What is terrorism? As the old adage goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. But, in truth, that implies a certain degree of moral relativism which is a cop-out. In the end, there is a right and a wrong. Terrorism is the calculated use of extreme violence by any means, against anybody, outside the peculiar forum of the rules of war followed by “civilised” nations, and in the pursuit of ideological goals. I appreciate that it is quite proper to form the view that all war is by definition uncivilised, but you take the point.

The theory of terrorism is well-known and understood. On the one hand there is the role of terror itself. As the well-known saying goes, kill one, frighten a thousand. On the other hand Marxist-Leninist theory always emphasised the usefulness of acts of terror in provoking over reaction from the established government, thus creating resentment amongst the governed which could in turn be exploited in the revolutionary cause.

Yesterday we had our own “terrorist incident” in the appalling events in Greenwich in which a soldier was, it appears, first run down, and then hacked to pieces, possibly beheaded.

I have seen the video footage of one of the (alleged) perpetrators taken shortly after he had dragged his unfortunate victim into the middle of the road. Machete and carving knife in blood soaked hand, he voiced his world view in a decidedly jumbled London patios:

“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”

With this profound statement made, he shambled back across the road towards the wrecked and eviscerated body of his victim, to engage in further badinage with some rather brave passers-by. For reasons which seem obscure, and somewhat inconsistent with his previously expressed concern for the fairer sex, he was apparently quite insistent that no one other than women would be allowed to be near the body.

It seems a little ironic then that when the armed response team turned up, the officer who slotted him with a slug or two of lead was a woman.

I hope that the Met made sure that she was wearing a Burkha in order to avoid impinging on his cultural sensitivities. I expect that even as we speak, his no win, no fee, lawyers will be preparing a case for the enormous damages award for the infringement of his human rights caused by shooting him with a non halal bullet.

• Is he a terrorist? Watching him, he made a pretty piss poor one. I understand that he is believed to be of Nigerian birth, having come to this country some years ago. Having thus nested in his generous host, he set about butchering one of its fine young people in a cowardly attack (running an unsuspecting victim down with a car before two of you set on him with weapons is, in my view, cowardly).

Why? A structured, simple, moral code, embracing and welcoming, giving the comfort which is the essential of all who commit ultimate atrocities, absolute and complete moral certainty, and hence complete disconnection with reality. Our lands? I suspect he had never been east of Peckham since arriving in our green and pleasant land. Our women? How revealing that he should see women as chattels of some unspecified master race.

In one sense, having weighed up this moronic, brutal, no-mark, I found it hard to grant him the status of “terrorist”. It seemed that “nutter” might be a better label. However, that is not quite accurate.

Listening the BBC this morning, one has the usual fare. Since the Beeb itself is said to be non political, it cannot take an overt political line. But what it can do is set up a barrage of interviews with “authorities” and “community leaders” who all more or less peddle the same Establishment line:

• No judgments yet, please, we don’t know all the facts.
• This is not a manifestation of Islam at all anyway.
• Don’t get emotional about this!

However, thanks to the wonders of modern social networking, and perhaps rather to the Establishment’s consternation, I think we all rather do know what happened. And in this response there is an element of putting one’s head in the sand.

One of the things that what I call the liberal or intellectual Establishment cannot get its head around is that there are people in the world who are unutterably and unspeakably evil, and opposed to every aspect of democratic civil society as we have come to understand it after about 2,000 years of troubled, and often bloody and cruel, European history. This concept is very difficult for the liberal Establishment to understand, because it involves a degree of moral compass, based on Judeo-Christian principles, and suggests that there is a limit to moral relativism which the intellectual elite have championed.

In one sense, the cruel, vicious and utterly inhumane perpetrators of yesterday’s event are the product of the prevailing post-war intellectual view that anything goes, that “multi-culturalism” is not merely something which has to be carefully managed, but is actually to be positively encouraged. It is an intellectual system which invokes its own forms of terrorism, demonising and shouting down anyone who voiced concerns about the direction of travel as “racist”.

I am not going to do the “Religion of Peace” jibe, at least not in that back-handed way. However, what is clear is that within Islam there is a particular strain of ideology which is utterly inimical to what I will call, in shorthand, civilised values. It is rooted in the philosophy of Wahhabism, fundamentalist and strident Islam which emerged in Saudi Arabia in the eighteenth century, and which is the corner stone of al Qaeda ideology. It counts amongst its goals the creation of a single and unified Caliphate across the “Islamic” world of the Middle East and Asian sub-continent, although there are plainly some adherents within this country who take the view that the Islamic world should include everyone, and that the black flag of Islam should fly over Downing Street. This is a strain of ideology which has strong roots in many Middle Eastern and Pakistani communities, and it appears to me that its trade marks include fanaticism, total intolerance of anything other than the pure interpretation of holy law as understood by its adherents, a strange and cultish fascination with death and causing death, the more gruesome the better – hence this love of beheadings and mass killings – and also an attitude to women which would make a medieval catholic bishop look like Germaine Greer. It is hugely anti Semitic and paranoid.

I have often considered that it is a curious ideology which denounces and despises everything the western world stands for, but ironically has a particularly loving fascination with the internet and mobile phones, Semtex, the Kalashnikov and international travel. It is the ideology which justifies ritual beheadings of unarmed prisoners, or putting a bullet in the bullet in the head of a 14 year old girl, Malala Yousafzai, because she had dared to campaign for education for girls. That sort of thing. Its default position is death. Death to the Unbeliever, of Kafir, and glorious martyrdom. It is a cult of death.

In 1996 the academic Samuel Huntington published a book called “The Clash of Civilisations” in which he argued that the primary cause of conflict in the post Cold War world would be the clash of cultural and religious identities. Whilst I am not a total historical determinist, I can see the force in his thesis, but would rename it: the Clash of Civilisation against the Uncivilised.

It is not without moral ambiguity. The forays into Iraq and Afghanistan have been ill thought through, even disastrous. And “we” are busily assassinating people in Pakistan and elsewhere with drones. All of these are morally complex issues, and there are paradoxes concerning all of them. These two animals are in some ways a response. They are moronic animals, devoid of conscience and morality. In themselves they are insignificant, and could best be described as insane. But that is not quite adequate. In a sense they are also manifestation of a strain of ideology which I believe is a real threat to civilisation as we recognise it, and which will seek out confrontation with all who do not bow before it. That is an uncomfortable thought for the intellectual Establishment, which has for so long been intrinsically hostile to the values which millions have died to uphold. We might begin by getting our own house in order, and politely asking those who seek refuge in this country if they espouse views which would destroy its freedoms – to leave.

