Current affairs Serious incident in Woolwich

[dont_do_it_doug.]

#OpEDL

[StefanAVFC]

Well yeah I didn't want to post it 

 

You badass.

[Wainy316]

Lame.  It's been suspended.  Bloody censorship!

[StefanAVFC]

Lame.  It's been suspended.  Bloody censorship!

 

The account has but if you search the hashtag it's still all over Twitter.

[mjmooney]

There was one just round the corner from me.

[rendelc]

How ironic that a bunch who do not want publicity name and shame a bunch who do not want publicity . A group of Anarchists exposing a group of Fascists .  Meh . Both as bad as each other.

[StefanAVFC]

If they didn't want publicity, why would they march through major cities?

[dont_do_it_doug.]

How ironic that a bunch who do not want publicity name and shame a bunch who do not want publicity . A group of Anarchists exposing a group of Fascists .  Meh . Both as bad as each other.

 

Do you even know the difference?

[rendelc]

True , although I think the most militant will have full face coverings .

[dont_do_it_doug.]

True , although I think the most militant will have full face coverings .

 

That is the ONLY similarity between fascism and anarchism, that they have a propensity for military action. 

 

Other than that, as bad as each other? One stands for the restriction of our freedoms by totalitarian rule, the other fights against exactly that.

 

Disagree with the method if you will, but "as bad as each other" they are not. 

Edited May 29, 2013 by dont_do_it_doug.

[rendelc]

I;ll agree to disagree .

[maqroll]

Cut them some slack. They sound like pretentious nerds because they ARE pretentious nerds. But they have my backing, every little helps.

Agreed. By and large, they are on the right side of every situation they involve themselves in, IMO.

[LondonLax]

"I'm against vigilante justice unless it's attacking someone I don't like!"

[peterms]

Art by soldiers who served in Iraq.

 

Lest we forget.  Is that the phrase?

[Kiwivillan]

Read the massively down-voted comments of support for Anonymous on the Daily Heil article. Hilarious

[peterms]

I see Lee Rigby's regiment and family dissociate themselves from the EDL trying to exploit his death.  Here.

 

 

The Fusiliers Association North East

16 hours ago

RHQ/RRF/1363 30 May 2013

A number of retired soldiers are evidently being approached and have agreed to take part in demonstrations connected to the death of Fusilier Lee Rigby. I want to make absolutely clear the Regiment’s view on this. The hackle and the Regiment is not to be associated with any organisations which seek to exploit the death of one of our Regimental family for a range of self-serving and unhelpful reasons. It is wrong and disgraceful that the death of one of our own should be exploited in this manner and that dishonour, by wrongful association, is brought onto the Regiment. We are to remain dignified with our heads held high and respect Fusilier Rigby in the way we have all our dead; with honour and pride. We will pay our respects in the correct manner and remember him as a band of brothers. Anger and revenge are understandable emotions but they achieve nothing other than fostering hatred. We are not to be moved from what we know is the right path.

You should be aware that the 1st Battalion has held an evening vigil in Helmand attended by over 800 Fusiliers and Allied troops. The 2nd Battalion will hold a memorial service in Cyprus shortly. Our Regimental Associations across the country have organised, in conjunction with Mayors and Councils and the police, Fusilier family commemoration events, honouring Fus Lee Rigby. In London, serving Fusiliers and soldiers from other Regiments, cadets and the police have held numerous ceremonies to pay respects quietly and with dignity, I am sure the same is happening across the country. This is how the Fusiliers do business and how we will continue to conduct ourselves.

We must also remember Fusilier Rigby’s family who I know support all I have said. Do not allow the death of Fusilier Rigby to be exploited and his and their name used improperly and without the respect they are entitled to and have earned.

Details of Fusilier Lee Rigby’s funeral will be promulgated as soon as they are known.

I R Liles
Brigadier (Retd)
Regimental Secretary

 

 

The Fusiliers Association North East

16 hours ago

Please see the email below from Colonel Infantry.

We would of course ask that it be communicated as far as possible to all members of your Branches, particularly the final paragraph.

MESSAGE TO REGTL HQS and DIV LT COLS FROM COLONEL INFANTRY

I have received the following from Army HQ and should be grateful if you could disseminate widely to your Regtl Associations. The Chain of Command will inform the Bns.

Thank you
Colonel James Stopford, Late IG

Issue. The reputation of the Army will be damaged if individuals, with visible connections to the Army, participate in demonstrations in support of Dmr Rigby that are associated with extremist organisations.

Recommendations.

For Veterans. Corps Cols take steps to warn their Regimental Associations that Far-Right, extremist organisations (English Defence League in particular) will seize any opportunity to align veterans with their cause. Veterans should be strongly discouraged from wearing regimental headdress or accoutrements if they are attending events organised or affiliated with extremist organisations.

