Meanwhile in London: Beheading in broad daylight

[alanschu]

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

 

Drowsy Emperor, I'm guessing you have some history there, but from your current posts looks like you're saying that  Muslims as a whole are by default monstrous objects instead of individuals ("Imported"? Really?). Somehow, you see this particular one murder out of thousands of murders with horrid motives as a political issue. I doubt you'd have been so angry if you read about another race bashing somewhere in the U.S., so you have no right to play the high horse card here especially since your view of Muslims is obviously so very, very much the same as their view of you.

 

Thanks for implying that the Europeans of this small niche community are responsible for literally ancient government decisions, by the way. I accept personal responsibility for wars from before I was old enough to vote. Thanks for making me see the light by showing me through the eyes of the one true victim.

 

 

 

Check this thread out for some fun context about how some people perceive followers of Islam, and the lies they are willing to perpetuate to ensure that people that murder in the name of Christianity are hand woven to be "politically motivated."

[Morgoth]

So, it's a radicalized muslim again? I think the most discusting about this is how it was done: a beheading with a knife. Jesus....

 

To sooth your mind: He was already dead (driven over by a car multiple times) before they proceeded to cut off his head.

[Malcador]

It's a difficult sell politically, especially if you have financial problems of your own. If done right though it would be temporary, you'd get some of the money back from them buying your products and even in absolute terms it would probably be cheaper than the costs involved in, say, occupying Afghanistan. A hellfire missile costs about 20k a pop (?), if you fired one less per day you could pay 4,000 people not to shoot at you (you'd want to dress it up in a different way though, of course) for that day.

Hah, yeah, weapon costs are rather high compared to simple hearts and minds type stuff. Hm, wonder if they ever though about giving the UAVs a 20mm gun and strafing the target - cannon rounds are cheaper, do less secondary damage.

 

This thread needs Kreczak to show up and judge DE for being all anti-Muslim and therefore evil.

[Meshugger]

 

So, it's a radicalized muslim again? I think the most discusting about this is how it was done: a beheading with a knife. Jesus....

 

To sooth your mind: He was already dead (driven over by a car multiple times) before they proceeded to cut off his head.

 

 

Allah is merciful.

[exodiark]

The passerby's reaction are understandable, this is what people call "bystander effect"
Happens a lot in places like China and they usually got criticized for it. Turns out it doesn't look any different in the West either :|

But man, beheaded? That's Norwegian black metal.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, it seems to happen faster if there are more people around.

[Walsingham]

Fwiiw I think bystander effect applies hwen a situation is ambiguous, like someone lying down unconscious. Two bloodstained shouting ****wits isn't ambiguous, it's just dangerous.

[HoonDing]

But man, beheaded? That's Norwegian black metal.

Only if you cook the brains.

[NOK222]

http://www.newser.com/story/168518/now-a-french-soldier-has-been-stabbed.html

 

French Soldier stabbed by a guy in a "prayer cap" 

[Drowsy Emperor]

The interesting question here is - is it terrorism if the only victim is a combatant. In a war its not only legal to kill soldiers, it also doesn't matter how its done - as long as it doesn't include torture or killing of POW's. Obviously these are the rules that apply to a war zone, but since today's wars are no longer fought like classical ones - in defined places and with roughly symmetrical armies one can pretty much conclude that there is no reason to limit the area of war just for the convenience of one of the fighting sides.

 

Secondly, the declaration of war is definitely there - xy Islamic groups have openly "declared war" on the west.

 

What is forbidden is not being clearly marked as a fighter of the opposing side.

 

But if one side can drop death from above without even a pretense of fighting a war on equal terms - in other words be not only an invisible, but an untouchable combatant in addition to being so vastly more powerful that its barely a war and more a one sided thrashing - then the other side really has no reason to accept fighting on terms that would lead to its wholesale slaughter.

 

In other words, it adopts what meager means are at its disposal and as long as the victims aren't civilians then its actions can hardly be considered unjustified.

 

So, someone may be appalled - but the fact is that west gave  Islamic terrorists the legitimacy given to an opposing side in a war - the moment it actually declared the war on terror - and began to fight it as a "proper" war, not with the usual, internal means used against common criminals (police, intelligence).  

