Woolwich shooting

[Woodsey]

Lee Rigby RIP

25 year old lad with 2 kids.

[leethefish]

Lee Rigby RIP

25 year old lad with 2 kids.

Thoughts and prayers with his family
Xx

[George2Loose]

Isn't it one child who's two? So sad. RIP

[The Camel]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

[Doobs]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

[The Camel]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

[Doobs]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

Clearly, and I realise that, but that didn't stop him saying that in the speech to camera.

He also talked about us attacking Muslim countries, so in his head we are attacking his (Muslim) land.  I don't think he can be talking of the land of his forebears either, as that is Nigeria.

 

[Woodsey]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too.  

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

Clearly, and I realise that, but that didn't stop him saying that in the speech to camera.

He also talked about us attacking Muslim countries, so in his head we are attacking his (Muslim) land. I don't think he can be talking of the land of his forebears either, as that is Nigeria.

He might be as a chunk of Nigeria is Islamic, and these guys often refer to any muslim land as 'their lands'.

[Doobs]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

Clearly, and I realise that, but that didn't stop him saying that in the speech to camera.

He also talked about us attacking Muslim countries, so in his head we are attacking his (Muslim) land.  I don't think he can be talking of the land of his forebears either, as that is Nigeria.

He might be as a chunk of Nigeria is Islamic, these guys often refer to any muslim land as 'their lands'.

I realise that too, and there are nasty things happening there.  But the things that are happening there are mainly internal to Nigeria whereas the West has attacked Iraq and Afganistan.  He was specific on Afganistan in the video too.

[Woodsey]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

Clearly, and I realise that, but that didn't stop him saying that in the speech to camera.

He also talked about us attacking Muslim countries, so in his head we are attacking his (Muslim) land.  I don't think he can be talking of the land of his forebears either, as that is Nigeria.

He might be as a chunk of Nigeria is Islamic, these guys often refer to any muslim land as 'their lands'.

I realise that too, and there are nasty things happening there.  But the things that are happening there are mainly internal to Nigeria whereas the West has attacked Iraq and Afganistan.  He was specific on Afganistan in the video too.

They deffo lump muslim land together mate, heard it many times. An attack on one is an attack on all and all that bollocks.

[Doobs]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

Clearly, and I realise that, but that didn't stop him saying that in the speech to camera.

He also talked about us attacking Muslim countries, so in his head we are attacking his (Muslim) land.  I don't think he can be talking of the land of his forebears either, as that is Nigeria.

He might be as a chunk of Nigeria is Islamic, these guys often refer to any muslim land as 'their lands'.

I realise that too, and there are nasty things happening there.  But the things that are happening there are mainly internal to Nigeria whereas the West has attacked Iraq and Afganistan.  He was specific on Afganistan in the video too.

They deffo lump muslim land together mate, heard it many times. An attack on one is an attack on all and all that bollocks.

Agreed, but I just don't think he is talking of us attacking Nigeria, when he talks of his land, it seems likely it is the Muslim land he is referring to as I said above.

[Woodsey]

ok sorry we are agreeing

[titaniumbean]

Recently bought 'radical' a book by maajid nawaz, who has been on newsnight a bit recently, former radicalised recruiter for some pretty intense badpeople. Very interesting hearing his thoughts rather than the moronic mps/press who have no insight into the religion, or any of the actions that lead to these attitudes.


highly recommend it if it takes your interest.

[kinboshi]

Going back to Keiths question about defining terrorism I think this is absolutely terrorism.  Terrorism is less about the actual acts themselves as about affecting the whole population psychologically and affecting the freedom they feel to go about their lives in the usual way.  The IRA's great success was that at one point in their campaign almost everybody in England had had their daily routine affected by a bomb scare even if not by a bomb directly.  Similarly now there will be parents with kids that were planning on going to university in London this year that now don't want them to go because there are "terrorist nutters roaming the streets".  I consider myself to be a very rational person but not long after 7/7 I was on the tube and a couple of Asian kids got on carrying big backpacks and it made me nervous.  It is statistically illogical to be that way but that is the point of terror.  The actual impact of their crimes goes far beyond that of their direct victims they affect the entire population.

By that definition Stu, the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright were terrorists too, because thye absolutely changed the way women acted while they were on the loose.

The Ripper didn't have a political or ideological agenda he was pushing.

There are many definitions of terrorism, but personally, I think the UK's is the most comprehensive and common sense. The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

I don't think these two nutters had a political or ideological agenda either.

I think they are using it as an excuse to justify an act of random and appalling violence.

Maybe they are using Islam to justify their violence, but if they shout Allah Akbar, spout the rhetoric about the West interfering in their lands and use beheading as there calling card, then it isn't unreasonable to assume they have an ideological agenda too. 

The geezer is quite clearly English.

So England is his land.

Clearly, and I realise that, but that didn't stop him saying that in the speech to camera.

He also talked about us attacking Muslim countries, so in his head we are attacking his (Muslim) land. I don't think he can be talking of the land of his forebears either, as that is Nigeria.

He might be as a chunk of Nigeria is Islamic, and these guys often refer to any muslim land as 'their lands'.

Wasn't he a Christian until a few years ago (after he came to the UK)?  I've not watched the videos, but didn't he also shout out "and eye for an eye" (or something similar) so was quoting the bible rather than the Koran - something I would have thought a fundamentalist Muslim shouldn't do (as they will obviously believe that the Koran is the only correct religious book). 

Sounds like he was a disturbed individual looking for a 'cause' through which he could dish out his evil tendencies. Some evil 'cleric' has helped guide him on this route to carrying out such a terrible act.  Don't see him getting out of prison for quite a while (if ever) - and quite rightly.  Hopefully, the others involved can also be locked up.

As for those calling for the death penalty for an act of terrorism, you might want to speak to the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six who were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murdering people with acts of terrorism - only for them to subsequently be shown to be innocent of these crimes.  15 years in prison is bad enough for a crime you didn't commit, but at least they hadn't been executed for a crime they hadn't committed. 

[Woodsey]

You're late