The intellectual Establishment, particularly many in the judiciary, would chide me for having double standards, for being a threat to human rights, for cultural intolerance, so forth. I would perhaps agree, but refer them to the blood on the streets of Woolwich. Whether these perpetrators are terrorists or psychotics might be debated. I would prefer to call them straws in the wind.

Cascadian May 28, 2013 at 04:14

I’m aware of the firearms act, the comment stands, and no sweeping
assumptions were made. Hope you learned something.

I am located in Canada.(Unless Mewsical has relocated me)

Tony Harrison
May 28, 2013 at 09:00

Well, you’re misinformed as I suspected. If as you claim you are “aware”
of the 1997 Act, you ought further to be “aware” that we’ve had gun
registration in this country since 1920. Consequently, since legitimate
firearms owners only had weapons that were registered, and re-checked every
five years on licence renewal, there was no question of failing to
“voluntarily surrender” our handguns post-1997. We had no choice between
that and the minimum five years in prison for illegal handgun
ownership.
In the years following that Act I saw a number of comments
similar to yours from the less well informed sort of US critics, who
suggested we were a bunch of cowards to hand in our guns instead of staying
quiet and keeping them. They too were unaware of our history of gun
registration.
This doesn’t suprise me: I’ve visited N.America, been
hunting in Canada several times, have friends there. They tend to know
nothing about the UK gun scene, but are interested to learn about it. I hope
you learned something.

Cascadian
May 28, 2013 at 21:37

I did learn something, you are as foolish as the law-abiding Jews were
in 1940′s Europe.

Some how, (use your imagination) the criminal class avoided
registration and “voluntary surrender” (a wonderful term for confiscation)
with a little bit of effort and less timidity you could have done the
same.

Your loss.

Tony
Harrison May 28, 2013 at 22:18

At least you’re consistent – and you’re still emulating those dumb
Americans I mentioned, who made the same crass remark about the Jews and
on exactly the same basis of total ignorance.
Your gibes are vague
and general, deliberately so I dare say, and you make no reference to
specifics since you cannot hope to refute the facts I’ve already
provided.
Yes, of course criminals “avoided” registration, as they
always do in every country that registers guns – including Canada where
although your government decided against long arms registration it’s
still the case that my pistol-shooting friends in Ontario and all other
handgun owners have to register theirs. What is your point?
You seem
a little confused too about this “voluntary surrender” business: there
was no “voluntary” involved, as I tried to explain.
You cannot get
away with a general injunction to show less timidity and make more
effort: how exactly do you suggest this might have played? Given that in
1997 our population was headed toward 60 million, and there were around
56,000 licenced owners of handguns – that’s less than one-tenth of one
percent of our total population – I wonder what you might have suggested
we do? Instigate guerilla war, get together and burn down Parliament,
assassinate police officers…?
It’s a numbers game: the UK population
is largely urban, and while a lot of people in the countryside own
shotguns, and quite a few have rifles, the proprtion of gun-owners is
very small – and handgun owners were vanishingly few. Politicians are
not interested in such insignificant numbers of voters.
I’m not sure
how useful this will be, since you have a stubborn level of
incomprehension, but try to take a few facts on board instead of making
your facile, and very silly, suggestions.

Cascadian
May 29, 2013 at 02:14

You are very good at calling people names, you tried it with Elena
and she called you up on it. Now we are to assume that all Americans
and probably Canadians are “dumb”, mostly because they disagree with
your timid viewpoint. How does juvenile name-calling generally work
for you? Most of us grow out of it by age ten, because it tends not to
work well..

I am not and would never counsel anybody to “instigate a guerilla
war….assassinate police officers” that is silly nonsense. You say you
are aware of the fiasco that was the long-gun registration attempt in
Canada, then you should also be aware since you have Canadian
colleagues, how the government can be thwarted. No violence is
necessary, but you have to be willing to not timidly respond to
ridiculous legislation. The same could have been effected in the UK.
You chose differently-your loss.

I suppose because you voluntarily, if grudgingly gave up your
handgun I mistakenly got the impression that it was a “voluntary
surrender”-silly me, especially because you used the term.

And now I am off to improve my comprehension skills, because you
said I need to, and I always comply with ridiculous edicts.

Tony
Harrison May 29, 2013 at
08:49

Cascadian May 29, 2013 at 02:14:
I fear you are right about
those comprehension skills: you’re very good at getting the wrong
end of the stick, like jumping to the conclusion I think all
Americans & Canadians are “dumb”. I thought I’d made it clear
that I’ve visited N.America a number of times, have friends there
and other links, always have a great time. I referred to a minority
of US gun-owners who have in the past made very silly comments like
yours, on the basis of almost total ignorance of the UK, about Brit
gun-owners being cowards or “timid” etc for “handing in” their
guns.
I’ve provided sufficient facts about the UK’s history of
gun legislation, and about the statistics of gun ownership, to show
any reasonable person why there was little option here but to comply
with the handgun ban of 1997. You persistently ignore the facts I’ve
provided – and you provide no facts at all yourself, merely engaging
in wild generalities, assertions, and insulting smears. Sure, UK
shooters could and should have been more united in opposing
legislation – but ultimately it’s a numbers game, as I’ve already
stated. The US NRA is a very large and politically powerful body in
part because a much higher proportion of Americans, compared with
Brits, own guns and go hunting. The UK NRA is a tiny organisation
dedicated almost wholly to target rifle shooting. And so
on.
Before passing comment again on the UK
guns/legislation/shooting scene, do make an attempt to inform
yourself of a few facts, so as to avoid seeming so dumb. And the
same goes for Elena, who was too ready to hit the keyboard without
being in command of essential facts. It’s not a good idea.

Tony Harrison
May 27, 2013 at 08:25

Frankie, interesting. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in
relation to anything I said. For example, at no time have I suggested the
police failed to shoot the Woolwich killers, or shoot them properly, or
whatever: I have, OTOH, made general remarks based on extensive personal
observation that police handgun-shooting teams invariably didn’t do very well
against either military teams, or civilian club teams. Perhaps, in action,
they were able to transform miraculously into crackshots – though I did
suggest that in the heat of the moment they have tended to shoot the wrong
person rather too often…
Did the police at Woolwich “do well”? We don’t
know: but since they took 20 minutes to arrive and had some idea there were
bad guys on the loose, it’s not exactly the same as being ambushed from
nowhere by a machete-wielding maniac. In fact the Plod had it handed to them
on a plate: the bad guys hung around while the police left the station
canteen, motored to the spot, and confronted them. Then at least one bad guy
ran at them with a knife – not a gun… Sure, it takes guts & training to
shoot quickly and drop an assailant like that, but we tend rather to assume
that the Plods have that training, so they did what they’re paid to do.
As
for your reference to “armchair warriors” I imagine you’re disparaging my
remarks about arming the police by reminding me I’ve never had to shoot anyone
– which seems somewhat beside the point, not to say irrelevant. It doesn’t
address any substantive point I made.

