Terrorist attack today in London

[ChrisUK]

Armed Police always shoot to "disable" they will never purposefully shoot at limbs. This usually means aiming for the torso which is A.) the largest target B.) contains all the squishy things keeping the perp alive and in attack mode.

The reason the scum lived is they seem to be using H&K MP7 which fires a pathetic round "4.6mmx30" which is typically used in America for 'rodent' control, large rats etc.

 

[306maxi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713199.stm its stk

Yeah, but they thought he had a bomb......

 

[306maxi]

Armed Police always shoot to "disable" they will never purposefully shoot at limbs. This usually means aiming for the torso which is A.) the largest target B.) contains all the squishy things keeping the perp alive and in attack mode.

The reason the scum lived is they seem to be using H&K MP7 which fires a pathetic round "4.6mmx30" which is typically used in America for 'rodent' control, large rats etc.

Dare you to take one in the leg or arm for sheets and giggles though

 

[ChrisUK]

I'd rather not thanks .

 

[306maxi]

I'd rather not thanks .

You'd said the rounds that an MP7 shoots are pathetic, are you too pathetic to take one?

 

[ChrisUK]

No I'd just prefer not to shoot myself with firearms if that's ok? My point is they are pathetic for their purpose. You see how many shots they put into him and he was still moving about on the floor? If it wasn't for the fact the idiot's ****ty rusty revolver exploded in his hand when he fired it he could have still been a threat on the floor.

 

[306maxi]

No I'd just prefer not to shoot myself with firearms if that's ok? My point is they are pathetic for their purpose. You see how many shots they put into him and he was still moving about on the floor? If it wasn't for the fact the idiot's ****ty rusty revolver exploded in his hand when he fired it he could have still been a threat on the floor.

i was joking with you

 

[Liquid Knight]

Any shot is a shoot to kill, no such thing as anything other as any shot has a high death risk.

Can't say they're that random though, who knows random Islamic stuff to real out to cameras

To a degree there a less lethal areas to opt for but anyone can die of shock cause by the trauma of a high velocity 9mm round passing through skin, tissue and various organs.

I thought...

"an eye for an eye"

...was a biblical quote.

That's why I thought it was random. Islamic activists using a Bible quote was it bit contradictory.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

I thought...

"an eye for an eye"

...was a biblical quote.

That's why I thought it was random. Islamic activists using a Bible quote was it bit contradictory.

I believe the Quran also has a very similar verse (with a few extra body parts) There is quite a cross over between the bible and the Quran, Jesus featured quite heavily as a messenger of god who could perform miracles

also this attacker appears to have come from a very devout christian background so using the cross over phrase may have been deliberate to have more meaning to people

 

[scout]

I heard somewhere that the Quran mentions Jesus more times than the Bible.

 

[pooroldcodger]

It is worse to put loads of innocent people away and stifle freedom of speech and to protest, almost sounds like what they'd do in a fundamentalist country like Iran.

If you want to protest against a new ring road, or the building of a supermarket, then fair enough. You can go ahead. But when it reaches the point that whole segments of society are being incited to violence against the person or the country that literally feeds them, then who in their right mind should allow this to pass as "stifling freedom of speech"? We have freedom of speech and it is being abused.
Also the reason I said to use the existing legislation is so that we would not be putting "loads of innocent people away", we would be putting people away who had gone through the legal system.
I went to see the 70th anniversary commemoration of the ending of the Atlantic war yesterday in Liverpool, and I wonder if the proud old boys who are still alive , and proudly wearing their medals, and remembering their lost colleagues and horrendous wartime experiences feel that it was worthwhile going through that to defend freedom of speech for people who want to turn our country in to a 14th century male-dominated fiefdom?
Maybe you should ask them Maxi?

 

[PuntoHowTo]

I heard somewhere that the Quran mentions Jesus more times than the Bible.

I think its that it mentions jesus more times than it does muhammad, the bible is quite big into Jesus

 

[pooroldcodger]

Don't waste your time trying to work out the thology of this.
The so-called clerics who are pedalling this islamism are not always even trained to do so. They are making it up as they go along and those with nothing else in their lives are fertile ground to be cultivated as footsoldiers.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

Don't waste your time trying to work out the thology of this.
The so-called clerics who are pedalling this islamism are not always even trained to do so. They are making it up as they go along

So the same as christian pastors ?

Seriously though, pretty much all of the teachings of these historic books (btw the jewish scriptures also mention jesus) are interpreted by the priests, clerics, rabbi, then passed on to the followers as teachings

in the christian and jewish faiths they have their respective 'qualified' ordained preachers in islam they don't have qualified preachers the nearest thing being 'imam' to which anyone of of islam can become. so in answer to this, No Muslims are ordained and officially 'qualified' and anyone of them can become an imam, so anyone of them can teach the word of the quran.

 

[pooroldcodger]

Which brings with it great responsibility .

