Terrorist attack in London?

[Parodite]

Owww.. the sensibilities.

Terrorism is what the definition says it is: A planned and executed act of violence intended to intimidate, coerce and/or scare people in order to achieve political goals. Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism. I'm afraid that the reason people don't care much about the thousands killed is not racism but indifference and being uninformed. A whitey racist cannot not be indifferent to brown people being killed. He enjoys it and smiles at the stats.

[Ibrahim]

Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism.

Absurd. What are the ongoing strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan for if not to ultimately effect political change there? That this policy is obviously a failure is another matter.

I'm afraid that the reason people don't care much about the thousands killed is not racism but indifference and being uninformed.

Marcus knows about it.

A whitey racist cannot not be indifferent to brown people being killed. He enjoys it and smiles at the stats.

As Milo did before he was banned, and as m_g did over the murder of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, and as others here do but are coy about it. But I never brought up racism in this context, why are you bringing it up?

[Marcus]

Terrorism is what the definition says it is: A planned and executed act of violence intended to intimidate, coerce and/or scare people in order to achieve political goals. Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism. . .

Terrorism seems to be Islam's weapon of choice.

They use it against the West, they use it against their neighbors, they use it against Christians and Jews and Buddhists and and and, and they use it against each other—women, children, civilians . . the more the merrier.

[Mr. Perfect]

The "marking yourself as a combatant thing" is clearly obsolete if it every had any justification. The US and British armed forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq,

You left out Libya. Why did you leave out Libya?

[Mr. Perfect]

This is my view. In a country where weapons were more accessible and culturally accepted then presumably both parties would be more heavily armed, not that the victim would deftly shoot down multiple attackers ambushing him with knives.

Then your view would be in error.

The US provides a very handy example. In the states with the least gun crime there are no gun laws, while the cites and states with the highest gun laws also have the highest crime.

Victims in the US shoot down attackers every single day in the US, and even the Clinton administration found that guns are used defensively 1.5 million times per year. Citizens who the government failed to protect.

If gun crimes were the fault of the gun then we would see gun crimes equally distributed among the gun owners, and it is not the case. Gun crimes are committed almost all by young mostly underage men in the drug business who do not have a legal right to own the guns they are using.

[Ibrahim]

Terrorism is what the definition says it is: A planned and executed act of violence intended to intimidate, coerce and/or scare people in order to achieve political goals. Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism. . .

Terrorism seems to be Islam's weapon of choice.

They use it against the West, they use it against their neighbors, they use it against Christians and Jews and Buddhists and and and, and they use it against each other—women, children, civilians . . the more the merrier.

Terrorism has been the Western weapon of choice dating back to the colonial era, and reemerging as the weapon of choice post-9/11. The systematic murder of civilians, torture, arming of sectarian factions, and the general recourse to bombing villagers from the skies because a ten-year ground war failed are the order of the day. If people want to shake their head at this attack in England and call it barbaric then I have no problem with that, lets just acknowledge that this is an age of accepted barbarism and what certain nations, Britain among them, have done and continue to do is also barbaric terrorist activity. Don't give people passes based on their race, religion, of the fact that they don't murder children from a desk chair while wearing a uniform.


Moreover, your claim is another one of your false slanders which you will not and cannot substantiate. The weapon of choice of the majority of Muslims has been mass protest and armed revolt to overthrow dictatorships. The inherent self-serving double standard in talking about the status of women has already been discussed at length in the "civil societies" thread. Your statements don't pass even the most superficial scrutiny and you're really just shouting slurs from a car as you drive past.

[Ibrahim]

Ol' bleeding heart Greenwald on the case, tiresomely right as usual.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war ... -terrorism

Was the London machete killing of a British soldier really 'terrorism'?
23 May 2013 Glenn Greenwald USA and the War on Terror
"Terrorism" seems to have no function other than legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing all violence done in return to those states.

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using a machete to hack to death a British soldier.

In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence?

To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The perpetrator of the attack made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

It's true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (indeed, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone"). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are "asleep", that you don't "have to wake them up before you shoot them" and "make it a fair fight".

Once you declare that the "entire globe is a battlefield" (which includes London) and that any "combatant" (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed - as the US has done - then how can the killing of a solider engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"?

...

[monster_gardener]

Terrorism is what the definition says it is: A planned and executed act of violence intended to intimidate, coerce and/or scare people in order to achieve political goals. Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism. . .

Terrorism seems to be Islam's weapon of choice.

They use it against the West, they use it against their neighbors, they use it against Christians and Jews and Buddhists and and and, and they use it against each other—women, children, civilians . . the more the merrier.

