Soldier butchered in street in Woolwich

[bzkfn]

These are murderers who killed an innocent man, forget anything else, this should not be lost in any political debate.

Exactly.

Simple as that. Lets see what prison sentance they both receive for this.

Probably life.
Good behaviour cuts it in half to15 years.

Haha, you're joking mate. They will get indefinate sentences. Or a minimum of 30 years.

You sir, are an eternal optimist.

They should probably just pass these 2 guys to the EDL. That way the EDL stop rioting against innocent people and get to deliver the justice they want.

Although thinking they'd stop there probably makes me a bit of an optimist.

[ryanman]

These are murderers who killed an innocent man, forget anything else, this should not be lost in any political debate.

Exactly.

Simple as that. Lets see what prison sentance they both receive for this.

Probably life.
Good behaviour cuts it in half to15 years.

Haha, you're joking mate. They will get indefinate sentences. Or a minimum of 30 years.

You sir, are an eternal optimist.

They should probably just pass these 2 guys to the EDL. That way the EDL stop rioting against innocent people and get to deliver the justice they want.

Although thinking they'd stop there probably makes me a bit of an optimist.

There is no way this will be a 'life reduced to 15 years' sentence. No way. That's just Daily Mail talk.

[El Kabong]

let them stay in a prison and they will end up radicalising other prisoners

not sure about that. Prisoners have their own code.

Terror police called in after prison warden stabbed in attack 'inspired by Woolwich murder' - Telegraph


....hmmmmm? What was that you were saying about prisoners having their own "code" or some such nonsense

[Kirkland Laing]

Explain.

CAIR has ties to several terrorist organizations ( I'm shocked) so says DEMOCRATS Chuck Schumer & Dick Durbin

The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."

Randall ("Ismail") Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the "Virginia jihad group," were indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas."

Ghassan Elashi, Bassam Khafagi and other terrorists have worked for CAIR

CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction offensive to Muslims. CAIR also leapt to bin Laden's defense, denying his responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings.

More broadly, TheReligionofPeace.com website pointed out that "of the more than 3100 fatal Islamic terror attacks committed in the last four years, we have only seen CAIR specifically condemn 18."

In 1998, CAIR co-hosted an event at which an Egyptian Islamist leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, declared Jews to be the "descendants of the apes."

But I'm sure you'll brush these off as mere coincidences

Right, and these guys are liberal lefties?

[Kirkland Laing]

What. Are. You. Gibbering. About.

You invaded a country in Iraq based on a LIE (an obvious one) and I have ALWAYS attacked Obama's drone attacks. This is where it gets silly, I am the person that has attacked drones more than anyone else here and suddenly I am not doing it enough and of course you are on about Obama. Just nuts. You are trying to deflect, but are doing so in a way that is too obvious and weak.

If I kill someone then there should be a trial and everything should be laid open, you would much rather just kill someone and hide the body. It is just Goodfella's silliness. It is too easy to just kill and forget about a trial because there is often a lot more than meets the eye and only those avoiding something want to sweep things under a rug.

The Bin Laden murderer did it just how you liked. I'm surprised he doesn't get even the occasional pass from a right wing thug like yourself.

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein knowingly and repeatedly violated the law......oh I'm sorry what were you saying recently about the UN saying it was an "illegal" war?

The Bin Laden mission was done well.....would have rather he been taken alive and worked over for information, but whatever what's done is done.

Now Anwar Al Awlaki and his son being murdered is something that irks me because despite what a total shitbag that guy was he was an American citizen and we all have the right to a fair trial.

As for the murderers of that British soldier, shoot....them....dead.....they had weapons and were threatening war, shoot them....problem solved.

I thought the UN was a joke that was irrelevant and we shouldn't take seriously about anything?

But hey, let's not quibble about abject hypocrisy over everything whenever it suits you. Let's say UN resolutions actually count for something and breaking them requires action to enforce them (although not in Israel's case, obviously.)

The problem you have here is that only George Bush believed that Saddam had broken UN resolutions and any kind of sanction was necessary. The rest of the world believed an entirly new UN resolution was needed to legitimise any military action against Iraq. And so did George Bush! Initially anyway, until it was clear he wasn't going to get one at which point he went against the wishes of most of the rest of the world and illegally invaded Iraq.

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 War looms as Bush issues final warning
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.



Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately.


[...]


Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.
The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.


[...]


Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html




And don't forget this was all bullshit anyway. This was a war to get access to the world's second biggest oil reserve for US oil companies.


