Terrorist attack in London?

[Ibrahim]

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)

The rate, as calculated by the New York Times and several Pakistani media sources, is 50 civilians to every 1 intended target, and we don't even know of all of the intended targets are legitimate, we just have to take the government's word on it.

Now, this is not as concerted a mass-murder program as an industrialized nation could theoretically carry out, but it is a mass-murder program, and it is of a sizable scope, and most crucially its a mass murder program with some level of deniability, since it enables to US government to kill civilians over and over for years but still insist that this is not their intention. To the point that some people, such as Marcus in this thread, blame the victims rather than the military.

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.

Much harder to do in a country you are not at war with (Pakistan, Yemen). In the countries where the US has actually invaded ten times as many civilians have been killed, and in Iraq there are also additional generations of damage to the civilian population from radiation poisoning. Google "birth defects Fallujah" to be bummed out.

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.

How is it smaller? 50:1. It doesn't really make a difference if you loose the Hellfire missile from an aircraft or a helicopter or a drone. Drones are just the method du jour.

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.

Well this raises an interesting philosophical question. Why is murdering people for nationalism and pay acceptable, even heroic, and murdering people based on religion reprehensible and insane? The perpetrator stated the he killed the soldier because soldiers are killing Muslim civilians and everybody is disgusted, but nobody questions British or American soldiers killing people in Afghanistan or Iraq because some other Muslims (mostly Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis) killed American and British civilians. I would say that logically both are justifiable or neither.

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

Certainly it is both, yes.

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.

I expect they will be tried, convicted, and jailed under British criminal law, which I've always maintained was the best way to deal with such acts. If I'm in another country and I do something illegal I'll be subject to their criminal code. Nationality, religion, or ideology shouldn't matter.

[Ibrahim]

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?

Here are some articles. Within the articles are linked to other articles and supporting information.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15340 ... -civilians

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asi ... ne-strikes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opini ... e-war.html

Also relevant is the question of who the administration calls a civilian:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world ... wanted=all

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

accuracy of precision-guided munitions

The missile goes where you aim it, that is precision-guided munitions and accuracy. The problem is that they are aimed at concentrations of people, often gatherings. Aim the missile at the village square and hit the village square and nobody is questioning your accuracy. They question the dead civilians produced.

[monster_gardener]

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.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Alexis.

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

Bingo!

I think it could be better to sue the perpetrators for high treason, rather than for "terrorism".

Maybe....... If this was in the days of William Wallace

But now not so much......

Given that the Brits have eliminated the death penalty for treason as well as murder, at best these vile perps are going to be coddled at great expense in British prisons where AIUI care is taken so that the toilets do not face Mecca so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... _abolition

Something else is needed.......

I think that since at least one of the perps has already confessed in detail on video so that there is NO DOUBT as to their guilt, that they should be declared Outlaws.

The term Outlawry referred to the formal procedure of declaring someone an outlaw, i.e. putting him outside of the sphere of legal protection.[1] In the common law of England, a judgment of (criminal) outlawry was one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw could not use the legal system to protect them if needed, e.g. from mob justice. To be declared an outlaw was to suffer a form of civil or social[5] death. The outlaw was debarred from all civilized society. No one was allowed to give him food, shelter, or any other sort of support – to do so was to commit the crime of aiding and abetting, and to be in danger of the ban oneself. In effect, (criminal) outlaws were criminals on the run who were "wanted dead or alive".[citation needed]

An outlaw might be killed with impunity; and it was not only lawful but meritorious to kill a thief flying from justice — to do so was not murder. ...... Because the outlaw had defied civil society, that society was quit of any obligations to the outlaw — outlaws had no civil rights and could not sue in any court on any cause of action, though they were themselves personally liable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlawry#Criminal


Release them unarmed and unguarded to the public at a suitable venue such as a soccer game or other place or event where Down in the Black Gang British nationalists are likely to be present in numbers......

I suspect that the result will be such that the perps will wish that capital punishment was still the law in England.....

And will give other perps fair warning of what awaits them if they fall into the hands of the British "Down in the Black Gang" public as opposed to the effete English elite who want the public unarmed but who coddle perps rather than protecting the public from them.

