And the winner is [Archive]

Papewaio

05-23-2013, 00:55

The Brits. Looks like the stiff upper lip is still in full force:

http://m.smh.com.au/world/you-are-going-to-lose-mother-tells-attackers-to-drop-weapons-after-london-killing-20130523-2k210.html

"He was not high, he was not on drugs, he was not an alcoholic or drunk. He was just distressed, upset. He was in full control of his decisions and ready to do everything he wanted to do.
"I said: 'Right, now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose, what would you like to do?' He said: 'I would like to stay and fight.' "
The terrorist in the black hat then went to speak to someone else and Mrs Loyau-Kennett tried to engage with the other man in the light coat. She said: "The other one was much shyer and I went to him and I said: 'Well, what about you? Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?'
"I did not want to say weapons but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there. Children were starting to leave school as well."

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 01:37

Before I say anything else my thoughts are with the man's friends and families....

Onto the topic, surely this is what people have been asking for for a long time?

The complaints about the terrorists were that their targets were civilians, these guys went for a soldier instead...

Without getting into the messy discussion about who is on which side and which side is right... surely these guys were just fighting exactly as we do?

Admittedly once we have someone incapacitated we will generally try to take them into custody rather than behead them but these soldiers so to speak were behind enemy lines with no way of capturing the enemy safely. Wouldn't our own soldiers have taken out an enemy soldier in such a situation as well?

rvg

05-23-2013, 01:58

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 02:09

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-23-2013, 02:26

If you read through my post I only refer to them as 'soldiers so to speak' and I did actually refer to them as terrorists near the start of my post. I will take it you agree with the jist of the post and just have a problem with how I defined the two men.

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

The Geneva Convention provides for a precise definition of "soldier" - these guys don't fit it.

OK - so this one was a soldier, next they'll be attacking Cadets (children in military uniform) like the ProVo's did. A 15 year old boy lost a hand and an eye about ten year ago when he turned on a booby trapped torch left outside his Cadet Hut - that literally could have been me.

This will just cause the persecution of Muslims in Britain, it will accomplish nothing else. These idiots don't seem to get it, the more they do the longer we stay.

rvg

05-23-2013, 02:28

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

Yeah, they're practically one and the same. That soldier must have slept through Decapitation 101 during basic training.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 03:27

The Geneva Convention provides for a precise definition of "soldier" - these guys don't fit it.
............................................................................

So we all agree with how I defined them then... Which was as terrorists

What I don't understand is why you are both so eager to point out I was right in this point?

.................................................
Yeah, they're practically one and the same.
...............................................

I will take your sarcasm as disagreement. So I suppose you would say the worst soldiers in the Nazi regime and under Imperial Japan were far more morally acceptable than a terrorist like Nelson Mandela?

If you do not agree surely your sarcasm was misplaced in the first place?

.................................................................
OK - so this one was a soldier, next they'll be attacking Cadets (children in military uniform) like the ProVo's did. A 15 year old boy lost a hand and an eye about ten year ago when he turned on a booby trapped torch left outside his Cadet Hut - that literally could have been me.
.................................................................

So the reason terrorists attacking soldiers is unacceptable is because there is an inevitable slipperly slope that will follow of attacking children playing dress up?

Surely there is an equal risk of our own soldiers falling down a similar slipperly slope which ends in them attacking children playing dress up?

For years I remember the arguments raging about terrorists and one of the main problems people had was their targeting of innocent civilians. I was just curios as to whether people as the arguments went prefer the terrorists to target the military rather than civilians... that is after all what gave us our morale edge.

These two men, I will call them terrorists again to soothe some of our angrier board members, targeted a soldier and left the civilians in the area well alone, it was a (from what I can tell) deliberate attack on a soldier which resulted in no civilian casualties. Isn't this what everyone has been asking for from the terrorists?

rvg

05-23-2013, 03:36

I will take your sarcasm as disagreement. So I suppose you would say the worst soldiers in the Nazi regime and under Imperial Japan were far more morally acceptable than a terrorist like Nelson Mandela?

Oh, my bad. That guy *does* look a bit like Mandela, you're right. As for that soldier, he must have been a Nazi then. He couldn't have been an Imperial Japanese, otherwise he would have chopped up his attackers with his mighty katana.

The headline should read: "Nelson Mandela beheads a Nazi war criminal." Brilliant.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 03:40

I made this comment

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

You then made a sarcastic remark as if my comment was somehow incorrect or wrong. Now you seem to be trying to make my comment about this event and this event only.

If these kind of events make you too emotional and unable to think rationally you should probably avoid commenting on them until you calm down.

rvg

05-23-2013, 03:45

Now you seem to be trying to make my comment about this event and this event only.
What do you expect? You're making a comment in a specific thread, and I'm replying to it within the framework of the thread. Sounds logical to me.

If these kind of events make you too emotional and unable to think rationally you should probably avoid commenting on them until you calm down.
Oh, I'm quite calm. I didn't Godwin this thread, you did.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 03:57

What do you expect? You're making a comment in a specific thread, and I'm replying to it within the framework of the thread. Sounds logical to me.
...................................................................

The definition of a word I used was being discussed, so clearly the discussion had moved on at that point.

Basically you misinterpreted a post and then tried to by funny by using sarcasm... maybe taking time to understand what people are saying will save you from future embarrassment.

...........................................
Oh, I'm quite calm. I didn't Godwin this thread, you did.
...........................................

Okay then if that is such a problem replace 'the worst soldiers in the Nazi regime' with the worst soldiers in any other particularly bad regime through history and the point you tried to sarcastically make is still patently false.

Montmorency

05-23-2013, 04:00

Wait, what's the point of sacrificing 2 for 1?

rvg

05-23-2013, 04:04

The definition of a word I used was being discussed, so clearly the discussion had moved on at that point... maybe taking time to understand what people are saying will save you from future embarrassment.
Moved on to what?

Okay then if that is such a problem replace...
Oh no, that's not my job. Don't use Nazi strawmen if you don't wanna get called out on them.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 04:24

Moved on to what?
............................

Moved on to me saying I see no real moral difference between them, do keep up RVG.

............................
Oh no, that's not my job. Don't use Nazi strawmen if you don't wanna get called out on them.
............................

The point you tried to sarcastically make is patently false no matter whether I mention Nazi's, Imperial Japan or any other regime with particularly brutal soldiers. The fact I invoked godwin does not make a difference in this fact.

rvg

05-23-2013, 04:36

There are two possibilities here...

1. Your statements do not relate to the topic at hand. If that's the case then fine, I'll dismiss them as pointless babbling and move on.

2. Your statements do relate to the topic at hand, and you're morally equating the soldier to the barbaric pig that murdered him.

Which one is it?

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 05:54

If you are going to insist on the morally outraged act I will explain it simply for you.

I made a fairly long post (well at least compared to your reply) and the only thing you seemed to pick out of my post was my definition of them as soldiers I then first talked about how I already called them terrorists and then said how it only seems to be how I defined the men that you had a problem with.

I then mentioned how I see very little difference between the definitions mentioning that both can be good or bad. You had a problem (seemingly) with how I defined them and then are shocked some discussion about the definitions may occur?

I am sorry but your moral outrage does not wash with me, if you think I am glorifying or celebrating these people then think again. Not really a fan of anyone dying to be honest.

Fragony

05-23-2013, 09:13

Hmmmmmm England may have beaten Sweden in the beheading-contest but Sweden deserves a mention for over a 100 burned cars a few days ago after the police shot someone who was waving with a machete. Predictably enough neither this beheading or the riots are known to Dutches who read quality-media and watch state-tv

Fragony

05-23-2013, 11:27

løl, police station set on fire in Stockholm. Swedish experts know exactly why, they have a phd and aren't afraid to use it, it's because these rioters are stigmatised. My say, Stockholm is THE place to have Stockholm Syndrome as it would be apropiate to have it there. It of course can't have anything to do with importing people from the worst places on earth *smokes pipe and rubs beard*

Empire*Of*Media

05-23-2013, 12:10

The Islamist !!!! Fear Them !! Even Those Jobless that did that in Sweden, are from Muslim Countries, i have solid proof, that Kurds in Sweden (more than 450.000! People) Did not do anything, even jobless ones !!

Sir Moody

05-23-2013, 12:50

I shouldn't have to point this out but I guess I will try

Not all Muslims are homicidal killers looking to behead people in the street - it is a Minority.

Blaming Islam or all Muslims is like blaming the entire Catholic population of Ireland for the IRA...

on the event in hand - I have to say for "Terrorists" they are remarkable "decent". They only murdered one Solider when surrounded by possible public targets and waited patiently for the police to arrive whereby they attempted Suicide by Cop... in the situation they were in they could have killed many more far more "provocative" targets...

Hax

05-23-2013, 12:54

Okay.

Fragony

05-23-2013, 13:11

I shouldn't have to point this out but I guess I will try

Not all Muslims are homicidal killers looking to behead people in the street - it is a Minority.

No need to point that out, only total idiots don't understand that. Talking any reason to idiots is rather futile, but denying problems isn't very smart either. I just don't bother talking to either.

rvg

05-23-2013, 13:24

I then mentioned how I see very little difference between the definitions mentioning that both can be good or bad. You had a problem (seemingly) with how I defined them and then are shocked some discussion about the definitions may occur?

Damn right I have a problem with that. If you see no difference between a soldier and a terrorist, yeah, that's a pretty big problem right there.