For Serving Soldiers. The CoC will provide direction, but the following Media Statement outlines the position:

Individuals are free to join political parties but are expected to abide by our Values and Standards in all they do. Regular Service personnel are not to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation, party or movement and they are not to participate in political marches or demonstrations. Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to their beliefs provided their practice does not conflict with the Services’ core values and standards. All those who are found to fall short of the Armed Forces’ high standards or who are found to have committed an offence under the Armed Forces Act are dealt with administratively (up to and including dismissal) or through the disciplinary process. Racism of any kind is completely unacceptable. It impacts on operational effectiveness by damaging individual morale and team cohesion.

It is appreciated that veterans do not follow orders from their Associations, however, some veterans with sympathies for the Rigby family and the Army in general, may not recognise the threat to the Army’s reputation if they are perceived to be supporting the EDL’s inflammatory agenda. Please take care that this recommendation is not misinterpreted as an attempt to stifle support for the Rigby family from within the military community; I expect the support the RRF are providing to the Rigby family will be of the utmost value to them.

 

 

[donnie]

Well always knew the UAF were absolute words removed. One of these guys gave a speech a while ago at a UAF rally. Whats the liberal view on that then???

I have no time for the EDL and **** hate the BNP, but frankly UAF come across as words removed too. It's always packed with loud mouthed students and do gooders who by and large living in white, middle class areas and have **** all clue what the issues are surrounding multiculturalism and segregated communities. They are also absolute hypocrites. The Islamic extremists who want gays stoned to death and women to be subjugated don't seem to attract the attention of the UAF fans and yet whenever there is an EDL march, they show up in force. It's also a bit odd that whenever I see these videos of the EDL it tends to be the UAF who throw a bottle first or instigate a fight and yet let's be honest if it was 100 vs 100 they would get their **** heads caved in.

[Chindie]

 

 

The idea it's somehow sinisterly been acquisitioned to be solely associated with Islam is tantamount to swivel eyed lunacy.

I take it you didn't read the article before posting this, then. Shame. It's actually quite thoughtful.

You take wrong, I read it.

The article is thoughtful (though not earth shattering by any means) until it reaches its conclusion that terrorism now means Islamic terrorism alone. He had drawn that conclusion because that is the point he wished to make fun the start, which is incorrect. This is all the more obvious when he actually stumbles on what terrorism really is about in the article and passes over it (that is that the term means any act of violence intent to bring about political goals via fear-state and non state). What conclusions he does reach briefly in that regard are the welcome but not revolatory to anyone who has a passing interest in the subject (as are his connects regarding the antagonistic role of the West in this whole charade, though again nothing groundbreaking).

His hard not to reach conclusion is only hard not to reach if you're inclined to reach it regardless. If he had any merit in his argument, that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically a discourse on Islamic terror, the next non 'Islamic' attack would have everyone shuffling their feet and trying not to user the word. Which wouldn't be the case, as Norway showed sadly all too recently.

 

Forgive quoting myself here but you may have seen on the news that there has been an explosion outside a mosque in Tipton.

 

It's being openly described as a terrorist incident on the 6pm news.

 

The initial assertion that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically one of 'Islamic terrorism' alone is nonsense.

[Awol]

The initial assertion that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically one of 'Islamic terrorism' alone is nonsense.

 

 

Unless of course it was a false flag...

[peterms]

 

 

 

The idea it's somehow sinisterly been acquisitioned to be solely associated with Islam is tantamount to swivel eyed lunacy.

I take it you didn't read the article before posting this, then. Shame. It's actually quite thoughtful.

 

You take wrong, I read it.

The article is thoughtful (though not earth shattering by any means) until it reaches its conclusion that terrorism now means Islamic terrorism alone. He had drawn that conclusion because that is the point he wished to make fun the start, which is incorrect. This is all the more obvious when he actually stumbles on what terrorism really is about in the article and passes over it (that is that the term means any act of violence intent to bring about political goals via fear-state and non state). What conclusions he does reach briefly in that regard are the welcome but not revolatory to anyone who has a passing interest in the subject (as are his connects regarding the antagonistic role of the West in this whole charade, though again nothing groundbreaking).

His hard not to reach conclusion is only hard not to reach if you're inclined to reach it regardless. If he had any merit in his argument, that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically a discourse on Islamic terror, the next non 'Islamic' attack would have everyone shuffling their feet and trying not to user the word. Which wouldn't be the case, as Norway showed sadly all too recently.

 

Forgive quoting myself here but you may have seen on the news that there has been an explosion outside a mosque in Tipton.

 

It's being openly described as a terrorist incident on the 6pm news.

 

The initial assertion that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically one of 'Islamic terrorism' alone is nonsense.

 

 

Forgive quoting myself here, but you may have seen my previous comment on this point:

 

Yes, the claim goes too far. We do use the term to mean some acts committed by non-Muslims. But I do think usage is changing, and narrowing, and moving in the direction Greenwald discusses.

To read Greenwald's comment (that operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims") as meaning literally that it is only and exclusively ever used to mean that, so that one single instance of it being applied by anyone to any act other than one committed by Muslims proves him utterly wrong, seems to be grasping at straws - or rather straw men.  Or maybe you think the phrases "operationally", "no real definition" and "at this point" aren't there as qualifying clauses, but are just to pad out a piece where he's being paid by the word?