View Full Version : Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.
But there is a lot of violence in the Koran, you have to look hard in the bible.
Really? The Old Testament is full of it; either God smiting various people, or destroying whole cities, or the Jews slaughtering their enemies at God's command:
Make ready to slaughter the infidel’s sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children."
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.
This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
True, there is loads more action in the Old Testament. A lot more begatting too.
Jesus is the peace and love character but he is only in the sequel.
The origins of the Bible tend to be a mystery for most Christians. Its historic context is completely different to the Koran. It has multiple authors for a start.
True, there is loads more action in the Old Testament. A lot more begatting too.
I like the baldheaded bloke best. I imagine Benny Hill slapping him on his bald pate, before being devoured by a she-bear.
montesquieu
27-05-2017, 19:25
True, there is loads more action in the Old Testament. A lot more begatting too.
Strictly speaking, for a Christian, much of that old testament stuff is literally just history (about half of it is exacty that - histories of rulers, armies, slavery and so on), it's not a guide on how to act.
Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. At various times his followers might not have heeded that, but nevertheless that is what he said.
Life might be a lot simpler if Mohammed had said something similar rather than give an instruction to spread the faith by conquest (indeed Mohammed spent a fair chunk of his life at the head of an army). Whatever your take on all this theologically, it's a pretty fundamental difference.
Strictly speaking, for a Christian, much of that old testament stuff is literally just history (about half of it is exacty that - histories of rulers, armies, slavery and so on), it's not a guide on how to act.
Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. At various times his followers might not have heeded that, but nevertheless that is what he said.
Life might be a lot simpler if Mohammed had said something similar rather than give an instruction to spread the faith by conquest (indeed Mohammed spent a fair chunk of his life at the head of an army). Whatever your take on all this theologically, it's a pretty fundamental difference.
Yet the difference in behaviour between nominally Christian and nominally Muslim states has often been hard to distinguish. Once Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, the persecuted became the persecutors, and the words of Christ were lost in the mix.
montesquieu
27-05-2017, 19:42
Yet the difference in behaviour between nominally Christian and nominally Muslim states has often been hard to distinguish. Once Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, the persecuted became the persecutors, and the words of Christ were lost in the mix.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree on some of the excesses of Christain history but nevertheless there is a big difference in the fundamentals - Christianity didn't set out to conquer the world by force of arms, and there are no instructions there from Christ to spread the faith by force or kill the infidel (the instruction used is 'teach'), whereas there is a specific instruction in Islam to convert and subjugate by power of arms, and kill those who refuse to submit. ('Islam' is often translated as 'peace' but it actually means 'submission'.)
This makes it hard for civilised Muslims - of which there are many of course - to properly argue the position against fundamentalist extremists, as the words are there in the text to justify their extremism, indeed a bunch of very senior Egyptian clerics recently declared Isis' precepts as consistent with Islamic theology (in fact it's not hugely different to the Salafist variety of Islam practised and Saudi and spread around the world by oil money).
There is simply nothing in Christianity that equates to this, not in the New Testament at least. (People who quote the Old Testament usually don't understand its limited sway in Christianity - we have St Paul to thank for leaving those excesses behind us).
, and the words of Christ were lost in the mix.
Until the MQA de-blurring process came along! I'm told the vocals are much clearer on the Tidal Masters version.
farflungstar
27-05-2017, 19:45
I'm not getting back into this conversation (lol) but Christian missionaries burnt African children alive if they didn't accept Christ - this wasn't so long ago.
That's not to say all Christians acted equally. Only that there are always lunatics on the fringes of any ideology.
Terrorism takes many forms - massacring the entire population of buffalo in the states so the native Indians died of starvation is state terrorism.
Evil doesn't pick sides - it finds opportunities.
I'm not getting back into this conversation (lol) but Christian missionaries burnt African children alive if they didn't accept Christ - this wasn't so long ago.
You've got a reliable reference for that?
