Woolwich soldier killed (was "Did cops just shoot 2 dead in woolwich?")

[ViolentPanda]

The key is considering yourself to be part of a greater whole that is more important than you, isn't it? In many ways it's a peculiarly modern condition not to think like that.

Very much so. In fact the sort of thinking deliberately inculcated into military forces - that your own life is sometimes of less value than the objective - is a variant on that argument.

 

[telbert]

Maybe, manny, you should ask yourself why so many people with politics that you consider to be sound are saying what they're saying.

Good Hit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And the way that they killed him.

The way the soldier was killed was deliberate, as was the attempted decapitation of his corpse. As I said in an earlier post, the killers used the means to hand, with the point they wanted to make firmly in mind. If they'd had long-arms rather than cutlery and a side-arm, I've absolutely no doubt they'd have shot him dead and still attempted to decapitate him. They went there to make a statement, and they succeeded. Remorse doesn't figure into this. Why would it when what they're purportedly carrying out insurgency in support of isn't the subject of remorse by any of the "western" participants?

 

[cesare]

Not sure about Woolwich, but a lot of barracks etc, it's private sector security, and it is shite.

Thanks. There have been incidents related to the Barracks before, of course. I think they are maybe a little naive/complacent/not sure how to describe it of the local population, just take things at face value perhaps.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He probably didn't though did he

Not something you can know, though. His main role was as a machine-gunner, which effectively means he'd be providing suppressive fire to enable his oppos to manouvre, plus laying down aggressive fire against opposition and against their redoubts, so "probably" is pure speculation and wishful thinking (insofar as we like to believe that our soldiers don't kill children, even accidentally).

 

[manny-p]

Maybe, manny, you should ask yourself why so many people with politics that you consider to be sound are saying what they're saying.

Don't respond to any of the points I made.

 

[manny-p]

Yes your right, no one knows if he committed any crimes in Iraq or Afghanistan.No one knows if he butchered any children.Until recently no one knew if he had even been to those places.In fact no one was certain he was even a soldier.Including you. But then you'd already come to your own conclussion that he must be, and must have done all of these things. And you talk of an overly emotional/kneejerk stance?Shame on you.

My reaction was not knee jerk. I waited to hear the facts, then I said what I said.

 

[manny-p]

Maybe, manny, you should ask yourself why so many people with politics that you consider to be sound are saying what they're saying.

Ok so what you are saying here is. Because the majority of the time what you and other posters I regard to have good politics say I agree with, I should also agree with youse on this? Yep you are always right butchers...keep telling yourself that.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't respond to any of the points I made.

You listed a whole heap of angry misrepresentations rather than responding to any of the points made in the thread by those posters you consider to be politically sound. There's nothing to respond to. There was more to respond to in your post that simply said to me:

Get to fuck you cunt.

At least that drew a line - and one that you put me and you on other sides but without you having the bottle to follow your claimed politics through - that involves defending this killing, supporting others and getting your own hands dirty.

 

[manny-p]

You listed a whole heap of angry misrepresentations rather than responding to any of the points made in the thread by those posters you consider to be politically sound. There's nothing to respond to. There was more to respond to in your post that simply said to me:



At least that drew a line - and one that you put me and you on other sides but without you having the bottle to follow your claimed politics through - that involves defending this killing, supporting others and getting your own hands dirty.

When did I defend the killing? I was putting the killing in its context. You are one disingenious cunt.

 

[telbert]

My reaction was not knee jerk. I waited to hear the facts, then I said what I said.

Where was it stated as fact that he was all these things then?I say this because you seem to have him down as a cross between Pol Pot and Ian Brady

 

[butchersapron]

When did I defend the killing? I was putting the killing in its context. You are one disingenious cunt.

In your various misrepresentations of what others have said, of the points they made and by your drawing of a line that says - you lot, state supporters, murderers on this side - me and the virtuous who will do anything to stop the state murder on the other.

Remember that last time you went all angry and started calling people cunts based on a total misreading of what they said and what they were doing? Maybe you should.

 

[Sasaferrato]

By applying the wisdom and sagacity that come with age.

Actually, by that token, shouldn't you be the wisest and most sagacious man on earth? Oh fuck!!!

Bow, minion!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Unfortunately for this young man,i suspect warfare was far from his mind as he was walking along a London street, on his own,out of uniform and completely unarmed.