[Parodite]

Now, terrorizing civilians is obviously not the goal of the drone killing program.

Exactly. Case closed.

In itself it is interesting why people go miles to squeeze one type of violence into the definition of another. Reminds me of a discussion here where we are told that we we are all believers... even atheists. A terrorist attack on language and meaning.

[Ibrahim]

Now, terrorizing civilians is obviously not the goal of the drone killing program.

Exactly. Case closed.

Nice evidence you presented there, but the case is not closed. You just wish people would shut up about it because its inconvenient.

In itself it is interesting why people go miles to squeeze one type of violence into the definition of another.

Explain to me why murdering children in impoverished villages is not terrorism.

[Alexis]

- 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?

Here are some articles. Within the articles are linked to other articles and supporting information.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15340 ... -civilians

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asi ... ne-strikes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opini ... e-war.html

Actually, these articles refer and are based on two sources:
- The Bureau of Investigative Journalism study which I was citing, evaluating a rate of 3 to 5 militants for each 1 civilian killed
- This September 2012 Stanford / NYU study, which refers to BIJ study as the most complete study on killings by US drones in Pakistan

None of these sources is a basis even remote for the 50 civilians for 1 militant claim. However, the first article you cited on policymic.com does include assertion of "49 civilian deaths for every one known terrorist killed", which they wrongly base on the Stanford / NYU study. I don't know whether this is a honest error by a journalist who can't read a study or a malignant error with propaganda purposes. Sloppy journalism, anyway.

What the Stanford / NYU study actually says (page 31) is:

Based on conversations with unnamed US officials, a Reuters journalist reported in 2010 that of the 500 “militants” the CIA believed it had killed since 2008, only 14 were “top-tier militant targets,” and 25 were “mid-to-highlevel organizers” of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups. His analysis found that “the C.I.A. [had] killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-highlevel” during that same period. More recently, Peter Bergen and Megan Braun of the New America Foundation reported that fewer than 13% of drone strikes carried out under Obama have killed a “militant leader.” Bergen and Braun also reported that since 2004, some 49 “militant leaders” have been killed in drone strikes, constituting “2% of all drone-related fatalities.”

This means that only 2% of drone victimes are "top-tier militant targets". While the vast majority of the rest are "mid-to highlevel" and prominently "low level" fighters.

The study includes discussion of whether killing those low level fighters is justified, which is a legitimate question. At the same time, those fighters are most certainly not innocent bystanders!

Also relevant is the question of who the administration calls a civilian:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world ... wanted=all

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

Indeed, US administration figures (only 50 civilians killed along with 2,000 militants) are not credible. Which is why the Bureau of Investigative Journalism report is much more interesting, as recognized including by this Stanford / NYU study. And that report estimates 3 to 5 militants for 1 killed civilians.


My personal conclusions are two-fold:

1. The US drone killings program in Pakistan is not a terrorist program intended at killing civilians. If it was, even within plausible deniability limits, the rate of civilians killed compared to militants would be much closer to the 50 for 1 wrongly written by Policymic

2. The debate about validity of that program is still open. It cannot be closed on moral grounds before it began, like it could be if it was a terrorist program.
The cons include:
- This program does kill a large number of innocents: 400 to 800 civilians compared to 2,000 militants. That rate would not be accepted say in a hostage-taking situation in the US, at least not before a complete and ironclad proof was provided that such civilian losses were significantly lesser than the civilian losses which would have resulted from the militants being left alive. However, no such proof is provided, nor even sought for by US administration when the civilian losses are Pakistanis rather than Americans
- Strategic value of this program is dubious since it provides easy propaganda victory for militant groups towards Pakistani population which suffers of the low-level but constant risk of being killed because they happen to be at the bad place at the bad time. Balance of militants killed versus new militants recruited is absolutely unclear
The pros include:
- Large losses among enemy ranks, with added demoralizing factor, discouragement to prospective recruits of militant groups faced with the high risk to be killed without any benefit to their cause -not even a single shot fired at a US soldier- and disruption of militant organizations suffering constant decimation
- Protection of innocent lives resulting from these militant losses, demoralization and disruption
- Deterrence towards sub-State groups not presently hostile to the US, which can understand that beginning belligerence would come with a price

I tend towards the Con argument, mostly because of the propaganda factor, which looms large. But the opposite position can also be defended, one needs to be conscious about that.