 

[PuntoHowTo]

you've never met a pastor have you?

 

[pooroldcodger]

you've never met a pastor have you?

I have heard all sorts of nonsense spoken from the pulpit, and some wise words as well. No religion holds the monopoly in right or wrong, but it is one thing to say that if you sin you will go to hell and another entirely to say that a non-believer is your enemy therefore you should do something about it. One is an expression of opinion and the other , in my book is incitement. Of course, only a small number will take up the offer, but that's the same with any campaign, human nature being what it is. But it doesn't matter if the whole of a church or temple or synagogue think that the preacher is talking nonsense, or they all believe him / her wholeheartedly. Nothing much will happen, other than with a bit of luck some positives. But if one person in a radicalised mosque decides to take up arms then something is going to happen.
it can't be a coincidence that if not all, the majority of the wars and campaigns being fought are either between different strands of muslims, or muslims fighting against other countries or religions. Is that not a fact or am I wrong?
My point is that freedom to preach brings responsibility in a free society.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

I have heard all sorts of nonsense spoken from the pulpit, and some wise words as well. No religion holds the monopoly in right or wrong, but it is one thing to say that if you sin you will go to hell and another entirely to say that a non-believer is your enemy therefore you should do something about it. One is an expression of opinion and the other , in my book is incitement. Of course, only a small number will take up the offer, but that's the same with any campaign, human nature being what it is. But it doesn't matter if the whole of a church or temple or synagogue think that the preacher is talking nonsense, or they all believe him / her wholeheartedly. Nothing much will happen, other than with a bit of luck some positives.

Actually completely agree with everything you say up to this point..

But if one person in a radicalised mosque decides to take up arms then something is going to happen.
it can't be a coincidence that if not all, the majority of the wars and campaigns being fought are either between different strands of muslims, or muslims fighting against other countries or religions. Is that not a fact or am I wrong?
My point is that freedom to preach brings responsibility in a free society.

this bit you lost me, its such a huge sweeping generalisation, Muslims didn't invade Europe or America or anywhere else, a group of extremists kicked things off with a terrorist attack, but it was the us and the uk who where the main instigators in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're not even fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq we're fighting against those defending their country against a foreign invasion, much like we would do if the same happened to us.
Don't forget the hundreds of years of war in Europe of Christians killing Christians, (and still are)

Japan - America - North Korea, the uk and Argentina probably many more there is always plenty of conflict in the world without Islam being involved.

When it comes to murder in the uk, as graphic and shocking as this incident may have been, there was a soldier who died as a result of fighting an enemy, what I find more disturbing is that there are many more wives killed by husbands children killed by mothers, and men who die for the change in their pocket and the phone in their hand far more than those who die in any racially or politically motivated murders.

anyone calling for the punishment of an intire religious group based on the actions of two men are no better than those who committed these atrocious acts. We're not in biblical times anymore sentiments like an eye for an eye need to be forgotten and we need to build bridges with groups and communities so these would be terrorists have nowhere to hide and plot their crimes, any form of oppression or reprisal is only going to add fuel to the fire

 

[pooroldcodger]

You seem to have a selective or short memory. Or maybe you were not old enough to know, but who were these "extremists who kicked things off with a terrorist attack" (sounds like a decription of a child's wargame rather than an act of murder) - was it the Hindu Front of India, or the Hari Krishna Freedom Fighters or the Sikh Squad (I made all those up), no it was Al Queda's radical muslims. That is what lead to the wars in Afghanistan. The first war in Iraq was due to Iraq invading Kuwait (one Muslim country on another).Which other religious group has a stated aim to take over other religions right now?
Another quote from you:
"A soldier who died as a result of fighting an enemy"?
What a gross insult that is. Since when has mowing down a pedestrian from behind with a car and then decapitating him been a soldier fighting an enemy"?
Who is calling for the punishment of "an intire(sic) religious group" ? I don't recall saying that.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

It wasn't 'Al-Qaeda's radical Muslims' it was Al-Qaeda although not explicit you do like to keep making tenuous links that 'Muslims' are to blame, and in doing so you're insulting many millions of peaceful people around the world.

I don't see you blaming Christians for Northern Ireland? irrelevant of religion these are groups hell bent on creating instability and they do it in the name of religion, and they do it because it gives them power.

Before you get on any sort of soap box regarding 'gross insults'

In march a completely innocent 16 year old girl was stabbed to death in broad daylight on a bus on her way to school, where was your thread for her, where was your outrage, the rights and wrongs? The only reason that you're still banging on about this is it plays up to your beliefs, I mean, what possible political point can be made from the death of a 16year old girl stabbed by a lunatic. But give you a soldier 'hacked' to death by a lunatic who claimed it in the name of Islam?
Would you be so incensed if it was in the name of space aliens or that his breakfast told him to do it?

This brave soldier had served and fought for this country, this is apparently the reason for his murder, so by that analogy he 'died as a result of fighting an enemy'