Brutal, fatal cleaver assault in London called a terrorist attack

  • Thread starter Thread starter News Feed
  • Start date Start date
FluffyMcDeath said:
That is a very interesting story. I notice how they keep using the word "butcher" a lot. I'm sure that's a very neutral and journalistic word.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the Daily Beast. This is the new style of journalism, sorta like the old style but edgy. The old style is going out of style along with paper. Some people think the edginess makes it more authentic, as if they're just not holding back (and Slate is heading in that direction, and of coarse the Huffington Post is famous for that). I think it just polarizes. Can't say I'm a huge fan, but the new style journalist sites understand the web better than the old style and that makes them more accessible.

I also like how they imply that killing a soldier when you can overpower him (instead of having a fair fight) is somehow very bin Laden (also a nice neutral phrase) and not standard military doctrine. If you have the luxury of discretion you only attack when you know you will win. Anything else is considered stupid.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is.

I'm not supporting what these men did, I think it was horrible and wrong, but it is not different in principle from what other men do in the name of the Queen or their country.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't agree with you. I would agree if the soldier was, say, an active duty officer of some high ranking who's death might influence the outcome of the conflict (sorta like when al-Qaeda blew up some CIA agents in Afghanistan - featured in Zero Dark Thirty). But killing a foot soldier like this is pointless under all circumstances as it leads to no tactical or strategic gains. The US targets those of high value who are of high rank. If they wanted to target al-Qaeda of any rank they could start carpet bombing certain parts of Asia to great effect. What we saw in London was a precision strike of a random target, not a precision strike on a well selected high value target. There's a difference there, they are not the same.
 
Glaucus said:
Not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...
It's a quibble on the double standard that I see. When our military attacks we only attack when we have overwhelming dominance. Since it is OK for our guys to do it, it seems petty to criticize others for doing it too. It's not that it's moral to do it - it's terribly unsporting - but simply that it is standard practice for the profession of the deceased.

The US targets those of high value who are of high rank. If they wanted to target al-Qaeda of any rank they could start carpet bombing certain parts of Asia to great effect.
Click to expand...
But we are, more or less. Basically in many areas we are happy to bomb any boy old enough to grow a moustache and call him a combatant (the new word for male of fighting age) and sometimes apologize if we blow up his baby sister at the same time. We do it not necessarily because it's effective, but the crews need to maintain a certain degree of readiness and new crews need training, and old munitions need to get used up so new ones can be bought.

What we saw in London was a precision strike of a random target, not a precision strike on a well selected high value target. There's a difference there, they are not the same.
Click to expand...
Or a target of opportunity. We don't really know how random it was - it's possible that he had been targeted specifically because of some information the assailants had - perhaps from meeting him previously.

It is also true that when you have lesser capabilities you are forced to attack less well protected (generally less valuable) targets. The French resistance certainly wasn't able to march into Berlin and get Hitler though I'm sure they would have liked to.
 
Robert said:
Or even what makes you think I am trying to mislead you?
Click to expand...
Simply because before one can attempt to determine which one is "doctored" one must first determine if one IS doctored. An important step you chose to skip. And I say that because there are certainly other explanations as to the differences so why ignore them and jump to a conclusion?

Now, I know the conspiracy thread is still fresh here and I thought maybe your post was just a tongue in cheek kinda post. If so, then I over reacted and missed the joke.
 
Michael Adebolajo has been described by his mentors Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Muhammad as quiet, shy pleasant.
a speech given by Michael Adebolajo at a Muslims Against Crusades rally, Nov 2010

 
The letter read: "We share the absolute horror felt by the rest of British society at the sick and barbaric crime that was committed in the name of our religion. We condemn this heinous atrocity in the strongest possible terms.

"It is a senseless act of pure depravity worthy of nothing but contempt. There can be no justification for murder."

The document was signed by 94 imams, including Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain.
Click to expand...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...emn-murder-of-soldier-lee-rigby-29294815.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top