[Drowsy Emperor]

That's all mentioned for debate purposes - everything I said before still stands. And its hard not to notice that Morgoth has a point. What's happening is practically Newtonian.

Islamic fundamentalism was born when the US engineered the rule of the Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi who was widely considered to be their puppet in Iran. Seen as an illegitimate marionette and subsequently overthrown by the masses led by Ayatollah Khomeini - the same masses who overwhelmingly accepted theocratic fundamentalism as an alternative to Pahlavi's rule.

 

The rest as they, is history.

[Walsingham]

... A history far more complex, and more simple, and far less rooted in a clash of civilizations than you would like.

 

The earliest example of grand and bloody holy wars goes back to Zoroastrianism, to the best of my knowledge. Yet that was only expedient to the needs of the nascent Persian empire.

 

Ancient history is debateable, but suggesting it goes only so far as the Shah of Iran reveals the depth of your historic ignorance. I'd have thought it was perfectly well known that the British Empire was fighting Islamic fundamentalism - or perhaps it is more accurate to say it was fighting us - many years before Iran even existed, in places like the Sudan. If not in India even earlier.

 

The only way your assertion makes any sense is by linking modern Islamic fundamentalism with post marxist revolutionary doctrines. Which is half my ****ing point. It's not Islam. It's revolutionary fascism with a dash of muslim supremacy to taste.

 

If you really think this is a war I suggest to turn your brain on. It may come in handy.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Obviously this discussion was bout the so called "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists", the mere phenomenon of religious fundamentalism is blatantly older than that. The point of what I was saying is that the Iranian revolution was an inspiration to today's "terrorists" because it showed that an Islamic fundamentalist republic, not dominated by the west, could be exist even though the US opposed it.

In short, it was a propaganda victory.

This goes hand in hand with the downfall of the project of secularism in the middle eastern countries and the Islamization of all the major political figures, leading to a global revival of Islam as a political project.

The transformation of Turkey from a very secular country to a heavily Islamized one in a single generation is enough proof.

 

What Islam is, is open to interpretation. But to deny the existence and political aspirations of the major players in the Islamic world of which terrorism (while other acts are mere results of propaganda and individual activity) is just the visible manifestation is idiocy.

I have seen with my own eyes how covert and over funding by Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries is turning non political muslims into fundamentalist sects in Bosnia and southern Serbia, implementing whole projects of indoctrination through (legal) religious universities serving to create a subversive populace out of a previously non radical one. They do this by essentially implementing a closed system of upbringing and education that goes around the standard methods of socialization (schools and public opinion) and by making them economically and politically dependant - which results in a generation, wholly divorced from its surroundings.

 

To ignore that war... 

 

Besides, arguing over this is pointless. Your coexistence with Islam is going so well that there's a terrorist attack practically every month where there previously were none, or merely sporadic ones. Most of those terrorists were born in your system, but completely outside of your cultural paradigm.

 

If you don't think that's a  problem that can only grow in the long term, you're simply clueless.

[Walsingham]

I would refer the honourable member to my earlier statement, calling him a c***.

[Meshugger]

Since the communist experiment failed, the nazis in Germany and the fascists in Italy lost a great war, it leaves islam as the only totalitarian political movement that is considered socially acceptable to be "moderate" about. I mean, you cannot be expected to be taken seriously by calling yourself a "moderate fascist".

 

So i do not see an end to this before either 1)  One or a number of states going full islam and fail completely and utterly by themselves or 2) there's a great war ending with Mecca being bombed back to the stone ages.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ah it would seem the much vaunted British politeness has gone out of fashion. How touchy they grow when the horror is on their own cut lawns but oh so casually glossed over when people die in droves somewhere not so far away, written off as collateral damage. If you're incapable of showing sympathy, expect none in return.
 
 
My last word on coexistence with the religion of  peace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower
 

 

The Skull Tower (Serbian: Ћеле Кула, Ćele Kula, Turkish: Kelle Kulesi) is a monument to 19th century Serbian rebels. It is situated in Niš, on the old Constantinople Road leading to Sofia. The monument was built using the skulls of the Serbs killed by order of Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II during the 1809 Battle of Čegar.

After the retreat of the Serbian rebel army, the Turkish commander of Niš, Hursid Pasha, ordered that the heads of the killed Serbs were to be mounted on a tower to serve as a warning to whoever opposed the Ottoman Empire.

