Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
callahan09
I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like there was only one victim and then the police shot them down, right? If I read it correctly, then I don't see how it would have gone any differently (or at any rate, any *better*) in America. How would the outcome have been different in Texas?
1. Killer knocks off first victim... How would that have been prevented? The killer has all sorts of advantage when the attack begins, including element of surprise and control of a situation that will soon be a panic state for everyone else.
2. Killer doesn't record any more kills and is stopped by law enforcement. That's about as good as you can get after part 1 occurs.
Or am I missing something?
You missed the "there was nothing we could do" attitude from the bystanders. If you had a gun and saw that happen what would you do?
I would say as good as you could get would be a) Victim 1 being armed and able to defend himself or b) bystander is armed steps up and double taps a couple into the terrorist skull before he could start and or finish HACKING off the soldiers head..
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leachisabeast
Totally share your opinion on this Houston. I am a huge fan of how states such as Texas run things, and I wish we adopted the same laws on gun control etc... sadly, Britain is obsessed with human rights, and letting people like this get away with anything. I have no doubt that these morons will be going to a special institute of some kind and away from the normal prisons where they'd literally get eliminated in.
So you want England to deregulate businesses, destroy the environment, rule out zoning laws, and want your leader to want to succeed from the home nation TWICE?
I'm on the fence in regards to guns, but trust me, Texas isn't exactly a Utopian society. Maybe Houston is.
Also Britain is obsessed with human rights? Oh, I'm sorry, I never thought anyone would want their human rights to be infringed by the government. Or is it alright for infringing other people's rights by the government as long as it is acting on your behalf? What happens when you're targeted? Will you be obsessing about human rights then?
Edit: Now let's be clear. I am not supporting these extremists at any point. What they have done is horrible and should be treated as such. But I am against blindly waving a club around and looking for blood. They should receive a fair trial (I don't know how British court system works) and if guilty (do I think they're guilty? Yeah, but a trial should be rendered nonetheless) should receive a punishment that befits such an act. I don't like mob justice, which so many seem to look for.
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
the dude was run over by a car and then beheaded. how the hell is being armed going to help him defend himself in that scenario? This outcome would be no different had he been armed, or the bystanders.
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAB1985
the dude was run over by a car and then beheaded. how the hell is being armed going to help him defend himself in that scenario? This outcome would be no different had he been armed, or the bystanders.
Yes, in the reader's digest version being armed wouldn't have made a difference...
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
Ahem ....
Like I said, there's a thread for a gun debate open already. Lets be fair to leach and get this back on topic.
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
callahan09
I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like there was only one victim...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NCRAVEN
I would say as good as you could get would be a) Victim 1 being armed and able to defend himself or b) bystander is armed steps up and double taps a couple into the terrorist skull before he could start and or finish HACKING off the soldiers head..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
The victim himself could have been armed and not necessarily everyone else.
Changing the discussion point.
Let me be totally clear, I am not JUSTIFYING this act in any way, shape or form. But...
Does anyone find it somewhat illogical to refer to this as "terrorism" or that the deceased was a "victim"? Was he not an active duty British military soldier? Did not the attackers clearly state why they targeted him, and in their actions afterward did not target the many civilian bystanders (even going as far as apologizing to the women bystanders that witnessed the act)?
To me, this looks like an act, and resulting casualties, from the "war on terror".
Thoughts?
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
I believe soldiers can also be victims.
Ft Hood, for example.
Another, at least in my mind, act-of-war, and not an act-of-"terror".
I find it curious how these types of attacks are termed "terrorisism", with all the outrage and shock that word implies, when it happens to the West. But yet attacks with similar degrees of violence by the West are deemed legitimate military actions.
What's the difference?
(Point of acknowledgement: My post, and curiosity, was spurred by this column: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...orism-blowback)
In my mind, it raised some interesting questions that I wanted to talk about and debate here.
Re: British soldiers hacked to death in London by muslim extremists
He was ran over with a car then attacked with a meat cleaver. They weren't on a battlefield, they were in the suburbs.
That's the difference right there. The terrorist turn their own countries into war zones. The U.S. has made tragic mistakes in the war on terror where innocent people have been killed. Terrorist target innocent people and rejoice in their suffering.