Terrorism has been the Western weapon of choice dating back to the colonial era, and reemerging as the weapon of choice post-9/11. The systematic murder of civilians, torture, arming of sectarian factions, and the general recourse to bombing villagers from the skies because a ten-year ground war failed are the order of the day. If people want to shake their head at this attack in England and call it barbaric then I have no problem with that, lets just acknowledge that this is an age of accepted barbarism and what certain nations, Britain among them, have done and continue to do is also barbaric terrorist activity. Don't give people passes based on their race, religion, of the fact that they don't murder children from a desk chair while wearing a uniform.


Moreover, your claim is another one of your false slanders which you will not and cannot substantiate. The weapon of choice of the majority of Muslims has been mass protest and armed revolt to overthrow dictatorships. The inherent self-serving double standard in talking about the status of women has already been discussed at length in the "civil societies" thread. Your statements don't pass even the most superficial scrutiny and you're really just shouting slurs from a car as you drive past.

Thanks for your post, Ibs.

"Terrorism has been a Muslim weapon of choice dating back to the era of Mohammed having a poetess who criticized him murdered, continuing through the time of the Barbary pirates** and reemerging spectacularly as the weapon of choice on 9/11. The systematic murder of civilians, knife beheading of critics, torture of dogs, arming of sectarian factions, and the general recourse to bombing villagers from the skies using catapults or worse because the Muslim ground war failing at the siege of Naif continue to be the order of the day. "

Corrected above.........

Post continued in Hell to save the moderators work ............

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1498&p=54246#p54246


*

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barb ... d_overview

[Parodite]

Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism.

Absurd. What are the ongoing strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan for if not to ultimately effect political change there? That this policy is obviously a failure is another matter.

Distortion. I agree that it is not effective, that it should stop since way too many civilians are being killed in the hunt of those criminals and therefor am with you that it is a crime. A war crime is a better fitting definition in my opinion. Unless it can be proven it is the desire and intended tactic to kill thousands of innocent civilians in order to intimidate and coerce a population, with the hunt of criminals being a mere excuse. But that is not the case at all. The "collateral" killing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has always been recognized as counter productive in achieving the intended changes there, to say the least. The reason that ineffective drones strikes (and other acts of violence with deadly consequence for way too many civilians) continue nevertheless is I would say even darker, more evil if you wish than a terrorist act:

I'm afraid that the reason people don't care much about the thousands killed is not racism but indifference and being uninformed.

Marcus knows about it.

That worse evil is indifference and ignorance. In combination with remote controlled warbots where the number of killed combatants and civilians are mere numbers on a screen and dots on a map.

A whitey racist cannot not be indifferent to brown people being killed. He enjoys it and smiles at the stats.

As Milo did before he was banned, and as m_g did over the murder of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, and as others here do but are coy about it. But I never brought up racism in this context, why are you bringing it up?

Sorry, I might have overlooked a rare occasion where you didn't bring racism into the equation to make it all explanatory. As for Milo and others, you seem to know them better than I do. Your voodoo skills in reading between the lines about peoples true character and motivation of course are famous and publicly recognized.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Does the term terrorism really have meaning anymore? Maybe for suicide bombers, but otherwise it seems hollow.

[Typhoon]

Does the term terrorism really have meaning anymore? Maybe for suicide bombers, but otherwise it seems hollow.

Good point. Agreed.

[Ibrahim]

Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism.

Absurd. What are the ongoing strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan for if not to ultimately effect political change there? That this policy is obviously a failure is another matter.

Distortion. I agree that it is not effective, that it should stop since way too many civilians are being killed in the hunt of those criminals and therefor am with you that it is a crime. A war crime is a better fitting definition in my opinion. Unless it can be proven it is the desire and intended tactic to kill thousands of innocent civilians in order to intimidate and coerce a population, with the hunt of criminals being a mere excuse. But that is not the case at all. The "collateral" killing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has always been recognized as counter productive in achieving the intended changes there, to say the least. The reason that ineffective drones strikes (and other acts of violence with deadly consequence for way too many civilians) continue nevertheless is I would say even darker, more evil if you wish than a terrorist act:

There is no distortion here, and if anything I'm being generous considering what is on record. Given that killing large numbers of civilians, and detaining/torturing some number of innocent persons as well, has been an characteristic of the Western response to 9/11 through to the present day then we must conclude that it is deliberate or there is no serious effort to avoid doing so. My point then is that the Western methodology adopted to combat terrorism is itself a form of terrorism.

I'm afraid that the reason people don't care much about the thousands killed is not racism but indifference and being uninformed.

