'Terrorist attack' in Woolwich

'Mad' may not be the right word. These are not individuals with a functional mental health problem. They are morally culpable for their disgusting crime.

This came up a lot in the trial of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 77. He also wished to start a race war. Many considered that his level of brutality, most he killed were cowering teenagers, meant he had, by definition, to be mad. He wasn't.

But he was delusional. Like the Woolwich killers he believed he was linked to some grander moral purpose. Really he was, like these, the ultimate in sad losers.

The point the guy in the video is making is that you don't allow these individuals to stand for anyone but themselves, those *******s who inspire them and the deluded few copycats who might follow. No one looked at Breivik (A Christian believer) and said we need to get these Christians under control.

I firmly believe we should have zero tolerance for Islamic extremists who display hatred and disturb the peace. But it's not a wider conflict between the rest of us who rub along ok.

 

binary question then:

do you feel safe and safer for your children at the state of society than you grandparents did when they were in your position?

edited to add, that depending on your age, this may place your grandparents in WW2 era the circumstances of which should be discounted - i'm referring to the situation on the home front.

 

Every generation believes that the world was the safest place ever when they were a kid. Rise tinted glasses and all that.

 

Anyone who hacks a person to death in the street and then stands about waiting for the cops to arrive so he can get shot must, by definition, be mentally imbalanced.

Just because a court found that Norwegian nutter 'sane' doesn't mean he was.

You just cannot be a normal right-thinking person if you shoot cowering teenagers, hack up an off-duty soldier or pilot a plane into a skyscraper. The fact they claim their imaginary friend told them to do it, makes no difference at all.

You'd have to be nuts to do something like that.

There would have to be something wrong with your brain.

 

True (and similar to my point a few posts above) statistics are prone to error, political manipulation, and changes in how data is recorded.

I'm no lawyer but I find this subject fascinating. In 1967 the government stopped classifying IRA muders as murder and started calling them manslaughter. I'm guessing then young gunner Rigby wasn't actually murdered last week....

 

Sorry Moose never noticed this until it was quoted; your on my block list as you can't discuss anything without getting insulting.
Only saying so you don't waste your time.
Tatty bye.

 

What a strange question.

Of course I believe in a free press. I also believe in free speech, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with what is being printed, shown on TV, or spoken or preached. I have never suggested the BBC should be controlled like they do in Russia. But they should handle their power responsibly and it is their irresponsibility and obvious agenda against the security services, that makes me want to puke.

As far as the BBC is concerned, they are paid for by the taxpayer and the very least we should expect is honest reporting of the facts - without promoting agenda's and bias.

I personally know of a business that was investigated by Panorama and it was absolutely disgraceful how the 'evidence' was manipulated, exaggerated or ignored, to build up a story that fitted in with the original Panorama agenda. That was an example of 'investigative journalism' at its worst and was designed to paint a completely untrue picture. The BBC's agenda was more important than the truth. Not acceptable.

Leave that to privately owned media.

 

Well I'll keep on replying to yours if you keep up the same level of virtual trolling.

Block list! Considering your provocations, like Boston deserved to be bombed, that's a bit rich. A bit boo hoo hoo to be frank.

 

Can't comment on the example you give. There has certainly been enough press and media bad practice of late to last anyone's lifetime.

But I think you are a bit in denial. We have tremendous institutions in this country, but they are not strengthened by turning a blind eye. The issue of whether the security service knew the killers is very important. It goes to strategy, judgement and the upkeep of the law. It would be important to know if intelligence about the duo was disregarded because the state thought they were useful touts. It wouldn't necessarily mean that trying to gain informers was wrong, just was it done correctly?

Time again we have suffered from state corruption, the Iraq War for example that has caused tremendous suffering to Britain and Iraq. The BBC was at huge odds with the Government then. The fact that no Government likes the BBC suggests at least some even handedness. We need the media to take power to task.

But in any case, this is all over the other outlets now.

 

I blocked myself because I refuse to read the rubbish I post.