Dislecksick May 26, 2013 at 07:45

I learned how to shoot my single barrel pump action yoghurt rifle in my
early teens.

Sorry.

Ancient + Tattered
Airman May 25, 2013 at 18:31

Remove the ban on pistols. Let people of good record buy them. Restore the
right to self defence.

Cascadian May 25, 2013 at 20:08

A much under-reported aspect of the crime is the possession of a pistol
by the Islamists.

This somewhat explains why the local plod were unwilling to intervene,
though it speaks volumes about their commitment to the community they like
to bang-on about.

Once again the truism-when guns are criminalized, only criminals will
have guns-has been shown to be true. The criminals are in control, they
strut around the streets of your capital city proclaiming their intents
quite openly.

Your prescription is the correct one, firearms should be available to
people of good character and record, in the meantime it is NOT illegal to
own a shotgun in the UK.

Elena
‘andcart May 25, 2013 at 20:31

I don’t think I was advocating everyone having the right to own a gun,
although one might wonder why not. Criminals seem to acquire them without
too much trouble, or benefit of a certificate.
Would you as a Plod go
charging in under those circumstances? I bloody well wouldn’t. I have
absolutely no desire to die for my Country, and never have
had.
Although I could have misunderstood you.
Just arm Plod. Not
difficult. Every other civilised country does. And then they might have
been even able to defend.
But never mind. It can only get worse. And it
certainly won’t get better.

belinus May
25, 2013 at 20:45

the plod are no longer the plod, they are corporate officers, so
twood be like arming a private security force not unlike the SS.
Have
you met some of the young plod today….frightening… to be armed as well
would be terrifying

Tony
Harrison May 25, 2013 at 20:52

I don’t want Plod to be armed routinely, since the few specialist
armed Plods already have an unhappy record of summarily executing the
wrong person, and your average copper is not the brightest transistor in
the radio. When we still had handguns it was the case that police
shooting teams, attending pistol matches, practically never won: they
weren’t good enough shots… and if the police can carry guns in public, I
demand that right too – in a free society it’s only fair.
“Might have
been able to defend” – ? It took them 20 minutes to turn up! Like they
say in the US, send for the police, send for a pizza – see who turns up
quickest…

Elena
‘andcart May 25, 2013 at 21:31

So you have totally twisted everything I was trying to say. Not
good enough shots? Easily sorted by practice. I was taught to shoot
straight without too much effort when I was really quite young. And I
have still not forgotten how to do that. It is really quite simple if
you know anything about it at all.
And it wasn’t your average Plod
who shot the wrong person, so don’t try to sick that one on me, or
your average Plod. And neither did it have anything to do with knowing
how to shoot straight.
You want to have the right to own a gun for
no sensible reason at all? Bully for you. I no longer care about what
the likes of you do to Britain.
Over here we just shoot Pigeons and
Rabbits. We leave The Gendarmes to deal with Criminals and
Terrorists.

Tony
Harrison May 25, 2013 at
22:07

Elena ‘andcart, humour me: just to show you’re not over-reacting
in a bizarrely defensive way, explain how I’ve “twisted” your
words.
You were taught to shoot “without too much effort”? You
must have Annie Oakley as a forbear: using any sort of gun
consistently accurately is difficult and requires a great deal of
constant practice unless you’re one of a very few “naturals”;
shooting a handgun well is not just difficult, it’s extremely
challenging, and again requires a great deal of constant practice to
attain and maintain.
I don’t understand your reference to
“average plod”: it was the Plod who shot lots of people by mistake,
such as the man leaving a pub carrying a chair leg in a carrier bag,
and a certain Brazilian plumber. Sure, those Plods shot straight;
sadly, they shot straight at the wrong people.
“No sensible
reason at all”? Why should anyone in a free society without a
criminal record or evidence of insanity or criminal intent need to
give you or anyone else a “reason”?
What do you mean by “the
likes of you”? Just like the wide cross section of men & women I
used to shoot handguns with until 1997, I’m a soberly respectable
member of society, not some kind of riff-raff you can casually
dismiss as “the likes of you”. Don’t be so snotty.
Is “over here”
France? It’s easier to own a firearm in France for purposes of
self-defence than it is in UK, where it’s been impossible for
decades owing to administrative fiat. So it’s complete nonsense to
suggest that “we” (whoever that means) leave it to Les Flics.
Not
only do you know very litle about guns & shooting in general,
you’re not very well informed about them in your adopted country of
residence….

Elena
‘andcart May 25, 2013 at
22:53

La la, so I never learned to shoot? I can promise you that I
did. Although it wasn’t that difficult. No, I wasn’t a Natural. I
had to work at it. But it was important to me that I should do it
well.
Does it bother you that a woman can shoot accurately, and
would want to be good at anything she chooses to do? Does it
bother you that I put my mind to it?
Snotty? You obviously know
nothing about the likes of me. I am much more than just Snotty.
But you have your Britain because I don’t want it.

Tony
Harrison May 26, 2013 at
08:46

Where did I say that you “never learned to shoot”? Your
misreading of things, together with your readiness to draw odd
conclusions from what I’ve written, lend your responses a
slightly surreal touch. For another example, your very odd (and
not remotely supported by anything I wrote) remarks about women
and my supposed attitudes to them!
As for your claim to be
“more than just snotty” (try to avoid excessive use of upper
case…), well, you know best. “My Britain”? Absolutely no idea
what you mean by this, but its strangeness is par for the
course.

Frankie
May 26, 2013 at 20:59

I think that Plod, as you refer to them did pretty well in the
circumstances, to drop these murdering scum, as they ran at them with
weapons. Must have had a split second to react and they did bloody
well to nail the bad guys and take no casualties. It is frightening
the distance a ‘man on a mission’ can cover when they are focussed on
doing you ill…

This is the problem with ‘armchair experts’ – who may have spent
years shooting at nothing more hostile than bits of paper on a range –
but would be the first to fold like a penknife in a real situation or
fumble or otherwise cock up and end up with a large kitchen knife in
the gizzard when it comes to dealing with a man trying to eviscerate
you…

I can assure you, from grim personal experience, that pointing a
firearm at a human being and being at the point of blowing them to
kingdom come is an entirely different and harrowing experience…

cascadian
May 26, 2013 at 01:24

Elena, you have mistaken my comment to Ancient and Tattered as a
comment to your previous post, easily done.

