Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Was the killing in Woolwich murder or part of the war?

Brainaddict said:
Now don't get me wrong, I think that war is murder, but the law says differently. Killing a soldier in war is not considered murder afaik (I don't think there are particular rules around off-duty soldiers - maybe someone can tell me). So in Afghanistan there are already non-Afghans fighting against British soldiers and this is part of the war there, in which our nation is participating. So was this attack simply a part of the war that happened to take place on 'our' territory? Is it fundamentally ethically different from what is happening in Afghanistan? And is our shock at the brutality of it partly an admission that we don't really think about the war very much and are simply horrified to find it arriving here rather than staying safely over there?
Click to expand...

They don't represent anyone who can declare war so it is legally and ethically murder

And I'm not even sure what is happening in Afghanistan now is technically war because the Taliban (who we are "at war with") no longer represents Afghanistan, and the foreign militaries who are operating there are doing so at the request of the legal government of Afghanistan (so even in Afghanistan the killing of NATO soldiers can legally be murder and the killing of Taliban "soldiers" can be lawful killings) but presumably they have to operate within international law (as well as Afghan law)?
 
Did I miss a mention of one of the suspects, Michael Adebowale, being stabbed by a crack user called Lee James in a flat in Erith when he was 16?

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/24/woolwich-adebowale-witnessed-murder-knife

News Shopper at the time: http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/3994670.ERITH__Faridon_Alizada_murderer_gets_life/

Afterwards James confessed to friends he had killed Mr Alizadah, saying he believed the boys were members of Al-Qaeda, plotting to blow up Bluewater shopping centre.
Click to expand...

E2A: possibly wrong thread. Reposted on t'other one.
 
Casually Red said:
the former leader of an organisation whos entire reason for existing was on the basis the state called northern Ireland had absolutely no right to exist .
Click to expand...

He's lookıng pretty good on ıt too ısn't he?

Hmmm... I wonder, could ıt possıbly be that all along hıs real aım was...
 
free spirit said:
I'm sure it is.

TBH one thing that's really struck me about this generation of supposed terrorists is their general ineptitude, and the shite tactics and methods they use.

This lot are one shot wonders, as the cell almost always kill themselves / hang around to be killed or arrested afterwards like the incompetent muppets they are, rather than realising how much more effective they could be as a cell if they did hit and run attacks and lived to fight another day.... and/or if they actually had half a clue about what they needed to target to bring the country to a halt, and the government to its knees.
Click to expand...
In this case they seemed to have used what they had available, there has been talk in the media about targeting soldiers for a long time.

I don't know if they need to bring the country to a halt, they have brought the issue to the doorstep of "their enemies" and dominated the news and political agenda for days.

It appears they had a [broken] gun and a few kitchen utensils, what other target could they have gone for?

We can't be sure at this time but it seems that they were looking at suicide by police if their actions are to be taken at face value.
 
1%er said:
In this case they seemed to have used what they had available, there has been talk in the media about targeting soldiers for a long time.

I don't know if they need to bring the country to a halt, they have brought the issue to the doorstep of "their enemies" and dominated the news and political agenda for days.

It appears they had a [broken] gun and a few kitchen utensils, what other target could they have gone for?

We can't be sure at this time but it seems that they were looking at suicide by police if they actions are to be taken at face value.
Click to expand...
as I said, incompetent and then compounding that by aiming for suicide after mounting a single attack that killed a single soldier.

They're really not much of a threat are they? (relatively speaking)

For an effective insurgency based on a few lightly armed attackers, see Castro's attacks at the start of his successful guerrilla war in cuba, launched with just 82 lightly armed fighters from a yacht. They understood the value of doing hit and run attacks to gain weapons and retain and build your fighting strength while reducing the weapons and fighting strength of the enemy - this lot just used 2 people to kill a single unarmed soldier then hung around waiting for someone to kill them. They're too stupid to be a significant threat, unless you're unlucky enough to get caught up in the single attack each unit manages to achieve (if they're lucky) before being killed / captured.
 
free spirit said:
I'm sure it is.

TBH one thing that's really struck me about this generation of supposed terrorists is their general ineptitude, and the shite tactics and methods they use.

One IRA cell could result in a months long bombing campaign, and in their time the IRA hit the hotel that most of the cabinet were staying in, downing street, and the MI6 building.

This lot are one shot wonders, as the cell almost always kill themselves / hang around to be killed or arrested afterwards like the incompetent muppets they are, rather than realising how much more effective they could be as a cell if they did hit and run attacks and lived to fight another day.... and/or if they actually had half a clue about what they needed to target to bring the country to a halt, and the government to its knees.

It really pisses me off that our chicken shit politicians haven't actually stood up to these guys, called their bluff and just let us as a country continue to enjoy all the freedoms we've traditionally had and fought for, rather than making out the threat is so grave that we need to turn the UK into a police state in order to combat it.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about the pros and cons of suicide tactics (from the perspective of the terrorist groups) too, and pretty much agree with you on that stuff. But one thing that's just occurred to me is the informant factor - if you are linked to a wider group, either through a standard chain of command structure or some kind of decentralised cell structure, the suicide tactic offers security advantages to those who either aren't carrying them out or are planning to carry them out at a later date. If someone places a bomb then lives to fight another day they could potentially be caught and forced/persuaded to inform on their comrades. That risk doesn't exist if they blow themselves up or ensure that the police kill them or whatever.
 