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 19:57
I'm not getting back into this conversation (lol) but Christian missionaries burnt African children alive if they didn't accept Christ - this wasn't so long ago.
Yes but Martin had it right the New Testament version of the bible isn't as violent than the Koran, and the point has been missed in the replies except tom referring to society, is that christians believe in the more important aspects of the bible, whereas there are plenty of Muslim countries and extremists who interpret the Koran very seriously indeed. And in addition this influence of our society on a religious text has its bearing which is missed too. The punishment for apostecy can't be death if society doesn't tolerate murder. But if society as in some intolerant Muslim countries, doesn't rate the human rights of people, they die by the religious text. And that's a huge issue and problem.
farflungstar
27-05-2017, 19:57
I saw it on a BBC documentary about 15 years ago.
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 20:00
Strictly speaking, for a Christian, much of that old testament stuff is literally just history (about half of it is exacty that - histories of rulers, armies, slavery and so on), it's not a guide on how to act.
Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. At various times his followers might not have heeded that, but nevertheless that is what he said.
Life might be a lot simpler if Mohammed had said something similar rather than give an instruction to spread the faith by conquest (indeed Mohammed spent a fair chunk of his life at the head of an army). Whatever your take on all this theologically, it's a pretty fundamental difference.
Absolutely and Mohammed cut people's heads off. I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't do that.
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 20:04
I'm not getting back into this conversation (lol) but Christian missionaries burnt African children alive if they didn't accept Christ - this wasn't so long ago.
That's not to say all Christians acted equally. Only that there are always lunatics on the fringes of any ideology.
Terrorism takes many forms - massacring the entire population of buffalo in the states so the native Indians died of starvation is state terrorism.
Evil doesn't pick sides - it finds opportunities.
Except christians aren't blowing themselves up around the world with other people frequently at present, and this is a current issue not a passed one. If they did so currently in the name of Christianity, then we would be asking questions of the Christian faith and rightly so.
farflungstar
27-05-2017, 20:06
This really is my last post in this thread - but the pious hypocrisy on display is beyond belief. Hitler was Christian and we had the holocaust, American Christians were hanging and burning alive black people in the deep south less than 60 years ago. There are evil people in all faiths - doing evil things in the name of those faiths. To deny that beggars belief and perpetuates the them and us situation that leads to nothing but division and trouble.
montesquieu
27-05-2017, 20:06
You've got a reliable reference for that?
I was thinking that myself - I havenever heard of such a thing.
And the comment also misses the point. While such things may well have happened in the distant past, there is nothing in Christian theology or scripture to sanction that behaviour.
Sadly, the text is right there in Islam, not least where Mohammed himself ordered mass killings. To say this is a problem in todays world is rather an understatement.
montesquieu
27-05-2017, 20:10
This really is my last post in this thread - but the pious hypocrisy on display is beyond belief. Hitler was Christian and we had the holocaust, American Christians were hanging and burning alive black people in the deep south less than 60 years ago. There are evil people in all faiths - doing evil things in the name of those faiths. To deny that beggars belief and perpetuates the them and us situation that leads to nothing but division and trouble.
1) Hitler wasn't a Christian, many Christians went to the concentration camps. He may have been baptised a Christian at birth but he didn't rule as a Christian leader or practice any recognised form of Christianity, indeed he murdered those Christians who stood on Christian principles against his rule.
2) You totally miss the point - again. So-called Christians did indeed commit atrocities in the deep south or the American west but this is NOT sanctioned in the Christian religion. Muslim terrorists quote the Koran in their killings of innocent people.
It's not hypocrisy to make the distinction - and frankly Adey you are either being either a bit thick here or deliberately ignoring the facts to suit your prejudices.
This really is my last post in this thread - but the pious hypocrisy on display is beyond belief. Hitler was Christian and we had the holocaust, American Christians were hanging and burning alive black people in the deep south less than 60 years ago. There are evil people in all faiths - doing evil things in the name of those faiths. To deny that beggars belief and perpetuates the them and us situation that leads to nothing but division and trouble.