 

Well I disagree. Our security services are their to protect us and I certainly don't believe that I am qualified to judge their methods. I don't know their resources, or how much they are stretched. I don't have their knowledge of what is being preached or discussed by individuals they are watching, etc, etc, and I don't want them to have to tell me, as that would compromise their sources and positions.

I trust them to choose who they watch more carefully from the 000's of potential supects they are aware of and I can't see how I, nor a BBC journalist, Keith Vaz or any self publicising politician, would know more about who the security services should watch, try to recruit, or do anything else. To be frank, I don't care if rules aren't always being followed to get the best result. I don't care if they are paying someone to be an insider spy.

You seem to disagree with me. You seem to feel that you are expert enough to be able to judge whether the security services are doing their job as well as they can. You obviously have inside info on the manpower available, the funding, the levels of risk, etc, etc. but most of us normal people don't have a clue. We only know that they are insanely stretched and every day is a struggle to keep the lid on it all.

One of the problems here is that when the security services make the correct decision, we tend not to hear about it. This is partly because it is then a 'non-story' that doesn't sell papers. 000's of decisions are made every day by MI5, the police, the doctors, social services, etc, that were right. But as soon as there is a hint of an error being made, the media jump on it to castigate the person involved and people like you will revel in the politics of it.

If your last sentence is in regard to my initial post, then yes, it is in all the papers this morning. But today's coverage includes the background of the BBC's source of information, that is he was a former member of the banned Islamic Radical group. The BBC just described him as a 'friend' of one of the attackers and actually lead the main bulletin with this story.

The BBC acted disgracefully here. They contacted this guy based on his Tweets, didn't meet him until just before the interview, and then headlined on the info from this radicalised bloke , as if it was gospel.

 

The health of our democracy doesn't depend on us having no opinions or turning a blind eye.

Take the Police officers who infiltrated radical environmental groups. You don't have to know about policing to know that being under cover year upon year to the extent of getting women under your surveillance pregnant isn't right. The line is crossed when the state becomes provocateur or player.

But hey I'm not saying terrorism for example is easy to stop and I'm not a bleeding heart about it either.

 

You're using one completely unrelated example and it is of complete irrelevance to my Post on the BBC. it is not the BBC's job to manipulate, emphasise or ignore evidence in the pursuit of an agenda. It is their job, as a tax paid service, to be responsible, honest and unbiased in their news reporting and investigative journalism.

 

Um quick break from the debate to point out this great story. Really good example of how to deal with over reacting nutbags

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/27/york-mosque-protest-tea-biscuits

 

Great story. How much admiration do you have for the person who made the call to open the doors and put the kettle on?

 

Fabulous story. Just shows there is more to unite us than divide us. This should happen everywhere to break down barriers and misconceptions and the rantings of the Daily Mail brigade.

 

Yep, a good story and praise to The Guardian (not my favourite rag) for running the story. Usually stories like this dont get any space t all, it isn't negative or inflamatory enough.

 

ZZ you do have to admit you love and inflammatory story about anything leftish or 'progressive' though.

 

No, I dont admit to "loving" those sorts of stories, but often they get my back up, and I feel the need to respond. You probably feel the same way from the other direction :naughty:

I know you interpret me as being "right wing" but in reality, I am just a normal person who believes that if I work hard, stick within the law, then I will build a better life for myself and my family. It just so happens that this principle gets thwarted and hindered by, mainly, governments, councils, media groups, pressure groups who's guiding principles are more often than not "left wing" or socialist and who tell me how to run my life and how I should spend my money. I dont want to spend my money on supporting people who cant be arsed to work for themselves and I pass 5% (just increased from 2%) of my income every year to a small charitable foundation that supports the type of charities that I agree with. If that makes me "right wing" then so be it.

 

You guessed wrong. Suspect number 1 has been charged with...murder!

 

BBC sticking their big noses in again yesterday in regard to the Camp Bastion prisoners - making it their major story across all news bulletins. Giving airtime to 'ambulance' chasing lawyers is not what I want my TV licence money being spent on. The left-wing weasels at the BBC should be thrown into Camp Bastion for their hate campaign against British Security forces.

 

They have a point though. We can't just imprison people indefinitely because we feel like it and without legal basis.

