Terror in London: Soldier beheaded on street (1 Viewer)

[brent012]

"I'm Muslim, and I hate terrorism"
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/24/opinion/obeidallah-muslims-hate-terrorism

Why is this even a thing?

 

[kaz1]

I'm a muslim and I hate freedom, America, rape women, spread Shariah Law everywhere and kill all infidels

 

[nerdasdasd]

I'm a muslim and I hate freedom, America, rape women, spread Shariah Law everywhere and kill all infidels

Did you even read the article?

 

[kaz1]

Did you even read the article?

I don't have to coz im muslim lololol

 

[Garygaz]

yeh i read it

The people who commit violence in the name of Islam are not Muslims, they are murderers. Their true religion is hatred and inhumanity.

oh look its back to the 'no your interpretation is wrong' argument again, where both sides bring a bunch of poorly written diary entries from thousands of years ago and decide what they mean. this will definitely be conclusive.

 

[moll.]

Whole thing was a false flag to induce fear on the population. Nothing adds up. Firstly, as that guy "hacked the solider to death." If he was beheaded, there should have been a river of blood surrounding the dead body and there is only a small amount of blood around him in several videos. Passerbys are somehow all no offense "black people" and 2 of them pass the murderer so close that he could have killed them as well. As for the lady who engaged in a conversation with the murderer, wtf... Did she value her life being so close to a killer? The witnesses who were present were also filming so close to those guys. And last but not least, this is london, and it took more than 20 mins for the police to arrive?! And since the slaughter took place near a " BARRACK" none of the soliders were called out and there should have been dozens of cameras in the vincity. So, please, think about what you see and what they tell you. Nothing is what it seems.- NWO

I hear aluminium foil is a more fashionable material to make hats out of now than tin foil. Do you use the coloured stuff, or the classic silver? I like a nice yellow aluminium foil hat, myself.

 

[isildurrrr1]

yeh i read it

The people who commit violence in the name of Islam are not Muslims, they are murderers. Their true religion is hatred and inhumanity.

oh look its back to the 'no your interpretation is wrong' argument again, where both sides bring a bunch of poorly written diary entries from thousands of years ago and decide what they mean. this will definitely be conclusive.

Gee nothing will please you people. 6000 clerics speak out against terrorism, even issuing a fatwa against it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tion-demands-an-end-to-terrorism-2356595.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kemal-argon/whos-really-behind-tahir-_b_1266232.html

Garygaz, you speak as if the people endorsing terrorism are the majority. That's like saying all Irish are terrorists because of the IRA, all germans are Nazis and all Australians are racist. Good job on generalization and furthering the justification of groups like Al Qaeda who WANTS to provoke the west into alienating muslims and get more to join their cause.

 

[Garygaz]

Honestly, where did I say all Muslims are terrorists or even slightly imply it? Guess you've got to take the moral high ground in a argument somehow.

 

[soloooooo]

Honestly, where did I say all Muslims are terrorists or even s


lightly imply it? Guess you've got to take the moral h
igh ground in a argument somehow.

Not all muslims are terrorists although most terrorists are muslim.

A large percent of muslims might not themselves be terrorists although they support terrorists and terrorist organisations.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Not all muslims are terrorists although most terrorists are muslim.

A large percent of muslims might not themselves be terrorists although they support terrorists and terrorist organisations.

No they do not, do you have any statistical proof? If they support terror groups so much why haven't they spent most of their money donating? Do palestinians support Hamas? Sure because they provide food, water, medicine and social services. Do Malaysian and Indonesian muslims support Al Qaeda or JI? Hell no. They hate them so much their own GOVERNMENT are the ones having the most successful crackdowns on islamic terror groups in SE Asia. There's two types of muslim insurgency/terror groups. 90% of them like the Taliban, Hamas, Pattani separatists DO NOT care about a global jihad. They want to be left alone and run their own governments by their own rules as a sovereign state. Jemah Islamyia (bali bomb crowd) and Al Qaeda goals are to create a pan-islamic caliphate stretching from Indonesia all the way to Saudi Arabia. Guess which islamic government wants that? None of them. They don't want to lose power. But AQ and JI are playing the west perfectly in their recruiting campaign by finding disfranchised muslims in poverty stricken nations and providing them a pathway to fight what they believe is good. If I was a Pakistani I'd be pissed too that the US has caused deaths of civilians from drone strikes. Wouldn't you be pissed if lets say indonesia started bombing the shit out of darwin to kill some terrorists? Yeah great way to win hearts and minds guys.

 

[Lolsmith]

If I was a Pakistani I'd be pissed too that the US has caused deaths of civilians from drone strikes. Wouldn't you be pissed if lets say indonesia started bombing the shit out of darwin to kill some terrorists? Yeah great way to win hearts and minds guys.