InsaneApache

05-23-2013, 13:48

I wouldn't even bother replying mate. He's either a troll or mentally ill.

He even thinks it's ok to vote for rapists.

A very sick mind there I have to say.

rvg

05-23-2013, 13:56

I wouldn't even bother replying mate. He's either a troll or mentally ill.

He even thinks it's ok to vote for rapists.

A very sick mind there I have to say.

Word.

Rhyfelwyr

05-23-2013, 14:06

Unbelievable that people on this forum would actually try to justify this with some garbage about the fact he was a soldier.

He was unarmed, he wasn't on duty - and these madmen certainly didn't identify themselves as enemy soldiers. Everything about it screams murder - not war.

When I did my morning check on the BBC today, the two main stories are this murder, and this as well (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22626994). As Frags said look a few days ago what happened in Sweden. While it is all very well to say that very few Muslims are extremists, the reality is that wherever you get Muslims you will get extremists and you will get this sort of thing. Britons really need to ask themselves if this is the sort of country they want to live in.

I also felt that it was very out of order for the EDL to try to use the incident to get their 15 minutes. Unpleasant things are happening on the margins of society...

rvg

05-23-2013, 14:13

I also felt that it was very out of order for the EDL to try to use the incident to get their 15 minutes. Unpleasant things are happening on the margins of society...

It's a priceless "told you so" moment for the EDL. I won't be surprised if they pick up some seats after the next election. General public is getting tired of people with culture.

Sarmatian

05-23-2013, 14:19

rvg

05-23-2013, 14:27

If that's a definition of a murder, how many murder have UK army committed in Iraq and Afghanistan so far? Wanna start a thread for every one?
Do you have evidence for something specific that escaped the eye of the media?

Rhyfelwyr

05-23-2013, 14:28

It's a priceless "told you so" moment for the EDL. I won't be surprised if they pick up some seats after the next election. General public is getting tired of people with culture.

The EDL is not a party, it's a collection of football hooligans. They didn't tell anybody anything they didn't already know.

If that's a definition of a murder, how many murder have UK army committed in Iraq and Afghanistan so far? Wanna start a thread for every one?

It is more murky in those cases because your opponents are engaged in irregular warfare. They abuse their ability to blend into civilian populations, even during combat.

But certainly, I trust that the British Army conducts itself better than these two individuals. You may correct me if I am wrong but surely it is not official procedure to kill Taliban members when they are unarmed and posing no threat?

Of course there are cases when soldiers break the rules and in those cases they are very much in the wrong (and have in the past I believe, even had their own threads here). But even then it is easier to understand why a soldier might snap, not these two individuals, who appear to have did what they did purely out of fanaticism. Note the strong English accent of the man with the machete - these guys probably don't have worn-torn backgrounds.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 14:32

If that's a definition of a murder, how many murder have UK army committed in Iraq and Afghanistan so far? Wanna start a thread for every one?

Exactly, do we only kill (or murder as you just defined) Terrorists when they are on duty?

Or do we generally get them when they are available to kill?

I never remember any moral discussions about whether it was wrong to kill terrorists who are off duty but I may have missed that one.

Apache I approve of rape about as much as you approve of paedophilia, take your trolling elsewhere.

..........................................................
Damn right I have a problem with that. If you see no difference between a soldier and a terrorist, yeah, that's a pretty big problem right there.
...........................................................

Like I said just the definitions alone do not tell you who is a good person and who is not. Unless you do think Mandela was worse than some of the worst soldiers of Imperial Japan

rvg

05-23-2013, 14:35

The EDL is not a party, it's a collection of football hooligans. They didn't tell anybody anything they didn't already know.
Knowing is one thing. Doing something about that is a whole different matter. This case might just be the catalyst the British public needs to spring into action and elect people who are willing rectify these problems.

Fragony

05-23-2013, 14:48

rvg

05-23-2013, 14:54

When people spring into action those who don't deserve it get hurt

Spring into action at the ballot box, not in the streets. Riots might be a good way to blow off some emotional steam, but long term they are totally counterproductive.

Sir Moody

05-23-2013, 14:58

No need to point that out, only total idiots don't understand that. Talking any reason to idiots is rather futile, but denying problems isn't very smart either. I just don't bother talking to either.

and yet you and others are still branding about the racial slur of "people with culture"...

When I did my morning check on the BBC today, the two main stories are this murder, and this as well (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22626994). As Fragssaid look a few days ago what happened in Sweden. While it is all very well to say that very few Muslims are extremists, the reality is that wherever you get Muslims you will get extremists and you will get this sort of thing. Britons really need to ask themselves if this is the sort of country they want to live in.

would you rather live in a country where we racially discriminate/segregate because that is the only other option

Montmorency

05-23-2013, 15:00

Knowing is one thing. Doing something about that is a whole different matter. This case might just be the catalyst the British public needs to spring into action and elect people who are willing rectify these problems.

What problems? This is business as usual.

It is a very uncritical voter indeed who would take in a politician's promise to prevent every single future instance of grass-roots jihadist killing.

In the present security situation, the Western World can expect a at worst few dozen deaths per year to Islamic terrorism, on the home-turf. More people die to their toilets or bathtubs.

Governments have this under control, citizen - quit your tub-thumping and go about your business.

Fragony

05-23-2013, 15:09

and yet you and others are still branding about the racial slur of "people with culture"...

I just adopt politically correct absurd terms for fun because they are hilarious. Not my fault euphenisms will always turn against you

Rhyfelwyr

05-23-2013, 15:09

would you rather live in a country where we racially discriminate/segregate because that is the only other option

No, that sounds unpleasant. I would rather avoid having to create such an artificial and unnatural situation by allowing hordes of immigrants in in the first place.

rvg

05-23-2013, 15:14

What problems? This is business as usual.
That's not very reassuring.

It is a very uncritical voter indeed who would take in a politician's promise to prevent every single future instance of grass-roots jihadist killing.
And it would be foolish of a politician to promise something that he can't deliver. The government does need to react though. Be it through tougher immigration laws, more scrutiny towards people with culture, whatever. They need to turn up the heat to show people that they are earning their pay.

In the present security situation, the Western World can expect a at worst few dozen deaths per year to Islamic terrorism, on the home-turf. More people die to their toilets or bathtubs.
Statistically insignificant? Absolutely. More than statistics is at stake here though.

Governments have this under control, citizen - quit your tub-thumping and go about your business.
I'm unconvinced.

Sir Moody

05-23-2013, 15:14

No, that sounds unpleasant. I would rather avoid having to create such an artificial and unnatural situation by allowing hordes of immigrants in in the first place.

so you would opt for Segregation then (just a more extreme version of it)

don't get me wrong I think we have made mistakes in our Immigration policies but just stopping immigration because a few turn out to be nut cases isn't the answer either

Sir Moody

05-23-2013, 15:16

I just adopt politically correct absurd terms for fun because they are hilarious. Not my fault euphenisms will always turn against you

I don't know about Holland but over here the politically correct term for a Muslim is... a Muslim... funny that

Fragony

05-23-2013, 15:19

I don't know about Holland but over here the politically correct term for a Muslim is... a Muslim... funny that

Nice of you, here we call them goatfuckers and inbreds

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 15:28

That seems a little overly confrontational... or do you just reverse that for people like these two nutters in Britain?

Montmorency

05-23-2013, 15:34

They need to turn up the heat to show people that they are earning their pay.

They would better earn their pay by not throwing the country into ham-handed token (or worse - the opposite) policies that ultimately don't serve to appease outraged citizens anyway.

Better to keep a cool head than to turn up the heat.

And it would be foolish of a politician to promise something that he can't deliver.

:shifty:

Fragony

05-23-2013, 15:38

That seems a little overly confrontational... or do you just reverse that for people like these two nutters in Britain?

Just the bad ones apply, and there aren't a lot of the bad ones here. Majority of the muslims are perfectly happy here. As a friend said, they (extremists) just rolled of the mountain

rvg

05-23-2013, 15:38

Better to keep a cool head than to turn up the heat.
The heat needs to be turned up with a cool head. The government needs to light a fire under these guys and do it in a cool, efficient, methodical manner.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 15:42

Okay that is fair enough, the ones with extreme views like that are thankfully a rarity...

Montmorency

05-23-2013, 15:45

The government needs to light a fire under these guys and do it in a cool, efficient, methodical manner.

We have been for over a decade. The structure is well in place, and we have much experience. Why rock the boat if it won't improve results?

Intelligence agencies for threats abroad, security agencies for threats at home - we're already pre-empting the majority of even these grass-roots types currently. Why aren't you satisfied with that?

Recall the concept of diminishing rate of returns: we could double the funding of the relevant organizations, widen their remit, and so on, but I doubt that, at this point - at this point, even one less attack per year would be statistically significant. Why waste so much money when the stakes are already so low?

rvg

05-23-2013, 15:53

We have been for over a decade. The structure is well in place, and we have much experience. Why rock the boat if it won't improve results?

Intelligence agencies for threats abroad, security agencies for threats at home - we're already pre-empting the majority of even these grass-roots types currently. Why aren't you satisfied with that?

Recall the concept of diminishing rate of returns: we could double the funding of the relevant organizations, widen their remit, and so on, but I doubt that, at this point - at this point, even one less attack per year would be statistically significant. Why waste so much money when the stakes are already so low?

