British Soldier Beheaded on London Street

[Arctic Blast]

Strange, my take on their stopping at one guy was totally opposite. If they were thugs on a rampage they would have attacked the other people. The fact they stopped said to me they were carrying out orders. They did what they were supposed to do.

But like I said, using an entire operation to kill one single person doesn't really make any sense and doesn't fit the MO at all. More of a spree is going to spread more terror, and that's the point for groups like that.

Well - I am inclined to agree with bigglesworth. The fact that the objective of the attack was defined and limited - the obvious main objective being publicity, suggests this was more than just a couple of thugs intent on a rampage. Either they were intelligent enough to limit their objective themselves to a soldier or someone told them to. Dismissing these people as stupid dumb F**ks does nothing for us in fighting them. It only leads to us underestimating the threat - which given they were known to intelligence is obviously what happened.

I wasn't clear at all about what I meant. Could there be other locals involved? Absolutely. I just don't see an international operation at work here. This isn't likely to be something 'quarterbacked' out of Pakistan.

I also completely agree that dismissing these guys as stupid is a massive mistake.

[Zulu1966]

Strange, my take on their stopping at one guy was totally opposite. If they were thugs on a rampage they would have attacked the other people. The fact they stopped said to me they were carrying out orders. They did what they were supposed to do.

But like I said, using an entire operation to kill one single person doesn't really make any sense and doesn't fit the MO at all. More of a spree is going to spread more terror, and that's the point for groups like that.

Well - I am inclined to agree with bigglesworth. The fact that the objective of the attack was defined and limited - the obvious main objective being publicity, suggests this was more than just a couple of thugs intent on a rampage. Either they were intelligent enough to limit their objective themselves to a soldier or someone told them to. Dismissing these people as stupid dumb F**ks does nothing for us in fighting them. It only leads to us underestimating the threat - which given they were known to intelligence is obviously what happened.

I wasn't clear at all about what I meant. Could there be other locals involved? Absolutely. I just don't see an international operation at work here. This isn't likely to be something 'quarterbacked' out of Pakistan.

I also completely agree that dismissing these guys as stupid is a massive mistake.

Well, these guys had regular contact with several known radicals - several of whom were kicked out of the UK, one of which is actually living in pakistan. While I get your point - these people use whatever tools they have. So I think some kind of order coming from outside is not impossible. The action was local because thats where the tools were.

[Grimnirsson]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/25/us-france-stabbing-idUSBRE94O09420130525

As I said, it can happen everywhere, it will happen and we can't do much about it because these terrorists are normal citizens until they snap and then it's too late, it's not a military fighting force approaching your borders. The one big disadvantage of democracy is that it can't protect itself from such inner attacks the same way a fascist regime can. I suppose in the 3rd Reich the chance for such attacks by religious fanatics to happen was zero...but I also doubt that this is a world I would want to live in. It's all rather sad actually  :(

[MikeGER]

it will happen and we can't do much about it because these terrorists are normal citizens until they snap and then it's too late,

i humbly reject your argumentation ! 

its easy to single them out, even so called "lone wolf typ".
(which have not been witnessed yet in Muslim terror, there was always some 'friend to exchange ideas with', those guys are no serial-killers or Unabomber-types)     

...hell, even i can do a probability calc if given the access to the databases

the individual will be:

-Muslim,
-probably more younger then older person, (add in agency statistics here)
-probably male (add in percentage here)
-probably more poor then rich  (add in agency statistics here)
-probably more 'single' then 'family founding'  (add in percentage here) 
-visit certain places (known radical local mosques, or tee parlors, etc.)
-visit/contribute/consume certain virtual places (Internet, other networks,...)
-travel patterns (add in agency analysis here)
-will have communicated in person or by any other means with other 'borderline' or 'identified' radicals   
-will have been show sign of radicalisation to people around him in his day to day life
  (first most visible to non (yet) radical Muslims of his community, workplace, public places  ...for example
   complain about religious rules 'violated' by shopholders, chefs, etc... being easily 'offended',
   asks for traditional Muslim privileges  ... designated prayer room/prayer breaks at workplace, etc )

so government resources are scare, so put just the top 100 high 'scorers' who are in-country on surveillance,
if foreigner preemptive expell immediately!   
       

[Grimnirsson]

...hell, even i can do a probability calc if given the access to the databases

the individual will be:

-Muslim,
-probably more younger then older person, (add in agency statistics here)
-probably male (add in percentage here)
-probably more poor then rich  (add in agency statistics here)
-probably more 'single' then 'family founding'  (add in percentage here) 
-visit certain places (known radical local mosques, or tee parlors, etc.)
-visit/contribute/consume certain virtual places (Internet, other networks,...)
-travel patterns (add in agency analysis here)
-will have communicated in person or by any other means with other 'borderline' or 'identified' radicals   
-will have been show sign of radicalisation to people around him in his day to day life
  (first most visible to non (yet) radical Muslims of his community, workplace, public places  ...for example
   complain about religious rules 'violated' by shopholders, chefs, etc... being easily 'offended',
   asks for traditional Muslim privileges  ... designated prayer room/prayer breaks at workplace, etc )

In a democracy where the citizens have rights and a certain freedom all of this is not a crime and therefore totally irrelevant when you try to protect others from a possible sudden snap or planned attack. It's not possible to observe those who have these characteristics 24/7 and it's probably not legal either. Ask the police, in many cases they can't do anything until someone really did something that clearly crossed the line although it's pretty clear a certain individual is not acting 'normal' or is actually up to something. I stick to it, in our form of government you can't prepare yourself for these attacks and prevent it. This is the Achilles' heel of a democratic system and will always be.