If funkshen ends up bother to trawl through this shitheap, he could probably put this a bit more accurately but effectively most of the areas that the US are drone striking aren't really 'Pakistan' in the sense that we use country names. There are parts of 'Pakistan' where they are essentially not really part of the bulk of the state and are where the enemies of the U.S and friends of Pakistan hide. They shouldn't really be considered citizens of Pakistan, but they are still definitely civilian.

 

[Kiraken]

If funkshen ends up bother to trawl through this shitheap, he could probably put this a bit more accurately but effectively most of the areas that the US are drone striking aren't really 'Pakistan' in the sense that we use country names. There are parts of 'Pakistan' where they are essentially not really part of the bulk of the state and are where the enemies of the U.S and friends of Pakistan hide. They shouldn't really be considered citizens of Pakistan, but they are still definitely civilian.

this is kinda true, as a lot of the really northern parts of Pakistan are tribal-controlled and somewhat independent of Pakistani government concerns.

 

[isildurrrr1]

this is kinda true, as a lot of the really northern parts of Pakistan are tribal-controlled and somewhat independent of Pakistani government concerns.

It is still part of Pakistani sovereignty, regardless of them being a Federally Administered Tribal Area. Pakistani army got their ass kicked by the locals because they pretty much just shot everything that moved and have a horrendous track record. The dangerous thing about Pakistan is that it's a nuclear power. I'm not against the containment of islamic fundamentalism, I'm just extremely critical of the methods that's been use and they have not been very successful. We (as the west) essentially declared a religious war after 9/11. Malaysia's method is a lot better, treat extremists as "good men gone astray" and you'll see some results. Torturing the shit out of people and sending them to a legal limbo (Gitmo) doesn't really help your cause, just creates accidental guerrillas. 90-95% of the people were shooting at in Iraq and Afghanistan are the people we didn't have to fight but caused them to take up arms.

 

[Tasteless]

I dunno about the regional Pakistan stuff.
But the stats for strikes in Pakistan are publicly available http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis
Between 2004 and 2013, there have been:
- 2213 militants killed in drone strikes.
- 280 civilians killed in drone strikes.
*Not including the stats on the unknowns, as their affiliations can't be determined and therefore can't really be factored it.

Civilians dying is utterly unacceptable, but it's not like civilians are being specifically targeted and subsequently slaughtered by the masses in these drone strikes like some claim.

Imo the drone strikes are probably making it far too difficult and dangerous for the various terrorist factions to conduct their operations, and that coupled with the (possibly?) significant reduction in their numbers has got them worried. They realise that their best hope is to appeal to the soft pacifist Europeans and perhaps Americans too, in the hopes that people will start to pressure their governments to forfeit / withdraw from the region a la Vietnam.

 

[isildurrrr1]

I dunno about the regional Pakistan stuff.
But the stats for strikes in Pakistan are publicly available http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis
Between 2004 and 2013, there have been:
- 2213 militants killed in drone strikes.
- 280 civilians killed in drone strikes.
*Not including the stats on the unknowns, as their affiliations can't be determined and therefore can't really be factored it.

Civilians dying is utterly unacceptable, but it's not like civilians are being specifically targeted and subsequently slaughtered by the masses in these drone strikes like some claim.

Imo the drone strikes are probably making it far too difficult and dangerous for the various terrorist factions to conduct their operations, and that coupled with the (possibly?) significant reduction in their numbers has got them worried. They realise that their best hope is to appeal to the soft pacifist Europeans and perhaps Americans too, in the hopes that people will start to pressure their governments to forfeit / withdraw from the region a la Vietnam.

For every woman and child you kill you'll create 10 insurgents. Drone strikes are extremely counter-productive.

Here's another graph

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

only 2% have been high valued targets, around 610 deaths are civilians, 2385 are "other/miltants". Rest were "militants." Technically every person with a weapon is considered a "militant." It's a very iffy situation calling people militants just because they are armed. That's like calling every American with a gun at their home a militant. I'm not saying that the drone strikes are targeting civilians, is that it's causing so much collateral damage that it's being counter-productive in the strategic sector.

Lets put it this way, say you're running a patrol in afghanistan. Your convoy gets shot at with RPG and the perpetrators fled. So you head by the nearest town and arrest every male, kick down doors and disrupt people's lives. It's a sound tactical decision to find out who shot at your troop, but on the strategic level you just made a whole village pissed off at your military and people who might not have wanted to fight you will do so later on. There's just a huge disconnect in the way we fight a non-conventional war and the reason why is that the US and Allies have been building the best conventional military, but operating in a non-conventional environment. You're essentially buying the best sports car in the world and you need to drive through a desert.

