with it.

 

[kobashi100]

Well, yeah, as I said. One of the boys is British-born, of West-African (Nigerian) descent, from a "devout" Christian family. Was converted at some point.

I'd assume the same for the other dude.

Was Converted! What are you trying to get at with that Statement?

Are you trying to say he never became muslim by Choice?

 

[NekoFever]

David cameron must be happy that the whole snivel eyed loon fiasco is no longer centre of attention. Great timing

Off-topic, but it made me laugh the other day when it was pointed out that many of the people who are offended by being called swivel-eyed loons and want people to stop are the same ones who rail against political correctness.