Let me clarify my comment, like you I do NOT advocate the right to
gun ownership for everybody, gun ownership is a serious and responsible
undertaking that should only be available to stable and well-trained
individuals. That is why UK’s present posture that seemingly allows any
malcontent the opportunity for easy (illegal) gun ownership is
ridiculous, obviously gun restrictions are not effective. The law should
be changed, very much in favour for law-abiding citizens.

I implied that I understood why the local plod would be reluctant to
face an armed lslamist, and incline to your comment that I would not
approach them unarmed either. That in no-way excuses the woeful lack of
timely response by the police force. The police in fact are a
laughing-stock, their abilities were well defined the day after when
Greenwich flooded the street with uniformed members, guarding piles of
flowers and escorting children across pedestrian crossings. That does
not inspire confidence.

So I believe you did misunderstand me, which you had the grace to
commen upont. In many (perhaps all) respects, I suspect we agree.

Like you I do not understand the reluctance to arm plod, most police
in Canada are armed, their sidearms are rarely used, nobody feels
especially threatened, seemingly even British Tourists who are not
reluctant to be photographed alongside a mountie. Even though as Tony
comments they are probably not especially well trained for markmanship.
His comment perhaps misses the point that pistols are usually best
deployed for close protection, not the wild-west shoot-outs beyond ten
feet that are popularly portrayed on TV.

Tony
Harrison May 26, 2013 at 09:03

I’m not sure that I’ve missed any point about handguns, since I’ve
fired many thousands of rounds through handguns and am perfectly
familiar with their limitations. But this discussion seems to be
centred on those, rather than long arms, so that’s what I refer to. I
have met and talked to police officers in Canada, including an
undercover sergeant with experience of handgun combat with drug gang
members, and RCMP officers routinely carrying 9mm semi-automatics.
Canadians’ policies on armed police are their affair entirely, and do
not necessarily translate to UK conditions. Canada too has significant
restrictions on civilian gun ownership, though these are not (of
course) as onerous as ours; especially given the oppressive degree of
restrictions on guns here (which historically have appeared to have
virtually no socially beneficial effect) I am strongly opposed to
arming British Plod. Most of them are not competent, the Met
especially look already like a thuggish gendarmerie in black kit and
shaven heads, and if they have guns then I damn well want one
too.
Besides, in the context of Woolwich, as I’ve already mentioned
the Plod took 20 minutes to turn up – just as well the Islamo-loonies
politely waited for them, instead of killing lots more (unarmed)
citizens…

cascadian
May 27, 2013 at 21:34

Tony Harrison 26 May 09:03 reply

“gun ownership is a serious and responsible undertaking that should
only be available to stable and well-trained individuals.”…….I suppose
there is room to misinterpret “ownership” as it relates to the police.
The over-riding issue I am trying to address is that everybody in
possession of a gun (including the police) should be thoroughly
trained, mentally stable and of good character.
It seems
counter-productive to moan-and-groan about the police (that would be
the armed variety) taking 20 minutes to arrive then arguing against
local officers (who arrived earlier but wisely stood back) being
armed. If there is a deficiency in the hiring of police candidates
(and I beleive there is) then that is yet another issue to be
addressed by your government.
And for the avoidance of doubt, if
you are of good character and trained, then you should be able to own
a pistol. If you owned one previously and voluntarily surrendered it
then you are a trifle foolish, hope you learned someting.

Tony
Harrison May 27, 2013 at
22:22

cascadian May 27, 2013 at 21:34 wrote:
“If you owned [a
handgun] previously and voluntarily surrendered it then you are a
trifle foolish, hope you learned someting.”
There are a couple of
things in your post I could take issue with but this is the most
puzzling. I wonder where you’re located: you seem to be unaware of
the UK’s Firearms Act 1997 under which the great majority of
handguns (including mine) were prohibited from civilian ownership.
Perhaps it’s best to take a little time to acquaint yourself with
the basic facts before making sweeping presumptions.

belinus May 25,
2013 at 20:43

agreed under common law we have the right to protect our goods and
shackles and to bare arms, statutes however, have removed all rights for a
license.

Elena ‘andcart
May 25, 2013 at 13:10

There was something decidedly odd about these two. Why did they only kill
one person? They could have killed dozens while they waited for The Armed
Response Team, and while Unarmed Police hid behind walls and things. Not that
I blame them.
Or were these two cowards afraid that passers by and other
potential victims might turn on them and rip them to bits? Don’t forget that
they had to rundown their only victim before they dared to hack him to
death.

belinus May 25,
2013 at 15:05

Its interesting also that in the US a couple of years ago, two recently
demobbed US soldiers on the way to work slipped into their military survival
programme when they saw a young woman walking on the street, they turned to
run her over, leapt out and stabbed her to death.

They were non the wiser that their actions had been wrong…

Elena
‘andcart May 25, 2013 at 16:05

That isn’t quite the same thing either. At least our two had some idea
of why they did it.

Me? I can’t for the life of me understand why Britain doesn’t just arm
The Police in general. I don’t expect to get shot by a Gendarme, and nor
does anyone else going about their lawful business. And at least we
wouldn’t have to wait twenty minutes if someone goes berserk.

Dislecksick May 25, 2013 at 12:03

Why does everybody condemn the EDL as “losers” and make out they are the
other side of the same coin?

To explain, I am an upper working class man in his mid thirties who has a
middle class profession, so I am not one of them, but I do not see them as
losers. They are the only ones with the confidence to take action. While
cowards (like all of us, myself included) prattle on here endlessly about all
the isms under the sun, these men have the courage to stand up and be counted
and oppose what all of us oppose.

I’ll tell you something for nothing, none of these words, endless, endless
words do anything at all, they reverberate around the internet and do nothing
else but help you all let off your emotional insecurity that you are too tied
up and dependent on your jobs to risk raising your head above the parapet of
all the race and religion laws. The EDL create a problem, and although some of
them are (shock horror) football hooligans, it’s a good thing they are using
their bottle for something useful and creating a problem…..when the eventual
end game of this progressive straight jacket happens (and it will) then we
will be the ones leaving nice easy records of our views and nice easy work for
the stasi…..they will think long and hard about going to pick up EDL
members.