Marcus knows about it.

That worse evil is indifference and ignorance. In combination with remote controlled warbots where the number of killed combatants and civilians are mere numbers on a screen and dots on a map.

Even before debating the relative immorality of the actions, my point is that everyone here in this thread knows that these systematic killings by the US (and allies) have taken place and continue to take place. They are aware of them, and their reaction to events are informed by that knowledge.

But, most crucially for this case, the perpetrator appears to have declared his attack to be a reprisal for specifically these actions taken by Western military forces. I argue that this substantially different from attacking random Western civilians just because they don't adhere to your particular brand of Islam.

A whitey racist cannot not be indifferent to brown people being killed. He enjoys it and smiles at the stats.

As Milo did before he was banned, and as m_g did over the murder of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, and as others here do but are coy about it. But I never brought up racism in this context, why are you bringing it up?

Sorry, I might have overlooked a rare occasion where you didn't bring racism into the equation to make it all explanatory. As for Milo and others, you seem to know them better than I do. Your voodoo skills in reading between the lines about peoples true character and motivation of course are famous and publicly recognized.

Its simply a matter of remember what people say. Few people seem to be as outraged by Western military murder of civilians as they are by non-Westerners doing the same or, as in this case, targeting a soldier in reprisal. That's before we get into extremist or fringe views held by some members and ex-members of the forum.

[Ibrahim]

Does the term terrorism really have meaning anymore? Maybe for suicide bombers, but otherwise it seems hollow.

Good point. Agreed.

I agree as well, but without an accepted definition we are in danger of adopting a new default definition, which seems to be "when a non-Westerner attacks Westerners," which I don't think is useful or accurate even before we unpack any moral problems it may have.

[monster_gardener]

Killing thousands of civilians going after a handful of very violent criminals using drones (or other war tools) is also a crime, but the definition of that crime is not terrorism.

Absurd. What are the ongoing strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan for if not to ultimately effect political change there? That this policy is obviously a failure is another matter.

Distortion. I agree that it is not effective, that it should stop since way too many civilians are being killed in the hunt of those criminals and therefor am with you that it is a crime. A war crime is a better fitting definition in my opinion. Unless it can be proven it is the desire and intended tactic to kill thousands of innocent civilians in order to intimidate and coerce a population, with the hunt of criminals being a mere excuse. But that is not the case at all. The "collateral" killing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has always been recognized as counter productive in achieving the intended changes there, to say the least. The reason that ineffective drones strikes (and other acts of violence with deadly consequence for way too many civilians) continue nevertheless is I would say even darker, more evil if you wish than a terrorist act:

There is no distortion here, and if anything I'm being generous considering what is on record. Given that killing large numbers of civilians, and detaining/torturing some number of innocent persons as well, has been an characteristic of the Western response to 9/11 through to the present day then we must conclude that it is deliberate or there is no serious effort to avoid doing so. My point then is that the Western methodology adopted to combat terrorism is itself a form of terrorism.

I'm afraid that the reason people don't care much about the thousands killed is not racism but indifference and being uninformed.

Marcus knows about it.

That worse evil is indifference and ignorance. In combination with remote controlled warbots where the number of killed combatants and civilians are mere numbers on a screen and dots on a map.

Even before debating the relative immorality of the actions, my point is that everyone here in this thread knows that these systematic killings by the US (and allies) have taken place and continue to take place. They are aware of them, and their reaction to events are informed by that knowledge.

But, most crucially for this case, the perpetrator appears to have declared his attack to be a reprisal for specifically these actions taken by Western military forces. I argue that this substantially different from attacking random Western civilians just because they don't adhere to your particular brand of Islam.

A whitey racist cannot not be indifferent to brown people being killed. He enjoys it and smiles at the stats.

As Milo did before he was banned, and as m_g did over the murder of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, and as others here do but are coy about it. But I never brought up racism in this context, why are you bringing it up?

Sorry, I might have overlooked a rare occasion where you didn't bring racism into the equation to make it all explanatory. As for Milo and others, you seem to know them better than I do. Your voodoo skills in reading between the lines about peoples true character and motivation of course are famous and publicly recognized.

Its simply a matter of remember what people say. Few people seem to be as outraged by Western military murder of civilians as they are by non-Westerners doing the same or, as in this case, targeting a soldier in reprisal. That's before we get into extremist or fringe views held by some members and ex-members of the forum.

Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.

But, most crucially for this case, the perpetrator appears to have declared his attack to be a reprisal for specifically these actions taken by Western military forces. I argue that this substantially different from attacking random Western civilians just because they don't adhere to your particular brand of Islam.