[Alexis]

In the countries where the US has actually invaded ten times as many civilians have been killed, and in Iraq there are also additional generations of damage to the civilian population from radiation poisoning. Google "birth defects Fallujah" to be bummed out.

I didn't know about the birth defects.

The Fallujah battle can indeed be argued to be an act of State terrorism, since its purpose was to gain submission of the Iraqi population through terror, so that no other Iraqi city would revolt and expel the occupiers in the future.

Well this raises an interesting philosophical question. Why is murdering people for nationalism and pay acceptable, even heroic, and murdering people based on religion reprehensible and insane? The perpetrator stated the he killed the soldier because soldiers are killing Muslim civilians and everybody is disgusted, but nobody questions British or American soldiers killing people in Afghanistan or Iraq because some other Muslims (mostly Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis) killed American and British civilians. I would say that logically both are justifiable or neither.

US or British or other soldiers killing civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq, or any other case of soldiers killing civilians on purpose, is murder.
But those soldiers are in no way tasked to kill civilians. They are tasked to kill enemy soldiers and combatants, which is very different.

The reason for the difference between:
- on the one hand killing soldiers based on orders from a legitimate national leadership within the framework of a war that had a beginning and will have an end and within limitations of jus ad bello and
- on the other hand killing any other person based on one's idea of religion or political ideas
is of course as a limitation to violence. The whole structure of States / nationalities is in good part a device for reducing violence.

[Ibrahim]

- 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?

Here are some articles. Within the articles are linked to other articles and supporting information.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15340 ... -civilians

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asi ... ne-strikes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opini ... e-war.html

Actually, these articles refer and are based on two sources:
- The Bureau of Investigative Journalism study which I was citing, evaluating a rate of 3 to 5 militants for each 1 civilian killed
- This September 2012 Stanford / NYU study, which refers to BIJ study as the most complete study on killings by US drones in Pakistan

None of these sources is a basis even remote for the 50 civilians for 1 militant claim. However, the first article you cited on policymic.com does include assertion of "49 civilian deaths for every one known terrorist killed", which they wrongly base on the Stanford / NYU study. I don't know whether this is a honest error by a journalist who can't read a study or a malignant error with propaganda purposes. Sloppy journalism, anyway.

I disagree and I don't understand how you draw this conclusion. The 3-5 militants per 1 civilians claim is absurd. Even if you follow some of the Pakistani sources mentioned on the wikipedia entry for drone use in Pakistan (which you seem to have already read) you'll get far more civilian casualties.

What the Stanford / NYU study actually says (page 31) is:

Based on conversations with unnamed US officials, a Reuters journalist reported in 2010 that of the 500 “militants” the CIA believed it had killed since 2008, only 14 were “top-tier militant targets,” and 25 were “mid-to-highlevel organizers” of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups. His analysis found that “the C.I.A. [had] killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-highlevel” during that same period. More recently, Peter Bergen and Megan Braun of the New America Foundation reported that fewer than 13% of drone strikes carried out under Obama have killed a “militant leader.” Bergen and Braun also reported that since 2004, some 49 “militant leaders” have been killed in drone strikes, constituting “2% of all drone-related fatalities.”

This means that only 2% of drone victimes are "top-tier militant targets". While the vast majority of the rest are "mid-to highlevel" and prominently "low level" fighters.

The study includes discussion of whether killing those low level fighters is justified, which is a legitimate question. At the same time, those fighters are most certainly not innocent bystanders!

You're forgetting that the CIA/White House arbitrarily decides that any and all males killed in strikes are "militants," without any evidence to that effect. So all of these "lower-tier militants" are just any men who happen to be nearby. You can see the benefit this has for statistics and propaganda purposes.