 

[funkshen]

If funkshen ends up bother to trawl through this shitheap, he could probably put this a bit more accurately but effectively most of the areas that the US are drone striking aren't really 'Pakistan' in the sense that we use country names. There are parts of 'Pakistan' where they are essentially not really part of the bulk of the state and are where the enemies of the U.S and friends of Pakistan hide. They shouldn't really be considered citizens of Pakistan, but they are still definitely civilian.

they're obviously citizens of sovereign pakistan, but that's not really what you're talking about about. FATA and northern balochistan, where the drone campaign is, are an exclusively pashtun area - pashtuns being pretty much synonymous with afghan. so when a punjabs and sindhis hear about drone strikes in FATA and northern balochistan, they really hear about pashtuns being blown up. its a mistake to talk about a monolithic "pakistani" consciousness, especially on an issue that directly affects a subgroup of an ethnic minority. also, a lot of pakistanis know that this program operates at the consent of their government.

the best estimates of civilian to combatant casualties in the pakistani drone campaign are between 1 in 4 and 1 in 6. rather trivial in the scheme of things. the drone issue is exaggerated.

 

[Kiraken]

It is still part of Pakistani sovereignty, regardless of them being a Federally Administered Tribal Area. Pakistani army got their ass kicked by the locals because they pretty much just shot everything that moved and have a horrendous track record. The dangerous thing about Pakistan is that it's a nuclear power. I'm not against the containment of islamic fundamentalism, I'm just extremely critical of the methods that's been use and they have not been very successful. We (as the west) essentially declared a religious war after 9/11. Malaysia's method is a lot better, treat extremists as "good men gone astray" and you'll see some results. Torturing the shit out of people and sending them to a legal limbo (Gitmo) doesn't really help your cause, just creates accidental guerrillas. 90-95% of the people were shooting at in Iraq and Afghanistan are the people we didn't have to fight but caused them to take up arms.

No. Because they are not good men gone astray, extremists need to be dealt with harshly and effectively. They are so brainwashed that leniency will have little effect on producing a positive change.

In addition, the people in the FATA *want* Pakistani military action there:

"The New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow conducted the first comprehensive public opinion survey in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The results showed that when it came to fighting militancy in the region, the people of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas overwhelmingly support the Pakistani military. Nearly 70 percent back the Pakistani military pursuing Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the Tribal Areas. Indeed, when asked how the Federally Administered Tribal Areas should be governed, 79 percent say it should be governed by the Pakistani military."

The people in the region themselves agree that military action against the Taliban in the region IS the way to go.

 

[funkshen]

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

shitty interactive gimmick with an agenda. "alleged combatants", what the fuck, do you think we gave each of them a trial? alleged smfh

Rest were "militants." Technically every person with a weapon is considered a "militant."

Demonstrably false.

It's a very iffy situation calling people militants just because they are armed. That's like calling every American with a gun at their home a militant.

Shitty strawman.

I'm not saying that the drone strikes are targeting civilians, is that it's causing so much collateral damage that it's being counter-productive in the strategic sector.

You're wrong by your own admission. A collateral ratio of 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 is not 'so much collateral damage', in fact it's lower than the collateral ratio in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq. Drones are more accurate than, or on par with, any other weapons delivery system. They also drop smaller explosives packages that reduce collateral damage. Civilian casualties are generally due to targeting errors and they're on the way down.

Lets put it this way, say you're running a patrol in afghanistan. Your convoy gets shot at with RPG and the perpetrators fled. So you head by the nearest town and arrest every male, kick down doors and disrupt people's lives. It's a sound tactical decision to find out who shot at your troop, but on the strategic level you just made a whole village pissed off at your military and people who might not have wanted to fight you will do so later on. There's just a huge disconnect in the way we fight a non-conventional war and the reason why is that the US and Allies have been building the best conventional military, but operating in a non-conventional environment. You're essentially buying the best sports car in the world and you need to drive through a desert.

Demonstrably false. We had a clear opportunity to win both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We began drawing down too early, the Taliban, AQI and other insurgents regrouped, and the troops surges were too late.

 

[isildurrrr1]

No. Because they are not good men gone astray, extremists need to be dealt with harshly and effectively. They are so brainwashed that leniency will have little effect on producing a positive change.

In addition, the people in the FATA *want* Pakistani military action there:

"The New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow conducted the first comprehensive public opinion survey in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The results showed that when it came to fighting militancy in the region, the people of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas overwhelmingly support the Pakistani military. Nearly 70 percent back the Pakistani military pursuing Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the Tribal Areas. Indeed, when asked how the Federally Administered Tribal Areas should be governed, 79 percent say it should be governed by the Pakistani military."

The people in the region themselves agree that military action against the Taliban in the region IS the way to go.

You should look up how malaysia deals with muslim extremists and it has worked extremely well. A lot of "insurgents" are just frustrated youth from extremely poor backgrounds with nothing to lose. No different from youth joining gangs, a lot of it has to do with lack of economic opportunity. It's not a simple "good vs bad," the results of "treating insurgents" harshly hasn't really worked out has it? there's such a huge international against extrajudicial killings and imprisonment aka gitmo.

I'm highly skeptical about the number of FATA residents who want the taliban out. If they wanted the taliban out, the locals would have already driven them away in the first place. It's a very very tricky issue dealing with tribal areas, lot's of mixed loyalties.

 

[SylviaB]