How about if henceforth every Hellfire missile fired from a drone has stamped its side "Revenge for September 11, 2001, the London Subway bombing, Madrid Train bombings etc. .

Would that substantially change your view on the topic

Few people seem to be as outraged by Western military murder of civilians as they are by non-Westerners doing the same or, as in this case, targeting a soldier in reprisal.

Correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression that at least one member of the forum is not as outraged by September 11, 2001 and similar including this incident as they are by non Muslims daring to fight back and respond in kind..........

[monster_gardener]

Does the term terrorism really have meaning anymore? Maybe for suicide bombers, but otherwise it seems hollow.

Good point. Agreed.

I agree as well, but without an accepted definition we are in danger of adopting a new default definition, which seems to be "when a non-Westerner attacks Westerners," which I don't think is useful or accurate even before we unpack any moral problems it may have.

Thank You Very Much for your post.

Terrorism is a tactic.

Recalling a Democrat writer, Dan Simmons, accusing President George W. Bush of making a category error by declaring a "War on Terror". Compared it FDR declaring a "War on Aviation" after Pearl Harbor instead of "War on Japan". Said that it would have made winning WW2 rather difficult if FDR had been as dumbass as Bush W. was......*

The war is by Jihadi/traditional conquer the world for Allah Islam on the non-Muslim world.. As far as Americans are concerned, it has been going on almost since we became a nation beginning with the Barbary Pirates but really it goes back to the time of Mohammed.......


*Besides being a dumb-ass, IMHO Bush W. may have been a liar on this topic.....

Bush's infamous "Islam is a Religion of Peace" lie still grates......

ROPMA

Either that or Bush was an even bigger dumb-ass than his category error indicates........

Hard to say Islam is a religion of peace if you know much history.......

Even just American history.........

[Parodite]

There is no distortion here, and if anything I'm being generous considering what is on record. Given that killing large numbers of civilians, and detaining/torturing some number of innocent persons as well, has been an characteristic of the Western response to 9/11 through to the present day then we must conclude that it is deliberate or there is no serious effort to avoid doing so. My point then is that the Western methodology adopted to combat terrorism is itself a form of terrorism.

I don't mind redefining, stretching the definition of what is a terrorist act, after all language is and should be a living evolving thing. However I don't see the need for it at this point since the various forms of violence and crime are pretty much covered by useful definitions. That being said, definitions are but approximations and one terrible act defined as A or B only covers and represent the actual event to a degree. A terrorist act is now defined as a deliberate and intended scare tactic to intimidate, coerce in order to achieve political goals. I just don't think the civilians killed by western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the torture of people in detention fit the stamp of a terrorist act.

Even before debating the relative immorality of the actions, my point is that everyone here in this thread knows that these systematic killings by the US (and allies) have taken place and continue to take place. They are aware of them, and their reaction to events are informed by that knowledge.

I'm with you here, and against drone bombings or any action where way too many civilians are being killed. Also in my opinion the West and others should not take side with warring factions. Maybe choose side of the women and children.. safe havens, secured corridors to flee war zones.. set up refugee camps, the red cross etc.. no fly zones perhaps.

But, most crucially for this case, the perpetrator appears to have declared his attack to be a reprisal for specifically these actions taken by Western military forces. I argue that this substantially different from attacking random Western civilians just because they don't adhere to your particular brand of Islam.

Maybe more becomes clear as to what was his motivation.. his anger. It seems to me a mix of things.

[monster_gardener]

I see. Another unfortunate event being used as supposed justification for various beliefs.

Al-Jaz | '"Soldier" hacked to death in London

Although this does raise an interesting question.

If country X has invaded/occupied country Y, then is a soldier of country X a legitimate target in his home country by nationals of country Y.

In WWII, the answer was an unequivocal "yes".

I suppose a point of debate regarding this incident would be that the attackers did not wear markings identifying themselves as combatants.
However, neither did the various resistance movements of 19th and 20th century wars.

Also, are the attackers nationals of a country in which UK forces are currently involved?
From what I recall, Afghanistan is the country in which the UK has forces deployed in a combat role.

[Not an endorsement of any intolerant - extremist religious, political, or cultural beliefs.]

The "marking yourself as a combatant thing" is clearly obsolete if it every had any justification. The US and British armed forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, people who lacked military markings of any kind, or were children or elderly, before we even get to women and innocent men. So the rule seems to be "everybody is a target." If people want to attack the soldiers of countries that conduct these kind of operations then arguably that is less of a terrorist attack than why the soldiers themselves were doing and continue to do. BUT...