Also relevant is the question of who the administration calls a civilian:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world ... wanted=all

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

Indeed, US administration figures (only 50 civilians killed along with 2,000 militants) are not credible. Which is why the Bureau of Investigative Journalism report is much more interesting, as recognized including by this Stanford / NYU study. And that report estimates 3 to 5 militants for 1 killed civilians.

Both numbers are absurd, though one less than the other.

My personal conclusions are two-fold:

1. The US drone killings program in Pakistan is not a terrorist program intended at killing civilians. If it was, even within plausible deniability limits, the rate of civilians killed compared to militants would be much closer to the 50 for 1 wrongly written by Policymic

The number appeared in other sources as well, and Pakistani sources claim it to be higher. I'm certainly not convinced by the number you are presenting, and if you insist that the BIJ is advocating it then this calls their credibility into question.

Not that this really alters the substance of the drone program. Some number of sympathetic browns (children, old ladies) are murdered in the process of killing some other number of unsympathetic browns (males, ideally "military age") and we don't even know who the intended targets are, so there is no way to determine if killing them is justified, therefore no way to justify the additional murder of 50 or 5 0.25 civilians to kill them.

2. The debate about validity of that program is still open. It cannot be closed on moral grounds before it began,

I don't typically argue against the drone program on moral grounds since almost nobody here cares about the victims, and a few revel in the murder of as many as possible. My objection has always been that the program is counterproductive, and that there are more "terrorists" than ever as a consequence, specifically in Paksitan and Yemen where the program is most active. That western armed forces commit war crimes with regularity, and that Western leaders like Bush II, Obama, and Blair a wawr criminals who will never see prosecution is a kind of side issue that nobody is really interested in anyway. Usually the only arguments presented are that less civilians are murdered than some claim, and that their murder is unintentional and therefore morally justifiable.

But on the subject of this attack in London, the original point stands either way. Some number of civilians are/were murdered by British military forces, and this attack on a British soldier was a stated reprisal for those killings. It is less a terrorist attack than the killing of civilians, despite obviously being criminal. That Westerners are shocked by this, and will under no circumstances consider the murder of Muslim civilians in at least a half-dozen countries around the world to be a from of terrorism does not surprise me either.

[Ibrahim]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... terAccount

UK Muslims face far-right revenge attacks
The murder of a UK soldier has led to a spike in hate crimes targeting Muslims.
Simon Hooper Last Modified: 29 May 2013 14:12

ondon, UK - British Muslims fear they could become “sitting targets” for far-right violence following a spate of attacks on mosques and a spike in other reported hate incidents in the week since the murder of a British soldier on a London street.

The most serious attack occurred in the east coast town of Grimsby on Sunday night when three petrol bombs were thrown at a mosque as a meeting was taking place inside.

Other attacks were reported on mosques in the southern towns of Braintree and Gillingham within hours of last Wednesday's killing.

Elsewhere, a petrol bomb was thrown at a mosque in Milton Keynes, bacon was left on the steps of a mosque in the Welsh capital Cardiff, and there were reports of vandalism at Islamic centres elsewhere.

Meanwhile, about 1,000 supporters of the far-right English Defence League rallied in central London on Monday chanting “Muslim killers off our streets” and heard Tommy Robinson, the EDL's leader, call for further demonstrations.

Goes on at the link.

As Muslim social activist Ayesha Siddiqi put it on Twitter: "retributive hate crimes are the violence of white supremacy which convicts all racial others as collectively guilty"

[monster_gardener]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... terAccount

UK Muslims face far-right revenge attacks
The murder of a UK soldier has led to a spike in hate crimes targeting Muslims.
Simon Hooper Last Modified: 29 May 2013 14:12

ondon, UK - British Muslims fear they could become “sitting targets” for far-right violence following a spate of attacks on mosques and a spike in other reported hate incidents in the week since the murder of a British soldier on a London street.

The most serious attack occurred in the east coast town of Grimsby on Sunday night when three petrol bombs were thrown at a mosque as a meeting was taking place inside.

Other attacks were reported on mosques in the southern towns of Braintree and Gillingham within hours of last Wednesday's killing.