Hitler was an atheist and the other things you mention were done by Christians, not in the name of Christianity but for reasons not related to religion at all.
Really? The Old Testament is full of it; either God smiting various people, or destroying whole cities, or the Jews slaughtering their enemies at God's command:
Make ready to slaughter the infidel’s sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children."
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.
This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Hi Joe, don't really want to get involved in the original topic of this thread but wanted to say the religion of The Old Testament is Judaism, not Christianity (although its purpose was to point to the work of Christ but that's definitely a new thread:)). When a new testament is put in place the old becomes null and void.
Just saying :)
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 20:36
I was thinking that myself - I havenever heard of such a thing.
And the comment also misses the point. While such things may well have happened in the distant past, there is nothing in Christian theology or scripture to sanction that behaviour.
Sadly, the text is right there in Islam, not least where Mohammed himself ordered mass killings. To say this is a problem in todays world is rather an understatement.
Absolutely.
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 20:41
1) Hitler wasn't a Christian, many Christians went to the concentration camps. He may have been baptised a Christian at birth but he didn't rule as a Christian leader or practice any recognised form of Christianity, indeed he murdered those Christians who stood on Christian principles against his rule.
2) You totally miss the point - again. So-called Christians did indeed commit atrocities in the deep south or the American west but this is NOT sanctioned in the Christian religion. Muslim terrorists quote the Koran in their killings of innocent people.
It's not hypocrisy to make the distinction - and frankly Adey you are either being either a bit thick here or deliberately ignoring the facts to suit your prejudices.
I'm with you 100 percent Tom as you one of only a few talking sense in this thread. Btw to correct the inaccuracy before, hitler was not an atheist, but a Roman Catholic, and whatever the academics of that, Hitler did not take his horrible deeds in the name of religion. And even if he was an atheist there is not a non religious atheist text that dictates how people are dealt with in society. E.g. Put to death. There very much is in Islam and it's practises by Islamic countries and in its form, it was practised by this uk bomber.
See attached
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx
farflungstar
27-05-2017, 20:55
No, im just bring open minded and seeing that this kind of shit isn't new. The conquistadors etc did it in the name of religion - religion is the thread throughout whatever distinctions you want to draw. I'm also saying that evil exists everywhere - in the home of those poor 80 year olds who got stabbed to death yesterday by some sicko and those Coptic Christian kids who got blown up the other day.
Evil is evil, and whether Jewish or not some idiots do actually believe the old testament and treat people horrendously, like blowing up gay people in a club.
Fanaticism will always exist in religion - i haven't read the Koran but im assuming you have so I can't comment. However if what you said was true then every Muslim in the UK would be running around with.
Meat cleavers.
I've known many Muslims and they have been as normal as anyone else.
This does not mean tom that we do not have a problem - but I think you have to ask how they are armed and trained - there are no munitions factories Libya or the majority of the middle East. Russia, America? I'm not saying they are sold direct - but they get there somehow - this is what we need to look at. If They have spears they can do fuck all....
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 21:05
No, im just bring open minded and seeing that this kind of shit isn't new. The conquistadors etc did it in the name of religion - religion is the thread throughout whatever distinctions you want to draw. I'm also saying that evil exists everywhere - in the home of those poor 80 year olds who got stabbed to death yesterday by some sicko and those Coptic Christian kids who got blown up the other day.
Evil is evil, and whether Jewish or not some idiots do actually believe the old testament and treat people horrendously, like blowing up gay people in a club.
Fanaticism will always exist in religion - i haven't read the Koran but im assuming you have so I can't comment. However if what you said was true then every Muslim in the UK would be running around with.
Meat cleavers.
I've known many Muslims and they have been as normal as anyone else.
This does not mean tom that we do not have a problem - but I think you have to ask how they are armed and trained - there are no munitions factories Libya or the majority of the middle East. Russia, America? I'm not saying they are sold direct - but they get there somehow - this is what we need to look at. If They have spears they can do fuck all....