Current news reports state that the attacker is an ex-Christian Nigerian who converted to an radical form of Islam a few years ago.

So he is not an Afghan national, most likely a solo crazy.

So he wasn't party to the Afghan or Iraq wars (or Pakistan or Yemen where similar operations are ongoing), so ostensibly he's not a participant. Arbitrary though it may be, we seem to have adopted the standard that identifying yourself with a country, and killing on behalf of that country, is ok, whereas identifying yourself with and killing on behalf of a religion is crazy.

Either way the act is clearly criminal, its just a question of what constitutes "terrorism," unless it only means "brown person does something violent." When a white man in a uniform massacres women and children with a missile he's what? A hero?

Thank You for your post, Ibrahim.

The "marking yourself as a combatant thing" is clearly obsolete if it every had any justification.

IMO this is an amazingly stupid remark especially given your complaints about civilian casualties.

One of the functions of uniforms or other markers is to identify those who are combatants and separate them from those who are not.

It serves as a way of reducing civilian casualties: shoot at those who are in uniform, do not shoot at those who are not.

It is an attempt to regulate and mitigate war rather than having war be without rules as it can quickly become...

When one or more sides in a conflict choose not to use recognized combat markers (often to gain a combat advantage) it can be very difficult to determine who is a legitimate target, often effectively making anyone capable of holding a weapon a target down to young children.*

And it does not take much unpunished violation for rules to effectively be abandoned: get attacked by a few out of uniform soldiers and the tendency becomes to shoot first and not take chances so as to survive.

[monster_gardener]

What if the dead guy had a semi-automatic?

Answer: He'd be alive.

And the machete man did have access to firearms, on the black market.

What if the dead guy had a semi-automatic?

Answer: He'd be alive.

And the machete man did have access to firearms, on the black market.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.

What if the dead guy had a semi-automatic?

Answer: He'd be alive.

Seconded.

Quite likely correct..........

Though per Myth Busters within 15 to 20 feet (~4.5 to 6 meters), a knife wielder can kill a person who does not already have his gun ready.*


cGzeyO3pGzw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGzeyO3pGzw


*Hard to say what, without danger of legal sanction, Brits can carry to defend themselves from creeps like Muslim Jihadi Jerk, who reports are that British Stupidity oops I mean British Intelligence was letting wander around loose knowing that they were a danger to those who don't have armed guards like the elite does....... **

Prevention of Crime Act 1953

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.[46] The term "offensive weapon" is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

Under the Prevention of Crime Act, otherwise 'exempt' knives carried for "good reason or lawful authority" may be still deemed illegal if authorities conclude the knife is being carried as an "offensive weapon". In recent years, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 has been reinterpreted by police and public prosecutors, who have persuaded the courts to minimize exceptions to prosecution on the grounds that the defendant had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" in order to apply the Act to a wide variety of cases.[47] This new approach now includes prosecution of citizens who have admitted carrying a knife for the sole purpose of self-defence (in the eyes of the law, this is presently viewed as an admission that the defendant intends to use the knife as an "offensive weapon", albeit in a defensive manner, and in otherwise justifiable circumstances).[48]

Best thing I can think of at the moment is maybe a heavy flashlight. Carry & use it habitually for illumination so that it will be simply having it at hand and improvising.........

Anybody else have ideas?


Thank G_d, I live in Uz, not England............

Suspect the feeling may be mutual

Summary

In recent years, laws criminalising knife possession in the United Kingdom have been strictly interpreted and applied by police and prosecutors to citizens and foreigners alike of all ages and backgrounds, even where the evidence supporting the crime is in doubt.[47][53] This development, combined with increasingly frequent application of such laws to marginal or inadvertent offenders by the police and the public prosecutor[40][54][55] can easily result in an arrest and a criminal charge in the event a person carrying a folding knife, scissors, plastic knife, multi-tool, or bladed object is detained and searched, and the defendant may have to wait weeks or months for a trial or other disposition of his case by the public prosecutor.[39][53][56][57][58][59][60][61] HM Customs officials in the Customs Inspection unit at the Mount Pleasant Postal Depot in London, aware of the steadily narrowing interpretation of what constitutes a legal knife in England and Wales, have begun confiscating knives imported through the mail, going so far as to individually test otherwise legal locking and non-locking[62] bladed pocket knives to see if they can be made to open their blades to the fully opened position with a practised "double-action of the wrist"; those that open fully and thus fail the 'test' are confiscated and destroyed as illegal 'gravity knives' under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.[63]

Paradoxically, the acknowledged failure of previously enacted anti-knife legislation in reducing the number of violent crimes involving a knife[64] has led to demands for even stricter measures

**Makes me think of New York City in Uz and that elite creep Mayor Bloomberg and his armed guards.....

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/ashleybroo ... u-n1499771

[monster_gardener]

Current news reports state that the attacker is an ex-Christian Nigerian who converted to an radical form of Islam a few years ago.