 

You are quite right. It's no story at all that we simply don't trust those who British soldiers are dying to protect enough to hand over enemy POW's.

 

Very odd news: it appears that one of the guys was armed with quite a rare/valuable antique.

 

but what about all the people who we don't imprison indefinitely? i would much prefer to read about that

 

Yep, the British army like nothing more than to lock-up a few totally innocent locals, for no reason. It makes them feel better. They've got nothing better to do than spend their time guarding them have they?

It is a war, with guns, bombs, rockets. Why do you need a legal basis? The Taliban aren't holding trials for the British soldiers (and innocent civilians that they behead at wedding ceremonies, for example) before they kill them, I don't see why we should have to hold trials before we lock them up so they don't kill more soldiers. The British are there by invitation by their government. Soon we'll be out, release them then.

 

In case you didn't know, there are many Taliban infiltrators in the Afghan security forces,. It is no wonder they can't be trusted. If they are POW's there is no requirement to hand them over anyway.

The lawyers that created the story couldn't give a monkeys about the prisoners. They just want the Legal Aid fees that they get. that is how they make a living. The BBC give them what help they can, interviewing anyone they can find who has an anti British agenda, but without telling us who they are or what their shady past is.

 

I never said they were innocent. Nor that a trial was needed.

The main point is there is no legal basis for detaining them. Parliament could pass a simple law tomorrow making the current situation legal. Internment of enemy combatants (modern term) without trial in Northern Ireland was on the statute books and took place legally. But nothing will happen, as instead this Tory government is doing exactly what its been doing for the last 3 years - arrogantly making decisions on a wing and prayer, ignoring fundamental legal principles and wasting Parliamentary time on their own political follies rather than sorting out situations like this one.

Your bit I've highlighted in bold is silly. Wars are subject to international laws and have been for over 150 years now. Plus the point of these foreign jaunts must surely be to show the natives the right way forward - not to engage in a race to the bottom when some of them aren't too happy with us and don't play fair. Not to worry though, I'm sure they'll get it right when Dave leads the charge of light brigade into Syria in the next few months.

 

That's a really daft question. Sorry to come in with just that by the way, but I hate it when people talk nonsense like that. Think about it, the point of law is to set down what you think is right. You amend the law if you think it's wrong you don't just ignore it and claim that no legal basis is needed for decision x. That logic goes nowhere but lawlessness.

EDIT: I've just seen that UEA has made pretty much the same point, but has probably explained it better and has been more specific. I've had this tab open for a while so hadn't seen it before, apologies for what must just look like me repeating what's already been said but in a less clear way.

 

I don't think a justification of "the taliban did it so we did too" is quite what we should be going for.

 

Well of course I know that. It's one of the reasons the whole thing is such folly.

But this thread was originally about a dreadful death of a soldier here. I'm finding hard to believe you are so desperate to air your extreme views about the BBC you choose this thread to do so.

 

That cat's spelling isn't up to much.

 

Re the bold bit, I'm not sure why you are saying that there is no legal basis for their detention. The Ministry Of Defence says that their detention is legal under the UN mandate. Are you an International lawyer yourself, or are you just accepting the view of the lawyers that want these prisoners released and free to kill again. There is a legal argument, in a court, to be had as far as I am aware.

If the Government try and bring in a new Law, then they are admitting that the current status is illegal. Then they have the problem of actually passing the Law bearing in mind that Labour will vote against the Conservatives, whatever it is about, and the LibDems will vote against anything that restricts the freedom of anybody.

But I don't really care about the legal basis anyway. Providing they are not being badly miss-treated, but treated as POW's and are not released and free to kill our boys again, I'm happy. I trust that they have got dangerous people there, not innocents, and the longer the government can stretch the legal process and avoid any release, the better. And whilst we are at it, stick that Hook fellow in there, on his own, and throw away the key, instead of worrying about extraditing him to Jordan.

 

Because it's related.

My views on the BBC aren't extreme. I expect them to report the news in a reasoned and honest manner, not create news themselves, not distort the facts, not ignore relevant facts and not generally manipulate the truth to promote any political agenda.

The fact that you are defending them, I find extreme.