No this isn't true at all.
The problem we have is Islamic terrorism, let's concentrate on that. Evil is evil but that's another question.
No not every one with a meat clever because your argument doesn't take account of the sense of the matter. And the sense these moderates have is something they live in, this thing they live in is called society. Which means they go to prison if they kill someone for leaving a religion, which our society tolerates be it Christian, Muslim, or whatever. That means they miss their children etc. They choose to ignore that aspect of the religion to be in a society as decent moderate people.
I know muslims too and they agree with me on lots of things, but this isn't about whether they are normal. It's about some of them using the distorted form of Islam which is the actual text e.g. Apostecy, to kill. This is what happened with this bomber. He did it because he thought he would be a martyr. I could find you the actual wording in the Koran.
But the point is the distorted form. Also it happens in Muslim countries that don't have the society we have, with human rights abuses for killing people for what we would consider minor things under the law dictated by the Koran. These people can visit these countries then come here as British cirizens.
They don't have spears they have acetone peroxide bombs which can be made quite crudely and kill lots of people.
Please read around this subject.
farflungstar
27-05-2017, 21:10
So the Koran is not the problem then? In earlier posts it's been said that it's full of murder and beheading unlike the Bible. Ok im going.
montesquieu
27-05-2017, 21:11
No, im just bring open minded and seeing that this kind of shit isn't new. The conquistadors etc did it in the name of religion - religion is the thread throughout whatever distinctions you want to draw. I'm also saying that evil exists everywhere - in the home of those poor 80 year olds who got stabbed to death yesterday by some sicko and those Coptic Christian kids who got blown up the other day.
Evil is evil, and whether Jewish or not some idiots do actually believe the old testament and treat people horrendously, like blowing up gay people in a club.
Fanaticism will always exist in religion - i haven't read the Koran but im assuming you have so I can't comment. However if what you said was true then every Muslim in the UK would be running around with.
Meat cleavers.
I've known many Muslims and they have been as normal as anyone else.
This does not mean tom that we do not have a problem - but I think you have to ask how they are armed and trained - there are no munitions factories Libya or the majority of the middle East. Russia, America? I'm not saying they are sold direct - but they get there somehow - this is what we need to look at. If They have spears they can do fuck all....
Sorry Adey once again you (deliberately?) miss the point.
I'm not sticking up for religion at all, or religious people. Simply pointing to the fact that Muslim fanatics have sanction for their actions in their holy book, whereas evildoers from a Christian background don't.
The Conquistadors did it for money and glory. Which you well know.
I also have Musilim friends and been to mosques in various countries, not least the big one in Glasgow. There are many schools of Musilm thought that are perfectly capable of handling the difficult passages in the Koran in an intelligent and non-violent way perfectly compatible with a modern pluralist world.
The difference I'm calling your attention to is that the words are there in Islam, in a way that they aren't in Christianity. Relatively mainstream voices in Islam support extremism in a way that no mainstream Christian does. This is a genuine problem in a terrorism context - there is backing for Islamist violence that is a major difficulty.
To try and tar all with the same brush is lazy thinking and not helpful when it comes to resolving the problem.
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 21:25
And commentators have asked many muslims in positions of seniority in their faith, what their view is on some parts of Islam regarding death for minor crimes as dictated by the Koran, and they won't condemn this interpretation in countries where it's permitted. How can they report fundamentalists they come across when they hold such bad view. You only have to you tube the big questions with Douglas Murray, Adam Deen, etc to see what I mean. Choudhary was doing it on the BBC for years but he was at the same time indoctrinating muslims.
Dynamics
27-05-2017, 21:27
Sorry Adey once again you (deliberately?) miss the point.
I'm not sticking up for religion at all, or religious people. Simply pointing to the fact that Muslim fanatics have sanction for their actions in their holy book, whereas evildoers from a Christian background don't.
The Conquistadors did it for money and glory. Which you well know.