So he is not an Afghan national, most likely a solo crazy.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Typhoon.

who converted to an radical form of Islam a few years ago.

So he is not an Afghan national, most likely a solo crazy.

Seconded except that the crazy was not solo.....

He had a Muslim "brother" with him........

This type of crazy often has support networks of fellow crazies.......

Perhaps converts to and those otherwise infected with radical/jihadi/traditional conquer the world for Allah Islam should be considered crazy and treated as such: medicated in mental institutions if found in non-Muslim lands or simply shipped to the open air mental asylum known as the Middle East

[Mr. Perfect]

MG, your video is based on what is called a Teuler drill (sp), which has some assumptions built in, mainly that someone with a knife will always run at full speed straight at you from ambush with no warning while you remain motionless and they deliver an effective blow. It is one of many possible scenarios.

I recommend self defense training as soon as people can get it.

[monster_gardener]

MG, your video is based on what is called a Teuler drill (sp), which has some assumptions built in, mainly that someone with a knife will always run at full speed straight at you from ambush with no warning while you remain motionless and they deliver an effective blow. It is one of many possible scenarios.

I recommend self defense training as soon as people can get it.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post.

Had not heard of Tueller. Thanks for the tip.

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]

A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]

The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]

The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).

A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.

If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.

^ Tueller, Dennis (March 1983), "How Close is Too Close?", S.W.A.T. Magazine
^ Ayoob, Massad (October 1991), "Explaining the deadly force decision: the opportunity factor", Shooting Industry
^ Young, Dan. "Handgun Drills, Standards, and Training Page". Retrieved 2008-04-16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_drill

How Close Is Too Close?

by Dennis Tueller

The "good guy" with the gun against the "bad guy" with the knife (or machete, axe, club, tire-iron, etc.). "No contest", you say. "The man with the gun can't lose." Or can he? A great deal depends on his ability with that gun and the proximity of his opponent.

If, for example, our hero shoots his would-be attacker at a distance of 20 yards, he loses. Not the fight, you understand, but most probably his freedom because he will almost certainly be charged with murder. The only thing that justifies your shooting another human being is the immediate need to stop him from trying to kill you (or someone else), remember?

If, on the other hand, our hero waits to fire until his attacker is within obvious striking distance, he may still lose. His shots may not stop his attacker instantly enough to keep him from using his knife.

So, what is the answer - just how close is too close?

Consider this. How long does it take for you to draw your handgun and place two center hits on a man-size target at seven yards? Those of us who have learned and practiced proper pistolcraft techniques would say that a time of about one and one-half seconds is acceptable for that drill.

> With that in mind, let's consider what might be called the "Danger Zone" if you are confronted by an adversary armed with an edged or blunt weapon. At what distance does this adversary enter your Danger Zone and become a lethal threat to you?

We have done some testing along those lines recently and have found that an average healthy adult male can cover the traditional seven yard distance in a time of (you guessed it) about one and one-half seconds. It would be safe to say then that an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone.

As the photo series illustrates, even if your draw and shots are perfect, you are cutting things awfully close (no pun intended). And even if your shots do take the wind out of his sails, his forward momentum may carry him right over the top of you, unless, of course, you manage to get out of his way. And if you are confronted with more than one assailant, things really get tricky. So what's a pistol-packing person to do?

Having analyzed the problem, the following suggestions come to mind: First, develop and maintain a healthy level of tactical alertness. If you spot the danger signs early enough, you can probably avoid the confrontation altogether. A tactical withdrawal (I hesitate to use the word "retreat") may be your best bet, unless you're anxious to get involved in a shooting and the consequent legal hassles which are sure to follow.
Next, if your "Early Warning System" tells you that a possible lethal confrontation is imminent, you want to place yourself in the best tactical position available. You should move to cover (if there is any close at hand), draw your weapon, and start to plan your next move.

Why use cover, you may wonder, if your attacker is using only a knife? Because you want to make it hard for him to get to you. Anything between you and your attacker (trash cans, vehicles, furniture, etc.) that slows him down buys you more time to make the appropriate decisions, and, if it becomes necessary, more time to place your shots.

I suggest you draw your weapon as soon as the danger clearly exists. There is no point in waiting until the last possible second to play "Quick-Draw McGraw" if you recognize the threat early on. Also, the sight of your "Equalizer" may be sufficient to terminate the action then and there.