Don’t knock people with the bottle to stand up for what they believe in,
these are not brownshirts, they are the only logical conclusion for blue
collar men of backbone, and the fact they have regional accents doesn’t make
them wrong.

miss mildred
May 24, 2013 at 12:14

I see from The Mail on line that we were graced with the presence of the
man with the red hands, in his boy hood, in our local area. There is a weird
silence about the other alleged murderer. I wonder why his parents came to
live in UK? To work in the NHS perhaps? There is a long history of that, even
as far back to the fifties, when I was a student nurse in a grimey northern
town. All his life beyond childhood this young man has been exposed one
attrocity after another paraded in the media, which is increasingly speedy to
kneejerk pictures into mainstream news. Pinpoint bombs onto targets in Iraq,
lovingly filmed and splashed on TV. Vivid pictures of two tall building
crashing to the ground against a vivid blue sky. Rehashes of Bin Laden being
dispatched by elite soldiers. Pictures of an exploded bus in a side street. A
fleeing terrorist hopped on board and blew himself up all pictured on tele. Is
it any wonder that these young men are rendered so mentally disfunctional by a
creed that can be twisted to suit an evil purpose? Then it is paired down to a
debate with a brave lady cub leader in a street with by standers, pressing
their buttons and slithering their glass screens in the hopes of a press
payout. It would have been a good book to write before it all happened. It
could have started with them lying wounded in Greenwich and still alive.

derrfe May 24, 2013 at 03:48

i realise that this is slightly pedantic , but as a “saf landanr” -south
londoner i kind of feel that i should update your apparent grasp of south
london .
– peckham is to the west of greenwich and woolwich and just
because he is black do not assume that is a peckham resident . lewisham
(another area with a large black population is to the east of peckham ( which
is in the london borough of southwark )
-greenwich is not woolwich( though
they are in the same london borough(royal borough of greenwich ), the same one
as eltham where stephen lawrence was murdered all those years ago .) ,
greenwich being the area around the cutty sark , and woolwich the area that
the 51 bus goes to.

john malpas May 24, 2013 at 00:11

Are you not all assuming that this killing is a one off..

Moor
Larkin May 24, 2013 at 00:10

The only IRA guy convicted for the Mazzarene pizza shootings was cleared in
a re-trial just a couple of weeks ago I noticed today. One of those dead
soldiers in 2009 was named Azimkar I norticed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/real-ira-murders-brian-shivers-cleared-of-2009-double-murder-of-british-soldiers-at-massereene-barracks-in-antrim-8603046.html
The
IRA killed their first off-duty British soldiers as long ago as 1971 and some
oldies might even remember the 1988 incident when we saw TV pictures of two
British soldiers dragged out of their car by an angry mob of Irish people.
Those two unlucky men were beaten to a pulp and then found shot in a rubbish
dump later.

John
Galt May 24, 2013 at 03:19

Wasn’t that at a funeral?

Mjolinir
May 24, 2013 at 12:35

I was a Police Officer on duty in a Station a few miles from Guildford
on 5th October 1974 when reports came in of an explosion. in the “Horse
and Groom” pub Five people died & 65 were injured. A number of my
close friends and colleagues were involved in evacuating other town-centre
pubs &c, and no-one was seriously injured when 6lb of Gelignite went
off in the nearby “Seven Stars” half an hour later
Four weeks later,
two people were killed when a shrapnel bomb was thrown into another
‘Soldiers’ Pub’ – the ‘Kings Arms’ in Woolwich.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_pub_bombings ]

The pubs were rebuilt, but the ‘Horse and Groom’ now stands empty. In
the corner of a window facing the street – almost un-noticed – there is a
small ‘commemorative’ notice with a RBL Poppy
It reads “R I P brave
Soldier – Lest we forget”

carol42 May 24, 2013 at 00:05

I lived in Teheran for a few years until we were forced to evacuate in
February 1979. I loved it there, never felt threatened nor did I see any
fanaticism until the months before we left when the hostility started. It is
so sad the way things have turned out, I knew many of the young students
protesting and the last thing they wanted was a Theocracy. They thought they
would get a more democratic and moral society with Khoment as a figurehead,
many ended up in jail or worse. What I can never understand is why Islamists
don’t go to a country more suited to their beliefs/

Fred May 23, 2013 at 22:38

It’s a bit odd to hear this constant refrain about perversion of Mohammed’s
teachings. I’m not an arabic speaker but have read several translations of the
Koran. There is very little dubiety and I see no serious suggestion that
infidels have any value at all (a point which was confirmed for me when at
university by a Sudanese scholar who explained that he could not regard me as
a friend unless I converted to Islam (in which event I would be his brother)
it rather shocked me as I had thought we were friends!). The excellent
precepts as to how to live and treat others are always preceded by the
assumption or statement that these apply between believers.
It is common to
make unfavourable comparisons with acts of evil carried out by alleged
Christians. Very true, but you have to pervert the teachings of the Carpenter
from Nazareth to carry out atrocities in his name. In contrast, consider the
poly theistic idolators of Mecca who did not slaughter Mohammed, merely exiled
him. When he returned, with a heavily armed fanatical following, their
religion died. So did they. Start as you mean to go on.

Frankie May 23, 2013 at 22:06

These appalling pond scum will receive far more justice – at the hands of
the great British public – in the form of a jury than they dished out to a man
walking along a road, minding his own business, but, unfortunately (for him)
wearing a ‘Hope for Heroes’ T shirt. Then, after being ably defended by a top
QC (at our collective expense) they will spend the rest of their miserable
lives living ‘at Her Majestie’s Pleasure’ and again at our considerable
expense.

Something is seriously wrong if the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed
(Peace be upon Him) can be perverted to such an extent that two devout
believers (amongst others) can attempt to justify their actions in His name. I
feel that the Muslin community need to take action to root out this evil in
their midst…

charlotte May 23, 2013 at 21:38

When I first heard the news of the terrible atrocity in Woolwich yesterday
my first thoughts were for the young man who was brutally murdered, who we now
know is called Lee Rigby. I hoped that he had died in the car collision and
didn’t suffer the horrific attack from the barbarian Muslims who attacked him.
I did wonder, as the man with the blood over his hands spoke with an English
accent if he and his partner in crime had not been recruited while in prison.
This wouldn’t surprise me as I’ve heard prison is a hot bed for recruiting
fanatical Islamists within the UK.
I don’t believe that 99% of the Islamic
community in the UK are liberals, they may be peaceful but I do feel an
undercurrent of ‘waiting’ from them. Waiting for the day when they will see
triumph of Islam over Christianity and the evilness, as they see it, of
westernisation. The Government through Theresa May has been trying for ages to
get one fanatic cleric removed from out shores and have been stopped at every
attempt by human rights lawyers in case the cleric is harmed in Jordan, and so
we continue to pay his rent and rates and feed his kids and keep his wives.
Who fucking cares what happens to the ugly bastard? I don’t, he could rot in a
barrel of pork fat for all I care.
Winston Churchill warned us about the
fanatical Islamists are far back as 1899 apparently. I say apparently because
I have recently had an email with the speech attached but can’t authenticate
it and I don’t know how to paste the link here. Perhaps some o the very clever
people who comment here could find it and let me know if it is true or
not.
I have travelled to the Middle East back in the 80′s and as a woman
felt very uneasy there. I was a nothing and a western slut and just could not
wait to leave and never return. I clouted a fat boy of about 13 who attempted
to grope me in a lift with Arabic women who just laughed until I gave the boy
a good right hander, I really did give him a fearful wallop. It wasn’t as if I
had dressed provocatively, I never have. It was because I was a western woman.
These people are vile beyond words. They have more ‘isms’ than any other
culture or religion on the face of the planet but unfortunately they have a
lot of oil so Governments keep them sweet. The fanaticism of Japan in the 2nd
world war was only halted by the atom bomb – now there’s a thought. As for the
2 who killed that dear young man in Woolwich yesterday maybe some medieval
punishment from our own past might do the trick if they survive. skinning them
alive? Draw & quarter alive? Over to you.