You know what, if you have that much trust and faith in your government's willingness to do what it takes to protect you, then I'm very happy for you. I hope you're right, and the folks at the Downing street are indeed as willing and capable as you say they are.

Montmorency

05-23-2013, 16:08

An adequate job is an adequate job. What he have going on now is enough to deal with the existing level of terrorists' capacity to operate. It's just one more small threat to factor into my daily existence, and I'm not passionate or hot-headed enough to feel either alarm or patriotic fervor when someone slips through the safety nets. What more can I say? :shrug:

Although I doubt govts around the world would mind if citizens were to willingly extend even more special powers to them in exchange for perceived security. Hey, they could even plausibly argue that, depending on the extent, another shift in that direction could steeply lower crime in general. Is it inevitable after all?

Hmm, I'm starting to like your attitude. Let the politicians act to increase the authority of security/intelligence services, it might come in handy later on. As long as the coffers don't suffer, as at the moment we can't afford that :daisy:.

:smile:

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 16:12

The action of two nutters in the streets of Great Britain killing one man should not result in sweeping changes to our laws or some kind of increased funding for fighting terrorism...

If it was happening with great regularity then it an argument could be made about sacrificing our liberties and even more money to fight it but as it is I would see the extra money as a waste and the liberties taken away as even more dangerous than terrorism.

Sarmatian

05-23-2013, 16:15

Do you have evidence for something specific that escaped the eye of the media?

100,000+ civilian deaths just in Iraq that escaped the eye of the media. Okay, not fully escaped, reported as a footnote once or twice.

It is more murky in those cases because your opponents are engaged in irregular warfare. They abuse their ability to blend into civilian populations, even during combat.

Sorry for Godwin, but Nazis pulled the same excuse when they murdered civilians.

But certainly, I trust that the British Army conducts itself better than these two individuals. You may correct me if I am wrong but surely it is not official procedure to kill Taliban members when they are unarmed and posing no threat?

Just because it's not official, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Of course there are cases when soldiers break the rules and in those cases they are very much in the wrong (and have in the past I believe, even had their own threads here). But even then it is easier to understand why a soldier might snap, not these two individuals, who appear to have did what they did purely out of fanaticism. Note the strong English accent of the man with the machete - these guys probably don't have worn-torn backgrounds.

No one is saying these guys are in the right, either, but climbing on the moral pedestal and screaming "we didn't do anything to invite it" is a bit of a lie...

Fragony

05-23-2013, 16:23

Okay that is fair enough, the ones with extreme views like that are thankfully a rarity...

A very dangerous rarity, and not that rare. My friends from muslim countries are terrified of these guys who are as welcome as the inquisition was to us. You don't know what it's like, they come at their door and ask why they don't go to the mosque anymore it's really intimidating. It's nasty and there is nobody to help them should they say no.

rvg

05-23-2013, 16:23

100,000+ civilian deaths just in Iraq that escaped the eye of the media. Okay, not fully escaped, reported as a footnote once or twice.
Can you prove that 100,000 civilians have been murdered by the British troops?

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 16:58

You don't know what it's like, they come at their door and ask why they don't go to the mosque anymore it's really intimidating. It's nasty and there is nobody to help them should they say no.
......................................

I do wonder what our governments can do to help these people...

Obviously if the group are starting to become terrorists they can go to the police and go into witness protection but when you have something like this where they are being bullied into it without specific threats what could we do to help these people?

Fragony

05-23-2013, 17:28

Highly opposed to terrorism actually, the danger is in a creeping poison

Rhyfelwyr

05-23-2013, 17:44

Sorry for Godwin, but Nazis pulled the same excuse when they murdered civilians.

Its tough when it's a grey area, I trust the British army to be a lot more discerning about it than the Nazi's. For the British it is a problem, for the Nazis it was an excuse.

Just because it's not official, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But if it did happen, everybody here would most likely strongly condemn it, and it would almost certainly get its very own thread as well.

There may be double standards but they are not the issue here - this thread is a about a brutal, politically-motivated murder.

No one is saying these guys are in the right, either, but climbing on the moral pedestal and screaming "we didn't do anything to invite it" is a bit of a lie...

Well as a nation we created the conditions that allowed for it to happen - that doesn't mean we deserve it though. The former describes a logical consequence of our actions, the latter a moral judgement. They are two separate things.

Greyblades

05-23-2013, 17:55

Ah, rvg is back, right as kurdistan and totalrelism are seemingly at a simultanious high point in thier backroom crazy careers, just as insaneapache turns out to be drinking Ukip's koolaid, just as Icanspelldawg... is being Icanspelldawg.

Add to this the government imploding, the crazies becomeing credible ruling parties on both sides of the pond and a new sensless murder on london streets not 5 miles away from where I was taking a stroll.

I think I have reached a new high point of despair.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 17:57

Rhyfelwyr

05-23-2013, 18:29

rajpoot

05-23-2013, 18:47

Pannonian

05-23-2013, 19:49

You know what, if you have that much trust and faith in your government's willingness to do what it takes to protect you, then I'm very happy for you. I hope you're right, and the folks at the Downing street are indeed as willing and capable as you say they are.

Someone from Woolwich barracks, who are presumably the ones most at risk from a repeat of something like this, has appeared on the news, and said that the prevailing view is that this was a random act of violence and not something to be that concerned about. The attack was targeted, which means the general populace aren't at risk if a repeat happens. I'm certainly less concerned about being caught up in an incident like this than I was in the aftermath of the 2005 bombings.

Brenus

05-23-2013, 20:32

“He was unarmed, he wasn't on duty - and these madmen certainly didn't identify themselves as enemy soldiers. Everything about it screams murder - not war.” Err, as a former professional soldier, I can tell you it is the best moment to strike, Better if he sleeps, mind you. Do you think war is a fair game? You attack when and from where the enemy doesn’t expect.
You have youtube full of snipers in Afghanistan killing Talebs from 2000 m with the target not able to fire back, and it is celebrated…

“You may correct me if I am wrong but surely it is not official procedure to kill Taliban members when they are unarmed and posing no threat?” Drone? Green Berets or equivalent?

“hordes of immigrants in in the first place.” The choice of words is… unfortunate.

The problem how these two (even more) though they more in common with the Taliban than with the people they went in school with. Killing an unarmed and unknown man need a lot of hate (motivation) and solid conviction. They didn’t know him, they kill him nevertheless.
Same heart than the very Christian Breivik.

Ja'chyra

05-23-2013, 21:13

Is this thread for real?????

Two psycho's kill an off-duty BANDSMAN in their, perverted, view of Islam and there is only 1 expression of regret or condolence in this whole thread, and even that was twisted in the same post?

RIP Drummer Rigby, props to you for serving your country, and your sacrifice.

Papewaio

05-23-2013, 21:24

Got to say they are very British murderers. Can't really identify them as terrorists more as fighters for a cause.

Killed an off duty soldier.
Waited patiently for the police to arrive. The apparently longer for the armed police to arrive.
Talked to the civilians and didn't kill any of them.

Madmen they might be, but awfully polite in comparison with others.

Compare that with western collatoral damage. Drones regularly killing suspected terrorists and any one who might be standing nearby. Or helicopters shooting up suspected combatants far away from actual battles.

If 911 had been played out to the same tune as this latest attack in London. It would have meant 15 captured or dead terrorists and eight dead soldiers at the Pentagon.

If our own attacks on enemy combatants had the same accuracy 100,000 plus civilians would be alive today.

So I don't see this as a time to panic. I wish no one was murderd as this poor young dad was. But this is a step above your average terrorist or even drone strike operator.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 21:35

and there is only 1 expression of regret or condolence in this whole thread, and even that was twisted in the same post?
...................................................

My post was not twisted but thank you for noticing I posted my condolences. This isn't exactly a condolence thread though which probably explains the lack of other condolences.

.................................................
Madmen they might be, but awfully polite in comparison with others.
.................................................

I noticed that, it is difficult to have any reasonable conversation about this with anyone in Britain as feelings are running high but what struck me was when the madmen was ranting at the camera he even apologised that the women had to see the incident!

Apparently the one guy who was filming was told by the guy he had no intent to harm him either.

As crazy as the crime was how passive the guys acted outside of the actual killing was also crazy in its own way that it is so unusual....

Brenus

05-23-2013, 22:16

“there is only 1 expression of regret or condolence in this whole thread, and even that was twisted in the same post?” = perhaps “In honour of the passing of Hugo Chavez, I have had his initials inscribed onto my bathroom taps.” Respect for the dead, eh?

Sarmatian

05-23-2013, 23:07

Can you prove that 100,000 civilians have been murdered by the British troops?

What is this, the court of law? Can you prove that the soldier killed didn't personally rape, murder and dissect the sisters of those guys that killed him?

From what information we have, there is enough to conclude that a number of those 100,000 civilians were indeed murdered.

But if it did happen, everybody here would most likely strongly condemn it, and it would almost certainly get its very own thread as well.

Not nearly as strongly. In the next few days, this guy will be front page news. We're gonna know everything about him. His name, his service record, his personal life, where he lived, was he married, his favourite team, name of his pet... There will be stories about him, special tv programmes, debates, discussions...

But, if you can name a single civilian of those 100,000+ Iraqis who died, without googling, I'll admit it's the same.

There may be double standards but they are not the issue here - this thread is a about a brutal, politically-motivated murder.