Elsewhere, a petrol bomb was thrown at a mosque in Milton Keynes, bacon was left on the steps of a mosque in the Welsh capital Cardiff, and there were reports of vandalism at Islamic centres elsewhere.

Meanwhile, about 1,000 supporters of the far-right English Defence League rallied in central London on Monday chanting “Muslim killers off our streets” and heard Tommy Robinson, the EDL's leader, call for further demonstrations.

Goes on at the link.

As Muslim social activist Ayesha Siddiqi put it on Twitter: "retributive hate crimes are the violence of white supremacy which convicts all racial others as collectively guilty"

Thank You for your post, iBS.

So you don't like it when retribution applies to Muslims, iBS..........

Given your attempt at justification of the perps in your post above

retributive hate crimes are the violence of Muslim supremacy which convicts infidel others as collectively guilty"

And......................

“Muslim killers off our streets”

Good advice......

If British Intelligence knows certain Muslim creeps are dangerous, get them off the streets permanently. The reports are that Brit Intel was following the perps but evidently not closely enough.

If they consider themselves to be "Soldiers of Allah/the Caliphate" or similar as Nidal Hasan, the vile Ft. Hood Shooter was by his own confession, then IMO they are de facto no longer citizens of the US, Britain or any other nation........

Drop them off the coast of some land where Islam rules in small boats and see if their brother Muslims welcome them......

If they have already committed crimes of this sort, then punish them in a way that the public is assured that they rather than the perps are being protected....
In my view, imprisonment in a Muslim friendly environment at taxpayer expense where the toilets don't face Mecca and where they can proselytize is not an option that will convince the public that they are being protected.


Fail to make the public believe that they are being protected and there is a risk is that more demonstrations, rioting and reprisal will happen.

[Ibrahim]

Didn't read his post, but I'm sure violent racist m_g supports/justifies the white supremacist reprisal attacks in England.

[monster_gardener]

Didn't read his post, but I'm sure violent racist m_g supports/justifies the white supremacist reprisal attacks in England.

Thanks for your post, iBS.

I do read your posts , Ibrahim, which is why I can say for sure that an arrogant pompous liar calling himself Ibrahim did try to justify the initial Jihadi Muslim Woolwich attack as reprisal.

this attack on a British soldier was a stated reprisal for those killings. It is less a terrorist attack....

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2001&p=54531#p54457

[Alexis]

“Muslim killers off our streets”

Good advice......

If British Intelligence knows certain Muslim creeps are dangerous, get them off the streets permanently. The reports are that Brit Intel was following the perps but evidently not closely enough.

MG, there are at least two major problems with this policy:

- "Muslim killers off our streets": I agree of course, but why limit it to Muslim killers? Truth is, if a killer is Zoroastrian or Atheist, I want him off the streets nonetheless! It's the "killer" part which is important.
And the way to get killers off the streets is the police/justice system, which is already up and running, and quite efficient I would say, not only in Britain but here in France where a young man who stabbed a soldier in the street (victim survived) several days ago was arrested.

- If you put it on intelligence officers to say which people just seem to be dangerous and should be deported or imprisoned preventively, you are making them responsible if any person signaled to them and which they chose to let walk free later commits a murder attempt. You are incentivising them to deport or imprison everybody that does anything even vaguely bizarre or creepy, this without any sense of measure.
The end result will obviously be to attack a whole lot of people who merely hold objectionable views (islamist, racist, neo-fascist, etc.), but are not violent and respect laws, along even with people who are just defending original (therefore seemingly bizarre and dangerous) views... that is what anybody who tries to think by himself!
Imagine e.g. a radical who would want to overhaul human societies by puting everybody on spaceships, arguing that this will make them brethren: isn't that a project aiming at some sort of utopia? Don't we all know how all these utopians turn out, even if at start they look non-violent?
And then my problem is that I enjoy your posts, and I'm not sure you would get access to Internet in prison

This is not BTW to say that none of the most radical Jihadist preachers should be expelled. Anjem Choudary e.g. the British who praised 11/9 attacks and recently expressed pride of his influence on Lee Rigby's murderer has long been banned from entrance on French territory. But banning from entrance or expelling somebody is a heavy tool which should be wielded wisely and used only for the most extreme cases, under judicial supervision.