And it's that kind of thing that pisses Muslims off and causes them to bomb your skyscrapers, sporting events etc.

[El Kabong]

Explain.

CAIR has ties to several terrorist organizations ( I'm shocked) so says DEMOCRATS Chuck Schumer & Dick Durbin

The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."

Randall ("Ismail") Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the "Virginia jihad group," were indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas."

Ghassan Elashi, Bassam Khafagi and other terrorists have worked for CAIR

CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction offensive to Muslims. CAIR also leapt to bin Laden's defense, denying his responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings.

More broadly, TheReligionofPeace.com website pointed out that "of the more than 3100 fatal Islamic terror attacks committed in the last four years, we have only seen CAIR specifically condemn 18."

In 1998, CAIR co-hosted an event at which an Egyptian Islamist leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, declared Jews to be the "descendants of the apes."

But I'm sure you'll brush these off as mere coincidences

Right, and these guys are liberal lefties?

Yes that is exactly who they endear themselves to, correct. Huma Abedin (a former worker for IMMA Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs run by Abdullah Omar Nasseef who is a finaceer of terrorists) married former Democrat Rep. & current NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Wiener and she was also a top aide to former Sec. of State Hilary Clinton.....so yes I would say the hardcore Muslims are using the naivety of the Democrat/Liberal politicians who will do anything to get a vote.

[Beanz]

Well done Kirkland in making excuses for the cowardly barbarous murder of civilians. You can't legitimise 9/11 by saying killing civilians is the fault of anyone but those who carried it out.

[Kirkland Laing]

Explain.

CAIR has ties to several terrorist organizations ( I'm shocked) so says DEMOCRATS Chuck Schumer & Dick Durbin

The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."

Randall ("Ismail") Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the "Virginia jihad group," were indicted on forty-one counts of "conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas."

Ghassan Elashi, Bassam Khafagi and other terrorists have worked for CAIR

CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction offensive to Muslims. CAIR also leapt to bin Laden's defense, denying his responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings.

More broadly, TheReligionofPeace.com website pointed out that "of the more than 3100 fatal Islamic terror attacks committed in the last four years, we have only seen CAIR specifically condemn 18."

In 1998, CAIR co-hosted an event at which an Egyptian Islamist leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, declared Jews to be the "descendants of the apes."

But I'm sure you'll brush these off as mere coincidences

Right, and these guys are liberal lefties?

Yes that is exactly who they endear themselves to, correct. Huma Abedin (a former worker for IMMA Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs run by Abdullah Omar Nasseef who is a finaceer of terrorists) married former Democrat Rep. & current NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Wiener and she was also a top aide to former Sec. of State Hilary Clinton.....so yes I would say the hardcore Muslims are using the naivety of the Democrat/Liberal politicians who will do anything to get a vote.

Hang on a minute. Your original argument, for want of a better word, was basically bashing liberals for apologising for and justifying Muslim terrorism. Now you're saying that somebody Muslim who worked for another Muslim married a Democrat and this somehow gives "hardcore Muslims" leverage on the American political system in some way? That's an impressive argument even for you.

[Kirkland Laing]

Well done Kirkland in making excuses for the cowardly barbarous murder of civilians. You can't legitimise 9/11 by saying killing civilians is the fault of anyone but those who carried it out.

I'm not making an excuse for anything or trying to justify anything.

Let's say me and you are going to a football match. We're seated outside a pub before the game enjoying a glass of chilled chablis and watching the world go by. On the other side of the street X, a big bugger in stylish blue polyester, is walking down the street. Y, a smaller man clad in red ployester, is walking the other way. As they come up to each other X punches Y right in the dish. Y falls to the ground, gets up, takes a knife out of his pocket and stabs Y with it, killing him instantly.

Now lter we're talking about the incident. I say to you that if X hadn't punched Y in the face in the first place then he'd never have been stabbed and killed. I might also comment on the nature of violent acts begetting further violence. I see this as reasonable speculation about the incident and violent acts in general. Neither of these two arguments negates the fact that the stabbing was a reprehensible act of murder, excuses it or justifies it in any way.

[El Kabong]

Hang on a minute. Your original argument, for want of a better word, was basically bashing liberals for apologising for and justifying Muslim terrorism. Now you're saying that somebody Muslim who worked for another Muslim married a Democrat and this somehow gives "hardcore Muslims" leverage on the American political system in some way? That's an impressive argument even for you.

I'm saying some hardline Muslims are taking advantage of liberal doctrines like: tolerance, always playing the race card, always playing the victim, not believing in an American culture OR believing that America is evil....yes the Muslims love the blame America first crowd and yes the Democrats ARE that crowd.

