Meanwhile in London: Beheading in broad daylight

[Morgoth]

"The insignia of the Finnish Air force 1918–1945"

 

Aha, and why are they still parading around with it today?

[Zoraptor]

It's not unheard of. The symbol far predates the Nazis.

As an example it's a Jain symbol and millenia old in that context. Wikipedia has actually removed the swastika symbol which was there (rofles) but you can still see them third picture down.

 

Jain's are pacifists, which adds a certain level of irony to its recent uses.

[Elerond]

"The insignia of the Finnish Air force 1918–1945"

 

Aha, and why are they still parading around with it today?

 

Someone in 1958 decided that they can take it back to use, although only in the flag.

[Malcador]

Wow, somebody died and people here turned it into a way to push their nationalist and gun politics. Stay classy, people.

Eh, was fodder when the US has shootings, then all the Euros chimed in with sneering at them crazy Americans, heh.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Malcador

[Gorth]

For some reason, the first sentence that sprang to mind was 'There can be only one!'. I know, not particularly funny nor appropriate. Doesn't change that it was the first thought though.

 

Probably because of the absurdity of the situation and the trouble with trying to understand the equally absurd mindset behind the act.

[Agiel]

Was about to go into Russia's own nationalist groups that spout the line of preserving "slavic purity" in the face of the Uzbek and other Turkic "Untermenschen" invaders... but...

[Wrath of Dagon]

I bet the murderers belonged to some radical mosque, and for some idiotic reason Western countries refuse to deport those who incite them.

[Hurlshort]

Just to clarify, people who kill innocents aren't Muslims, they are extremists.  There is a rather large difference.  It's like calling every video gamer a murderer. 

[Flouride]

Speaking as the only British person so far... shut the **** up. Everyone.

 

I find it nearly as disasteful that you swivel eyed bastards are pushing your anti-muslim agenda as that someone I may have known has had their ****ing head cut off. I know Woolwich quite well through the TA. From what I understand that might easily have been me with my head cut off. And I wouldn't have blamed muslims I'd have blamed swivel eyed bastards with an anti-christian agenda.

 

Seriously. I've just gone off a lot of you completely. This isn't a points scoring exercise.

 

Nothing against Muslims in general, just some/most of the somalians that end up in here. Though I'm quite sure they are not that much better in other countries when it comes to crimes commited by them and the actual good they might do for the society that they are part of.

[Hurlshort]

Ah, so it's more about race than religion.  Sounds much better now.

[Flouride]

Ah, so it's more about race than religion.  Sounds much better now.

 

My sarcasm detector blew up

 

I wouldn't say it's about race either. It's about them funneling free money from the goverment to buy them fancy new clothes and stuff without them ever working at all. It's about them commiting multiple crimes and thanks to the pretty lenient Finnish penal system not doing much time in prison at all, so they can start their criminal careers all over again.

I just happen to dislike people who leech the society and commit crimes, just simple as that. Whether it's Finnish teen that get retirement benefits as the are "not fit" to work or someone from other nationality.

[BruceVC]

The one thing that really irritates me is when people get the opportunity to live in a foreign country and a better quality of life yet end up hating that country due to political reasons and decide to commit acts of terror.

 

" Down with the UK and its foreign policy decisions"

 

Yet they live and prosper within the social  framework that the UK provides.

 

Then the obvious hypocrisy from this cowardly attack, "an eye for an eye". So who are they going to blame for the tens of thousands of Muslims killed in Syria? Surly by there logic someone has to be held accountable  as Muslims are also being killed in Syria and other places around the world in sectarian conflicts. Or does an "eye for an eye" only apply if a Western country kills Muslims?

[Morgoth]

Then the obvious hypocrisy from this cowardly attack, "an eye for an eye".

 

While this act definitely was cowardly, so are the drone strikes that kill thousands of innocent people and shatter whole communities abroad. This kind of radicalisation won't stop as long as the US and her lapdogs allies stop with this nonsense. The difference of course is that the latter doesn't get any media coverage, hence no outrage. But that doesn't make in any less wrong.

 

As I said before, Imperialism is always going to bite you back in the ass. And as "the war on terror" will continue, so will the rapidity of attacks in Britain & Co.

[JadedWolf]

Honestly guys, if I was a moderator I'd lock this thread. I am sympathetic to the fact that moderators here are very open minded, but this thread is a trainwreck.

[BruceVC]

 

Then the obvious hypocrisy from this cowardly attack, "an eye for an eye".

 

While this act definitely was cowardly, so are the drone strikes that kill thousands of innocent people and shatter whole communities abroad. This kind of radicalisation won't stop as long as the US and her lapdogs allies stop with this nonsense. The difference of course is that the latter doesn't get any media coverage, hence no outrage. But that doesn't make in any less wrong.

 

As I said before, Imperialism is always going to bite you back in the ass. And as "the war on terror" will continue, so will the rapidity of attacks in Britain & Co.

 

 

I don't consider the usage of drone strikes as a form of Imperialism, by definition Imperialism is the concept of trying to extend your countries power and influence. Drone strikes are suppose to be specific  attacks against legitimate military targets in countries where you can't send ground troops in like Pakistan.

 

Saying that I do agree drone strikes are being used too quickly and they causing loads of consternation as countries feel there national sovereignty is being violated  but end of the day the Americans aren't saying " hey there is village of people lets just kill them all with drone strikes". One of my main issues with terrorist attacks we see against Western countries is the complete indiscriminate attacks to kill anyone even if they aren't involved in the political decisions of that country.

 

I know innocent people have been killed in drone strikes but its not the same thing as some of the terrorist attacks we see.