I'd say you're about 100% wrong.
As far back as I can remember (and I'm sure Sass and coley can remember even further back! ), you're inculcated with personal security awareness. Not just when you're on base/in uniform, but 24/7, and it penetrates well enough that you've always got your antennae tuned for things "out of the ordinary".
I'm not putting the onus for his death on the soldier, btw, I'm simply saying that your assumptions about his state of mind are likely to be inaccurate.

If the cicumstances were different,even slightly,i doubt these cowards would have done what they did.There are plenty of oppotunities for this sort of attack in london where the victim would stand more than a zero chance of fighting back.

Such as?
Most of the places I'd target, given the materiel they had to hand, would be of the same calibre. As I said earlier, access to materiel dictates tactics. If you have a rocket-launcher, you go after a harder target. If you have cutlery, a car and a pistol, you go after a softer target. This isn't to do with cowardice (although I can understand that it appeals to you, and to many others to make it an issue of courage or the lack of it), it's to do with pragmatism.

It was a "soft"target.You know it, i know it and they knew it.

Yes.

And please dont use the fact that they ran at the O.B. when they turned up as an example of their outstanding bravery.Their target was a Soldier.An unarmed one.

Yes, I know. I've acknowledged that fact over and again. It's a shame you've been unable to take that on board, due to your apparent fondness for emotional argument over critical thinking.
Running at the old bill isn't "brave", neither is it "stupid", "heroic" or a thousand other judgemental words. It was what it was - an attempt to end a mission on their terms rather than on the terms of their opponents.

 

[The39thStep]

Lets target the Christians because of the Crusades

 

[manny-p]

In your various misrepresentations of what others have said, of the points they made and by your drawing of a line that says - you lot, state supporters, murderers on this side - me and the virtuous who will do anything to stop the state murder on the other.

Remember that last time you went all angry and started calling people cunts based on a total misreading of what they said and what they were doing? Maybe you should.

I was never angry. I am sitting here perfectly calm writing this. Out of all the posters who post here, you have a very academic style of writing. I don't understand what you are saying half the time so perhaps that's why I may have mis read what you have said. I don't know why you write the way you do, maybe you could tone it down abit and stop speaking in tongues.

P.s-I maybe shouldn't have called you a cunt but you were publically saying I was defending the killing of that soldier and I was not. I was explaining why the killing was politically motivated and that they killed him for what he was- a man who signed up to kill on behalf of the rich and a man who is partly responsible for deaths in muslim lands.

 

[Idris2002]

The question of who Eco or you or anyone else thinks is a hero is entirely separate from the question of whether the killers in Woolwich are brave. For Eco it seems courage is part of what makes a hero, but only part. For some others, a hero may be defined by footballing skills or dancing skills or a good voice or good looks. It may have absolutely nothing do do with courage. Equally for some nasty Slamists these killers in Woolwich may become heroes, not because of their bravery, but because of their fidelity to jihad and their success in killing so publicly and so gaining maximum publicity for their act and their words.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Beg the question some more, why don't you. The two lads tried to commit "suicide by cop" because they had already murdered the poor sod - and murdered him in yes, a cowardly fashion. The bravery of their charge at armed police was only the result of the path they had already set themselves on.

As for "kiddy cowardice"... eh? What does that mean? I would guess that it means cowardice of the sort that is characteristic of children, but the behaviour of cowardly children is nothing like the behaviour of the two Islamic butchers in Woolwich. Admittedly, my experience of children is limited, but don't cowardly children run away screaming, seek the sanctuary of mummy or daddy, hide behind the sofa, weep...? I don't think kiddies, cowardly or otherwise, usually carve people up with meat cleavers, make well-prepared statements to camera about their cause or launch kamikazi attacks on armed Plod.

It's like one of those metaphorical yokes. When Lenin described his ultra-leftist critics as "infantile" he wasn't alleging that they were keen fans of the Teletubbies, or the 1917 equivalent thereof. He was using an ad hominem attack to highlight what he saw as an unrealistic, ill-informed, ill-thought out political position.

 

[butchersapron]

I was never angry. I am sitting here perfectly calm writing this. Out of all the posters who post here, you have a very academic style of writing. I don't understand what you are saying half the time so perhaps that's why I may have mis read what you have said. I don't know why you write the way you do, maybe you could tone it down abit and stop speaking in tongues.

P.s-I maybe shouldn't have called you a cunt but you were publically saying I was defending the killing of that soldier and I was not. I was explaining why the killing was politically motivated and that they killed him for what he was- a man who signed up to kill on behalf of the rich and a man who is partly responsible for deaths in muslim lands.