I also have Musilim friends and been to mosques in various countries, not least the big one in Glasgow. There are many schools of Musilm thought that are perfectly capable of handling the difficult passages in the Koran in an intelligent and non-violent way perfectly compatible with a modern pluralist world.
The difference I'm calling your attention to is that the words are there in Islam, in a way that they aren't in Christianity. Relatively mainstream voices in Islam support extremism in a way that no mainstream Christian does. This is a genuine problem in a terrorism context - there is backing for Islamist violence that is a major difficulty.
To try and tar all with the same brush is lazy thinking and not helpful when it comes to resolving the problem.
Absolutely agreed, this is the problem. Uk muslims should agree and denounce parts of the Koran and habiths that incite violence and contrary our own society norms and views. How about honour killings, isn't that made religious and codified in the Koran too. Probably.
Let it not be said that Muslims didn’t cooperate with the authorities to report Abedi. Abedi flew a black Jihadi flag out of his window in Manchester. He was banned from his mosque. His Imam reported him. His family reported him. His friends reported him. He wasn’t a lone wolf – he was a known wolf.
But MI5 didn’t stop him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/salman-abedi-manchester-attack-reported-family-imam-friends-did-nothing-a7757726.html
Dynamics
28-05-2017, 10:35
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/salman-abedi-manchester-attack-reported-family-imam-friends-did-nothing-a7757726.html
I agree with you spending on counter terrorism is probably not enough. And it surprises me when they spend billions on foreign aid, the rights of wrongs of that a seperate question, but some of the aid money could be used towards defence in an increasing terrorist world. But we don't know the facts fully yet around abedi and his cell, around whether security forces could or couldn't do things on some of these reports, and what they could do and whether, even if they had 100 times the budget if it would have made a difference to stoping the bombing
This article is very much putting lower budget per capita spending on anti terror in the uk, against the Americans, and the number of staff on each case, to say it's not enough. What they also don't say is how many of the 3000 on the list are active. I'm sure the details will come out in the press properly against the
Secutory services and them being inadequate, but be circumspect, as this is not great information yet, and we shouldn't believe this yet. Surprised it came from the independent but they all have an angle nowadays.
farflungstar
28-05-2017, 18:15
Can't believe it took so long.
Spectral Morn
03-06-2017, 21:57
London Bridge - another incident. On going now.
walpurgis
03-06-2017, 22:03
Seems pretty bad. News is vague so far.
Spectral Morn
03-06-2017, 22:13
Seems pretty bad. News is vague so far.
Yes very confused.
walpurgis
03-06-2017, 22:21
Looks to be a more complex incident. There is also response to another matter at Borough Market south of the river from London Bridge. Considerable gunfire reported.
Spectral Morn
03-06-2017, 22:30
Looks to be a more complex incident. There is also response to another matter at Borough Market south of the river from London Bridge. Considerable gunfire reported.
Hearing that now Geoff. Sounds a right mess. I hope and pray, no one has been killed.
Spectral Morn
03-06-2017, 22:47
Third incident at Vauxhall being reported, but no info as to what.
walpurgis
03-06-2017, 22:54
As I've said before. We are at war, but nobody will admit it.
Spectral Morn
03-06-2017, 22:56
As I've said before. We are at war, but nobody will admit it.
First reports of fatalities - plural :(
Just now hearing about this, saddened to see it's happening again.. can only pray nobody is seriously hurt
Spectral Morn
03-06-2017, 22:58
Just now hearing about this, saddened to see it's happening again.. can only pray nobody is seriously hurt
Sadly Taz news is reporting there have been fatalities. Very confused as to what exactly is happening and has happened. Seems there has been three incidents, two on going as I type.
Sadly Taz news is reporting there have been fatalities. Very confused as to what exactly is happening and has happened. Seems there has been three incidents, two on going as I type.
I've got it on sky news now trying to understand what is going on too... Truly a shame...
Little lost for words at the minute
Vauxhall area might have been a false alarm.
