Terrorist Attack in London.

[OkToBeTakei]

Witnesses saw some sort of semi-automatic pistol being waved around. News reports say a gun, knives and a machete were recovered from the scene.

On Thursday, two more people, a man and a woman, were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder.

They seemed very focused on this poor young man as they did not attack anyone else at the scene and at least one was more than happy to chat up bystanders whilst covered in the victim's blood. I completely agree it's a terrorist attack, but they are getting stranger and stranger.

Strange no mention of guns at all here. Do you have a source?

I know this is totally inane. But I did find it ironic in regards to what these two lunatics were saying that they were sorry for women seeing this crime. Then three women surrounded the victim another women tried to talk and calm one of the perpetrators. It apparently was a female officer who shot them. Irony?

[JenniferJuniper]

Strange no mention of guns at all here. Do you have a source?

I know this is totally inane. But I did find it in regards to what these two lunatics were saying that they were sorry for women seeing this crime. Then three women surrounded the victim another women tried to talk and calm one of the perpetrators. It apparently was a female officer who shot them. Irony?

Multiple witnesses reported seeing a gun waived by one of the men. Here's one description.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22631995

Early on, the Guardian quoted Lieutenant Colonel Bob Christopher at Woolwich Barracks as saying "We do know a number of weapons have been seized. They include a gun, various knives, and a machete."

[tropaka]

It seems clear that it was very much targeted, and apparently the attackers asked bystanders to take pictures and call police. Maybe they were hoping for the "suicide by cop" scenario?

[breaker]

Strange no mention of guns at all here. Do you have a source?

I know this is totally inane. But I did find it in regards to what these two lunatics were saying that they were sorry for women seeing this crime. Then three women surrounded the victim another women tried to talk and calm one of the perpetrators. It apparently was a female officer who shot them. Irony?

As well as the witnesses mentioned above there was this interview with the woman who intervened. "Then a black guy with a black hat and a revolver in one hand and a cleaver in the other came over. He was very excited and he told me not to get close to the body."

It seems as though most of these incidents, regardless of where they happen or the purported reason for it, are carried out by angry, dissafected young men. Maybe society could do something about angry, dissafected young men and their lack of opportunities and/or inflated sense of entitlement rather than worrying quite so much about whatever "cause" they are supposedly supporting by committing random acts of violence.

Agreed. That always seems to be the common denominator. Recently this documentary aired here about a young British man who was stopped shortly before committing an act of terror. His descent into fanatical religion elevated him, in his mind, from just some lonely young guy into one of God's people. He couldn't even find a sense of belonging among other Muslims, after he converted, because they weren't extreme enough. Clearly his extremism was fulfilling a psychological need independent to the cause he ended up attaching himself to. http://documentarystorm.com/the-boarding-school-bomber/

[OkToBeTakei]

Honestly that was a reactionary clip. Living here and watching 24 hrs I seriously have not heard about a gun/revolver. I would need to bow to some other UK'ers for affirmation. But seriously why hack and cleave with a machete and a plethora of knives if you have a gun. Saying that replica guns are not uncommon.

The only gun shots fired were police.

[OkToBeTakei]

It seems clear that it was very much targeted, and apparently the attackers asked bystanders to take pictures and call police. Maybe they were hoping for the "suicide by cop" scenario?

There was a suggestion of that on a very popular radio show/public interest today. The official line was that 'shoot to kill' was a norm in these situations. That really pinged my dar as they say. Given that both survived.

[JenniferJuniper]

Honestly that was a reactionary clip. Living here and watching 24 hrs I seriously have not heard about a gun/revolver. I would need to bow to some other UK'ers for affirmation. But seriously why hack and cleave with a machete and a plethora of knives if you have a gun. Saying that replica guns are not uncommon.

The only gun shots fired were police.

In addition to the Lieutenant's comment and the clips above, I've seen at least five witnesses say there was a gun.

Here's another:

"The black guy ran at them with a meat cleaver before it stopped and he was right by the car when they shot him," said Julia Wilders, 51, who lives close by. The second man, who had a gun, was also shot, she said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 27647.html

And another:

Luke Huseyin, 32, who lives in a block of flats on John Wilson Street, Woolwich, close to where the incident happened....."The police officers got out of the car and the two black men ran towards them with the gun. The police shot them."

I would imagine law enforcement is keeping the investigation close to the vest, especially if they are trying to determine if others were involved so it may be some time before more specifics are released, but many witnesses saw at least one gun.

Why not use the gun? Because they apparently weren't interested in killing anyone but the soldier and they wanted to kill him the most gruesome, public way they could.

[Ruby Slippers]

Ho hum. As it turns out, one of the killers was raised a devout Christian.

[Arete]

Honestly that was a reactionary clip. Living here and watching 24 hrs I seriously have not heard about a gun/revolver. I would need to bow to some other UK'ers for affirmation. But seriously why hack and cleave with a machete and a plethora of knives if you have a gun. Saying that replica guns are not uncommon.

The only gun shots fired were police.

To instill terror. For the same reason Daniel Pearl was beheaded even though his captors had guns. It's ritual killing, and it's meant to send a message deep into the psyche.

