Machete

[NTH]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329089/Woolwich-attack-Two-men-hack-soldier-wearing-Help-Heroes-T-shirt-death-machetes-suspected-terror-attack.html

I wonder if these so called terrorist aren't getting what they want. How long before reprisals are taken on Muslims that have and want nothing to do with this.

Sick fucking bastards, though. I will spare you the video, not going to promote that shit.

[Korsakov829]

Ah, what a shame!

[ksl94]

The only thing that I currently want to do is to drive a 1907 bayonet into this savage's guts, twist it, and pull it back out.

[PanzerKnacker]

a Butcher's Knife bayonet would be even more brutal a reprisal, but alas, this didn't happen in Berlin.

[[130.Pz]S.Lainer]

How long before reprisals are taken on Muslims that have and want nothing to do with this.

LOL....Not at you NTH.  But I find it funny how people jump to this kinda statement when a crazy muslim does horrible things.  If this guy had been whacking muslims in the name of Jesus I doubt you would have brought it up.

[Zoologic]

Cameron might be a jackass to some Brits. But he is right on this one.

Keep calm and carry on.

Terrorist mofos has no voice in civilized world.

[hOMEr_jAy]

A terrible case in many ways. It´s a sad day when the state can no longer protect its citizens and all its citizens can do is being helpless bystanders in the face of mad, cruel violence.
It´s also terrible, as it shows us live, via the internet the mad and destructive ways of unchecked religious insanity, turning these lunatics into things, even lower than the most primitive animals.

From a political POV, now it´s time for the "moderate" Muslims to distance themselves from such lunacy and side themselves with the secular society they live in. They have the uncanny ability of staying curiously quiet in such cases (one only needs to look at their reactions during cases, like the Mohamed drawings, the "death sentence" of Salman Rushdie or other big religious quarrels) and if they want to avoid creating deeper trenches between themselves and those who adhere to our values it´s time for them to act.
At the same time our PC-loving, oh-so-tolerate European societies finally need to be ready to appropriately deal with EVERY kind of extremism (political, religious, social) and their followers, instead of following an appeasement policy where the feelings of others are more important than our written law.

Anyway, my condolences go to the victims family and friends. A tragic way to die, especially for a soldier who has sworn to defend those at home...

[Lightning]

A terrible case in many ways. It´s a sad day when the state can no longer protect its citizens and all its citizens can do is being helpless bystanders in the face of mad, cruel violence.

The state cannot be expected to protect all of its citizens all of the time. That's simply not possible and the only way to come close to this is to monitor all of its citizens, which is entirely undesirable.

From a political POV, now it´s time for the "moderate" Muslims to distance themselves from such lunacy and side themselves with the secular society they live in.

That's just ridiculous. Obviously, their motives were political and not religious. It is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they specifically targeted a soldier and also by what they said on the scene, like "I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Moreover, "moderate muslims" or let's call them "regular muslims", had absolutely nothing to do with this. Trying to implicate them after such a horrendous act is the kind of senseless behaviour that has some ignorant people attacking mosques in Britain now. It's that sort of "you're either with us or against us" attitude that creates the deep trenches you're talking about.

[hOMEr_jAy]

The state cannot be expected to protect all of its citizens all of the time. That's simply not possible and the only way to come close to this is to monitor all of its citizens, which is entirely undesirable.

If the state isn´t able to protect its citizens, then the citizens must be able to protect themselves. You can´t expect anyone becoming a victim and shrug it off as something that´s bound to happen. If those thugs can kill someone in such a way without anyone else being able to intervene, something´s going entirely wrong.

That's just ridiculous. Obviously, their motives were political and not religious. It is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they specifically targeted a soldier and also by what they said on the scene, like "I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Where do you draw the line between political and religious motives? Radical Islam itself is highly political, just as any radical religion or ideology is but it´s still the main excuse for the behaviour we´re witnessing. It fuels the political ambitions of others and serves to motivate thoe followers. So it´s not plain-cut as you say.