SpineyNorman said:
I've been thinking about the pros and cons of suicide tactics (from the perspective of the terrorist groups) too, and pretty much agree with you on that stuff. But one thing that's just occurred to me is the informant factor - if you are linked to a wider group, either through a standard chain of command structure or some kind of decentralised cell structure, the suicide tactic offers security advantages to those who either aren't carrying them out or are planning to carry them out at a later date. If someone places a bomb then lives to fight another day they could potentially be caught and forced/persuaded to inform on their comrades. That risk doesn't exist if they blow themselves up or ensure that the police kill them or whatever.
Click to expand...


Unless you have an endless supply of volunteers it doesn't work. We had a lot of suicide vests handed in or discovered in the early part of my time in Iraq. Manufactured by Saddams forces unfortunately no one wanted to die for him. Later on of course they discovered causes they were prepared to die for.
 
free spirit said:
as I said, incompetent and then compounding that by aiming for suicide after mounting a single attack that killed a single soldier.
Click to expand...
We disagree. I think the ramifications of the police shooting dead two "Islamist" terrorists on the street of London would be far and wide. It would have been a massive escalation.

We don't all get the same news.

How many news reports have you seen about drone attacks? Between 2004 and 2013 there have been 428 in Pakistan and Yemen alone (not including Afghanistan and Somalia).

While only a handful of these reach the mainstream media in Europe and the USA every single one will be on the news in other countries and used for propaganda. Where all those killed "terrorists"?.

"the legal authorities given to the CIA and by the Justice Department under, you know, still classified memos are that the CIA can carry out these drone strikes because they're not, quote, "assassination;" they're military operations on a global battlefield, going after military targets. So, you assassinate political leaders, but you kill soldiers on a battlefield" Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times national security correspondent. (long but well worth a read)

That global battlefield now include Woolwich in London.
 
SpineyNorman said:
I've been thinking about the pros and cons of suicide tactics (from the perspective of the terrorist groups) too, and pretty much agree with you on that stuff. But one thing that's just occurred to me is the informant factor - if you are linked to a wider group, either through a standard chain of command structure or some kind of decentralised cell structure, the suicide tactic offers security advantages to those who either aren't carrying them out or are planning to carry them out at a later date. If someone places a bomb then lives to fight another day they could potentially be caught and forced/persuaded to inform on their comrades. That risk doesn't exist if they blow themselves up or ensure that the police kill them or whatever.
Click to expand...

as dylan says, that only applies if you have an unlimited supply of volunteer suicide bombers, so it might apply in Pakistan where the madrassa system seems to supply them with an endless source of recruits indoctrinated virtually from birth into the idea that their role in life is to die for the cause...

over hear though it's a ridiculously wasteful tactic, and probably one that puts of a large percentage of their potential recruits who might well be prepared to risk death, but not to know for sure that they were going to die on their one and only mission - particularly when there are accusations that in many cases the bomber doesn't have complete control over the bomb and it can be detonated remotely if they don't press the switch themselves.

tbh we're probably lucky that AQ and associates adopted suicide attacks as their preferred methods internationally, otherwise things would likely have been signficantly worse.
 
1%er said:
We disagree. I think the ramifications of the police shooting dead two "Islamist" terrorists on the street of London would be far and wide. It would have been a massive escalation.

We don't all get the same news.

How many news reports have you seen about drone attacks? Between 2004 and 2013 there have been 428 in Pakistan and Yemen alone (not including Afghanistan and Somalia).

While only a handful of these reach the mainstream media in Europe and the USA every single one will be on the news in other countries and used for propaganda. Where all those killed "terrorists"?.

"the legal authorities given to the CIA and by the Justice Department under, you know, still classified memos are that the CIA can carry out these drone strikes because they're not, quote, "assassination;" they're military operations on a global battlefield, going after military targets. So, you assassinate political leaders, but you kill soldiers on a battlefield" Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times national security correspondent. (long but well worth a read)

That global battlefield now include Woolwich in London.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued. What do you actually think my point is, and what do you think my position is on drone strikes?
 
free spirit said:
as dylan says, that only applies if you have an unlimited supply of volunteer suicide bombers, so it might apply in Pakistan where the madrassa system seems to supply them with an endless source of recruits indoctrinated virtually from birth into the idea that their role in life is to die for the cause...

over hear though it's a ridiculously wasteful tactic, and probably one that puts of a large percentage of their potential recruits who might well be prepared to risk death, but not to know for sure that they were going to die on their one and only mission - particularly when there are accusations that in many cases the bomber doesn't have complete control over the bomb and it can be detonated remotely if they don't press the switch themselves.

tbh we're probably lucky that AQ and associates adopted suicide attacks as their preferred methods internationally, otherwise things would likely have been signficantly worse.
Click to expand...