Albio May 24, 2013 at 01:30

Charlotte

Absolutely spot on – they haven’t changed I have a friend who was in
Dubai recently and in a lift a man just grabbed her ……do you know I can’t
even be bothered to finish my point all of use really know they are a load
of c…… straightforward oxygen thieves

John May 23, 2013 at 19:18

Perhaps we need to up the stakes. This is hypothetical, just a thought you
understand.

To deter this kind of thing we need to find something that murderous thugs
like this understand. So in future if this happens again:
1) The thug
should be summarily executed.
2) Any members of his immediate family,
including children, should be separated and jailed for at least 20 years, and
then if appropriate deported.
3) Ditto any local Imam/preacher he has been
in contact with.
4) Ditto any close friends or associates of facebook chums
who can be proved to have had knowledge about it.

No fucking about – we will hurt the ones you care about more than you will
know. Collective punishment.

Tom May 23, 2013 at 21:04

You are even worse than them if you think that is justice.

charlotte
May 23, 2013 at 21:47

‘Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ That’s what one of the murderers
said. John isn’t as bad as them it’s what they want isn’t it? ‘Fight fire
with fire, maybe then they’d think twice. I heard a good idea today when
someone said use them as guinea pigs and feed them disease, then test
drugs on them. It’s the justice that would be doled out in an Arabic
country.

belinus May
23, 2013 at 23:01

What you are describing to my mind would be the Talmud doctrines
which do appear to have installed into the Hadith, and the very sticking
point between Arabic Sunni and the real followers of the peaceful edicts
of the Koran the Iranian Shia.
The Shia do not accept Bakr Umar and
Aisha and their testimonies which make up a large part of the
hadith.

I believe in the main it is the hadith which allows a more fanatical
expression of Islam not so much the Koran, it is this that twists the
meanings followed by the majority of Muslims into the fanatical ideas of
murder. For me anything that includes the fire and brimstone Old
Testament rantings has missed the point when it comes to by far the
superior doctrine that is the New Testament.

An eye for an eye expresses the Old Testament falsehood of covenant
and one of the reasons this falsehood was overturned by the man called
Jesus.

It is the Talmud wrecking the religions in order it can re-assert the
Temple of Solomon, and for an insight to what that means see the
financial calamity, health and safety, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick
Clegg, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the corporate
judiciary, Barack Obama, Israel, Communist China, Russia, and the star
of the show the good old USA, ‘O’, and false flag murders for more
commercial rules..

Maurice
May 30, 2013 at 01:07

I notice from your link that you have a major anti-Talmud thing
going on. Please however be assured that an Eye for an Eye means
monetary compensation only. It always has – as anyone who actually
studies the Talmud knows.

Mjolinir
May 24, 2013 at 11:16

@Tom – Agreed.

SagaxSenex
May 24, 2013 at 11:19

That more or less corresponds to what I would call a Stalinist solution.
Personally, I would reserve that for bankers. (Just send Lavrenti Beria out
to deal with 12 of them, chosen at random, after compelling them to leave
their assets to the state). They have done far more harm to society at large
than these sick, deluded little worms. But looking after these worms for the
rest of their natural span also goes against the grain.

Ancient + Tattered
Airman May 23, 2013 at 19:09

I am pleased the police did not kill them. Under skilled interrogation we
might yet learn whether or not they were radicalised, and by whom. My personal
view is that they should have been brought down by shotguns aimed slightly
below the waist so that these vermin wouldn’t continue to add their genes to
the national mix. I still haven’t heard a great deal about them. Were they
employed or archetypal welfare cases?

GildasTheMonk
May 23, 2013 at 18:27

An interesting observation from a muslim cleric on the radio.
Suspect No
1 is no named as a Christian convert. The phrase “an eye for an eye” is, of
course, a Biblical one, not taken from the Koran, and would never have been
used by a non convert.
A point worthy of a thriller? And perhaps an
indication of the kind of addled, bonkers mind of the truly evil

Kingbingo May 23, 2013 at 18:31

He also said “Bring our troops home”. Its OUR troops is it? Conflict with
“Muslims being killed in our lands”, when ‘our’ presumably means
Iraq/Afghanistan.

JimS May 23, 2013 at 23:31

See “Archbishop Cranmer”

The reference ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ is the
Mosaic Pentateuch reiterated in the Qur’an:

“And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye
for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the
tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation” (Sura 5:54).

2mac May 24, 2013 at 21:50

The Islamic Cleric maybe forgot that he was quoting and referencing quran
directly.

Chapter (5) sūrat l-māidah

Sahih International: And We ordained for them therein a life for a life,
an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a
tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right
as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what
Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Daedalus X.
Parrot May 23, 2013 at 18:14

They have released the poor murdered lad’s name. He is Drummer Lee Rigby of the 2nd Batallion of the Royal Regiment of
Fusiliers. He was 25, married in 2007 and has a 2 year old son. He served
in the army for 7 years in Germany, Cyprus and Afghanistan.

Rest in peace Lee Rigby and deepest condolences to his family and
friends.

Kingbingo May 23, 2013 at 18:29

“He was 25, married in 2007 and has a 2 year old son.”

Jeeezzee!!! That’s heartbreaking.

These scum, these animals. I truly hope they are in extraordinary amounts
of pain right now. Chaining these two to a wall in a dark room each alone
and (barely) keeping them alive for 50 years with a drip is about right for
them, let them spend the rest of their lives with nothing to consider but
how they got there.