If they have already committed crimes of this sort, then punish them in a way that the public is assured that they rather than the perps are being protected....
In my view, imprisonment in a Muslim friendly environment at taxpayer expense where the toilets don't face Mecca and where they can proselytize is not an option that will convince the public that they are being protected.

You're not speaking of justice. You're speaking of retribution.

There is no reason to punish a murderer differently depending on his stated motivation being "religion", "retribution", "money", "goodness of heart" or "scrapping my buttocks". Stated motivation of a criminal is just not relevant.

Fail to make the public believe that they are being protected and there is a risk is that more demonstrations, rioting and reprisal will happen.

With all respect, risks are a part of life, MG

If you want to diminish risks, then emigrate to France, or to Britain if you want to save the effort of learning another language. Rate of homicide is less than 1.5 per 100,000 annually for both these countries, compared to 8 per 100,000 for the US. A couple losers using the radical ideology du jour and perpetrating a couple murders is not going to change statistics...

Anyway, even if you move to a country more secure than the US, you will never be in a riskless situation

Check police reaction in the US (Tsarnaev brothers), in Britain (murder of a soldier) or in France (murder attempt on a soldier)... in each of these cases, police found and incapacitated the perpetrator in a matter of very few days. I say that is impressive performance. You are protected.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Well, folks, nothings comes for free, you gotta pay


Brits getting their own medicine back



Links between the killers of a British soldier in London's Woolwich district and the al-Qaeda-backed Al Muhajiroun group likely came as no surprise to the British intelligence service, MI5, which has spent years co-opting Al Muhajiroun members to forward US-UK energy security objectives.
Rather than the "self-radicalizing" cells London is blaming, MI5's ruthless pursuit of commercial interests ultimately sowed seeds of the attack.



Look, folks, MI6 and MI5 in reality behind all terror in Middle East, they the real terrorist

and

now

chicks come back to roost

now

go

figure




.

[Ibrahim]

Blowback? But why?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 43913.html

[Mr. Perfect]

Same reason you were blowing back over Anders Brevik.

Ibs, what are the differences between your beliefs and the boston or london killers.

[monster_gardener]

“Muslim killers off our streets”

Good advice......

If British Intelligence knows certain Muslim creeps are dangerous, get them off the streets permanently. The reports are that Brit Intel was following the perps but evidently not closely enough.

MG, there are at least two major problems with this policy:

- "Muslim killers off our streets": I agree of course, but why limit it to Muslim killers? Truth is, if a killer is Zoroastrian or Atheist, I want him off the streets nonetheless! It's the "killer" part which is important.
And the way to get killers off the streets is the police/justice system, which is already up and running, and quite efficient I would say, not only in Britain but here in France where a young man who stabbed a soldier in the street (victim survived) several days ago was arrested.

- If you put it on intelligence officers to say which people just seem to be dangerous and should be deported or imprisoned preventively, you are making them responsible if any person signaled to them and which they chose to let walk free later commits a murder attempt. You are incentivising them to deport or imprison everybody that does anything even vaguely bizarre or creepy, this without any sense of measure.
The end result will obviously be to attack a whole lot of people who merely hold objectionable views (islamist, racist, neo-fascist, etc.), but are not violent and respect laws, along even with people who are just defending original (therefore seemingly bizarre and dangerous) views... that is what anybody who tries to think by himself!
Imagine e.g. a radical who would want to overhaul human societies by puting everybody on spaceships, arguing that this will make them brethren: isn't that a project aiming at some sort of utopia? Don't we all know how all these utopians turn out, even if at start they look non-violent?
And then my problem is that I enjoy your posts, and I'm not sure you would get access to Internet in prison

This is not BTW to say that none of the most radical Jihadist preachers should be expelled. Anjem Choudary e.g. the British who praised 11/9 attacks and recently expressed pride of his influence on Lee Rigby's murderer has long been banned from entrance on French territory. But banning from entrance or expelling somebody is a heavy tool which should be wielded wisely and used only for the most extreme cases, under judicial supervision.