Depends. Even if you do only have a small supply of 'fighters', if they're as useless as the ones in this country seem to be them not killing themselves could result in everyone getting caught and only one attack happening full stop, rather than one per person. And it does seem to me that it being a suicide attack in some way adds to the horror of it, the idea that they're happy to die makes it more terrifying - you might be able to threaten into submission, bribe or in some other way deter someone willing to kill for a cause but who values their life enough to at least prefer not to die, but none of that applies when they're willing, if not desperate, to die. Doesn't matter whether they really are so desperate to die so long as that's the impression given - it's the appearance that really matters in terrorism because what you're attempting to do is terrify a population into submission.
 
free spirit said:
I'm intrigued. What do you actually think my point is, and what do you think my position is on drone strikes?
Click to expand...
You have made a number of points, to which one are you referring? I have no idea what your view is on drone strikes.

I mentioned drones as I think they are a good example of what isn't reported in Europe and the USA, but is exploited to max by others.
 
dylanredefined said:
The horrific and frankly bizarre nature of the attack is new. Hanging around for the cops
so you can get shot is odd.
Click to expand...
It did what it said on the tin it SHOCKED. I'm not sure running away and waiting to be captured comes close to suicide by police, it is about impact isn't it?
 
1%er said:
You have made a number of points, to which one are you referring?
Click to expand...
I don't know, whichever one it was that made you somehow thing that you needed to give me a lecture on drone strikes.

1%er said:
I have no idea what your view is on drone strikes.

I mentioned drones as I think they are a good example of what isn't reported in Europe and the USA, but is exploited to max by others.
Click to expand...
I found that a little odd as I'd literally been reading an article on the increase in drone strikes under Obama directly before picking up the laptop to read your post about drone strikes not being reported in Europe & US.

I would accept that they've probably not been reported in anything like the way they would be in the countries involved, and other countries, and certainly the reporting will have been different in different papers, but I've been reading pretty much continuous reports about drone strikes in UK papers - Guardian, Indy, Observer mostly - since they started. So they might be being under-reported, but they are actually being reported.

And I've always seen them as being the direct equivalent to terrorist bombings, I see no difference between the 2 things, they both have the potential to kill dozens or even hundreds of innocent civilians per attack, and personally I view their regular use as a war crime for failing to prevent harm to civilians.

I also see them as being likely to be massively counterproductive in terms of their ability to turn friends into enemies, and create a massive backlash against those that use them in this way at best from anyone living in the areas they're being used in who know they could get caught up in the carnage, and at worst from across the muslim world as their use spawns a proper popular Jihad against the west.

I can see there might be justification for their use as part of an actual battle, or maybe for very occasional one off attacks on training camps etc but nothing like the current situation.
 
free spirit said:
I don't know, whichever one it was that made you somehow thing that you needed to give me a lecture on drone strikes.
Click to expand...
LOL I wasn't lecturing you, I made the point about drones separately. It was a general point, but rereading the post I can see why you would have thought it was directed solely at you :)
 
free spirit said:
as I said, incompetent and then compounding that by aiming for suicide after mounting a single attack that killed a single soldier.

They're really not much of a threat are they? (relatively speaking)

For an effective insurgency based on a few lightly armed attackers, see Castro's attacks at the start of his successful guerrilla war in cuba, launched with just 82 lightly armed fighters from a yacht. They understood the value of doing hit and run attacks to gain weapons and retain and build your fighting strength while reducing the weapons and fighting strength of the enemy - this lot just used 2 people to kill a single unarmed soldier then hung around waiting for someone to kill them. They're too stupid to be a significant threat, unless you're unlucky enough to get caught up in the single attack each unit manages to achieve (if they're lucky) before being killed / captured.
Click to expand...

I think they were making a statement, using a horrifically brutal murder, as opposed to trying to take over the UK, I also think they were trying to gain notoriety/respect from their contemporaries, which seems a factor in these incidents, surprised a video hasn't turned up yet.
 
SpineyNorman said:
You mean people made a sharp exit when the machete wielding loon showed up? Well fuck me sideways, I'd never have expected that one!
Click to expand...

I was at a party once when a mate lost it and came into the room waving a couple of big knives around and accusing someone of taking the piss and stealing his coke.

Took us a while to convince him that the reason he was absolutely wired to fuck and stood there waving knives around was because her'd snorted the whole lot himself.

eta once he accepted that, he picked up a beer and the party carried on like nowt had happened.

/derail
 
Casually Red said:
it was farcical, you had one lot running about waving union jacks thinking doomsday was upon them and the other lot waving tricolours in victory parades , both of them living in cuckoo land.

I find it impossible to get upset about thick paddy jokes any more, the irony is just too overwhelming .,
Click to expand...



You are an utter twat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

savoloysam
  • Poll
The creeping roll out of facial recognition. Are you for or against?
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
8ball
8ball
editor
Police hunt for Kyle Clifford after three women murdered in Bushey, Herts
2 3
Replies
80
Views
3K
GarveyLives
G
B
Annals of the Green Party
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Funky_monks
F
TopCat
  • Poll
WPGB or LP
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
4K
redsquirrel
R
tony.c
Major suspect named in Stephen Lawrence murder by BBC
Replies
23
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Back
Top Bottom