 

 
 
 
Enjoy your ignorance.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

[Malcador]

http://www.newser.com/story/168518/now-a-french-soldier-has-been-stabbed.html

 

French Soldier stabbed by a guy in a "prayer cap"

I guess they should start requiring soldiers to be armed when out and about in uniform.

[Malcador]

Ah it would seem the much vaunted British politeness has gone out of fashion. How touchy they grow when the horror is on their own cut lawns but oh so casually glossed over when people die in droves somewhere not so far away, written off as collateral damage. If you're incapable of showing sympathy, expect none in return.

Ah, that's everyone really and it does make sense - what do some strange villagers across the world who share none of your customs matter to you ? Not much compared to someone in your city getting wasted. Hell, think smaller, even within a city people just shrug off violent murders as long they're not too heinous (and the victim is the 'right' type).

[TrashMan]

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

 

 

"In the name of X"?

Pointless. People ultimatively kill eachother because they are stupid, greedy f***.

Religion has got nothing to do with it.

[Hurlshort]

 

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

 

 

"In the name of X"?

Pointless. People ultimatively kill eachother because they are stupid, greedy f***.

Religion has got nothing to do with it.

 

 

That's my point.  Did you read the post before mine?

[obyknven]

 

Eh, I could dig up thousands of stories like that being done in the name of Christianity.

 

"In the name of X"?

Pointless. People ultimatively kill eachother because they are stupid, greedy f***.

Religion has got nothing to do with it.

 

 

Welcome to wonderful world of Christianity:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Biblical_Studies/New_Testament_Commentaries/The_Gospel_of_Matthew/Chapter_10

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

 

“‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

 

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

[Rostere]

So, someone may be appalled - but the fact is that west gave  Islamic terrorists the legitimacy given to an opposing side in a war - the moment it actually declared the war on terror - and began to fight it as a "proper" war, not with the usual, internal means used against common criminals (police, intelligence).  

 

This is a very interesting point. Before, "terrorists" killed civilians in public places. Clearly, this is a crime from the point of view of international law and also from mainstream interpretation of Islamic law.

 

Killing a uniformed soldier is an entirely different thing, however. Legally speaking, he is an enemy combatant. If he is dressed in the uniform of a country who has formally declared a "war on terror", the point is even clearer.

 

From the other side of the spectrum, I guess this opens up for extrajudicial killings of confirmed members of "terrorist" organizations. Oh wait, that has already happened?

[Zoraptor]

I've never counted the attack on the USS Cole as terrorism for precisely that point- it was an attack on combatants, by combatants. Just because it's on US combatants doesn't make it terrorism, nor does them not radioing in their intentions so they could be obliterated by a missile  from miles out. When it's impossible to get things like IranAir 655 which were outright military on civilian even to be considered mistakes let alone terrorism (which it wasn't) there's a massive double standard operating. What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander

 

Personally I wouldn't call this particular case terrorism either. It has two problems, firstly if you're going to count killings of enlisted combatants as terrorism because it has a political element then any drone attack on Taliban or Hamas is terrorism- they're political, and it's very difficult to argue than someone like Sheik Yassin of Hamas, an old man in a wheelchair, is an active combatant, he was killed for pure political effect- and secondly you've abrogated the whole concept of 'fair' warfare by using drones in the first place. The drones and their operators don't care if the target is chilling out watching tele, asleep, boffing his wives or whatever. In fact they'd count it as an advantage if they're asleep, and they're already killing someone at no personal risk from the safety of Diego Garcia or Nevada. In that context running someone over is positively fair and balanced.

 

I'm not defending what happened any more than I'd defend a wedding party or reporters being blown up by western pilots/ drones, but there is more than a mite of the old "the terrorists don't fight properly, they won't take their AKs into a field and wait to be pulverised fair and square by Abrams/ F22s/ Apaches/ Predators as any honourable person would!" justification about the whole thing. Oh, and the usual stink of political expediency. Gummint needs to know everything everyone says, it's for your safety!

[Wrath of Dagon]

The reason if was terrorism is these were British residents, probably living on British dole, attacking their own country. Also any combatants not fighting for a government are illegal, although I guess there's a question who makes the law.