The gunshots from what I can gather were from 2 armed police officers who might have shot the stabbing suspect at borough market
walpurgis
04-06-2017, 08:06
So, we have this tiny proportion of the British population holding us to ransom and causing terror, death, destruction and mayhem. No effective strategy to address this is in place. What is the answer?
This minority is insular and largely wants nothing to do with 'outsiders'. Hatred of others, not of their creed is indoctrinated into them. They even hate others who are 'not of the same type' in their faith (if you can call it that), Sunni's and Shia's murdering each other for instance.
We now have a country that is not safe whilst there are muslims in it. Tell me how we deal with that!
farflungstar
04-06-2017, 08:10
The answer is not to shoot them dead and put them before a jury. To question them about their accomplices. But every time they kill them instead of letting justice take it's course. And every time they have ID in a country where it's not obligatory.
Derailing the election, that much is obvious now. The motives, however, are much harder to fathom.
There is only one way to defeat these folk, it is the way we defeated the nazis. Stick together and be brave. Dont scream and run away, face them down and do what we must do to utterly destroy them.
farflungstar
04-06-2017, 08:38
Derailing the election, that much is obvious now. The motives, however, are much harder to fathom.
Putting the bastard's in front of a jury will help - but maybe they would reveall too much?
why people do such terrible things in the name of some silly fairy tale story book is beyond me??
And every time they have ID in a country where it's not obligatory.
My theory on this is that these people are promised big cash bungs for their families, to support them comfortably for the rest of their lives: the ID is to confirm to the paymasters whom should receive the bounty. Can't think of any other reason.
farflungstar
04-06-2017, 08:51
Put them in front of a jury. The police could have shot them in the leg which they normally do - the area was clear so even if the fake suicide belt was real the worst it could have done was kill the twisted fuckers - which the police kindly did.
I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?
not that it has anything to do with it but i cant help but think of the scene in the omen when the vicar quotes this...When the Jews return to Zion and a comet fills the sky, and the Holy Roman Empire rises; then you and I must die. From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore, turning man against his brother, 'til man exists no more."
so with that in mind im not going any where near a church with a big spike on top of it,particularly the one near putney bridge!!
walpurgis
04-06-2017, 08:56
I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?
Would you go up to somebody wearing what looks like a bomb and try to handcuff them?
Would you go up to somebody wearing what looks like a bomb and try to handcuff them?
they are often booby trapped so they go off if you try. a bit like the japanese flying bombs. they dont want folk changing their minds
farflungstar
04-06-2017, 09:05
There must be a way of doing it, in both shoulders maybe.
Put them in front of a jury. The police could have shot them in the leg which they normally do - the area was clear so even if the fake suicide belt was real the worst it could have done was kill the twisted fuckers - which the police kindly did.
I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?
In the Pacific campaign in WW2 it became common practice to shoot wounded or surrendering Japanese troops because many would conceal a grenade which they would only detonate when they were approached.
As for asking them why they do it you might as well ask a Nazi why they killed a million Jews
I'd prefer that they just shoot them dead, I don't want my money wasted on their trials and incarceration. Nothing to be gained there.
walpurgis
04-06-2017, 09:38
There must be a way of doing it, in both shoulders maybe.
Why bother? Then you'd spend millions keeping a disabled prisoner serving life.
Because they want to die so a better punishment is to disable them if possible and make them serve life in a solitary cell. This denies them their wishes.
farflungstar
04-06-2017, 15:24
Because they want to die so a better punishment is to disable them if possible and make them serve life in a solitary cell. This denies them their wishes.
I agree. Deny then their wish and find out who's behind this - what preachers, what sides etc.
Stratmangler
04-06-2017, 16:43
I agree. Deny then their wish and find out who's behind this - what preachers, what sides etc.
And you think incarcerating them and being civil to them will accomplish this?