I believe they are an important part but okay. As Brenus said, the best moment to kill an enemy soldier is when he's off duty, unarmed, surprised, alone and helpless. That's what soldiers are trained to do. Even if this is a politically motivated murder, morally it isn't really different from offing someone with a sniper from 2km away.

We need to put things into context. You invaded a country, you have a military budget several times the size their gdp. They can not hope to win by conventional warfare. You control all relevant international political institutions. Their economy and PR are a joke compared to yours. They have a single choice - make the war so damn unpleasant and expensive that you quit. That is their only option - terrorism basically. We've criticised it because it targeted civilians. Fine, it's not their fault, I agree, although a case could be made that British and American civilians are more responsible than Iraqi - on one side we have a democracy on the other dictatorship.

Now, for the first time, they didn't target a civilian. They targeted a soldier. Now the problem is that they targeted an unprepared soldier who was off-duty. What are they supposed to do? Announce their intentions when soldiers are on duty and armed, wait for them to get prepared and then try to kill them? That's asking a bit too much.

Well as a nation we created the conditions that allowed for it to happen - that doesn't mean we deserve it though. The former describes a logical consequence of our actions, the latter a moral judgement. They are two separate things.

You reap what you sow, simple as that.

Montmorency

05-23-2013, 23:11

Now, for the first time, they didn't target a civilian. They targeted a soldier. Now the problem is that they targeted an unprepared soldier who was off-duty. What are they supposed to do? Announce their intentions when soldiers are on duty and armed, wait for them to get prepared and then try to kill them? That's asking a bit too much.

They could have shot an email to the Ministry of Defence, offering to 'settle this contest in the old manner: two of your best against the two of us, fists only.'

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 23:17

Now, for the first time, they didn't target a civilian. They targeted a soldier. Now the problem is that they targeted an unprepared soldier who was off-duty. What are they supposed to do? Announce their intentions when soldiers are on duty and armed, wait for them to get prepared and then try to kill them? That's asking a bit too much.
......................................................

This is basically what I was trying to say earlier in the thread, probably best to leave it to those far more eloquent than me..

Rhyfelwyr

05-23-2013, 23:26

"You may correct me if I am wrong but surely it is not official procedure to kill Taliban members when they are unarmed and posing no threat?" Drone? Green Berets or equivalent?

You're right drones and the like are going into very murky water. It's a grey area, much as the status of a Taliban fighter is. He's not part of a conventional army, he's a guerrilla, so when is he 'off-duty'? Maybe Britain and the US do abuse the grey area. None of that changes the fact that the case this thread is about was downright, and outright, inexcusable. I'll write more in response to Sarmatian's similar arguments below.

"hordes of immigrants in in the first place". The choice of words is… unfortunate.

The killers were immigrants. Probably second or third generation, but then the first generation ones are never the problem.

Not nearly as strongly. In the next few days, this guy will be front page news. We're gonna know everything about him. His name, his service record, his personal life, where he lived, was he married, his favourite team, name of his pet... There will be stories about him, special tv programmes, debates, discussions...

But, if you can name a single civilian of those 100,000+ Iraqis who died, without googling, I'll admit it's the same.

Yes but the reason we have all that coverage is, by and large, because the unprecedented nature of this killing could potentially have massive implications across the UK. Most of the discussion I have heard has been about community relations. Ordinary Muslims are frightened. White people are angry. Many urban areas in England are subdivided into racial ghettos. The EDL already tried to start trouble last night.

If British soldiers were being killed on UK soil on a massive scale then naturally the coverage they got would diminish. This is not speculation, it is a proven fact - look at the Troubles.

Granted, part of the reason for the shock is that he was 'one of our own' in a way an innocent Iraqi is not. But then that's just human nature, look at how the Muslim world shrugs its shoulders at 9/11.

I believe they are an important part but okay. As Brenus said, the best moment to kill an enemy soldier is when he's off duty, unarmed, surprised, alone and helpless. That's what soldiers are trained to do. Even if this is a politically motivated murder, morally it isn't really different from offing someone with a sniper from 2km away.

We need to put things into context. You invaded a country, you have a military budget several times the size their gdp. They can not hope to win by conventional warfare. You control all relevant international political institutions. Their economy and PR are a joke compared to yours. They have a single choice - make the war so damn unpleasant and expensive that you quit. That is their only option - terrorism basically. We've criticised it because it targeted civilians. Fine, it's not their fault, I agree, although a case could be made that British and American civilians are more responsible than Iraqi - on one side we have a democracy on the other dictatorship.

Now, for the first time, they didn't target a civilian. They targeted a soldier. Now the problem is that they targeted an unprepared soldier who was off-duty. What are they supposed to do? Announce their intentions when soldiers are on duty and armed, wait for them to get prepared and then try to kill them? That's asking a bit too much.

The fact that the war is unwinnable for Iraqis or Jihadists does not excuse actions that would be considered abhorrent by the usual standards. I might expect them to engage in irregular warfare - at bit like the French Resistance - ambushes, destroying supply lines and the like. I do not think it is in any way acceptable for them to start murdering civilians or butchering unarmed, off-duty soldiers.

You say there is a double standard here, but there is not. Many known Taliban etc fighters have been detained on British soil. They were tried, jailed, deported, or whatever. Believe it or not, the British authorities do not take a meat cleaver and try to behead them with some garbage justification about how they just can't win the war.

You reap what you sow, simple as that.

Indeed, never said otherwise. Doesn't invalidate the distinction between logical consequence and moral right.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 23:32

You say there is a double standard here, but there is not. Many known Taliban etc fighters have been detained on British soil. They were tried, jailed, deported, or whatever. Believe it or not, the British authorities do not take a meat cleaver and try to behead them with some garbage justification about how they just can't win the war.
...............................................

If a soldier (or two) spotted an enemy terrorist but had no way to capture them as they were surrounded by people who were supportive of the terrorists views (basically they would have been beaten to death on trying to capture them the same way these guys would have been had they tried to capture this man) would they not have killed them?

The trying to behead someone is vile and not something I imagine our soldiers would try and do but just the killing of the guy.

I am pretty sure we are usually happy to kill terrorists if we don't think we can capture them.

Edit

.................................................
If these extremists were truly full of righteous fury or whatever, they'd have no problem sacrificing their lives in an assault on a real target.
..................................................

Whilst you may say the terrorism they do is pointless it would certainly be more effective than just running into the fire of much better equipped and trained men... that would truly be a pointless suicide from them. Whilst it may not change things for the better they actually do manage to inflict some damage on the enemy (at least if we are talking about ones aimed at Western troops)

...........................................
These are people who are convinced on a personal and religious level that killing non-combatants as a primary strategy is a just and righteous way to prosecute a war. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, and no political justification ever makes it okay, even when you are reaping what you sow.
...........................................

Was Nelson Mandela not justified in his terrorism?

Also you do realise they killed a (off duty) serving soldier and then didn't harm any of the civilians in the area?

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 23:41

So (not doubting you here just for clarity) you have a known terrorist in front of you and your buddy but no chance in hell of capturing him, the choices are seemingly limited to killing him or letting him go...

I would have assumed in such a situation our soldiers would kill the terrorist...

Papewaio

05-23-2013, 23:42

IMDHO resistance fighters killed off duty soldiers too.

And exactly what is the difference between an ambush on/off duty or an attack on a base?

Surely Bin Laden was off duty. The SEALs didn't ring the door bell and ask Ms's Bin Ladens for him to come out to play.

I don't consider this a terrorist attack. Blatant gruesome politically motivated murder yes. Do I agree with their cause, not in the slightist. Apologizing for scaring the locals isn't a textbook definition of terror. This is what a resistance attack looks like when you are on the other side of it.

They did not target civilians, they didn't even target unarmed police. These are JAG level terrorists, that he probably could have a cup of tea with and convince them of their naughty ways.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2013, 23:53

Pretty much my thoughts exactly Pape.

Bin Laden sprung to mind but I didn't use the example as he is a much higher level than a regular soldier in comparison but I am sure we often strike lower level terrorists when they are off duty or just relaxing.

Although I guess I was calling it a terrorist attack simply because that seems to be the definition being used mostly.

Okay Gel thanks for your answer, though I guess from your depends answer that sometimes you would kill a known terrorist rather than let him escape?

Admittedly the example is messy as unless you were part of a hit squad sent out to get a particular terrorist I am guessing the only way you could identify them is by them attacking you first...

LittleGrizzly

05-24-2013, 00:00

Sorry for the double post here but I wanted to clarify something...

My dad serves in the British military, has been to many warzones not sure of more historical deployments but I now he has been to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years...

Along with that I recently worked at a fair few military bases, the health and safety rules could be a bit strict but all in all they were lovely people I would trust with my life...

I have no hatred of British soldiers and infact almost all my interactions with them have been positive I have no wish to see them die in anyway (the no wish to see them die goes for all people though)

LittleGrizzly

05-24-2013, 00:12

Ohh don't get me wrong I agree with that. Western militaries try and limit collateral damage and I think that is not just because of the negative PR, the lives are thought off as holding value. I feel I misunderstood where you were coming from (my mistake) I thought you were discussing this incident (the soldier in Britain being killed) in particular rather than Islamic terrorism up against Western militaries in the current conflict.

Apologies.

LittleGrizzly

05-24-2013, 00:33

I was apologising for not understanding you were making a general point rather than a specific one related to the incident.