The purpose of the pistol is to stop fights, and whether it does so by dropping a thug in his tracks, or by causing him to turn tail and run, your goal is accomplished, is it not?

At this point it might be advisable to issue a verbal challenge such as, "Stop"', "Don't move", or "Drop your weapon!" It may work, and even if it doesn't you'll be developing your legal case for self-defense by showing that you did everything you could to prevent a shooting. If all goes according to plan, the odds are that by now you will no longer have a problem, your attacker having remembered he had a more pressing engagement elsewhere.

But, as we all know, things seldom go according to plan and the ideal circumstances previously described are probably not the norm. For example, if this goon tries to throw his knife (or other weapon) at you, what do you do then?

Realistically, knife-throwing is something of a gallery trick requiring specially balanced knives and a pre-measured distance to the target. Suffice it to say, however, that if your attacker is within effective throwing range he will almost surely have encroached into your Danger Zone. This throwing business does create something of a timing problem, for, if you fire after he has thrown his weapon, you may have difficulty convincing a jury that you fired in self-defense since technically you were not in jeopardy if your former attacker is no longer in possession of a deadly weapon. Something to consider, and just one more reason to use cover if it is available and time permits.

Sometime, of course, despite your best efforts, you could find you are suddenly, at close quarters, the intended victim of some lunatic slasher. If you are an expert in one of the many martial arts, you may opt to go at it hand-to-hand, and if you are in this category you do not need advice from me on how to do it. So, we'll get back to the use of the handgun for solving the problem. What it all comes down to now is your ability to smoothly and quickly draw your pistol and hit your adversary, and do it all reflexively. And the only way to develop these reflexes is through consistent, repetitive practice, practice, practice.

Practice so the right move comes automatically.

One thing you should practice, with this kind of encounter in mind, is the step-back technique in which you take a long step to the rear as you draw. This puts another three to four feet between you and your attacker, which may be just enough to make the difference.

Remember, the greater your skill with your weapon, the smaller your Danger Zone will be, but only if that skill is coupled with good mental conditioning, tactical planning and alertness, because no amount of skill will do you any good unless you know that you're in trouble.

Skill at arms and proper mental attitude. that's the combination that will make you the winner in a "Close Encounter of the Cutting Kind".

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tuel ... .Close.htm

[monster_gardener]

MG, your video is based on what is called a Teuler drill (sp), which has some assumptions built in, mainly that someone with a knife will always run at full speed straight at you from ambush with no warning while you remain motionless and they deliver an effective blow. It is one of many possible scenarios.

I recommend self defense training as soon as people can get it.

Thank you VERY MUCH Again for your post.

More info on the 2013 Woolwich Attack: the Jihadi Muslim Perps Michael Olumide Adebolajo (age 28) and Michael Oluwatobi Adebowale (age 22) (both British, of Nigerian descent) rammed their victim with a car before attacking him with knives and a meat cleaver.....

Rigby was off duty and walking along Wellington Street when the attack occurred.[4] Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death.[5] The men then dragged Rigby's body onto the road. The two attackers, who remained at the scene until police arrived, told passers-by that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British military.[6] Armed police arrived at the scene 14 minutes after initial emergency calls, shot both the assailants, apprehended them, and took them to separate hospitals.[6] Both men are British of Nigerian descent who were raised as Christians and converted to Islam.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Woolwich_attack

Points to you, Mr. Perfect.

Perhaps Rigby could have dodged the car but really guns would have been pretty near the only way of STOPPING these Jihadi Muslim perps.

By the way, similar to this has happened before here in America/Uz......

In March 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-American, intentionally, as he confessed, hit people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. While no one was killed in the attack, nine people were injured (none seriously).

Shortly after the attack, he turned himself in and was arrested. He pled guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, and in 2008 was sentenced to 33 years in prison.[2]

In one letter, Taheri-azar wrote, "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_R ... SUV_attack

Maybe we need car and knife control for Muslims in the West
At least the Jihadi/traditional conquer the World for Allah ones and their enablers

Naw.....

Better to just make sure we infidels are well armed.........

And send any potential problems on a one way no return allowed pilgrimage to Mecca......

[Ibrahim]

There is no distortion here, and if anything I'm being generous considering what is on record. Given that killing large numbers of civilians, and detaining/torturing some number of innocent persons as well, has been an characteristic of the Western response to 9/11 through to the present day then we must conclude that it is deliberate or there is no serious effort to avoid doing so. My point then is that the Western methodology adopted to combat terrorism is itself a form of terrorism.