If they have already committed crimes of this sort, then punish them in a way that the public is assured that they rather than the perps are being protected....
In my view, imprisonment in a Muslim friendly environment at taxpayer expense where the toilets don't face Mecca and where they can proselytize is not an option that will convince the public that they are being protected.

Fail to make the public believe that they are being protected and there is a risk is that more demonstrations, rioting and reprisal will happen.

With all respect, risks are a part of life, MG

If you want to diminish risks, then emigrate to France, or to Britain if you want to save the effort of learning another language. Rate of homicide is less than 1.5 per 100,000 annually for both these countries, compared to 8 per 100,000 for the US. A couple losers using the radical ideology du jour and perpetrating a couple murders is not going to change statistics...

Anyway, even if you move to a country more secure than the US, you will never be in a riskless situation

Check police reaction in the US (Tsarnaev brothers), in Britain (murder of a soldier) or in France (murder attempt on a soldier)... in each of these cases, police found and incapacitated the perpetrator in a matter of very few days. I say that is impressive performance. You are protected.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your reply, Alexis.

First I want to say that I very much enjoy your posts, Alexis and I am honored that you have taken the time to reply to me.

My apologies for the delay in reply.

Imagine e.g. a radical who would want to overhaul human societies by puting everybody on spaceships, arguing that this will make them brethren: isn't that a project aiming at some sort of utopia?

FWIW I do not aim at a utopia/overhauling human nature/societies by putting everybody on spaceships.

I aim at getting a sustainable number of Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans & friends off planet Earth in time to preserve the humorously cute but violently crazy Chaos Ape species in case of the IMHO fairly likely event that the Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans on Earth do something to destroy tech civilization allowing mean green "Mother Nature" to do to them as happened famously to the dinosaurs or maybe even exterminate themselves before Mother Nature does it.

I do NOT count on humans in Space becoming brethren in a brotherly/sisterly love sense very much at all.* That is why I advocate multiple national meteor deflection squads to defend against space rocks doing us like they did the dinosaurs. A single deflection squad would be an invitation to tyranny given the Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey nature of human beings.

You're not speaking of justice. You're speaking of retribution.

There is no reason to punish a murderer differently depending on his stated motivation being "religion", "retribution", "money", "goodness of heart" or "scrapping my buttocks".

Maybe. Retribution is often part of justice.

But IMHO I am speaking of exemplary justice rather than PC accommodation to perps as in the Mecca toilet alignment example.

One problem dealing with Jihadi perps is that to a large extent they fear not death..

IMVHO punishments that they do fear need to be devised and implemented so as to discourage them during life and perhaps after death.**

Stated motivation of a criminal is just not relevant.

IMVHO sometimes motivation is relevant in a strategic sense. I view Jihadi-Muslim violence much more like pirate raids/traditional unregulated warfare predation against the non Muslim world (Dar al Harb) than ordinary often undirected parasitic crime like armed robbery/felony murder by often stupid criminals let alone crimes of passion like stereotypical murder-suicide.

An ordinary "parasitic" criminal does not usually aim at destroying the host society of which he/she is a part even if part of an organized gang. In some cases such criminals have even been known to ruthlessly defend their host society as the Mob did during WW2 by disrupting German-American Bund meetings and making sure there was no sabotage on the docks of the waterfront.***

IMVHO Jihadi/traditional "Conquer the Word for Allah" Muslims are also somewhat similar to Communist revolutionaries and thus are WORSE than parasites like the Mob and lesser criminals because they aim at destroying the West and other non-Muslim cultures and replacing them with their Evil Control Freak culture.

And the way to get killers off the streets is the police/justice system, which is already up and running, and quite efficient I would say,

You know better than me about France.

IMHO maybe not so here in America/UZ.

Remembering the bumbling of the Boston police dealing with the vile Tsarnev brother, Djokar "The Joker" . The police shut down the whole city and still couldn't find him till after the curfew was listed and an ordinary citizen noticed that his boat had been tampered with.