Rhyfelwyr

05-24-2013, 00:45

What I'm trying to impress upon you is that American soldiers have a very high regard for and sensitivity about collateral damage, whereas the Insurgents tend to use collateral damage as a strategy:

A very important distinction to make! You've answered LittleGrizzly for me better than I could have done without your experience.

These are JAG level terrorists, that he probably could have a cup of tea with and convince them of their naughty ways.

What does this statement mean?

Rhyfelwyr

05-24-2013, 00:49

And exactly what is the difference between an ambush on/off duty or an attack on a base?

I guess if a soldier is at the base he is still involved in the military infrastructure. That means you can't expect the enemy to actively avoid endangering him, but you would still hope that if an unarmed soldier was caught, he would not be executed.

Surely Bin Laden was off duty. The SEALs didn't ring the door bell and ask Ms's Bin Ladens for him to come out to play.

Well his killing did break a lot of rules. I guess we just threw the rule book out the window because his case was pretty exceptional.

But more fundamentally, he was a criminal and his killing was extra-judicial - the same is not true of your average soldier.

LittleGrizzly

05-24-2013, 00:50

JAG being a poster on here for a long time who was a socialist and generally a left leaning guy.... at least that is what I assumed he meant.

d'Arthez

05-24-2013, 02:40

As much as soldiers try to restrain, I am certain there have been excesses, for which the responsible soldiers have not been court-martialed. Even court-martialing all perpetrators would only appease the moderates in a conflict zone. In most cases, the problem is in all likelihood not so much the soldiers who have to operate under extreme pressure, but the idiots in charge from behind the desks, far away from the realities of conflict. I do not envy the soldiers at all. They are caught between a million and one vested interests. Their survival is not the primary interest of many of those vested interests, sad to say.

Even a terrorist has some far-fetched logic to justify his actions, the killing of whomever they feel is a threat. This does not even have to be physical, but can also assume an ideological character. If they cannot do it by whatever means they deem appropriate under ideal circumstances (a court based on the law as they wish it should be), then other methods will have to do. This is certainly not unique to Muslims or any other group of people.
There were quite a few murders of supposedly "Muslim looking people" after 9/11, by ordinary citizens, who were enraged by the events of 9/11. These citizens certainly felt justified to do what they did. None of these murders was as barbaric (that I know of at least), but certainly, none of which were sanctioned by a court of law. To call these murders "incidental" or anything like that, is to dehumanise the victims - and that is exactly what the terrorists on the other side are doing as well.

The tragedy is that these incidents keep feeding each other. Retaliation upon retaliation. Not sure how that is going to solve anything. In fact, I fear this is only making matters worse. Western powers are increasingly appropriating powers to engage in extra-judicial killings, or suspending basic rights to whomever is considered suspect. These terrorists do not even have to be a physical threat, merely an ideological one. Innocent people will get caught in the crossfire, either due to political expediency, or through far fetched "logic" which only serves to legitimize everyone as a target for terrorist attacks / counter-terrorist operations.

Even if the terrorists do not win by their actions, governments themselves becoms riddled with similar "terrorist" logic, which makes it all the more unpleasant for citizens who have proper grievances with their government. Today the Muslims. Tomorrow the environmentalists. The day after anyone who is willing to fight for a living wage. The Western world may defeat terrorism military, but if we are not careful we'll end up with governments that treats their own citizens as terrorists, unless they do not ask the uncomfortable questions / expose the vested interests too much.

My condolences to the family and friends of the unfortunate soldier. I hope, perhaps against odds, that we will find the wisdom to make the world a better place for all.

rvg

05-24-2013, 03:34

What is this, the court of law? Can you prove that the soldier killed didn't personally rape, murder and dissect the sisters of those guys that killed him?
I don't have to prove that he didn't. You have to prove that he did. That's how presumption of innocence works.

From what information we have, there is enough to conclude that a number of those 100,000 civilians were indeed murdered.
I think I hear crickets chirping...

Pannonian

05-24-2013, 04:35

I believe they are an important part but okay. As Brenus said, the best moment to kill an enemy soldier is when he's off duty, unarmed, surprised, alone and helpless. That's what soldiers are trained to do. Even if this is a politically motivated murder, morally it isn't really different from offing someone with a sniper from 2km away.

We need to put things into context. You invaded a country, you have a military budget several times the size their gdp. They can not hope to win by conventional warfare. You control all relevant international political institutions. Their economy and PR are a joke compared to yours. They have a single choice - make the war so damn unpleasant and expensive that you quit. That is their only option - terrorism basically. We've criticised it because it targeted civilians. Fine, it's not their fault, I agree, although a case could be made that British and American civilians are more responsible than Iraqi - on one side we have a democracy on the other dictatorship.

Now, for the first time, they didn't target a civilian. They targeted a soldier. Now the problem is that they targeted an unprepared soldier who was off-duty. What are they supposed to do? Announce their intentions when soldiers are on duty and armed, wait for them to get prepared and then try to kill them? That's asking a bit too much.

My problem with them isn't so much their killing of a soldier, which was targeted and was as legitimate as far as these things go. My problem with them is that, as British citizens with relatively few roots in the country they live in, they should still be regarding themselves as guests here until they get the hang of the rules that apply here. They should have been living by these rules or else they should have buggered off to somewhere where their preferred set of rules are applied. These rules aren't simply the law; virtually everyone skirts the law in some form at some stage in their life. The rules are a recognition that some sets of behaviours are simply far enough beyond the norm that one simply doesn't do it; religious fervour is part of that (and this includes Christian evangelism), while killing, especially for the same, is way beyond the line. If these nuts don't feel they belong to the idea of England which is tolerant enough to encompass a wide range of political views, then they should leave for somewhere where their ideas are mainstream. And if they leave, become naturalised and then go and kill invading British soldiers, well that's part of the game and part of the risks that soldiers accept when deployed.

Greyblades

05-24-2013, 04:43

...Goddamn you Fox news (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/23/woolwich-attacks-fox-news-progressives-blame_n_3326644.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

Papewaio

05-24-2013, 04:58

Stupid stupid stupid.

Lax gun laws would have meant more weapons on the attackers too. If the soldier was armed the gun would have gone to the attackers after they had run him over.

One person died because all they had was a car and blades. If liberty is thirty people dying a day and terrorism is one person per annum, I think I understand the greater threat to my life.

Fragony

05-24-2013, 06:29

lol. Cameron says it has nothing to do with islam when two people shouting allahu-hakbar behead a Brittish soldier, oh sweet political-correctness

Brenus

05-24-2013, 07:49

“The only dude who had a good look at the attacker was the gunner in the rear truck, and he was armed with a .50 Cal. He did not shoot, and the guy ran into an alley and we never saw him again. That's restraint. That is what separates Soldiers and Murderers.” Serbia, NATO bombing campaign: Air planes (4) attacking a bridge, saw the train coming on the bridge, launched missile, hit the train, killing 9 civilians and injuring 28: Murderers?

Sarmatian

05-24-2013, 08:10

I don't have to prove that he didn't. You have to prove that he did. That's how presumption of innocence works.

I think I hear crickets chirping...

Riiiight. I'll get on it straight away, but don't hold your breath, just in case...

My problem with them isn't so much their killing of a soldier, which was targeted and was as legitimate as far as these things go. My problem with them is that, as British citizens with relatively few roots in the country they live in, they should still be regarding themselves as guests here until they get the hang of the rules that apply here. They should have been living by these rules or else they should have buggered off to somewhere where their preferred set of rules are applied. These rules aren't simply the law; virtually everyone skirts the law in some form at some stage in their life. The rules are a recognition that some sets of behaviours are simply far enough beyond the norm that one simply doesn't do it; religious fervour is part of that (and this includes Christian evangelism), while killing, especially for the same, is way beyond the line. If these nuts don't feel they belong to the idea of England which is tolerant enough to encompass a wide range of political views, then they should leave for somewhere where their ideas are mainstream. And if they leave, become naturalised and then go and kill invading British soldiers, well that's part of the game and part of the risks that soldiers accept when deployed.

This isn't something I'd disagree with, but it doesn't have almost anything to do with what I said. We were discussing legitimacy of the target.

Pannonian

05-24-2013, 08:20

This isn't something I'd disagree with, but it doesn't have almost anything to do with what I said. We were discussing legitimacy of the target.

I won't dispute the legitimacy of the target at all (and AFAIK nor do the other soldiers from that barrack). I know someone who had a friend of his killed by the IRA, and his friend was also just a bandie, but he accepted the legitimacy of his targeting as well. My problem with the killers is their attitude as British citizens, which I find unacceptable and would have found unacceptable even before they killed this bloke. Have to agree with Pape's observation though on how Britishly civil they were about the whole thing.

ajaxfetish

05-24-2013, 08:39

When I was in Iraq, the ROE said to not shoot until shot at. And if it was one guy shooting at us from a crowd where we couldn't get a clean shot, we would not return fire. The difference between a Soldier and a Murderer is not uniforms, politics, or which side you're on. The difference is restraint.

Hey, GC. I don't mean to show any disrespect to the type of military standards you upheld, but do you really think it's fair to define such a broad term as soldier in terms of contemporary western military doctrine? Surely this level of restraint is not typical of soldiers through history, and I'd be very surprised it was common to all militaries even today. Do you think members of armed forces who do not have such military doctrines should not be called soldiers, and the term should be reserved solely for militaries where this kind of restraint is practiced? I think Little Grizzly's whole point was that there are many shades of soldiers, and indeed I think it is quite possible for someone to be both a soldier and a murderer (again, unless you think the definition of soldier should be constructed specifically to exclude those who commit murder).

