The world is a reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratemheslep said:The UK violent crime rate is 2K per 100K people (2009), per the Daily Mail the highest in the EU.
Office_Shredder said:Do the numbers for this actually exist, or were the commentators simply noticing that once the press stopped reporting on something, they stopped hearing about that thing?
A homicide reference, not violent crime (i.e. homicide, assault, sexual assault, ...)Monique said:The world is a reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
DrDu said:This deed corresponds perfectly to the fears of europeans of mad african savages and will be exploited by all kind of right wing groups.
I fear this event is devastating for black rights movement.
CNN said:"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone," said a meat-cleaver-wielding man with bloody hands, speaking in what seems to be a London accent.
"The only reasons we killed this man ... is because Muslims are dying daily," he added, in video aired by CNN affiliate ITN. "This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth."
I don't have time to find the relevant link at the moment but note that UK law classes many things as violent crimes that other countries do not. Verbal abuse, carrying a concealed weapon and threatening behaviour for example are all classed as violent crimes. So that 2k per 100k figure certainly doesn't just mean murder and assault, it means a lot of things that people would scratch their heads at and wonder why it was considered violent.mheslep said:The UK violent crime rate is 2K per 100K people (2009), per the Daily Mail the highest in the EU.
Evo said:Unfortunately, being in the US, I'm a bit numb to a single murder. But I understand that this kind of violence is perhaps not as common there. I was watching a news clip about this yesterday where a witness kept saying over and over "he had a handgun, a handgun, he pulled out a handgun". I wish I lived in a country where someone having a handgun was shocking.
Let's hope this was just two lone lunatics and an isolated event.
WannabeNewton said:I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.
Well no one is in the right here, is what I'm saying. A number of people from all groups involved are doing bad things to each other. It's not the good vs. evil that respective parties make it out to be in the eyes of their fellow citizens.Greg Bernhardt said:And yet the radicals don't mind that they blow up innocent Muslims on a daily basis in Afganistan and Iraq. Seriously just about every day there is a bomb in some market or at some funeral or wedding and a Westerner isn't around for miles. The hypocrisy is out of this world.
WannabeNewton said:I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.
As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides. Everyone involved in the big picture is wrong in my eyes. A human death is a human death, I don't care if it is a British person or a Middle-Easterner or what have you because it is wrong to kill people either way for such superficial causes.reenmachine said:Imagine if we went to Iran and started a cult and we would discuss how we could conquer the islamic world by force.They would kill us right away.But hey , "we're better than that" , we are accepting.There is no logical basis on which I should accept and respect Islam more than your average local cult.
What's hard to understand? It happens accidentally sometimes when killing non-innocent lives.WannabeNewton said:I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.
I've never heard a good justification for not differentiating between purposeful and accidental killing. You're drawing a false equivalence and doing it in the name of "not taking sides" doesn't justify the negative implications of what you are saying:As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides.
I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.mheslep said:Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:
We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization. I am reminded of Bob Dylan's brilliant song "With God on Our Side".russ_watters said:What's hard to understand? It happens accidentally sometimes when killing non-innocent lives. I've never heard a good justification for not differentiating between purposeful and accidental killing. You're drawing a false equivalence and doing it in the name of "not taking sides" doesn't justify the negative implications of what you are saying:
I suppose it is possible that if we become hermits, the radicals will be a little less angry and will do a little less killing of our innocents, but if we were in that situation, it would be tough to watch innocent lives being taken for no reason and not try to do something about it. You're asking us to accept such a situation where they can kill us and we do nothing about it.
WannabeNewton said:As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides. Everyone involved in the big picture is wrong in my eyes. A human death is a human death, I don't care if it is a British person or a Middle-Easterner or what have you because it is wrong to kill people either way for such superficial causes.
russ_watters said:I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.
As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.
Revenge can cloud judgement in times of rage / fury so I don't know if they are clinically insane. The insanity plea is so overused in court systems though.256bits said:Can they be considered actually insane? No sane person goes around doing stuff like this.
WannabeNewton said:We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization. I am reminded of Bob Dylan's brilliant song "With God on Our Side".
russ_watters said:As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.
BobG said:The fact that we use drones (or any weapons) to attack legitimate military targets is what differentiates military attacks from terrorist attacks.
(Although I have to admit that if the facility that drones were operated from were attacked by a suicide car bomb, the public would still probably cry that it was a terrorist attack. Terminology seems to be rather sloppy when it comes to terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, for that matter.)
Er, no - maybe people forgot already, but a similar incident happened in Ft. Hood a couple of years ago:Cthugha said:I found it quite disturbing that it this speculation turned real so quickly (in a similar way).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shootingThe Fort Hood shooting was a mass murder that took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and over 30 people were injured. It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2] Several individuals, including Senator Lieberman,[3] General McCaffrey,[4] and others have called the event a terrorist attack.[5][6] The Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies have classified the shootings as an act of workplace violence. They have declined requests from survivors and family members of the slain to categorize it as act of terrorism, or motivated by militant Islamic religious convictions.[7] In November 2011 a group of survivors and family members filed a lawsuit against the government for negligence in preventing the attack, and to force the government to classify the shootings as terrorism.
Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism wrote that the case sits at the crossroads of crime, terrorism and mental distress.
russ_watters said:I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.
1. I didn't claim we are good and whether we are are aren't isn't relevant here. I only pointed out that we are better.WannabeNewton said:We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization.
One practical reason to treat it as a simple murder for legal purposes is that it is just simpler to deal with it that way and since it happened on British soil, all of the law enforcement resources and procedures are readily available - unlike some of the people the US captured abroad, but is now trying in criminal court.cristo said:I suspect, if nothing else happens, then it will be prosecuted as a simple murder. From what I gather, the reason that this was described as a terrorist attack was that the security services have long been warning that intelligence points to terrorist cells' plans to target military personnel.
mheslep said:Black rights? Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:
WannabeNewton said:Well no one is in the right here, is what I'm saying. A number of people from all groups involved are doing bad things to each other. It's not the good vs. evil that respective parties make it out to be in the eyes of their fellow citizens.
Perhaps, but Hitchens was clearly not "just" those things. As usual in that video he displays an encyclopedic command of the facts: the published demands of Bin Laden, reasons given for jihadist attacks in Asia, islamic treatment of women, violent threats and attacks against free speech in Europe. Which is why, when you make a call for more data like this ...WannabeNewton said:I cannot tolerate listening to people like Hitchens - he is just an arrogant, hate filled, and rhetoric spewing individual.
it is hard to take your request seriously.why don't you give me a list of accumulated events that justify your claims that there is an active campaign by some supposed major group (that you haven't failed to define) to gain imperial control of Europe.