I suspect similar in Britain noting that the London Woolwich Jihadi perps WAITED for the police to arrive. I suspect that they wanted to be found and be "martyred" in a confrontation in which they might kill more infidels and be "marytred" to get their 72 virgins and packs of white raisins .


Granted that intelligence services often/usually don't get to brag about successes but We Uz seem to depend on luck Not keeping the Underwear Bomber off a plane even though were warned is just one example.

Our collective Stupidity, Laziness & Lying to ourselves was exposed on 911 (no armed aircraft, mis-communication & that twit Bush W's post 911 Islam's a ROP speech) and exposed again with our Arrogant Lazy Lying Duty Station Deserting Likely Crypto Muslim Son of a Bitch Eater President Obama's administration calling the Fort Hood attack by the traitor and literally card carrying Soldier of Allah Nidal Hasan "Workplace Violence" rather than a Jihadi Muslim attack or even the term "Terrorism".

With all respect, risks are a part of life, MG

Quite True.

But one can try to choose what risks are taken........

IMVHO admitting Jihadi/traditional "Conquer the World for Allah" Muslims especially as immigrants to non Muslim societies without EXTENSIVE Vetting to assure that they will not be problems is an unacceptable risk: Ideally admit only ones like Ayaan Hirsi Ali that have/are trying to break the Malignant Malicious Muslim Meme Control Freak programming.

If they still prove to be Mullah Krekars, denationalize & deport them back to Muslim lands whether or not their Muslim Brothers in the old country are waiting to do unpleasant things to them.

IMVHO people like Fort Hood Nidal Hasan or the London Woolwich Jihadi Perps, who consider/seem to consider themselves Soldiers of Allah/citizens of the Caliphate/Sharia have effectively renounced their citizenship in whatever non-Muslim land they happen to be in.

This is not BTW to say that none of the most radical Jihadist preachers should be expelled. Anjem Choudary e.g. the British who praised 11/9 attacks and recently expressed pride of his influence on Lee Rigby's murderer has long been banned from entrance on French territory. But banning from entrance or expelling somebody is a heavy tool which should be wielded wisely and used only for the most extreme cases, under judicial supervision.

Seconded but I lack confidence in our mis-Leaders in Uz to do this.

If you want to diminish risks, then emigrate to France, or to Britain if you want to save the effort of learning another language. Rate of homicide is less than 1.5 per 100,000 annually for both these countries, compared to 8 per 100,000 for the US.

Thank you for the kind invitation but I prefer to live in a society where I am still allowed to defend myself with something other than a garden gnome improvised weapon

A woman in her 70s was praised by neighbours yesterday for felling a suspected burglar with a garden gnome.

Jean Collop flung the missile at a man she found clinging to her roof after she was woken in the early hours by the sound of his shoes scraping the tiles.

"I grabbed the first thing I could find, which was the gnome," she said after the ordeal in Wadebridge, Cornwall. "I politely told the man not to move then threw it at him and hit him. He lay down for quite a while and didn't move."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/apr/1 ... dprobation

A couple losers using the radical ideology du jour and perpetrating a couple murders is not going to change statistics...

IMVHO 19 losers on September 11, 2001 did or came damnably close to doing that and worse ........


*It is possible that having a common enemy in the hostile environment of Space might promote some limited amity between Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans in Space. The downside of this is that there might arise a serious division between Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans in Space and Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans remaining on Earth.

Could have bad consequences for Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans on Earth (including me in the unlikely event I survive long enough to see this: too old unless I get a John Glenn exemption): Still better than having all Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans stuck on Earth where doom is virtually guaranteed unless some outside agency like G_d or the Culture intervenes. Remembering IIRC Typhoon's first post in the Astronomy section where civilization/Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey/humans came VERY near being destroyed in the 19th Century by Space rocks.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=69#p772

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... s-in-1883/


**Not necessarily spectacular death (unless hostages are taken for their release which has been a sometimes effective tactic by Jihadis against Euroz). Could be as simple as simply putting them in a windowless cell for the rest of their lives with nothing other than a waste disposal facility & feeding/watering ports.

*** In the past, efforts were made to harness such ordinary non ideological criminals in service to society such as giving a young criminal the option to join the Army/Navy.