I don't mind redefining, stretching the definition of what is a terrorist act, after all language is and should be a living evolving thing. However I don't see the need for it at this point since the various forms of violence and crime are pretty much covered by useful definitions. That being said, definitions are but approximations and one terrible act defined as A or B only covers and represent the actual event to a degree. A terrorist act is now defined as a deliberate and intended scare tactic to intimidate, coerce in order to achieve political goals. I just don't think the civilians killed by western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the torture of people in detention fit the stamp of a terrorist act.

Terrorizing/murdering civilians in an effort to make a political/ideological shift is not terrorism? Sounds pretty flimsy.

Even before debating the relative immorality of the actions, my point is that everyone here in this thread knows that these systematic killings by the US (and allies) have taken place and continue to take place. They are aware of them, and their reaction to events are informed by that knowledge.

I'm with you here, and against drone bombings or any action where way too many civilians are being killed. Also in my opinion the West and others should not take side with warring factions. Maybe choose side of the women and children.. safe havens, secured corridors to flee war zones.. set up refugee camps, the red cross etc.. no fly zones perhaps.

All lovely liberal sentiments, but as it happens the systematic killing of civilians has gone on and continues to go on at the hands of US (and British) armed forces, so a reprisal attack on said armed forces should be categorized differently than attacks on random civilians for purely ideological reasons.

But, most crucially for this case, the perpetrator appears to have declared his attack to be a reprisal for specifically these actions taken by Western military forces. I argue that this substantially different from attacking random Western civilians just because they don't adhere to your particular brand of Islam.

Maybe more becomes clear as to what was his motivation.. his anger. It seems to me a mix of things.

We we're all beautiful complex snowflakes, etc., but his stated motive was reprisal.

[Alexis]

Question: how are ongoing drone strikes - which according to the NYT kill around 50 civilians for every actual target, and we don't even know for certain of the targets are guilty of anything - not terrorism?

(about the part I colored)
I'm surprised about this estimate of 50 civilians killed for each intended target.

What I can find are the following:
- Estimate by American officials of 2,000 militants and 50 civilians dying since 2001 because of drone strikes. An estimate of 1 civilian for every 40 militants killed, which is probably on the low side, given its source
- Report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism of 305 CIA drone attacks by Nov 2011 in Pakistan, having killed between 2,347 and 2,956 people including 392 to 781 civilians, the rest of them militants. An estimate of 1 civilian for every 3 to 5 militants killed, which is much more credible given its non-governmental source, and the probable limits of intelligence along with accuracy of precision-guided munitions

Still, 1 civilian for every 3 to 5 militants is very different from 50 civilians for every militant.

Do you have a source for the estimate you reported?


Note: the above should not lead one to disregard moral nor strategic problems created by the drone killing program. However, it is certainly necessary to get proper order of magnitude of the numbers. To assess the morality and success of a given policy, one needs to understand how many innocents it kills, and how many innocent lives it protects: a related question is how many innocents the eliminated militants would have killed, if left alive.

[Alexis]

Terrorizing/murdering civilians in an effort to make a political/ideological shift is not terrorism? Sounds pretty flimsy.

It obviously is.

Now, terrorizing civilians is obviously not the goal of the drone killing program. The rate of civilians killed compared to militants would be very different if civilians were the intended target (see my previous post on this thread as for this rate)

Also, you and I know that if the US government was misled and criminal enough to start kill civilians for the sake of terrorizing them, they could use vastly more destructive and efficient ways to kill civilians, with vastly more destruction of innocent life.

Drone strikes have the same issues as air strikes they run a risk of killing civilians in addition to their targets. Only, the risk in their case is much smaller.

All lovely liberal sentiments, but as it happens the systematic killing of civilians has gone on and continues to go on at the hands of US (and British) armed forces, so a reprisal attack on said armed forces should be categorized differently than attacks on random civilians for purely ideological reasons.
(...)
his stated motive was reprisal.

Armed attack by Pakistanese or Afghan militants on US forces fighting them, or armed attack by Sahelian militants on French forces fighting them, is indeed an act of war, not an act of terror against civilians.

Armed attack by British people on a British soldier by contrast can in no way be likened to an act of war, irrespective of the origin of the perpetrators -Nigerian, or Korean for that matter- or of their stated belief -Islam, or Bahai for that matter- or of their stated motive -reprisal, or against deforestation for that matter.

It can be called a murder, or an act of treason.

I think it could be better to sue the perpetrators for high treason, rather than for "terrorism". A way to insist that these perpetrators are British, which they are, and offer the least possible angle to both Islamist and White Racist crowds.