Instead hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money will be spent
giving them excellent medical care and protection, they they will serve Life
to 12 years in a jail which fully complies with European standards before
being released with full benefits to support them and almost certainly a
free flat.

binao May 23, 2013 at 17:37

Quite some years ago I attended an intensive course in Arab culture at
Farnham Castle. I really don’t know how balanced the briefings were and I’m
not at all sure that it’s even possible to be even handed, it’s just too
complicated for that. What I do recall is a sense that by modern standards the
actions of the West have historically been bad.
We might well say that’s
history and the Arabs weren’t good guys either. Fine, but we’ve carried on,
and again, they’re still not good guys, but it’s like poking a stick in a
wasps nest, and the wasps don’t know or care that maybe some pretty potent
chemical warfare is coming their way.
I do think we could do ourselves a
great deal of good by keeping our noses out of other peoples cultures, no
matter how repellent, where that culture is contained within their own state.
And if you visit, or want to be a missionary, it’s your risk. It would be a
great service if every handwringing liberal did just that and put their
theories to the test. Perhaps they could start by distributing bibles and
preaching female equality in Saudi Arabia
And I still believe that there is
an overriding obligation for any visitor to any state to respect the local
culture, and not in any way seek to impose their own. Really not interested in
hearing about the colonial past, I wasn’t there.

Robert Edwards
May 23, 2013 at 17:35

I suppose the key question arises: What on Earth does the Judiciary do with
these people? Anyone who saw the video clip will probably agree that the
culprits of this egregious, barbaric act are, by any normal definition, quite
insane. But can we trust the system enough that we can rely on them being sent
to Broadmoor or Rampton for the rest of their natural lives? I’m not sure; The
Guardian is already concentrating on the EDL ‘backlash’, ffs, so I’m nervous
already. It’s a typical lefty ‘truth inversion’, so to speak, almost as if
9/11 happened because Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded. And the liberal left
are at their most dangerous and dissembling at times like this.

The simple truth is, I suspect, that we are scared of these creatures
(unless we are a Girl Scout Leader from Cornwall, peace be upon her) because
of their fundamental irrationality. A proportionate response would be to
execute them, but we can’t do that, probably q. rightly, so they need
studying. But the whingers will complain that to treat them as lunatics is an
insult to their ‘faith’.

What faith would that be, then? Radical Islam surely has as much in common
with the general Moslem faith as Scientology has to do with Methodism. For
radical Islam is, let’s face it, completely irrational.

Perhaps it’s all just an example of attention-seeking wrapped up in an
‘excuse’. Looked at one way, it’s an extreme example of Sarf London knife
crime. Looked at another way, it’s straight out of the Al-Q’aeda handbook.
Either way, it’s alarming that the perpetrators are not swivel-eyed illegals
from the horn of Africa, rather swivel-eyed loons from London; they are, by
any usual measure, Brits, just like the 7/7 bombers, albeit of West African
descent.

And this is surely the scary thing. But clever of the plods (for once) to
disable them rather than kill them, though. My instinct is, of course, to
inflict as savage a punishment as is allowed, simply out of vengeance – the
wire jacket, or something equally unpleasant. But it won’t do. We have reached
a cultural escape velocity from the Hobbesian condition over the generations
and we surrnder that at our peril. Had I been present and armed, I would
happily have blown their heads off and slept easy last night. But probably in
a police cell.

Which offers the secondary question: were the plods taking the ‘long view’,
or did they simply miss?

Engineer May 23, 2013 at 17:47

“What on Earth does the judiciary do with these people?”

Very easy. Theycharge them with and try them for murder. There seems to
be no shortage of evidence or witnesses, so conviction seems highly
likely.

I would suggest that these people are not terrorists, nor are they deeply
religious. They are murderers, pure and simple. No disagreement on the
nation’s foreign policy justifies cold-blooded murder on the nation’s
streets, whether or not the victim is a serving soldier. If you disagree
with the country’s foreign policy (can’t say I’ve been wholly impressed with
it myself over the last decade or so) then there are better ways to express
your concern.

Anna
Raccoon May 23, 2013 at 19:32

“the perpetrators are not swivel-eyed illegals from the horn of Africa,
rather swivel-eyed loons from London”

Steady on lad! I’ll agree that they are the scum of the earth and beneath
contempt, but we’ve no actual proof that they are conservative activists.
Defamation and all that.

Engineer
May 23, 2013 at 20:29

Careful Anna! Start rumours like that, and the next thing you know
there will anonymous tweets claiming that the victim was a staunch
europhile, and strongly in favour of gay marriage!

Moor
Larkin May 23, 2013 at 17:32

A chap on the BBC radio was reporting that he was trying to get local
reaction, but many people he stopped simply refused to comment and remarked to
him that, “You don’t want to hear what my view is.”

Tony Harrison
May 23, 2013 at 23:00

They’ve got the BBC’s number, then. Actually it’s not just the BBC:
people in general are all too aware that freedom of speech is a somewhat
theoretical construct today.

m.barnes May 23, 2013 at 16:54

I think you have over-thought the whole thing. I am not fearful of being
attacked after this. I am more likely to die while driving in my car and
listening to this event on the news. I AM fearful that the stupid and immature
will drag the rest of us down.

I am always struck by how – well loser-ish – these self proclaimed warriors
for islam are. Losers in the truest sense of the word – not in what they do
for a living or what they earn. They are sad, deluded, narcissitic idiots who
believe themselves to be destined for great things. The world just can’t see
it. So they make the world see it by hacking somone to death and mouthing off
some barely understood rhetoric about Islam/fill-in-the-cause-of-your-choice.
I seriously doubt this is the first machete attack this year but it’s
certainly the first one that has initiated COBRA. Sprinkle a little political
rhetoric on an act of violence and suddenly it’s a terror attack. The way they
urged passersby to film them and record them was like some kind of twisted
reality show stunt. That passersby took part in this sick charade was even
weirder! To call them evil is afford them a glamour they do not deserve. They
are the perfect demonstration that terrible things can be done by
insignificant idiots seeking fame and notice.

And then the equally brainless EDL pop up and their bright idea is to… wait
for it…… riot in Woolwich. I am sure that made everyone there feel ”defended’.
And next I am sure there will be some anti-EDL group proposing to demonstrate
against the EDL who are demonstrating against the 2 dangerous ‘terrorists’
that are shot and in custody and not over-running the country. And so we all
get sucked through the looking glass.

What makes me feel better is that at least 3 people didn’t succumb to the
siren call of being social media journos, to film these murderous muppets and
record their banal mouthing: the Scout leader who kept them occupied and the 2
women who apparently knelt by their murdered victim.

I have read two sane articles about this today: one in the Independent (of
all places!) by Andy West and one on Spiked. These men are only terrorists if
we are terrorised. I absolutely refuse to be terrorised by 2 losers.

TheSpine
May 23, 2013 at 17:00

‘What makes me feel better is that at least 3 people didn’t succumb to
the siren call of being social media journos’

Couldn’t have put it better myself. It actually gave me some renewed
faith in people.

SagaxSenex
May 24, 2013 at 11:08

And this deluded thirst for notoriety (as a poor substitute for fame, or
even a decent reputation) also goes back to the ancient world. Herostratus
burned down the temple of Artemis. Plus ça soddin’ well change.