Kralizec

05-24-2013, 09:07

From what information we have, there is enough to conclude that a number of those 100,000 civilians were indeed murdered.

Yeah, but the vast majority of those 100.000+ deaths were caused by insurgents.

Granted, it's the responsibility of the occupiers to garantue safety- but it's not murder on their part.

InsaneApache

05-24-2013, 10:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Mw5It52ZLUc#at=16

To my fellow Mancunian. R.I.P.*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22647167

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT1fA59oH7Q

*We were born in the same hospital.

Fragony

05-24-2013, 10:17

No matter what they did, shot in the back and shot when on the ground, looks more like an execution rather than an arrest

InsaneApache

05-24-2013, 10:28

No matter what they did, shot in the back and shot when on the ground, looks more like an execution rather than an arrest

I'd have made sure they stayed down as well mate.

Fragony

05-24-2013, 10:51

I'd have made sure they stayed down as well mate.

I understand why, but I wouldn't call it acceptable, the police ought to be trained for these kind of things

Greyblades

05-24-2013, 10:56

They are, that's why the murderers are in hospital and not in a morgue with 20 bystanders.

LittleGrizzly

05-24-2013, 13:32

I think Little Grizzly's whole point was that there are many shades of soldiers
..........................................................................

Yeah that was my point somewhat...

When I said I see little difference between a soldier and a terrorist it was more the definition's I was talking about...

As an example if I was told person A was a soldier (no more specifics) and person B was a terrorist (no more specifics) I could make assumptions based on generalisations but I couldn't actually say with certainty that person A is a good person and person B is a bad person. I am happy to accept in the majority of cases the soldier is probably going to be a better guy than the terrorist though.

Fragony

05-24-2013, 14:03

The meaning lies in the word; terrorist. I could agree with the word being used too easily

Ja'chyra

05-24-2013, 15:07

Sarmatian

05-24-2013, 19:07

Yeah right, completely the same thing :no:

And what's the big difference?

Brenus

05-24-2013, 19:09

“I was a grunt, and when you work and live among the people you have to be reasonable.” So I was. And I agree. But it is a fairly new approach in the armies… And anti-guerrilla operations do not encourage reason.

“Yeah right, completely the same thing” Yeap. Respect of the dead. You might find funny to mock a man who died of cancer, I don't.

Ja'chyra

05-24-2013, 19:49

“Yeah right, completely the same thing” Yeap. Respect of the dead. You might find funny to mock a man who died of cancer, I don't.

[Taken from Edit Reason:] I could point out the difference but I don't care enough about your opinion

rvg

05-24-2013, 19:51

“Yeah right, completely the same thing” Yeap. Respect of the dead. You might find funny to mock a man who died of cancer, I don't.

The high horse is high.

LittleGrizzly

05-24-2013, 19:52

The high horse is high.
............................

The irony here is killing me.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-24-2013, 20:47

A soldier is someone whose job it is to fight, a terrorist is someone whose job it is to cause terror.

Soldier may terrorise, but it isn't their job.

InsaneApache

05-24-2013, 21:43

“Yeah right, completely the same thing” Yeap. Respect of the dead. You might find funny to mock a man who died of cancer, I don't.

Not the same thing at all. One was an ordinary guy who was trying to feed and keep a roof over his family. The other was a psychopath, as all politicians are. Millionaire to boot I wouldn't wonder, seeing as he was a socialist elite, they all are.

It always amazes me how those left leaning folks never see this.

Brenus

05-24-2013, 22:35

"The other was a psychopath, as all politicians are. Millionaire to boot I wouldn't wonder, seeing as he was a socialist elite, they all are." This rightist propaganda was dealt with in another debate. Sill, you just prove that respect to dead is just a matter of political opinion. That is what I was expecting... Thanks:yes:

Rhyfelwyr

05-24-2013, 23:06

rvg

05-24-2013, 23:15

I wonder what he was doing in Kenya. I imagine that Kenyan soldiers generally have better things to do than sodomize random muslims.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-24-2013, 23:28

I just watched an interview on Newsnight with a friend of one of the killers.

Turns out that he really changed after a trip to Kenya, when he, and a bunch of Muslims were rounded up by Kenyan troops. Apparently he was physically and sexually abused by them, and became very reclusive when he came back to the UK.

IIRC all this happened only six months ago, although he had been a Muslim long before that.

So maybe what has happened is that he was brutalised or couldn't deal with what happened to him.

Granted, this is all based on that one interview, but it sounds plausible.

That may be true - but he cut a guy's head off in the middle of London during the day in front of civilians, likely including children.

I wonder what he was doing in Kenya. I imagine that Kenyan soldiers generally have better things to do than sodomize random muslims.

I wouldn't put money on it in every instance.

rvg

05-24-2013, 23:31

If I were to make a guess, I'd say he was looking for a way to sneak into Somalia and join Al-Shabab when he got caught and, umm... educated by the Kenyans.

Rhyfelwyr

05-24-2013, 23:39

I don't know what made anybody think that I said his experiences excused his actions. Of course they don't - but what happened to him certainly could have been traumatising enough to make him snap.

According to this friend, our killer said he wanted to move to the Muslim world because he was one of the more moderate ones that didn't want to implement Sharia in the UK, yet still wanted to live under Sharia himself (at least, I think that was how the story went). He was on his way to Somalia when he was passing though Kenya. The story is that he had trained as a fitness instructor to help him get work there - I have no idea if that is legit or not, because I have no idea what the demand for fitness instructors is like in the Middle East. Like I said, we can't say for sure what he was doing there. Somalia certainly seems to be a suspicious choice, but then for all we know he could have had connections to there - he is (was? is he dead or just wounded?) a black Muslim after all.

All decent people will find the killing despicable - but we need to keep cool heads when analysing why it happened.

drone

05-24-2013, 23:47

All that shows is that it isn't safe to be a westerner in Kenya, even if you're a black muslim man. I fail to see how getting butt-raped by Kenyans leads to beheading English drummer boys though.

There is an Obama joke in there somewhere, but I don't even know where to start. ~D

rvg

05-25-2013, 00:09

According to this friend, our killer said he wanted to move to the Muslim world because he was one of the more moderate ones that didn't want to implement Sharia in the UK, yet still wanted to live under Sharia himself (at least, I think that was how the story went). He was on his way to Somalia when he was passing though Kenya. The story is that he had trained as a fitness instructor to help him get work there - I have no idea if that is legit or not, because I have no idea what the demand for fitness instructors is like in the Middle East. Like I said, we can't say for sure what he was doing there. Somalia certainly seems to be a suspicious choice, but then for all we know he could have had connections to there - he is (was? is he dead or just wounded?) a black Muslim after all.
IMHO the guy was up to no good from the get-go. Oh, and fitness instructor? I have to say that I've never seen a fat Somali. Ever. And I saw quite a few on my trip to Minneapolis. Anyway, I suppose once he got training as a sexual therapist, Kenyans put him on the first plane to London.

Papewaio

05-25-2013, 02:08

Not the same thing at all. One was an ordinary guy who was trying to feed and keep a roof over his family. The other was a psychopath, as all politicians are. Millionaire to boot I wouldn't wonder, seeing as he was a socialist elite, they all are.

It always amazes me how those left leaning folks never see this.

There is a difference between a thread talking about attackers and only obliquely talking about the victim. And a thread that talks about the passing away of the person.

The first is trying to figure out and understand the WTFs? Why, How?

The second about what the person did in their life's.

The first you can expect more focus on what happened and not the victim.

Making jokes about the victim did not happen in this thread. Tyhe H&C joke was inappropriate, rude, inconsiderate, well timed and quite funny... Depending on who you are.

ajaxfetish

05-25-2013, 08:08

First of all, what do you mean by military standards, doctrine, and all that? Do you mean the concept of restraint in warfare? If that's the case then yes, I do think it is fair. It is simple proportionality. If you have a rifle and a rocket launcher, there's a time and a place for both. If you have neither, steal some. If you can't steal some, maybe your cause just wasn't meant to be. Certainly killing civilians indiscriminately is not going to help, and it should never be considered an equalizing solution, because its not. You have to draw a line between barbarism and civility somewhere, and that's where it is.

Hmmm. So, by restraint, are you just talking about being able to follow orders and be controlled rather than following one's own passions willy-nilly? Something similar to the notion of discipline? If a man is part of an army that has just succeeded in taking the walls of a city, and he is merrily pillaging, raping, and murdering the civilian population, is he exercising restraint, perhaps because his superiors don't mind? If he is not exercising restraint, does that mean he is not a soldier?

Fragony

05-25-2013, 08:46

Rhyfelwyr

05-25-2013, 13:06

løl at Sweden, riøts are spreading, gøverment in tøtal shøck. Sweden or England, it remains a tough choice. A shame Dutchies who read quality newspapers and watch state tv can't know anything about these events as quality newspapers and state-tv are united in absolute silence, much like the Swedish government really

There was a little coverage on the BBC. Just like with the London riots, they seemed to deliberately play down the racial perspective. The areas involved in the riots are IIRC 80% Muslim, or maybe 80% non-white. Either way, it's 80% immigrant.

