And the winner is

[Fragony]

Great Brittain. First beheading of a soldier in Europe. I thought it would be Sweden.

[Moros]

Great Brittain. First beheading of a soldier in Europe. I thought it would be Sweden.

Actually he's the last one (up on till now). They running quite behind it seems, everybody got over that rage hundreds of years ago.

[Fragony]

Actually he's the last one (up on till now). They running quite behind it seems, everybody got over that rage hundreds of years ago.

Allow me to rephrase, ah fakkit you get it

UK soldier got allah-hakbarred by people with culture and was beheaded

Was only a matter of time I suppose. Leftist people know it's an enrichment to our culture

[HoreTore]

Srsly?

Soldiers fighting in a war gets killed? You're kidding me, right?

[Strike For The South]

That sweet, sweet, cultural enrichment.

[rajpoot]

Srsly?

Soldiers fighting in a war gets killed? You're kidding me, right?

Actually by what I understood he was in his own country, not fighting in a war, when they attacked and killed him.

[HoreTore]

Actually by what I understood he was in his own country, not fighting in a war, when they attacked and killed him.

....And that kinda dispels the illusion that a country can wage war somewhere else without the war affecting your own country, doesn't it?

[Fisherking]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...tack-1.1402879

Not in a war. On the streets of London.

A real class act, that.

[rajpoot]

....And that kinda dispels the illusion that a country can wage war somewhere else without the war affecting your own country, doesn't it?

True. When a country is at war it's own population is affected.
That does not justify the soldier's death. It was murder, not war.

Edit:
Found a video of one of the murderers. He does not sound Arabic at all.

[HoreTore]

True. When a country is at war it's own population is affected.
That does not justify the soldier's death. It was murder, not war.

Edit:
Found a video of one of the murderers. He does not sound Arabic at all.

Of course, and I am not in the business of justifying deaths.

This isn't the first time in Britain though, the Troubles was "not a war" too.

And at the end of the day, I feel happier when soldiers are targeted than when civilians are targeted.

[HopAlongBunny]

As usual, Britain is behind the colonials on this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...-manitoba.html

[Moros]

Allow me to rephrase, ah fakkit you get it

UK soldier got allah-hakbarred by people with culture and was beheaded

Was only a matter of time I suppose. Leftist people know it's an enrichment to our culture

Well that's clearly the Brits' fault for not having the Sharia.

[rvg]

I feel culturally fulfilled.

[Papewaio]

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

http://m.smh.com.au/world/you-are-go...523-2k210.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]

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]

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?

They were soldiers? Of what army?

[LittleGrizzly]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rvg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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