JuliaM May 23,
2013 at 16:41

“However, thanks to the wonders of modern social networking, and perhaps
rather to the Establishment’s consternation, I think we all rather do know
what happened.”

Hence the demands for censorship and sneering at those papers which showed
the pictures that the chattering classes now say are ‘too distressing’ and
‘disrespectful to the family’.

It’s hard to keep telling people what you want them to hear when reality,
in the form of a crazed savage with blood on his hands, is leering at you from
the front page of the newspaper…

Joe Public May 23, 2013 at 16:40

“We must fight them as they fight us. ….”

He’s a hypocrite too, considering the number of Muslims who’ve died at the
hands of other Muslims in the nigh-on century-old Sunni–vs-Shia religious
conflicts in Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen,
Bahrain, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.

TheSpine
May 23, 2013 at 16:06

I sometimes wonder what the hell is ‘civilisation’. In the midst of the
horror, I thought I detected something like it in the action of onlookers who
put aside all the miserably inanity of our media-consuming lives to actually
do something with real moral purpose. But it takes tragedy for people to find
the best in themselves. Or perhaps it just takes a tragedy for the best among
us to step forward and make themselves known. I wish I had that special kind
of vision which could see those people among us, glowing, shining, so I know
who they are, so I could thank them as I also remind myself that I don’t live
surrounded by cold lumps of flesh reanimated by Google, Samsung and Apple.

But that’s so hard. Everywhere I look, the things I took for civilisation
are corrupted by the slack jawed bastards whose tastes run riot through our
towns and cities, the Neolithic who have taken over the country and would make
us a cultural void. Civilisation? What is civility in a culture obsessed with
gimmickry, porn, war, noise, hypocrisy, violence, and anything that is trivial
or banal? They won’t vote, can’t name a politician, but want us to celebrate
some idiot drinking beer through her ear or a two-headed mongrel.

And when nobody cares, bad things happen. Politicians grimace and frown
about tragic events but we know damn well that there’s political manoeuvring
going on. Boris looked more like the PM this morning whilst the PM was trying
so hard to look like the PM. Last night Theresa looked the PM, whilst the PM
was PMing with the French PM… The media, initially are spittle lipped with
excitement, are now full of moral indignation. The left are predictably
hang-wringing, cautious to adopt stereotypes, whilst the right predictably
adopt stereotypes and are only in the mood for neck wringing. They all ask:
how do we stop these things happening among us? But we can’t. Things have gone
too far. Neighbour doesn’t speak to neighbour and communities are fractured
with too many living in voids, disconnected from each other as they are
disconnected from the culture around them. We all think we are so connected
because we have technology but, in truth, it’s a lie we are telling ourselves
to disguise the fact that we are completely disconnected. We see violence
before us and we freakishly reach for our phones. We record it, retreat to our
passive state, go back online where everything is safe. Indeed, that’s
partially the reason why terrorism is currently so potent. People say we are
desensitized to violence but we have actually become over-sensitized to
reality. Around 20,000 soldiers died on 1st July, 1916. There were 40,000
wounded. Are we really that brighter and less civilized than our parent’s
parents, or have we just forgotten how brutal the world can be?

Johnnydub May 23, 2013 at 15:34

I think the problem is that Radical Islam directs disaffected losers like
these two down a path of nihilistic violence.

The losers will always be with us – we just need moral courage to get shot
of the Radical Islam. Unfortunately our establishment, the human rights
brigade etc insists this is unlawful and immoral.

I also have another point. I accept that 99.99% of the Islamic community
are decent people. However that tiny minority give us Forced marriage,
insistence on Sharia Law, Female Genital Mutilation, paedophile rape gangs and
terrorist nutters.
Is this too high a price? Do we have the ability to
withhold the invitation to come to this country? Is it time for a moratorium
on Muslim immigration until bluntly, they sort their own shit out?

JuliaM May 23,
2013 at 16:37

“Is this too high a price?”

Yes. But while it’s being paid by ordinary people, it’s not too high for
the progressives.

m.barnes May 23, 2013 at 17:07

Actually the paediophile rape gangs were already here, as were the
terrorists nutters, as were the women haters… perhaps we should put up a
sign: No Irish, Catholics, certain sub-groups of major religions, people
from the North of England…. well basically on the basis that any segment of
the community that has only got 99.99% being decent is unacceptable then we
should all leave, shouldn’t we?

Disaffected losers would find something to latch onto. For instance a
whole bunch of disaffected losers showed up in balaclavas in Woolwich last
night to throw things at the police.

Tony Harrison
May 23, 2013 at 22:56

Having our own disaffected losers is unfortunate, but wilfully
importing lots more alien disaffected losers seems perverse. It’s too high
a price to pay for ready access to Chicken Jalfrezi or whatever.

Kingbingo May 23, 2013 at 15:08

Since yesterday I have been trying to get onto the Help the Heroes website
to make a donation and buy a T-shirt.

It’s locked up solid. No doubt tens of thousands of people are doing
precisely the same thing!

Lisa May 23, 2013 at 16:25

Keep trying please, this is such an important charity within the Armed
Forces and their families and as it has noy lready been said RIP and thought
with his family

TheNoseyMole
May 23, 2013 at 14:14

Just as an aside, there are currently eleven conflicts in the world causing
in excess of 1000 deaths per year nine of which directly involve the “religion
of peace” the other two being an ongoing conflict in Burma and the Mexican
drug war. (Source Wikipedia).

Joe Public May 23, 2013 at 14:11

Why should we elevate them to the rank of “Terrorist”?

As you say, it was a pair of cowardly nutters, who (thankfully) had the
ridiculously low ‘hit-rate’ of 0.5.

belinus May 23,
2013 at 14:09

Phew, emotional indeed.
So far watching the responses, especially last
nights, I see a too well rehearsed play for the re-introduction of the
snoopers charter, and the fact secret courts in Britain are about to get royal
ascent.

Cameron’s speech was so forked tongue in his derision of Al Quada fanatics
while sitting atop a very successful country undermine in Libya, through first
using our foreign aid to educate and radicalise the so called Libyan rebels
under the ARK programme, and in the Northern Ireland Police training the
Libyan police forces to allow the rebellion. And then we have Syria, again
clear cut Al Quada rebels being funded, armed and given chemical weapons by
those his government bows backwards to placate. A reality that could shift
these networks into Turkey and then into the EU.

What we are suffering is the loss of moral authority in our invasions of
sovereign nations on the back of the 911 event, still unproven to have any
links to Islam, let alone Afghanistan which today is the largest supplier of
heroin to Europe and heading that way for the Americas.

Something is not right about this insensible murder, so precise in its
anger reaction, a soldier, a black man, a Muslim….Mmm.