I have said it was a political murder and argued at length why bullshit arguments about if it was either an act of war or murder/criminality miss the point and miss the politics of the thing. I want the specific political nature of the act recognised and have said so. Your response is one-sided and misses the political use made of the lad killed here.

 

[manny-p]

I have said it was a political murder and argued at length why bullshit arguments about if it was either an act of war or murder/criminality miss the point and miss the politics of the thing. I want the specific political nature of the act recognised and have said so. Your response is one-sided and misses the political use made of the lad killed here.

The 'lad'. One of our 'lads'.

 

[butchersapron]

The 'lad'. One of our 'lads'.

Lad = young man. And yes, quite probably someone who needs to be seen as one of us politically, at least as part of our constituency, if we're ever going to go anywhere.

 

[manny-p]

Lad = young man. And yes, quite probably someone who needs to be seen as one of us politically if we're ever going to go anywhere.

One of 'our lads'. Support 'our lads'.

 

[JimW]

...
Running at the old bill isn't "brave", neither is it "stupid", "heroic" or a thousand other judgemental words. It was what it was - an attempt to end a mission on their terms rather than on the terms of their opponents.

Looking at the video of that even that seemed to have a tactic to it, the one charging headlong and the other with the pistol hanging back, so he would have got some shots off at unprepared targets if it wasn't for the misfire - think they seem to spot him late. Wonder if they had thought that through or it just played out that way? (Idly, hardly the most important aspect)

 

[butchersapron]

One of 'our lads'. Support 'our lads'.

Yes manny. Clearly. Hence me being in town with my help for heroes stall every saturday morning.

 

[butchersapron]

When you become so rabid that the use of the word lad sends you spinning off into angry misplaced incorrect denunciations, well, job done i suppose.

 

[manny-p]

When you become so rabid that the use of the word lad sends you spinning off into angry misplace incorrect denunciations, well, job done i suppose.

OK lad. If you say so.

 

[frogwoman]

Something that hasn't been mentioned very much on the thread is that one of them was a convert. that to me suggests there's something else other than an anti-imperialist thing going on here imo, obviously the reasons for that and the response "we" should have are political

 

[butchersapron]

Something that hasn't been mentioned very much on the thread is that one of them was a convert. that to me suggests there's something else other than an anti-imperialist thing going on here imo, obviously the reasons for that and the response "we" should have are political

They were both reverts i think.

 

[telbert]

I'd say you're about 100% wrong.
As far back as I can remember (and I'm sure Sass and coley can remember even further back! ), you're inculcated with personal security awareness. Not just when you're on base/in uniform, but 24/7, and it penetrates well enough that you've always got your antennae tuned for things "out of the ordinary".
I'm not putting the onus for his death on the soldier, btw, I'm simply saying that your assumptions about his state of mind are likely to be inaccurate.



Such as?
Most of the places I'd target, given the materiel they had to hand, would be of the same calibre. As I said earlier, access to materiel dictates tactics. If you have a rocket-launcher, you go after a harder target. If you have cutlery, a car and a pistol, you go after a softer target. This isn't to do with cowardice (although I can understand that it appeals to you, and to many others to make it an issue of courage or the lack of it), it's to do with pragmatism.



Yes.



Yes, I know. I've acknowledged that fact over and again. It's a shame you've been unable to take that on board, due to your apparent fondness for emotional argument over critical thinking.
Running at the old bill isn't "brave", neither is it "stupid", "heroic" or a thousand other judgemental words. It was what it was - an attempt to end a mission on their terms rather than on the terms of their opponents.

I think having your antenae tuned for anything out of the ordinary is a good example of how things used to be ie. the unattended bag,the nervous looking bloke thats avoiding eye contact etc. Doesnt do you a lot of good when your hit from behind by a car while your on the pavement.Like i said ,the rules have changed.


Material to hand has nothing to do with bravery.Thats why the bloke who charges at the machine gun nest on his own with just a pistol or a grenade gets a medal. The three other blokes that haven't got the courage to do it at that time dont.
Plenty of armed police in London.And i bet theres plenty of armed soldiers on the gates of barracks all over the place.In fact would there have been an armed soldier at Woolwich barracks?Strangely none of these were attacked.

 

[manny-p]

Something that hasn't been mentioned very much on the thread is that one of them was a convert. that to me suggests there's something else other than an anti-imperialist thing going on here imo, obviously the reasons for that and the response "we" should have are political

Sorry just re-read what you wrote.

 

[JimW]

They were both reverts i think.

First one named was from a Christian family I think it's reported.