Moreover, "moderate muslims" or let's call them "regular muslims", had absolutely nothing to do with this. Trying to implicate them after such a horrendous act is the kind of senseless behaviour that has some ignorant people attacking mosques in Britain now. It's that sort of "you're either with us or against us" attitude that creates the deep trenches you're talking about.

I´m quite aware that your Regular-Joe Muslim wasn´t involved in the attack. Maybe I didn´t explain myself properly, but what I meant was that radical nutjobs, as the guys who attacked that mosque will see them as an enemy because they don´t know where to draw the line between a law-abiding religious person and a radical.
By no means did I wanted to generalise both regulars and radicals as one faction, all I said was that many misunderstandings could be eradicated if the regulars would make a statement on where they stand. It always takes two to tango...any radical ideology that sets itself over others, especially by using force, must be fought and destroyed. Anyone abiding the law, no matter what their political affiliations, religion, sexual orientation etc. is can be a welcomed part of soeciety. Those who work against this are enemies and I gladly make this an "us vs them"-issue if there are radicals who want to destroy our society on the other side.

[Lightning]

You can´t expect anyone becoming a victim and shrug it off as something that´s bound to happen.

The chance of getting killed in a traffic accident is like 1000 times higher than getting killed by a terrorist. People shrug that off with no problems. Sure, we could outlaw cars and the world would be a lot safer when traffic is concerned, but that's just not practical or wanted.

Where do you draw the line between political and religious motives? Radical Islam itself is highly political, just as any radical religion or ideology is but it´s still the main excuse for the behaviour we´re witnessing. It fuels the political ambitions of others and serves to motivate the followers. So it´s not plain-cut as you say.

If it is no more than an excuse, as you say, then I think the link you make between radical and moderate Islam is unfounded.

I´m quite aware that your Regular-Joe Muslim wasn´t involved in the attack. Maybe I didn´t explain myself properly, but what I meant was that radical nutjobs, as the guys who attacked that mosque will see them as an enemy because they don´t know where to draw the line between a law-abiding religious person and a radical.

Then the fault lies with the radical nutjobs, not with the moderate muslims. I don't see anyone calling on moderate christians to condemn christian extremists, simply because we all know what normal moderate christians are like, so we know we don't have to be afraid of them. If people can't make the distinction that extremists are nothing like normal muslims, that's their fault. It shouldn't be the duty of muslims to convince people that they're not going to kill them.

I gladly make this an "us vs them"-issue if there are radicals who want to destroy our society on the other side.

As long as you mean radicals and extremists when you say "them" and not muslims, I support that fully.

[Korsakov829]

Many Muslim extremists come from a chivalrous, vengeful culture. Whole books and reports have been written and ignored decades before western countries such as the U.S.A entered Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This here is pay back for the crusades and recent events and until they accept an apology, they'll hurt people who share things in common with people who've hurt them, be it by ancestry, nationality, perceived religion, or even something as simple as the color of your hair.

Here's a report written by a soldier who has experienced the Afghan's:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_3/CAJ_vol10.3_09_e.pdf

It's much older than Islam and is spread from India to Algiers, all of this I can say for certain is a fact that I've seen for myself. For many this isn't done in the name of Allah, and if anything the values of Islam have kept them in moderation.

[Zoologic]

True, otherwise Indonesia, the largest Muslim population in the world, won't have its female president while US of A has not. Or let's say, Pakistan.

You should see it through the loud and obnoxious fanatic fuckheads, the silent majority.

[hOMEr_jAy]

The chance of getting killed in a traffic accident is like 1000 times higher than getting killed by a terrorist. People shrug that off with no problems. Sure, we could outlaw cars and the world would be a lot safer when traffic is concerned, but that's just not practical or wanted.

You´re not really comparing the willful attempt at destroying others life and property with the means of getting around, right? Traffic accidents are, as the name implies, accidents, whereas crimes such as the attack in London are wanton attempts at destroying peace. There´s a difference here, between a traffic accident and a criminal attack. It´s not like those animals accidently ran the soldier over and his head kinda fell off. If someone´s out to injure or kill others there must be means available to citizens to stop these people, if it´s the only way.