[Boggit]

the world certainly could use more public condemnation of these acts from Islamic authorities.

Imagine a Christianity, were each selfdeclared evangelist is a full blown Pope, but with a medieval mind set and his own Swiss Guard, who fight against other 'Popes' with all means as hard as against heretics, pagans, or people of no-beliefs.

It did happen in the Middle Ages and Renaissance period. The French Kings set up their Pope at Avignon (essentially a political tool), the HRE had his Anti-Pope and then you had the equivalent Patriarch of Constantinople. Add to this the leaders of the "heretical" sects of the Albigenses, Cathars, Hussites, Bogimils and you get a suitably heterogenous mix all claiming "the way" to paradise. You get even more fun and games with Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, John Knox, and Henry VIII of England sparking the rise of Protestantism. That's just the Christian pattern of religious leadership. Most of which hated each other and thought the others heretical or misguided. Why should Islam be any different?

[LongBlade]

Why should Islam be any different?

And that's the rub.

Every religion has been abused.

But Islam was founded on the principle of conquest, not forgiveness.

I'd encourage you to read Fregosi's book. He doesn't pull punches looking at anyone, but it does add some perspective.

[Boggit]

I was outraged by this barbaric attack. My initial thoughts were kneejerk: that we should crucify those two bast*rds as an example, and if someone burned down a Mosque or two, then who could be surprised?

When I calmed down a bit, I was rational. The overwhelming majority of muslims in the UK had nothing to do with the attack, and many were as shocked as I was, condemning the attack and its barbarity. Many muslims have publicly expressed the embarrassment they felt that these men claim to have acted in the name of Islam. It is totally unjust to make muslims across the UK suffer for the actions of a couple of fanatical killers who justify their vile acts in the name of religion. And yet two days after the attack over 800 attacks were reported in the news against muslims in the UK who are unconnected to this event. It saddens me greatly to hear of innocent people targeted for the actions of unconnected fanatics. Mob rule is not the way to go, lest we accept it like the Nazi gangs of the 1930's were accepted in Germany. Moreover, targeting innocent people polarises views which make matters more inflammatory and divisive.

As to the perpetrators, they should face trial. I am glad they were not killed, since we can learn from them, so it is harder for these things to happen in the future. We cannot abandon the rule of law, otherwise we just become barbarians like those two if we do. I think a guilty verdict is highly likely on the evidence. I hope that they get life for the rest of their natural life and are not segregated. I don't expect they will like prison much, assuming they survive the experience. Prison isn't a safe place if you're widely hated. I hope they will have time to reflect on their evil and now wasted lives, since public support for the dead soldier and his family has been massive here. If they wanted to demoralise us, they are wrong. It is a sad but uniting event.

[Boggit]

Why should Islam be any different?

And that's the rub.

Every religion has been abused.

But Islam was founded on the principle of conquest, not forgiveness.

I'd encourage you to read Fregosi's book. He doesn't pull punches looking at anyone, but it does add some perspective.

Thanks LB :). On your recommendation, I'll try to get hold of it.

[LongBlade]

Thanks LB :). On your recommendation, I'll try to get hold of it.

It's an easy read - he writes well. Let me know what you think. Used copies on Amazon can be had for two or three bucks. That's how I got mine.

[Boggit]

Thanks LB :). On your recommendation, I'll try to get hold of it.

It's an easy read - he writes well. Let me know what you think. Used copies on Amazon can be had for two or three bucks. That's how I got mine.

Will do. :)

[Centurion40]

Why should Islam be any different?

And that's the rub.

Every religion has been abused.

But Islam was founded on the principle of conquest, not forgiveness.

I'd encourage you to read Fregosi's book. He doesn't pull punches looking at anyone, but it does add some perspective.

While I agree with your point, Kenny's point on the "tolerant" Islam of the Middle Ages has got me thinking.  What made some Caliphates tolerant?  Was it because they had managed to conquer their fill?

[Centurion40]

the world certainly could use more public condemnation of these acts from Islamic authorities.

Imagine a Christianity, were each selfdeclared evangelist is a full blown Pope, but with a medieval mind set and his own Swiss Guard, who fight against other 'Popes' with all means as hard as against heretics, pagans, or people of no-beliefs.

It did happen in the Middle Ages and Renaissance period. The French Kings set up their Pope at Avignon (essentially a political tool), the HRE had his Anti-Pope and then you had the equivalent Patriarch of Constantinople. Add to this the leaders of the "heretical" sects of the Albigenses, Cathars, Hussites, Bogimils and you get a suitably heterogenous mix all claiming "the way" to paradise. You get even more fun and games with Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, John Knox, and Henry VIII of England sparking the rise of Protestantism. That's just the Christian pattern of religious leadership. Most of which hated each other and thought the others heretical or misguided. Why should Islam be any different?

Hopefully Islam is not 600 years away from the same sort of peaceful evolution as Christianity seems to have attained.

[Centurion40]

When I calmed down a bit, I was rational. The overwhelming majority of muslims in the UK had nothing to do with the attack, and many were as shocked as I was, condemning the attack and its barbarity. Many muslims have publicly expressed the embarrassment they felt that these men claim to have acted in the name of Islam.

Although it may have happened previously, this is the first instance (that I am aware of) where Muslims have publicly stood up against jihadist acts of atrocity.  Which is my only solace related to this attack.

[LongBlade]

While I agree with your point, Kenny's point on the "tolerant" Islam of the Middle Ages has got me thinking.  What made some Caliphates tolerant?  Was it because they had managed to conquer their fill?

Yes, several got used to the good life and became rather un-Islamic. They drank - a few to the point where it killed them.

Generally speaking didn't adopt that lifestyle.

The book's a good read. I'd recommend it.