[Master]

EDL will not stop there. They have an agenda against all Muslims and ultimately against all non-whites. They are full of hatred and violence who thrive on spreading lies and animosity. In fact they are very close to the thing they proclaim they hate the most which is extremist Muslims.

I would not be surprised if they work hand in hand with one another to get to their respective goals.

[Beanz]

Well done Kirkland in making excuses for the cowardly barbarous murder of civilians. You can't legitimise 9/11 by saying killing civilians is the fault of anyone but those who carried it out.

I'm not making an excuse for anything or trying to justify anything.

Let's say me and you are going to a football match. We're seated outside a pub before the game enjoying a glass of chilled chablis and watching the world go by. On the other side of the street X, a big bugger in stylish blue polyester, is walking down the street. Y, a smaller man clad in red ployester, is walking the other way. As they come up to each other X punches Y right in the dish. Y falls to the ground, gets up, takes a knife out of his pocket and stabs Y with it, killing him instantly.

Now lter we're talking about the incident. I say to you that if X hadn't punched Y in the face in the first place then he'd never have been stabbed and killed. I might also comment on the nature of violent acts begetting further violence. I see this as reasonable speculation about the incident and violent acts in general. Neither of these two arguments negates the fact that the stabbing was a reprehensible act of murder, excuses it or justifies it in any way.

" And it's that kind of thing that pisses Muslims off and causes them to bomb your skyscrapers, sporting events etc."

Those people had an agenda. That agenda was not to draw attention to an injustice suffered by innocent civilians at the hands of indiscriminate carpet bombing by allied forces. Their agenda was the propagation of extremist ideology and the glorification of violence. So clever is this agenda that you and thousands of well meaning people like yourself have now been used to propagate it. To call them Muslim, and this is where both you and Lyle agree, is to further heap insult onto the civilian victims of extremism who would not raise their hand in violence.

Miles who like yourself, I would in many instances defer to as having superior knowledge on politics, economy and history comes to the same conclusion as you and it surprises me considering his distaste for religion. These same religious extremists are often responsible for agitation and the escalation of sectarian violence within Muslim countries. Their war is not just with Britain,America and the West but with moderates in their own countries who would condone the mutilation of women, the burning of books and the execution of ethnic groups they deem to not be pious or totalitarian enough in enforcing their own twisted brand of religion.


If we are really interested in justice then how hypocritical is it to enjoy the benefits of living in a flawed but basically decent democratic society and then turn our eyes away from those whose own liberties are trampled on by despotic leaders who seek to persecute and wipe out those who seek nothing more than the human rights we hold dear ? You can pretend that the Iraq war was all about Oil but that is a gross over simplification and misrepresentation of a conflict prompted by much more than that and at it's heart represented a universalism and willingness to stand alongside others who wished for nothing more than the opportunity to aspire to liberal ideals.


The Left has let down many oppressed people in these conflicts by deluding themselves into thinking that groups like the Taliban can be reasoned with or that the victims of such nutjobs should be allowed to remain subjugated in order to ease their own uncomfortable feelings about the harsh bloody realities of liberation. I say this as somebody who I consider to be way farther to the left than either yourself or Miles. Pacifism does not work and the kind of socialism that busies itself only with the interests of it's own members due to something as arbitrary as nationality is acting in a far more self interested way than the most hard hearted of Capitalists.

[Kirkland Laing]

Hang on a minute. Your original argument, for want of a better word, was basically bashing liberals for apologising for and justifying Muslim terrorism. Now you're saying that somebody Muslim who worked for another Muslim married a Democrat and this somehow gives "hardcore Muslims" leverage on the American political system in some way? That's an impressive argument even for you.

I'm saying some hardline Muslims are taking advantage of liberal doctrines like: tolerance, always playing the race card, always playing the victim, not believing in an American culture OR believing that America is evil....yes the Muslims love the blame America first crowd and yes the Democrats ARE that crowd.

What you're calling liberal doctrines are just a bunch of nonsense. Tolerance is an American doctrine and Republicans and conservatives have been playing the race card and complaining of being victims for decades now. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act for instance and conservatives by and large were the racist scumbags who didn't want equal rights for non-whites. And when the Act was passed conservatives have done nothing but whine and cry about how liberals are slowly destroying America. Just like you complain about Obama destroying America. So your lot are basically full-time racists/professional victims. And now that the white majority can't win elections that cult of victimhood is becoming overwhelming for some, isn't it Lyle?

But let's assume that they're true. How are these hardline Muslims taking advantage of these liberal doctrines?

[Kirkland Laing]

Well done Kirkland in making excuses for the cowardly barbarous murder of civilians. You can't legitimise 9/11 by saying killing civilians is the fault of anyone but those who carried it out.

I'm not making an excuse for anything or trying to justify anything.

Let's say me and you are going to a football match. We're seated outside a pub before the game enjoying a glass of chilled chablis and watching the world go by. On the other side of the street X, a big bugger in stylish blue polyester, is walking down the street. Y, a smaller man clad in red ployester, is walking the other way. As they come up to each other X punches Y right in the dish. Y falls to the ground, gets up, takes a knife out of his pocket and stabs Y with it, killing him instantly.

Now lter we're talking about the incident. I say to you that if X hadn't punched Y in the face in the first place then he'd never have been stabbed and killed. I might also comment on the nature of violent acts begetting further violence. I see this as reasonable speculation about the incident and violent acts in general. Neither of these two arguments negates the fact that the stabbing was a reprehensible act of murder, excuses it or justifies it in any way.

" And it's that kind of thing that pisses Muslims off and causes them to bomb your skyscrapers, sporting events etc."

Those people had an agenda. That agenda was not to draw attention to an injustice suffered by innocent civilians at the hands of indiscriminate carpet bombing by allied forces. Their agenda was the propagation of extremist ideology and the glorification of violence. So clever is this agenda that you and thousands of well meaning people like yourself have now been used to propagate it. To call them Muslim, and this is where both you and Lyle agree, is to further heap insult onto the civilian victims of extremism who would not raise their hand in violence.

Miles who like yourself, I would in many instances defer to as having superior knowledge on politics, economy and history comes to the same conclusion as you and it surprises me considering his distaste for religion. These same religious extremists are often responsible for agitation and the escalation of sectarian violence within Muslim countries. Their war is not just with Britain,America and the West but with moderates in their own countries who would condone the mutilation of women, the burning of books and the execution of ethnic groups they deem to not be pious or totalitarian enough in enforcing their own twisted brand of religion.


If we are really interested in justice then how hypocritical is it to enjoy the benefits of living in a flawed but basically decent democratic society and then turn our eyes away from those whose own liberties are trampled on by despotic leaders who seek to persecute and wipe out those who seek nothing more than the human rights we hold dear ? You can pretend that the Iraq war was all about Oil but that is a gross over simplification and misrepresentation of a conflict prompted by much more than that and at it's heart represented a universalism and willingness to stand alongside others who wished for nothing more than the opportunity to aspire to liberal ideals.


The Left has let down many oppressed people in these conflicts by deluding themselves into thinking that groups like the Taliban can be reasoned with or that the victims of such nutjobs should be allowed to remain subjugated in order to ease their own uncomfortable feelings about the harsh bloody realities of liberation. I say this as somebody who I consider to be way farther to the left than either yourself or Miles. Pacifism does not work and the kind of socialism that busies itself only with the interests of it's own members due to something as arbitrary as nationality is acting in a far more self interested way than the most hard hearted of Capitalists.

This is a whole bunch of different arguments to what you were originally on about. And you'relike Lyle in ascribing straw man arguments about liberal and lefties. Whichliberals think the Taliban can be reasoned with?

[Kirkland Laing]

You can pretend that the Iraq war was all about Oil but that is a gross over simplification and misrepresentation of a conflict prompted by much more than that and at it's heart represented a universalism and willingness to stand alongside others who wished for nothing more than the opportunity to aspire to liberal ideals.

There's no pretend about it. Iraq was entirely down to it having the world's second-largest oil reserve under its sands.

Five countries in the Arabian desert have more thanhalf the world's easily recoverable oil. If it was five coutries around the Sahara desert then a quater of America's foreign firepower would be clustered round those countries, America would be propping up those dictatorships and anytime one of those dictators fell out with America they'd become a credible threat to the national security of the United States.


It's not just a crazy leftie like me who thinks the Iraq war was all about oil. The current US Secretary of Defence thinks it was. The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve thinks it was. And the former top US General running the occupation in Iraq thinks it was.


Hagel: War for Oil | The Weekly Standard


Just clivk and listen for a couple of minutes, it's cued up right to the rlevant bit : EDIT : it is now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sd2JseupXQ&t=21m45s

And in a few years when oil hits two or four hundred dollars a barrel and fucks advanced economies up and countries start threatening each other over supplies it'll become crystal clear to everybody just why we went into Iraq. Almost everybody.