Dream on ......
its not a good idea. they will just take and execute hostages.
farflungstar
04-06-2017, 20:12
Perhaps you're right.
walpurgis
19-06-2017, 08:47
Another nasty incident. Finsbury Park attack last night. I'm not surprised that something like this has happened. Sooner or later a backlash of some sort was inevitable and there's always some loon or group of loons about who will feel justified in 'taking up the sword' so to speak, in whatever ill judged or irrational manner. I doubt this will be the last occurrence of its kind.
Indeed. However, they're wrongly referring to it as another "terror attack".
What's happened now in Finsbury Park is fundamentally NOT a terror attack, nor was the idiot who carried it out, a 'terrorist'; it was an ill-conceived revenge attack against Muslims (by some unhinged racist loon), in retaliation for the recent [bonafide] terror attacks, committed on various innocent people, by radicalised Muslims.
The two are quite different!
Regardless, however, it's dreadful to see such abominations on humanity taking place again so soon after the last incidents. And I agree, that sadly that won't be the last of it either.
Marco.
Put them in front of a jury. The police could have shot them in the leg which they normally do - the area was clear so even if the fake suicide belt was real the worst it could have done was kill the twisted fuckers - which the police kindly did.
I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?
Have you seen the video where they were shot in London, absolutely no chance of aiming for a leg, in a side street with a raving lunatic running at you with a knife and you kill him as you land on your arse with him almost on top of you.
Indeed. However, they're wrongly referring to it as another "terror attack".
What's happened now in Finsbury Park is fundamentally NOT a terror attack, nor was the idiot who carried it out, a 'terrorist'; it was a revenge attack against Muslims (by some unhinged loon), in retaliation for the recent [bonafide] terror attacks, committed on various innocent people, by Muslims.
Those two things are very different!
Regardless, however, it's dreadful to see such abominations on humanity taking place again so soon after the last incidents. And I agree, sadly that won't be the last of it either.
Marco.
No, it was a 'lone wolf' attack deliberately designed to instil terror into a targeted Muslim community. The Westminster attack was another lone wolf terrorist attack but with no specific target; apart from causing maximum mayhem and harm.
It is to the credit of the Muslim community at Finsbury Park that they were able to apprehend the perpetrator and turn him over to the police, and didn't lynch him there and then.
walpurgis
19-06-2017, 10:13
It is to the credit of the Muslim community at Finsbury Park that they were able to apprehend the perpetrator and turn him over to the police, and didn't lynch him there and then.
I suspect that was what he may have been hoping for, in some deluded vision of 'martyrdom' to justify his actions.
No, it was a 'lone wolf' attack deliberately designed to instil terror into a targeted Muslim community.
That may have been the net result, simply by way of his actions. However, I disagree that the scum involved this time was a 'terrorist', in the true sense of the word, certainly in the way of those who act on behalf of ISIS.
He was simply one of the many thousands of abhorrent racists, who sadly populate this country, and who need little excuse to abuse and attack innocent blacks and Muslims. That's rather different from an out-and-out terrorist, acting on behalf of an organised terror group.
It is to the credit of the Muslim community at Finsbury Park that they were able to apprehend the perpetrator and turn him over to the police, and didn't lynch him there and then.
Agreed, although I think he got a good kicking before the police arrived. The murdering vermin deserves a damn sight more than that, and I hope he gets it!
Marco.
I think there's a shoot to kill policy but why?
There is no UK Police 'shoot to kill policy' nor has there ever been. They are trained to shoot to stop, which means aiming for the central body mass, or in certain other circumstances, the head. The likelihood of this action is that they may die. The killers of Lee Rigby didn't die, so no shoot to kill policy, that's media hype and left wing propaganda.
But for goodness sake think about it, aiming to shoot someone in the leg who is marauding around trying to kill people and the firearms officers were likely moving toward them too. Almost impossible to achieve and very likely to fail, putting even more lives at risk. And with that imitation IED vest on they had no other option - just think about the media (and public) fury if armed officers had got there and not stopped them immediately? Also there were other people in the vicinity, some MOP were injured by the firearms action.