Brenus

05-25-2013, 13:16

"I could point out the difference but I don't care enough about your opinion" That I understand. The "do as I told not as I do" is a common justification when someone is out of good reason. Or, the alternative being, "I could explain, but you won't understand". I really thank you for this.:laugh4:

Empire*Of*Media

05-25-2013, 13:25

There was a little coverage on the BBC. Just like with the London riots, they seemed to deliberately play down the racial perspective. The areas involved in the riots are IIRC 80% Muslim, or maybe 80% non-white. Either way, it's 80% immigrant.

in anywhere of the world muslims will casue Unrest & Hate & Conflict & War & unpeacefulness &.... due to their islamic teachings!!
and those sheikhs & Mullahs in the news that said "this is not islamic" its because if they dont say this, soon they will be throwed out of Europe & USA !! but they are happy and encourage about these actions muslims do !!

Fragony

05-25-2013, 13:31

There was a little coverage on the BBC. Just like with the London riots, they seemed to deliberately play down the racial perspective. The areas involved in the riots are IIRC 80% Muslim, or maybe 80% non-white. Either way, it's 80% immigrant.

No coverage at all here, and people wonder why I don't read quality-newspapers or watch state-tv. It's simple really. Quality-newspapers aren't really newspapers and the state-media is propaganda

Empire*Of*Media

05-25-2013, 13:34

No coverage at all here, and people wonder why I don't read quality-newspapers or watch state-tv. It's simple really. Quality-newspapers aren't really newspapers and the state-media is propaganda

the thing i always say here undirectly, and they offense me everytime because of their mind and thinking limitation !!

rvg

05-25-2013, 14:22

in anywhere of the world muslims will casue Unrest & Hate & Conflict & War & unpeacefulness &.... due to their islamic teachings!!
and those sheikhs & Mullahs in the news that said "this is not islamic" its because if they dont say this, soon they will be throwed out of Europe & USA !! but they are happy and encourage about these actions muslims do !!
Aren't most Kurds muslim?

Empire*Of*Media

05-25-2013, 22:36

Aren't most Kurds muslim?

yes unfortunately, but kurd are seperated with other Muslims, they are peaceful and dont hate any non Muslim, they have religion for themselves. we even dont have kurdish Muslim Terorist.(ezcept some fooled extremist led by non Kurds)

Rhyfelwyr

05-26-2013, 00:38

Looks like we've got our first attempt at a copycat. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22669367)

Fragony

05-26-2013, 02:13

The new awesome! Sometimes you would almost start thinking people with culture are in fact not an enrichment, no matter how much lefties furiously scream it is

Edit, lolz, just like Cameron Hollande knows, for a fact, that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Islam. Even the thought, rediculous. Oh sweet political correctness

Edit, doublelolz. A Dutch quality-newspaper finally writes about the riots in Sweden. They know exactly why buildings are burned, they aren't very pretty. Just like Camaron and Hollande they know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam

Where can I study knowoligy, sounds like a cool study

InsaneApache

05-26-2013, 08:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SH7Ty8iPh5c

This is interesting. Perhaps our Moslem members could tell us if this is true.

johnhughthom

05-26-2013, 08:52

I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for an Arabic, or other middle eastern language, speaker to find a similar video attacking Christianity with an over literal use of Bible quotes.

Sarmatian

05-26-2013, 09:37

It's bollox. Choosing bits and excerpts from a book to brand a religion as inherently evil is a truly reprehensible act. Can I choose 5 excerpts from the Bible that would make those he quoted seem like calls for peace and tolerance?

Ironside

05-26-2013, 09:58

Edit, doublelolz. A Dutch quality-newspaper finally writes about the riots in Sweden. They know exactly why buildings are burned, they aren't very pretty. Just like Camaron and Hollande they know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam

Where can I study knowoligy, sounds like a cool study

Of the arrested, it's mostly youth with criminal backround, broken homes, lots of them have been coming in from neighbouring regions (mostly other parts of Stockholm) in a immgrant dense region.

So I'm not exactly sure were you get islam into it, because it really sounds like poorly integrated youth. Which I can agree is an immigration issue and that there's a lot of lefties with "the answer" (that differs from those other lefties, or the righties).

Newly converted fanatics usually stops with the petty crimes, but ends up doing some massive crime later on instead.

And it seems to have calmed down, armed soccer hulligans was the worst thing for the police yesterday night.

Fragony

05-26-2013, 10:18

You mean the neo's that got arrested, suddenly the police actually does something THEY GOT A FUNCTION, the multiculture just needs a cooldown. Face it you are doing it all wrong. These rioters are in fact all immigrants from non-western countries who shout allahu-akhbar when trashing things.

InsaneApache

05-26-2013, 11:39

I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for an Arabic, or other middle eastern language, speaker to find a similar video attacking Christianity with an over literal use of Bible quotes.

FWIW I think the Old Testament is just as bad, what with all that smiting going on.

Papewaio

05-26-2013, 11:51

Difference between angry Old Testament God and hippy New Testament God.

Jesus.

Well the bit that made Him laid back, is final getting some since the beginning of Creation.

Jesus is just the by product.

Immaculate does not explain the attitude adjustment...

Fragony

05-26-2013, 11:58

FWIW I think the Old Testament is just as bad, what with all that smiting going on.

Bit of a difference in general,

Christianity : look what I did because you suck - descriptive
Islam : do this to those that suck - emperative

Not perfect science I know, but in general pretty accurate

Sarmatian

05-26-2013, 15:55

Bit of a difference in general,

Christianity : look what I did because you suck - descriptive
Islam : do this to those that suck - emperative

Not perfect science I know, but in general pretty accurate

And Christian leaders invoked those "look what was done" by equating those "who sucked" with Muslims.

Violence is there, judaism, christianity, islam... It's just a matter of interpretation, and what those who do it choose to focus on.

Hax

05-26-2013, 16:17

Ding ding ding, the magic word: interpretation!

People tend to forget that religion generally serves people, not the other way around.

Fragony

05-26-2013, 17:36

And Christian leaders invoked those "look what was done" by equating those "who sucked" with Muslims.

Violence is there, judaism, christianity, islam... It's just a matter of interpretation, and what those who do it choose to focus on.

What's the same everywhere is in general the same everywhere. Islam just happens to be an intolerant and violent ideoligy, relativate that simple fact all you want but you are wrong almost every day if you do

Sarmatian

05-26-2013, 22:35

What's the same everywhere is in general the same everywhere. Islam just happens to be an intolerant and violent ideoligy, relativate that simple fact all you want but you are wrong almost every day if you do

By what standards, exactly?

Deaths caused? - Christianity is far ahead
Destruction of different cultures? - Christianity is worse
Forced conversions? - Christianity is worse
Expansionism? - Christianity on top

When you put an universal claim like that, you need to back it up with something...

rvg

05-26-2013, 22:46

Deaths caused? - Christianity is far ahead
Destruction of different cultures? - Christianity is worse
Forced conversions? - Christianity is worse
Expansionism? - Christianity on top

When you put an universal claim like that, you need to back it up with something...

Where are your facts?
In deaths, destruction of different cultures, forced conversions, expansionism... How is Christianity worse?

Kralizec

05-26-2013, 22:51

løl at Sweden, riøts are spreading, gøverment in tøtal shøck. Sweden or England, it remains a tough choice. A shame Dutchies who read quality newspapers and watch state tv can't know anything about these events as quality newspapers and state-tv are united in absolute silence, much like the Swedish government really

It has been and still is in all the papers and the TV news programs. But I guess you wouldn't know because you only pay attention to reliable sources...

InsaneApache

05-26-2013, 23:28

The Abrahamic religions have a lot to answer for, that's for sure. Effin nutters the lot of 'em.

LittleGrizzly

05-26-2013, 23:29

Islam just happens to be an intolerant and violent ideoligy
.....................................

Seems these people have more in common with Christianity than they even realise...

Hax

05-26-2013, 23:37

Where are your facts?
In deaths, destruction of different cultures, forced conversions, expansionism... How is Christianity worse?

I don't think it's wise to conflate all these things, especially because forced conversion, by which I mean the choice between death/expulsion and conversion was never really big in Islamic history, and where it concerns culture, it can be argued that the Islamic world was more influenced by the cultures it conquered than that these were replaced by Arabic culture.

rvg

05-27-2013, 00:02

I don't think it's wise to conflate all these things, especially because forced conversion, by which I mean the choice between death/expulsion and conversion was never really big in Islamic history...

I'd say it was quite prominent in the Balkans and India.

LittleGrizzly

05-27-2013, 00:53

If we just want to play the numbers game then Christianity is the most believed in religion worldwide, given that many people don't give up their beliefs willingly they must score pretty damn highly on the conversion front...

I am guessing they must have been a lot more successful than the others at killing and driving away their enemies as well.

rvg

05-27-2013, 01:10

I am guessing they must have been a lot more successful than the others at killing and driving away their enemies as well.

But that's just it, a guess. That doesn't really qualify as hard evidence. It's akin to believing that aliens exist simply because there are lots of habitable planets in the Universe.

Hax

05-27-2013, 01:17

I'd say it was quite prominent in the Balkans and India.

And both of these were conquered very late in the Islamic period. The first incursions into the Indian subcontinent started around the 10th century, and any attempts at actually conquering what is now India didn't kick in until well into the 13th and 14th centuries, around the same time as the rise of the Ottoman empire.