If it is no more than an excuse, as you say, then I think the link you make between radical and moderate Islam is unfounded.
Then the fault lies with the radical nutjobs, not with the moderate muslims. I don't see anyone calling on moderate christians to condemn christian extremists, simply because we all know what normal moderate christians are like, so we know we don't have to be afraid of them. If people can't make the distinction that extremists are nothing like normal muslims, that's their fault. It shouldn't be the duty of muslims to convince people that they're not going to kill them.

It´s not "just an excuse", it´s a means for people with influence and ambitions to mobilise others in order to achieve a goal. It´s the same as with the Crusades. Its main goals were of geopolitical nature, but the pointless differences between the different religions were the catalyst needed to mobilise poor sods from Europe to die in the "Holy Land". What I want to say is that there´s a connection between religious fanatism and political goals and religion is an easy way of getting others to die for your cause, thus making it a guilty part of the grand scheme. Where does the "moderate" crowd fit in, you ask?

Well, it´s extremely easy to turn the moderate ones into fanatics. It´s no surprise that even people born and raised in Europe sometimes "find" religion and due to certain events turn from "moderates" to "extremists". Religion caters to people in need and easily creates an "outside vs. insider"-atmosphere that can easily be abused by manipulative "leaders" or "teachers". That´s why it´s important for the moderates to cry out about such barbarity and distance themselves from it. For example when we had that appaling incident with the Mohamed drawings everyone was scared of reprisals and politicians even urged newspapers not to print them. Normally, such a clear breach of basic laws should be opposed by anyone identifying themselves with our values. Instead of supporting the newspapers right to print these drawings, we had a loud crowd of "offended" Muslims clashing with police, destroying property and injuring others and on the other side we had a group of silent bystanders not acting because they either don´t care about this bullying or even silently support it.

That´s the reason I´m being dumbfounded by the passive behaviour of the majority of Europeans Muslims. There are people representing their faith to the rest of the world who have views that clash with our basic values and rights and yet they´re silent about it.

Most Christians don´t seem to have that problem, as it´s part of our culture to critize people doing immoral things. If there´s a big scandal about the Catholic Church you´ll hear from people who are part of that group condemning these actions (i.e. child molestation cases always generate a big outcry even from the Catholic community itself). Sure you´ll have the blind sheep following those leading them, but in our age and society people, regardless of their religion or origin, should be appalled by any form of extremism and should loudly condemn those threatening and destroying others life. It´s something every educated citizen should do, especially if those extremists say they represent your faith or political position.

[NTH]

How long before reprisals are taken on Muslims that have and want nothing to do with this.

LOL....Not at you NTH.  But I find it funny how people jump to this kinda statement when a crazy muslim does horrible things.  If this guy had been whacking muslims in the name of Jesus I doubt you would have brought it up.

Just a few things coming together in Europe. This might be a red flag that sets off some of our fellow human beings, that take "perspective and subtlety" and shove it up some ones ass.

And if it was more common that Muslims were killed and claimed in the name of Jesus by Christians, then sure why shouldn't I bring it up.
It just right now you got your Boston lunatics, London killer, shithead killing Van Gogh in the Netherlands (Not the painter, he was already dead ofc), idiots rioting in Sweden, France, etc. All from a certain ethnic background over a period of time.

I know, I am not putting everything in perspective right now, but it irks me, is all.

[Slayer]

It´s something every educated citizen should do, especially if those extremists say they represent your faith or political position.

With this attitude, you support the way people keep categorizing and generalizing entire groups, be it ethnic or religous groups. I despise that, really.

Following your argument, if I were to be a Catholic negro, I should be publicly stating that I disagree with or condemn certain actions performed somewhere around the world by any Catholic or negro, even if I don't know those persons, or the actions have nothing to do with me or my immediate surroundings. And that everytime it happens. Weird.