UK Police never 'normally' shoot people in the leg, if they have then they have missed.
walpurgis
19-06-2017, 10:41
And with that imitation IED vest on they had no other option
Yep. More or less what I said. You can't take chances.
even the sas dont get official written stk orders. only those involed know for sure. most firearms folk in such circumstances will aim for the body first to bring down first shot.
UK Police never 'normally' shoot people in the leg, if they have then they have missed.
I completely agree with your post above, Tim.
However, surely in instances where highly-trained marksmen (using rifles with very accurate telescopic sights) have sufficient time to zoom in and obtain a clear shot of the target area, a leg wound could be achieved?
I of course appreciate that such an instance wasn't applicable, in terms of what happened recently in London. There simply wasn't time for that, so the police did only what they could do.
However, *if* possible, it would be useful not to kill these scum outright, so that later police could obtain from them what may be vital information, which could prevent other similar (planned) incidents from occurring.
Marco.
However, surely in instances where highly-trained marksmen (using rifles with telescopic sights) have sufficient time to zoom in and focus on their target, a leg wound could easily be achieved?
Short answer, no Marco - and if I ever get up to Wrexham (not that far now) I'll explain why ;)
Okies - look forward to it :)
I've rephrased the question slightly, btw....
Marco.
If the target is moving, which they usually are, then it is very difficult to hit a specific body part, no mater how good a shot you are or what fancy equipment you have.
Yes, but I'm talking about when the target is still, for a period of time long enough [it need only be a matter of seconds] for a trained marksman to put a bullet straight into the area he has clearly within his sights.
I've used rifles (.303s) to hunt deer, and such like in Italy [which trust me aren't easy targets either, in terms of getting a clear head shot at distance, for a clean kill], so I although not a police marksman, employed to do his duty during something such as a terror attack, I know a little about how guns work ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
19-06-2017, 11:19
It's not just the difficulty of taking an accurate shot at a smaller target that would be a problem. There's also the need for immediate and decisive action. In a fast moving situation, you can't make judgement calls as to whether a shot should be fatal or not.
I'm not in favour of high velocity weapons in close quarters situations and they are not normally used. A powerful rifle will go straight through a body and maybe even carry on through a wall or two as well, with the possibility of injuring others, even at distance.
A powerful rifle will go straight through a body and maybe even carry on through a wall or two as well, with the possibility of injuring others, even at distance.
Exactly Geoff, happened in Northern Ireland when a shot fired from a 7.62mm SLR over penetrated the target and went through housing walls to kill a child in their room.
Good points (Geoff and Tim), which I fully accept :)
Marco.
Exactly Geoff, happened in Northern Ireland when a shot fired from a 7.62mm SLR over penetrated the target and went through housing walls to kill a child in their room.
This is one of the reasons why NATO moved to the 5.56 mm round (.22 calibre). The smaller round tumbles inside the body on impact rather than passing straight through.
if the target is standing still long enough then you could realistically aim for a leg shot. That is unlikely to happen in a terrorist incident, though; and if you miss he will be off and running and your chance to take him down may have gone. Why risk it?
Check the Sky News video of the actual shooting to see hitting a part of the body was impossible, it was kill or be killed as far as one officer was concerned 😉
I think some folk watch too many Holywood movies - just think about it?
It's dark, there's absolute mayhem going on, injured people lying around, people running, shouting and screaming, some covered in blood. Arriving at such a scene you would be disoriented not knowing exactly what is happening, as you got there within 8 minutes of being called and no doubt at high speed in a vehicle with sirens blaring. You are presented with subjects intent on harming anyone in their way (including you), who I very much doubt are going to stand perfectly still allowing you to take a carefully aimed shot at their arm or leg . . . come on guys, just think about what actually happened.
If anyone thinks it would have been a possible shot in those circumstances, they clearly have never handled a firearm and have zero understanding of human behaviour whilst under stress.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.