I can't say for sure if these guys had guns or not, but it would not surprise me they would forgo using them to butcher their target.

[OkToBeTakei]

To instill terror. For the same reason Daniel Pearl was beheaded even though his captors had guns. It's ritual killing, and it's meant to send a message deep into the psyche.

I can't say for sure if these guys had guns or not, but it would not surprise me they would forgo using them to butcher their target.

I'm amazed that this seems to be an issue to be honest. Why?

This poor guy was hacked to death with machetes, meat cleavers and knives. Yet here we are discussing how news agencies wish to report it. Is it to make having guns better? To make an issue out of it? Is it some gun politics I am unaware of? Because I will be the first to report anything I hear on the news here honestly.

I wish they had shot him dead. Because think about it. REALLY think about it. He was 25. They did not shoot him.

[Ruby Slippers]

But guys, raised by Christians. And black, not Arab. And African, not Middle Eastern. And a British citizen. How are we supposed to accurately racially profile people if they keep changing shit up? :confusion-scratchheadblue:

[shedemei]

I do not agree with this. I don't think we are accustomed to gun violence in London.

You're probably right; I was thinking about this from a US perspective.

[JesusFightClub]

As I recall they *did* have a gun but it wasn't a usable weapon - some people have said it was a very old gun and not in a good condition, and harmed the attackers when they tried to fire it. It is not so easy to get a gun as some make out, even in the den of iniquity which is Down South ;)

I liked this guy's tweets. He tells the story better than the Daily Mail did :lol:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/she-took-ma ... 2k2sx.html

(Quick translation of London talking for those who don't know: "breda" = brother, "boydem" = coppers, "not ramping" = didn't hang around, "didn't pet to" = not afraid to. I don't know why they call coppers feds as we don't have that police distinction in the UK, but whatever, they do.)

RE terrorism - OKToBe, I don't think we're that far apart here but I am super wary of terrorism being used as a catch-all for "an act which causes terror". After all, many acts cause terror, intentionally or not. After I got lifted by the coppers, I was very nervous in my own house (having been arrested there and unexpectedly). I didn't want to answer the door (and wouldn't for a while) and I jumped every time there was a knock on the door or even if I saw a cop on the street I felt really angry and nervous. After that I was stopped and threatened with arrest twice more and it came to be that I now even more regard coppers in a very bad light.

Might sound like a silly comparison, when you consider the horrible crime committed and your scary experience. My arrest was a tiny thing and in hindsight rather amusing. But it did colour my view of life and did cause some fear and dislike in me. Were the coppers terrorists or committing acts of state terror? Nope, (although they were definitely committing acts of state annoyance). Did they cause fear and me to change my daily life? Yeah, they did.

Likewise with school shooters (from Columbine to Sandy Hook) and even acts of mass murder like Breivik in Norway. They do cause terror, they cause people to alter daily routine, but they aren't acts of terrorism in even the commonly understood meaning of the term. Not even Breivik, who although he committed his crime for political reasons, was a lone actor.

I think because it's an important label we need to be really careful how we use it...

[bal maiden]

RE terrorism - OKToBe, I don't think we're that far apart here but I am super wary of terrorism being used as a catch-all for "an act which causes terror". After all, many acts cause terror, intentionally or not. After I got lifted by the coppers, I was very nervous in my own house (having been arrested there and unexpectedly). I didn't want to answer the door (and wouldn't for a while) and I jumped every time there was a knock on the door or even if I saw a cop on the street I felt really angry and nervous. After that I was stopped and threatened with arrest twice more and it came to be that I now even more regard coppers in a very bad light.

Might sound like a silly comparison, when you consider the horrible crime committed and your scary experience. My arrest was a tiny thing and in hindsight rather amusing. But it did colour my view of life and did cause some fear and dislike in me. Were the coppers terrorists or committing acts of state terror? Nope, (although they were definitely committing acts of state annoyance). Did they cause fear and me to change my daily life? Yeah, they did.

Likewise with school shooters (from Columbine to Sandy Hook) and even acts of mass murder like Breivik in Norway. They do cause terror, they cause people to alter daily routine, but they aren't acts of terrorism in even the commonly understood meaning of the term. Not even Breivik, who although he committed his crime for political reasons, was a lone actor.

I think because it's an important label we need to be really careful how we use it...

Aye, totally agree with this, and you have explained why I am loath to call this terrorism much better than I did when I replied upthread. At the risk of being too stuck in my sociologist's ivory tower, things like 'terrorism' are socially and rhetorically constructed, largely by political actors to a certain end (politicians etc; one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that). If we uncritically let the media and our political leaders call anything they like 'terrorism', we risk making that category of thing so broad as to be meaningless, and, moreover, let them use the term 'terrorism' to exact a reaction from the population which is in keeping with their political ambitions and aims. Like you say, we need to be careful how we use and accept the use of such labels.

However, when I get out of my ivory tower, I do realise than a man was just hacked to death on the streets just a couple of hours down the road from me, and that is horrific and gruesome and makes me sick to my stomach. Whoever said we need to get our shit together and stop letting young men geT disaffected and excluded from society was bloody right.