[BruceVC]

Honestly guys, if I was a moderator I'd lock this thread. I am sympathetic to the fact that moderators here are very open minded, but this thread is a trainwreck.

 

Just for the record why do you consider  discussing a pertinent and interesting real event in the world a trainwreck?

 

If you disagree with what people are saying please say so

[Morgoth]

Drone strikes are suppose to be specific  attacks against legitimate military targets in countries where you can't send ground troops in like Pakistan.

 

 

It's a lot more complicated than that. Drone strikes tend to have **** accuracy. So even if you're gonna manage to kill the target, so do hundreds of other people in it's vicinity. If you kill some taregt in Afghanistan where dozens of families get killed too, it tends to shatter entire communities that eventually will turn to radicalisation. This news of course is being spread around the entire Muslim community on the globe, and being perceived as an attack on Islam as a whole.

 

Of course it's easy to say "Well **** them, bomb them into pieces too", but a) not only is this kind of thinking just wrong, but b) also turns into a "national security problem" for the countries that do these attacks. So expect the rapidity of these revenge attacks soaring as cowardly drone strikes continue. At some point, we're gonna have a global Israel/Palestinian situation here. A perpetual war machine that will beget more revenge attacks which will beget even more drone strikes ad infinitum.

 

 

[BruceVC]

 

Drone strikes are suppose to be specific  attacks against legitimate military targets in countries where you can't send ground troops in like Pakistan.

 

 

It's a lot more complicated than that. Drone strikes tend to have **** accuracy. So even if you're gonna manage to kill the target, so do hundreds of other people in it's vicinity. If you kill some taregt in Afghanistan where dozens of families get killed too, it tends to shatter entire communities that eventually will turn to radicalisation. This news of course is being spread around the entire Muslim community on the globe, and being perceived as an attack on Islam as a whole.

 

Of course it's easy to say "Well **** them, bomb them into pieces too", but a) not only is this kind of thinking just wrong, but b) also turns into a "national security problem" for the countries that do these attacks. So expect the rapidity of these revenge attacks soaring as cowardly drone strikes continue. At some point, we're gonna have a global Israel/Palestinian situation here. A perpetual war machine that will beget more revenge attacks which will beget even more drone strikes ad infinitum.

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I see what you are saying, to be honest I did think that drone strikes were able to reduce casualties by being more specific but I am not an expert. I do agree with your point that any innocent killed does fuel the "anti-Western" sentiment.

 

But here is the question, if the USA knows that there is Taliban leader in a village in western Pakistan that is directing attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan how do you suggest he gets killed?

[Morgoth]

But here is the question, if the USA knows that there is Taliban leader in a village in western Pakistan that is directing attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan how do you suggest he gets killed?

 

 

Maybe this sounds a bit naive: Getting the coalition forces out of Afghanistan entirely? At least the US & co. can make that choice.

[TrashMan]

 

The formation of the Finish SS division was a demand from Hitler, a result of a desperate peace deal because the Russians weren't going to back down from their territorial expansion. 

 

It's still quite disturbing and troublesome that *any* nation within Europe can parade around with a Swastika on a flag and not receive EU sanctions public international scorn in return.

 

 

Meh. Frak international scorn.

Who the frak are they to tell me what symbols I'm allowed to like or dislike.

 

 

Personally I like the swastika. It's catchy and has a long tradition. Then come the natzi's and suddenly it's off-limits.

The fact that the symbol is ancient and represents the sun/life, or that is used in Asia apprently is irrelevant. Or the fact that if you change the color or the orientation it's NOT the natzi symbol anymroe than france and italy share the same flag.

 

[BruceVC]

 

But here is the question, if the USA knows that there is Taliban leader in a village in western Pakistan that is directing attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan how do you suggest he gets killed?

 

 

Maybe this sounds a bit naive: Getting the coalition forces out of Afghanistan entirely? At least the US & co. can make that choice.

 

 

Okay that would work but there is a timeline for this already, end of 2014

 

The USA and its allies would have pulled out already but these things take time. You also don't want to give the impression that the coalition is running away like they did at the end of the Afghanistan\USSR civil war. You don't want a country that is completely destabilized politically and fundamentalist groups come to power and then are able to prosper and grow. Like the Taliban did originally in Afghanistan. So until the USA pulls out of Afghanistan surly it  has to target certain people with drone strikes as these people are responsible for attacking there forces?

 

It is a military conundrum and there are nuances to this debate and how the USA and its allies conduct themselves

Edited May 23, 2013 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

But here is the question, if the USA knows that there is Taliban leader in a village in western Pakistan that is directing attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan how do you suggest he gets killed?

Carpet bomb the area with Nitrous oxide? When everybody is sitting down giggling, go around and ID those of interest and do whatever you need to do (while the rest is laughing at the hilariousness of it).

 

Ok, maybe not practical, but sometimes you need to think outside the box

[Morgoth]

 

"HAR HAR HAR HAR"

[BruceVC]

 

But here is the question, if the USA knows that there is Taliban leader in a village in western Pakistan that is directing attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan how do you suggest he gets killed?

Carpet bomb the area with Nitrous oxide? When everybody is sitting down giggling, go around and ID those of interest and do whatever you need to do (while the rest is laughing at the hilariousness of it).

 

Ok, maybe not practical, but sometimes you need to think outside the box

 

 

 

 

"Gorthfucius"

[HoonDing]

But here is the question, if the USA knows that there is Taliban leader in a village in western Pakistan that is directing attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan how do you suggest he gets killed?

 

Send in a Navy SEAL team.