Stumpy 256 #26 May 22, 2013 SkyradI'd have to agree with your point. Quote He talks about UK military influence and action in "our lands". He forgot to mention Bosnia and Kosovo where the British Military saved countless Muslim lives though. Wow. Watching that video, the phrase that sprung to mind was "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 May 22, 2013 Come on, you can't expect south London trash to use logic or collect all the facts before flying into a violent rage, can you? Honestly the most disturbing thing is how calm he is while talking to the camera. He's covered in blood that isn't even cold yet and he gives a canned soundbyte straight from al Awlaki. This was premeditated murder, based on ideology, meant to force political capitulation. Even worse is his accent. It's straight London ghetto trash. He was probably born in the UK, and if not he's entere long enough to sound like it. I'm glad the Metro PD capture his worthless ass alive, and that none of them were injured. Apparently they two murderers attacked London's finest as they arrived.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #28 May 22, 2013 >You see the BHO administration would classify this act as work place violence, >as in the Ft Hood terrorist shooting. No - because it didn't happen in the workplace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #29 May 22, 2013 I don't actually see this as a "Terror Attack" either. I'm not exactly not sure why, I think its just a pair of f'n idiots looking for an excuse. I suppose in my mind "terror attack" implies a degree of preparedness, planning, an objective, and at least a semi coherent agenda. This doesn't seem to have any of those things. Just musings.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 May 22, 2013 billvon>Attempted murder? You can't call it 'attempted murder.' If you call it anything other than terrorism you'll be pummelled senseless by the right wingers. If they are dead it is attempted?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #31 May 22, 2013 RonD1120 *** Stupid and inappropriate comment. Whose workplace is John Wilson St., Woolwich, Marc? Have you ever been there? I have. Let me help you out here. You see the BHO administration would classify this act as work place violence, as in the Ft Hood terrorist shooting. This is a tongue-in-cheek comment requiring some imagination and/or other capability for abstract thought. Hope this helps. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 May 22, 2013 Kennedy Maybe folks would be more comfortable calling these specific terrible attacks "ideological violence". This is a more suitable working definition. But for the pendants here (hi, Bill and Kallend and a few of our right wingers), it's anything that makes people afraid. Can't argue against it - there's a dictionary definition to support it, but it's not a very useful definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #33 May 23, 2013 billvon>You see the BHO administration would classify this act as work place violence, >as in the Ft Hood terrorist shooting. No - because it didn't happen in the workplace. Clearly, the murderer was on his way to work. Why else would he be carrying a butcher knife and a meat clever?Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #34 May 23, 2013 kelpdiver*** Maybe folks would be more comfortable calling these specific terrible attacks "ideological violence". This is a more suitable working definition. But for the pendants here (hi, Bill and Kallend and a few of our right wingers), it's anything that makes people afraid. Can't argue against it - there's a dictionary definition to support it, but it's not a very useful definition. Not all definitions are created equal. And in this case it's still very much up in the air. Some are as worthless and diluted as you suggest. Others are better. QuoteThere is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3] Definition of Terrorism per the FBI: QuoteThere is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and 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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). That is a much more useful definition, and the one I use when using the word. ETA: a better definition might include something about non military targets. There needs to be differentiation between terrorism and nonconventional/guerrilla warfare. The real sticking point is something like a car bomb aimed at soldiers. At some point avoiding collateral damage versus inflicting as much indiscriminate damage as possible has to be considered.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #35 May 23, 2013 This is part of my issue with it too. Although the more I have heard about it, I can see why that's the label chosen. I've thought an act of terror was more of an attack on people not a person. This appears almost targeted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 May 23, 2013 Quote for the pendants here [pedantry] Sighhhh. [/pedantry] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #37 May 23, 2013 >Sighhhh. In his defense, I do occasionally sway to and fro after a late night at Hess Brewing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #38 May 23, 2013 Wouldn't that make you a pendulum rather than a pendant? You'd need to be hanging from something to be a pendant. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #39 May 23, 2013 shermanatori thought guns were banned in london? Possibly one reason why the one used was a rusty old revolver which when used to shoot at the police blew up in the guys hand taking off a finger. Many LOLs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #40 May 23, 2013 When I was in the US Navy (1980-1984) there were fairly regular attacks on sailors at many bases in the US. Beatings ("getting rolled" as it was referred to by the sailors), and a few were shot and killed. I'm curious why those weren't acts of terror. They were just run of the mill nutter attacks. We want to throw the label 'terror' on anything scary these days. It's starting to diminish the true meaning of the word. Much like the way 'hero' is used now days. The part that concerns me most is applying the label of 'terror' so as to classify someone into an unconstitutional area so as to deal with them in a more preferential legal status. Here come the drones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #41 May 23, 2013 rushmc***i thought guns were banned in london? At least I thought the cops did not carry guns That;s why it's being widely reported that it took cops 20 MINUTES TO RESPOND ON A BUSY STREET IN LONDON. Nothing to see here, folks.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #42 May 23, 2013 normiss The part that concerns me most is applying the label of 'terror' so as to classify someone into an unconstitutional area so as to deal with them in a more preferential legal status. Here come the drones. Exactly. I usually feel labeling something a terror attack is a prelude to do away with constitutional protections and/or civil liberties."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #43 May 23, 2013 Having the FBI shoot you in the face during questioning is another classification that concerns me. We appear to rapidly becoming that which we despise. Somehow this is ok now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #44 May 23, 2013 Andy9o8 Quote for the pendants here [pedantry] Sighhhh. [/pedantry] Just hanging around.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 May 23, 2013 kallend *** Quote for the pendants here [pedantry] Sighhhh. [/pedantry] Just hanging around. I thought you swung that way ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #46 May 23, 2013 RonD1120***>You see the BHO administration would classify this act as work place violence, >as in the Ft Hood terrorist shooting. No - because it didn't happen in the workplace. Clearly, the murderer was on his way to work. Why else would he be carrying a butcher knife and a meat clever? Nice of you to acknowledge that billvon is indeed clever. However, there should be a comma in front of "clever" and no indefinite article before "meat".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 May 23, 2013 it is really butchering the language. is 'cleavering' a verb nowadays? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #48 May 23, 2013 Only if you've been hard on the Beaver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #49 May 23, 2013 normissIt's starting to diminish the true meaning of the word. Much like the way 'hero' is used now days. I would imagine that this is an intended effect. It's amazing to me how much hate and violence people can have for eachother. From the actual terror organizations to government officials all the way down to local dropzone members clear on through to the people on this very message board. There are so many reasons that this is happening and there are very few things we can actually do to slow it down. I think just trying to be nicer to one another would be a good start.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #50 May 23, 2013 skypuppy******i thought guns were banned in london? At least I thought the cops did not carry guns That;s why it's being widely reported that it took cops 20 MINUTES TO RESPOND ON A BUSY STREET IN LONDON. Nothing to see here, folks. 9 minutes for the cops to turn up. 10 minutes for armed response once they'd been told there was a gun - 14 minutes in total for armed response from the first call being placed to emergency services: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scotland-yard-hits-back-over-woolwich-response-time-8629205.html Witnesses at the scene may be describing 20 minutes but that's a guestimate and time passes in your mind differently on occasions like this. If no one calls the emergency services for a minute or two that can also account for a difference. At the end of the day, the police will have the call logs and radio chatter to give exact time frames for the first emergency call and time of arrival. I doubt their report of the exact response time can be undermined. The IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) automatically open a case on all police shootings (they're still that rare here) so it'll all come out in the wash if there is any discrepancy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites