Are we safe? Suspected terrorist attack in London this afternoon

[mangerton]

I think this is a very good post - all of it. I have only selected part of it in order not to take up too much space. These were all the things that struck me at the time.

I'm just back, and have only now read Mr GG's post. I too agree with every word of it. Sadly, like so much of our language, the word "hero" has become devalued in recent years.

[amateur51]

I'm just back, and have only now read Mr GG's post. I too agree with every word of it. Sadly, like so much of our language, the word "hero" has become devalued in recent years.

Exactly, mangerton, like civil servants getting gongs for just doing their jobs, and supermarkets & coffee shops giving you a loyalty card rather than a discount card :yikes:

[amateur51]

I think you may find thsat anyone who has worked with or for Jack Straw will be happy to vouch for him as a very decent, intelligent man who exhibits far more integrity than many politicians in these times manage. And given his experience in Government, of course, he might just perhaps know a few more of the facts about our security situation than some on here... :smiley:

Hardly a ringing endorsement - do you fit into this category, I wonder?:whistle:

Meanwhile, where Straw leads, the usual self-servers follow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22673156

One of the Woolwich Two has been under surveillance by the 'intelligence' services for many years and it did not make us safer. Would this new piece of legislation have prevented the Woolwich outrage?

[teamsaint]

An excellent post from Gongers.
We live in a tragically topsy turvey world where those who should be shouldering the blame for unrest, division, fear and violence are busy dishing out the blame to others.

[Mr Pee]

I think this is a very good post - all of it. I have only selected part of it in order not to take up too much space. These were all the things that struck me at the time.

Well, I'm glad you agree. You probably won't be surprised to hear that, for the most part, I do not.

I agree that the word "hero" is over-used these days and has lost much of its value as a result. Not every member of the military who is deployed is a hero; some are, such as Johnson Beharry, who was awarded the VC. But most are not. However, I think there is something heroic in coping with life-changing injury,whether that occured during militiary service or not; and it this group of soldiers which Help for Heroes was set up to help.

Lee Rigby's commanding officer's description of him as an expert machine gunner is a simple statement of fact. It seems he was one of the best shots in the company. I don't see that statement of fact is celebrating his life. It describes his role. He wasn't sent out to Afganistan as an interior decorator, after all. However, whilst on deployment he would have operated under very strict terms of engagement, terms of engagement far stricter than those that the US troops operate under. You can be sure that he would only have opened fire when he and his fellow soldiers had been fired upon first. That is the rule that ground troops operate under. He had no such protection when he was hacked to death on a Woolwich street.

[MrGongGong]

Well, I'm glad you agree. You probably won't be surprised to hear that, for the most part, I do not.

I agree that the word "hero" is over-used these days and has lost much of its value as a result. Not every member of the military who is deployed is a hero; some are, such as Johnson Beharry, who was awarded the VC. But most are not. However, I think there is something heroic in coping with life-changing injury,whether that occured during militiary service or not; and it this group of soldiers which Help for Heroes was set up to help.

Lee Rigby's commanding officer's description of him as an expert machine gunner is a simple statement of fact. It seems he was one of the best shots in the company. I don't see that statement of fact is celebrating his life. It describes his role. He wasn't sent out to Afganistan as an interior decorator, after all. However, whilst on deployment he would have operated under very strict terms of engagement, terms of engagement far stricter than those that the US troops operate under. You can be sure that he would only have opened fire when he and his fellow soldiers had been fired upon first. That is the rule that ground troops operate under. He had no such protection when he was hacked to death on a Woolwich street.

Well mr Pee you confirm my suspicions
We are ALWAYS good
Our "enemies" are ALWAYS bad

Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of ANYONE killing people
but if you really believe this bit

"whilst on deployment he would have operated under very strict terms of engagement, terms of engagement far stricter than those that the US troops operate under. You can be sure that he would only have opened fire when he and his fellow soldiers had been fired upon first."

Which is probably true most of the time
but probably not ALL of the time

you are more foolish than I thought

does that apply to the soldiers who fired on Bloody Sunday I wonder ?

It matters little to those innocent people who get bombed "by mistake" whether one is operating " under very strict terms of engagement"
it matters little if you see your children lying dead in the rubble of your house that the British Army is well organised and has discipline

Those who have suffered needlessly at the hands of our troops ('expert machine gunners' and the rest) have had no protection either
nor do those who are killed in drone strikes and so on

WHICH is NOT to say that what is going to happen in Afghanistan after the western forces leave will be a good thing at all, for women, for children or for the ordinary people of that country...... but to assume a posture of ALWAYS being right regardless of the facts IS what radicalises people.

[amateur51]

Terry Eagleton waves farewell to preferment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/woolwich-murders-reason-beat-terrorists

[Ian Thumwood]

Amateur


That was a good article.

The aftermath of this incident has been fascinating from a political point of view. Theresa May's proposed censoring arrangement look like being supported by Labour whilst the more sensible civil rights-related argument against these arrangements are actually now being contested by the Conservative's coalition partners! I also note that the individuals arrested after the incident have no largely been released without charge - I best they were Muslim and almost certainly had no knowledge let alone involvement in this crime. One rule for one and one rule for another.

I don't usually like the Guardian as it is a bit worthy and pleased with itself. However, this is a good piece even if it is common sense and those denying the attackers a rationale for their crime other than pure madness are probably in the minority or atleast in the EDL!! The problem for any Govt is that no other community has to be able to shoulder quite as much burden in the global scale of things as Islam. The pursecution of muslims in not only limited to the West (or through their agent, Israel) but also manifests itself in much of the old Soviet block, China, Africa and even places like Burma where even the venerated Aung Sung Suu Syi has refused to condemn violence against that country's muslim minority. Unfortuantely, I think Shi'ite and Sunni violence against the other is probably just as prevalent yet the West seriously needs to get it's house in order with regard to how it addresses these matters after nearly 100 years of absolute disaster started by Allenby's meddling in the Middle East. Eagleton is right to raise these issues and the frightening thing is, as abhorent as the acts were last week, these kinds of incidents are likely to be more frequent in an internet-savvy world as long as others continue to dabble in the affairs on Islamic states. These kinds of incidents will always resonnate as long as there is any degree of truth in the statements made after the attack.

It is curious to see the Theresa May is now looking to ban the likes of Choudry being allowed access to TV interviews. There can be few individuals more repellent than this idiot yet I think by giving him air time he is lessening the case he is presenting and I can't see that his appearance on both Channel Four or BBC" last week assisted his cause. Back in the 1980's Margaret Thatcher made the terrible mistake of banning the likes of Gerry Adams from being interviewed and the result back-fired spectacularly with Sein Fein quite rightly arguing that they were being ostracised from the democratic process. Rather than having a negative effect, the reult was to raise the stature of both Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams and this proved to be a crucial step in bringing at end to the troubles in N. Ireland. I feel that these extremists should be treated in a similar fashion and asked to contribute to the democratic process. Their reluctance to open a dialogue will further weaken their argument and if their non-partipation in attempting to address the very issues about which they protest is publicised, i would suggest that it will be very difficult for them to retain support.

The fact that some of the issues the radical Islamists complain above have some validity remains a stumbling block and the fact reactionary and unimaginative politicians like the dreadful Therea May are too short-sighted to acknowledge this means that we are likely to see more of these dispicable acts. A dialogue needs to be opened and recognition made where the issues that have been propagated are found to be salient. The wheat can then be seperated from the chaff andf these dangerous individuals ultimately isolated from any potential following.

Thanks for posting a link to the Guardian article.

[Serial_Apologist]

Terry Eagleton waves farewell to preferment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...eat-terrorists

Well put Mr Eagleton.

[Mr Pee]

I also note that the individuals arrested after the incident have no largely been released without charge - I best they were Muslim and almost certainly had no knowledge let alone involvement in this crime. One rule for one and one rule for another.

That is simply wrong. Four have been bailed, four are still in custody and only two have been released without charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22679755

[MrGongGong]

It is curious to see the Theresa May is now looking to ban the likes of Choudry being allowed access to TV interviews. .

As I didn't go to Oxbridge or Eaton my deep understanding of history is somewhat flawed
so would someone remind me of how banning Christianity caused it to disappear off the face of the earth ?
I seem to have forgotten that bit :whistle:

[Petrushka]

Amateur


That was a good article.

The aftermath of this incident has been fascinating from a political point of view. Theresa May's proposed censoring arrangement look like being supported by Labour whilst the more sensible civil rights-related argument against these arrangements are actually now being contested by the Conservative's coalition partners! I also note that the individuals arrested after the incident have no largely been released without charge - I best they were Muslim and almost certainly had no knowledge let alone involvement in this crime. One rule for one and one rule for another.

I don't usually like the Guardian as it is a bit worthy and pleased with itself. However, this is a good piece even if it is common sense and those denying the attackers a rationale for their crime other than pure madness are probably in the minority or atleast in the EDL!! The problem for any Govt is that no other community has to be able to shoulder quite as much burden in the global scale of things as Islam. The pursecution of muslims in not only limited to the West (or through their agent, Israel) but also manifests itself in much of the old Soviet block, China, Africa and even places like Burma where even the venerated Aung Sung Suu Syi has refused to condemn violence against that country's muslim minority. Unfortuantely, I think Shi'ite and Sunni violence against the other is probably just as prevalent yet the West seriously needs to get it's house in order with regard to how it addresses these matters after nearly 100 years of absolute disaster started by Allenby's meddling in the Middle East. Eagleton is right to raise these issues and the frightening thing is, as abhorent as the acts were last week, these kinds of incidents are likely to be more frequent in an internet-savvy world as long as others continue to dabble in the affairs on Islamic states. These kinds of incidents will always resonnate as long as there is any degree of truth in the statements made after the attack.

It is curious to see the Theresa May is now looking to ban the likes of Choudry being allowed access to TV interviews. There can be few individuals more repellent than this idiot yet I think by giving him air time he is lessening the case he is presenting and I can't see that his appearance on both Channel Four or BBC" last week assisted his cause. Back in the 1980's Margaret Thatcher made the terrible mistake of banning the likes of Gerry Adams from being interviewed and the result back-fired spectacularly with Sein Fein quite rightly arguing that they were being ostracised from the democratic process. Rather than having a negative effect, the reult was to raise the stature of both Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams and this proved to be a crucial step in bringing at end to the troubles in N. Ireland. I feel that these extremists should be treated in a similar fashion and asked to contribute to the democratic process. Their reluctance to open a dialogue will further weaken their argument and if their non-partipation in attempting to address the very issues about which they protest is publicised, i would suggest that it will be very difficult for them to retain support.

The fact that some of the issues the radical Islamists complain above have some validity remains a stumbling block and the fact reactionary and unimaginative politicians like the dreadful Therea May are too short-sighted to acknowledge this means that we are likely to see more of these dispicable acts. A dialogue needs to be opened and recognition made where the issues that have been propagated are found to be salient. The wheat can then be seperated from the chaff andf these dangerous individuals ultimately isolated from any potential following.

Thanks for posting a link to the Guardian article.

With whom do you have a dialogue? Who speaks for the Muslim community as McGuinness and Adams spoke for the IRA/Sinn Fein? Who could deliver?

We are not dealing with an organisation like the IRA/Sinn Fein but a nebulous 'Islamic terrorist'. Al-Quaeda has long been a busted flush and could not deliver anything even if it wanted to.

Interesting article from TE all the same.

[Simon]

I agree that the word "hero" is over-used these days and has lost much of its value as a result. Not every member of the military who is deployed is a hero; some are, such as Johnson Beharry, who was awarded the VC. But most are not. However, I think there is something heroic in coping with life-changing injury,whether that occured during militiary service or not; and it this group of soldiers which Help for Heroes was set up to help.

Lee Rigby's commanding officer's description of him as an expert machine gunner is a simple statement of fact. It seems he was one of the best shots in the company. I don't see that statement of fact is celebrating his life. It describes his role. He wasn't sent out to Afganistan as an interior decorator, after all. However, whilst on deployment he would have operated under very strict terms of engagement... He had no such protection when he was hacked to death on a Woolwich street."

I don't usually play the "quote and agree" game we see quite often on here, and, like Mary earlier, I've been selective for space reasons - but in this case I can't help but simply reiterate.

A factual, fair and balanced post, with which it would be hard to disagree.

[amateur51]

While we're on the subject of heroes, this remarkable man deserves a mention

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22684151

[ahinton]

I don't usually play the "quote and agree" game we see quite often on here, and, like Mary earlier, I've been selective for space reasons - but in this case I can't help but simply reiterate.

A factual, fair and balanced post, with which it would be hard to disagree.

Factual, fair and balanced indeed but, whilst not disagreeing with it per se, it by no means covers the issue in its entirety (by which I am not seeking to criticise it as such when it seems not to be pretending to summarise the matter and our responses to it in its and their entirety).