There are two things I wish to say about that right now: firstly, the histories described to us by the Muslim conquerors of India are generally quite far removed from actual historical events. I remember reading some historical account of a certain Moghul emperor who described his entrance into a city and how he destroyed "the naked idols lined up next to the highway leading to the city". These statues are still there, as naked as they were five centuries ago. We can't fully rely on historical accounts, especially when written by a ruling dynasty. Although many people in the Indian subcontinent did convert to Islam over the generations, there is very little indication that these people were ever forced to convert.

Secondly, history indicates that Islam was originally a very exclusive religion (much like contemporary Judaism). To convert to Islam people would have to become an "honorary Arab" (i.e. becoming part of an Arab clan, turning you into a so-called malawi), and only then was a person viewed (at least nominally) as a Muslim. This of course, started to change around the 10th century onwards. However, using this information it's rather a stretch of the imagination to say that forced conversion is a fundamental aspect of Islam. I'd argue the opposite.

rvg

05-27-2013, 01:24

... using this information it's rather a stretch of the imagination to say that forced conversion is a fundamental aspect of Islam. I'd argue the opposite.

Fundamental aspect of the Islamic dogma? Definitely not.
Fundamental aspect of the Islamic State? Hell yes, and ultimately that is what matters: a religion is only as good as its followers.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-27-2013, 02:07

By what standards, exactly?

Deaths caused? - Christianity is far ahead
Destruction of different cultures? - Christianity is worse
Forced conversions? - Christianity is worse
Expansionism? - Christianity on top

When you put an universal claim like that, you need to back it up with something...

Christianity has been around longer - beyond that you have another problem with that argument.

Christianity didn't start with conquest - for the first 250 years Christianity was an outlawed underground religion, at time tolerated, often violently suppressed.

Islam started with Conquest.

I don't think Christianity is ahead with deaths caused, either.

Forced conversions - probably, yes, but only after the discovery of the New World and during the Renaissance (does forcing Protestants/Catholics) to change coats count?

Expansionism - No, definitely not, Islam basically wiped out Christianity in the Southern Mediterranean and the Middle East (it hung on in the Near Est, but even there it is dying out).

Consdier that Christianity was the dominant religion in the latter Roman Empire and roughly 2/3 of the Empire was overtaken by the Caliphs.

LittleGrizzly

05-27-2013, 02:13

But that's just it, a guess. That doesn't really qualify as hard evidence. It's akin to believing that aliens exist simply because there are lots of habitable planets in the Universe.
.............................................................

Well not really because we know that religions that do not go out and aggressively force themselves on others do not become the worlds biggest religion and spread across continents replacing age old religions that people had taken from their forefathers. Just look at modern day countries where there is no threat to your safety or your economic well being because of being one religion compared to another and how few people we have converting their religion were no threat exists.

A great many people will have chosen to convert themselves but you don't spread yourself across entire countries without forcing your views on people.

Edit:

.........................................................
I don't think Christianity is ahead with deaths caused, either.
.........................................................

Really?!

It is of course a long process in itself decided what deaths are based on Christianity/Islam and what deaths are to do with neither...

I think you could make a pretty convincing argument that the Native Americans wouldn't have been wiped out quite so freely had they been Christians for example although there are many things you could say each way to argue just this one.

rvg

05-27-2013, 02:27

...but you don't spread yourself across entire countries without forcing your views on people.

This is downright false. Christianity spread across the Roman Empire while it was actively suppressed by the Roman State. Christians were in no position to force anybody to accept their religion.

LittleGrizzly

05-27-2013, 02:46

Apologies the way that was wrote was a little misleading (and wrong) obviously it can travel the length and breadth of the nation but you don't convert entire nations (or close to) without people being forced into it, obviously there can be an economic threat as well as a threat of violence.

rvg

05-27-2013, 02:55

... but you don't convert entire nations (or close to) without people being forced into it...

But we did. Ireland is a good example, converted by the efforts of one man.

LittleGrizzly

05-27-2013, 03:49

It seems you are right, though the websites I have visited to confirm this fact also talk about how unique and rare it was in its bloodlessness.

So I guess my sentence would apply if I put (in the vast vast majority of cases) in there, or maybe even all but one.

Hax

05-27-2013, 15:50

Fundamental aspect of the Islamic State? Hell yes, and ultimately that is what matters: a religion is only as good as its followers.

I disagree.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-27-2013, 16:19

Really?!

It is of course a long process in itself decided what deaths are based on Christianity/Islam and what deaths are to do with neither...

I think you could make a pretty convincing argument that the Native Americans wouldn't have been wiped out quite so freely had they been Christians for example although there are many things you could say each way to argue just this one.

You're right - if Native Americans had been Christians they would have been treated better - this was in fact the case with those that converted prior to the Revolutionary War. That's not because Christians slaughter non Christians though, it's because they don't slaughter other Christians.

Saint Augustine discussed this in Book One of The City of God, he made the point that while the Romans leveled Carthage and slaughtered or enslaved the inhabitants, when the Goths sacked Rome they left the Churches and anyone sheltering in them alone. He then went on to lambast all the Pagans who survived the sacking who pretended to be Christians and since attack Christianity as being morally degenerate.

That's an historical example of religion reducing bloodshed - the same is reported during the capture of Jerusalem in the 11th Century, those who sheltered in the Churches were actively protected even though they were Greeks and not Latins.

Fragony

05-27-2013, 16:52

This is downright false. Christianity spread across the Roman Empire while it was actively suppressed by the Roman State. Christians were in no position to force anybody to accept their religion.

That is just not true Constatine did. Charlemaine also falls in somewhat the same period

And before you say it, yeah skipped a few centuries

rvg

05-27-2013, 16:56

That is just not true Constatine did.
No, by Constantine's reign Christianity was already dominant in the East of the empire and well established in Italy. Constantine ended the persecutions, that is true, but Chrsitianity did not lay dormant for 300 years and then suddenly bloom with Constantine's arrival.

Charlemaine also falls in somewhat the same period
He does?

Fragony

05-27-2013, 17:02

He does?

Depends on how you look at it, theory of deus bellum and the sword of christ. No denying that the Roman empire eventually became the house of christianity. So Charlemaigne can be filed there

LittleGrizzly

05-27-2013, 23:32

Papewaio

05-27-2013, 23:36

The Normans slaughtered the Popes army then asked him for forgiveness.

English vs French, heck Europe was at war all the time. WW I and II was primarily nation states rallying their troops with God, Monarch and country.

Christians will happily pulp other Christians there is no discrimination there.

Rhyfelwyr

05-28-2013, 00:15

But we did. Ireland is a good example, converted by the efforts of one man.

I guess you mean Patrick? He was an early missionary in Ireland but certainly not the first. Palladius is thought to have brought about the first large-scale conversions.

InsaneApache

05-28-2013, 01:32

Christians will happily pulp other Christians there is no discrimination there

As do all faiths.

Maniacs one and all.

johnhughthom

05-28-2013, 08:20

I guess you mean Patrick? He was an early missionary in Ireland but certainly not the first. Palladius is thought to have brought about the first large-scale conversions.

It doesn't help that a lot of sources seem mix the two into one super-missionary.

Sarmatian

05-28-2013, 09:04

Christians will happily pulp other Christians there is no discrimination there.

Pretty much, except they won't scream Deus Vult while doing it.

Fragony

05-28-2013, 09:11

The Stranger

05-28-2013, 15:15

As do all faiths.

Maniacs one and all.

it is obviously better to murder someone else without conviction :grin:

Pannonian

05-28-2013, 16:26

it is obviously better to murder someone else without conviction :grin:

If you murder someone, you won't be without conviction for long.

The Stranger

05-28-2013, 17:43

that depends on the type of murdering you do. Killing a man and part of his family in his house is viewed by many as justice even tho there was no trial. Those same people cry terrorism and bloody murder when another man gets killed in the streets without trial. I don't think I'll have to point out that the other side does exactly the same.

Brenus

05-28-2013, 19:26

"Pretty much, except they won't scream Deus Vult while doing it." Are you sure?

Pannonian

05-28-2013, 19:34

"Pretty much, except they won't scream Deus Vult while doing it." Are you sure?

Quite sure. Christians prefer Warhammer 40k.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-28-2013, 22:31

That's not because Christians slaughter non Christians though, it's because they don't slaughter other Christians.
............................................................

There is an element of both in it I think, whilst humans aren't generally averse to slaughter and conquest the fact that the other side were following the wrong God (or just not following theirs) makes an impact on how the enemy will be treated.

It does appear sheltering others in their religious buildings is something that occurs with Islam as well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/movies/how-a-paris-mosque-sheltered-jews-in-the-holocaust.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Christianity was a game-changer, a religion without ethnic or political identity, we take it for granted now but at the time Christianity was something utterly terrifying. Romans and Greeks abandoning powerful and tangible Gods, their Civic and Regional Deities, for an unknowable and intangible God of slaves, freeloaders and hippies.

Consider the Conquests of Caesar or Alexander - in so far as they exercised mercy it was for political ends, and they had no compunction about slaughtering people with the same belief system.

The fact is - any moderation in War is extraordinary.

Consider the lack of moderation under the Japanese in WWII - something we find abhorrent (and which has been the subject of a whole thread) but which our Pagan ancestors would consider perfectly normal.