The Student Room Group

GMP apologise for allowing mock terrorist to shout 'Allahu Akbar' during simulation

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for Nayzar
Nayzar
16
Nothing better than a good bit of islamophobia and racism. Gets me pumped. Skinheads unite!
Original post by Tyreke
450/452 suicide attacks in 2015 were driven by Islam.


http://www.examiner.com/article/stud...lim-extremists

77% of terror plots are driven by Islam.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/7...jihad-doctrine


You do realise there is more to terrorism than suicide attacks right? Read page 35 on here http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Terrorism%20Index%20Report%202014_0.pdf

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

However, since my last post (where I thought that the training was for generic terrorism) I have found out that it was specific to an ISIS attack in which case, if there was to be a real attack by ISIS those words would most probably be heard. That hasn't been explained properly, even on the radio it is only stated as training for a terror attack.
A stupid apology for a non-issue?

If you're going to simulate ISIS behaviour, it's invariably going to involve some Allahu Akbars.
GMP should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for apologising. It was a simulation of a terror attack and all they did was make it realistic. They did nothing wrong.
If it was a general act of violence being renacted, they should probably apologise.

But it's a terrorism renactment, what else would a terrorist say?
Original post by SHABANA
That hasn't been explained properly, even on the radio it is only stated as training for a terror attack.


It is quite obvious from the video linked that it is a suicide attack that is being planned for. Who else but a Moslem terrorist has carried out such an attack?
Original post by Good bloke
It is quite obvious from the video linked that it is a suicide attack that is being planned for. Who else but a Moslem terrorist has carried out such an attack?


NATO has spent the last 60 years defending us from the Orange threat. That doesn't means the tanks of the Ulster Volunteer Force were going to roll across the German plain. It means that the enemy force in exercises is deliberately anonymised to avoid just the sort of hot water that Greater Manchester Police has now found itself in.
Original post by nulli tertius
NATO has spent the last 60 years defending us from the Orange threat. That doesn't means the tanks of the Ulster Volunteer Force were going to roll across the German plain. It means that the enemy force in exercises is deliberately anonymised to avoid just the sort of hot water that Greater Manchester Police has now found itself in.


Yet in 1940 we did not anonymise the Germans, we demonised them. It is at least as tendentious to say that we are at peace with political Islam as to say that we are in a total war against political Islam.

Acknowledging that a suicide bombing of this kind is overwhelmingly likely to be Islamic in motive, and depicting it as it would be, seem to me to fall appropriately between diplomatic obliviousness suitable for total peace and demonisation suitable for total war.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
NATO has spent the last 60 years defending us from the Orange threat.


Surely that is nothing to do with upsetting the Soviets and is a designation that comes merely from a need to have easily distinguishable colours for maps and flags? Those colours are always used, no matter who the putative enemy. In addition purple is used for third parties who are likely to attack both blue and orange.

After all, when their jets are buzzing our ships, our SAMs are locking their systems onto their planes and our interceptors are escorting their bombers, what is the need to pretend that we don't have a potential war?
Original post by Good bloke
Surely that is nothing to do with upsetting the Soviets and is a designation that comes merely from a need to have easily distinguishable colours for maps and flags?

It was more to do with making clear to both our side and the Soviets that we were not actually at war with them.

If the Soviets intercepted garbled radio transmissions about attacking Soviet forces and positions they might decide that war has started and they should respond for real.

If members of our armed forces outside the exercises received instructions by mistake then they might attack the Soviets for real.

Better to avoid that sort of misunderstanding when one is actually at peace and wants peace.

Here suicide bombers do not have a military-type command structure and they are already at war with us.
Dear me some people are just looking to be offended. They were specifically preparing for an ISIS type attack.
Shouldnt have apologised but didnt need to do it either.

Realistically an Islamic terrorist may well shout this, and islamic terrorists are far and away the most likely people to target the UK so its a representation of reality. It doesnt actually benefit the training however, if they've reached that point there's about a second before the boom (of either the bomb or the weapon) so any further shouting will be impossible to hear or impossible per se.
Original post by Mathemagicien
Hey, that's racist! :mob:


I'm sorry :frown:
The story was so funny it put me into tears
Original post by lolatmaths


That HuffPo scribbling says race doesn't exist. Then proceeds to call people racist.
The whole article appears to be grounded in the ridiculous notion that sociology is absolute truth when in this context it is utter ******** conjecture. Muslim isn't a race and 2 + 2 does not equal 5.
Original post by Jebedee
That HuffPo scribbling says race doesn't exist. Then proceeds to call people racist.
The whole article appears to be grounded in the ridiculous notion that sociology is absolute truth when in this context it is utter ******** conjecture. Muslim isn't a race and 2 + 2 does not equal 5.


All of what you said is irrelevant. Point is, it can be argued that hatred against muslims can be considered as racial hatred and is recognised like this in a court as well.
Original post by lolatmaths
All of what you said is irrelevant. Point is, it can be argued that hatred against muslims can be considered as racial hatred and is recognised like this in a court as well.


Anything can be argued, doesn't mean it is valid. Why would I care what a court says on this matter? Courts are clearly biased towards this kind of ideology.
Original post by Jebedee
Anything can be argued, doesn't mean it is valid. Why would I care what a court says on this matter? Courts are clearly biased towards this kind of ideology.


Ignorance truly is bliss. So you disagree woth something, that doesnt make it invalid in the slightest. I think if a court recognises it, its valid enough to be used.
Original post by lolatmaths
Ignorance truly is bliss. So you disagree woth something, that doesnt make it invalid in the slightest. I think if a court recognises it, its valid enough to be used.


I just pointed out a contradiction in the first few paragraphs. Either race exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the term racist has no meaning and no one can be racist.
Original post by Jebedee
I just pointed out a contradiction in the first few paragraphs. Either race exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the term racist has no meaning and no one can be racist.


Youve basically dismissed it because ' the social construct sociology has contrubuted to is ********'

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you