[Arete]

I am so sick of hearing how young men are disaffected and therefore have to have a submissive wife/hack a soldier to death/fly an airplane into a building. It gets old.

[bal maiden]

I am so sick of hearing how young men are disaffected and therefore have to have a submissive wife/hack a soldier to death/fly an airplane into a building. It gets old.

I'm not sure that direct cause->effect relationship is the implication here. More the point is that when people are socially excluded, they often turn to alternative means of validation and fulfilment, be that drugs, crime or religious extremism. That creates a milieu in which things like violent acts are more likely. It doesn't remove personal culpability and responsibility from the perpetrators, but it does go a way to explaining the path by which they came to their actions. If we know the path (disenfranchisement, disaffection, social exclusion, poverty etc etc), why on earth do we as a society not try to prevent people going down that path?

[OkToBeTakei]

As I recall they *did* have a gun but it wasn't a usable weapon - some people have said it was a very old gun and not in a good condition, and harmed the attackers when they tried to fire it. It is not so easy to get a gun as some make out, even in the den of iniquity which is Down South ;)

I liked this guy's tweets. He tells the story better than the Daily Mail did :lol:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/she-took-ma ... 2k2sx.html

(Quick translation of London talking for those who don't know: "breda" = brother, "boydem" = coppers, "not ramping" = didn't hang around, "didn't pet to" = not afraid to. I don't know why they call coppers feds as we don't have that police distinction in the UK, but whatever, they do.)

RE terrorism - OKToBe, I don't think we're that far apart here but I am super wary of terrorism being used as a catch-all for "an act which causes terror". After all, many acts cause terror, intentionally or not. After I got lifted by the coppers, I was very nervous in my own house (having been arrested there and unexpectedly). I didn't want to answer the door (and wouldn't for a while) and I jumped every time there was a knock on the door or even if I saw a cop on the street I felt really angry and nervous. After that I was stopped and threatened with arrest twice more and it came to be that I now even more regard coppers in a very bad light.

Might sound like a silly comparison, when you consider the horrible crime committed and your scary experience. My arrest was a tiny thing and in hindsight rather amusing. But it did colour my view of life and did cause some fear and dislike in me. Were the coppers terrorists or committing acts of state terror? Nope, (although they were definitely committing acts of state annoyance). Did they cause fear and me to change my daily life? Yeah, they did.

Likewise with school shooters (from Columbine to Sandy Hook) and even acts of mass murder like Breivik in Norway. They do cause terror, they cause people to alter daily routine, but they aren't acts of terrorism in even the commonly understood meaning of the term. Not even Breivik, who although he committed his crime for political reasons, was a lone actor.

I think because it's an important label we need to be really careful how we use it...

I totally missed the gun bit in all the reports!!! I suppose with it being unusable or replica made it unimportant to the outcome if not the fear it would cause.

I suppose as you put it I am coming at it from a layman's rather than political viewpoint? I don't imagine it will change it's misuse or use. You are right though it is frequently bandied around. Two lone evil guys. But because they ascribed to a known terrorist ideal, we call it terrorism. Not just murder. (Just murder? You know what I mean?)

Maybe it is because it is convenient to explain it that way rather than live with the reality that out with war there are people capable of hacking another human to death. Like mentally putting it somewhere it belongs, if you get my drift.

[Sola]

There's one thing that's struck me about this. We hear time and again how the manly men's are the saviours of us poor weak wimmenz. Well the other day when this happened TWO WOMEN stepped up. One challenged one of the murderers verbally and asked him why he had done this and told him they would never win, and the other laid her body across the victim's to prevent the perps from doing any more damage to the body. She held the victim and prayed for him while the other murderer stood just feet away from her, dripping in blood with a meat cleaver and machete in his hands.

There were men around. But no, it took two women to put their own lives on the line.

[laura oz]

There's one thing that's struck me about this. We hear time and again how the manly men's are the saviours of us poor weak wimmenz. Well the other day when this happened TWO WOMEN stepped up. One challenged one of the murderers verbally and asked him why he had done this and told him they would never win, and the other laid her body across the victim's to prevent the perps from doing any more damage to the body. She held the victim and prayed for him while the other murderer stood just feet away from her, dripping in blood with a meat cleaver and machete in his hands.

There were men around. But no, it took two women to put their own lives on the line.

QFT I need a smilie with the little guy jumping up and down, doing snaps in a Z formation, and saying,"Preach!" It seems to me that -and I know this is an old argument- it's forgotten in the religious circles we discuss here that it was women who stayed to the very end with Jesus and it was to a woman that he first appeared after his resurrection. That says something about our strength and the value which Jesus found in the so-called-weaker-sex.

[itaintmebabe]

Also, they killers might have chosen to kill more people instead of just the young man

Yes, that was the point I was making in my post. This happened in London. Where the public does not have guns, unlike in the US. As horrible as this London incident was, if the perpetrators had guns, they would have caused a lot more carnage.

On the day of the Newtown Massacre, there was an incident in China where a crazy person attacked a bunch of school children with a knife.

They all lived.

/end anti-gun rant