Why not

[colin jones]

I was trying to say how terrible it was to here about the poor soldier that was hacked to pieces in England but couldn't post it. I said mu$lim and I assume it was intercepted.
Any way as I can't express my view, I would like to give my sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to his poor family who must now try to get on with life.

[Lynn Eades]

That's a ditto from me as well.

[cliff]

when I first saw this I wonder, with so much evidence that they did this, why they were not just shot dead on the spot alongside their victim thus saving the money that needs to be spent on the trial and imprisonment of these gutless wonders!

[Little Jo]

Hi All

I was sickened when I heard about it. Crazy SOB's.

Tony

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Please note:

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, but should take care not to invoke political discussions or harm other's feelings.

This is a forum to discuss military history primarily.

Thank you!

Hanno
MLU Administrator

[motto]

Hanno

There is an historical and military connection here that few people would be aware of even among our Australian members.

Google 'Battle of Broken Hill' and you will see what I'm referring to. This is an event that took place during WW1. An attack on unarmed persons by a couple of fanatics who expected to die for the cause as a result. Not much has changed in 100 years.

No Cliff, it was their intention from the start to be killed by the police. That's why they waited around and why they ran at the police as soon as the police arrived. Why give the mongrels what they want? They just love the idea of martyrdom and then there's all those virgins. Instead they end up looking like a couple of sad sicko's which is what they are.

David

[rob love]

I believe this is part of military history. I also don't believe this to be a simple story either. The two perpetrators were trying to bring light to the tens of thousands of civilian deaths that have occurred in the middle east during the past decade of war. What they did was incomprehensible to us, but they were willing to give their lives to try to bring awareness to the subject.

The Taliban/Al-Queda fighters are motivated enough to their cause that they will willingly die for it.....in most cases it is an unpaid job. They will be very hard to defeat, particularly because they are motivated, they do not wear uniforms, and can blend in with the civilian populations of both their area and, these days, around the world.

The death to the British soldier was brutal, and in our society, unacceptable to bring the war out of the sandbox and onto our streets. But in their view, the same thing has been happening to their people. I suspect we will continue to see this kind of behavior.

In the 20 minutes it took police to respond, the two could have continued to kill and injure the civilians around them. Beside the edged weapons they had, they also had a handgun (was it real or a dewat?) and their vehicle. But they had already made their main statement, and used the next 15 minutes to explain it.

Rest in peace to the soldier involved, the attack was certainly way outside our rules of war. But it does not appear our rules are going to be their rules.

My apologies if my discussion offends those who see this whole event in other light, as well you may. But if you do not understand the thinking of the other side, then peace is unlikely to come any time soon. And between the ease of transportation, and the sharing of information in our current world, it is no longer possible to "keep it over there".

Hanno. If this is too political, then please feel free do delete it.

[cliff]

Rob reading your story does not annoy me or offend me. You are quite correct in what you have written and in fact I agree with you. I wrote in the heat of the moment when disgust at the brutality of the poor soldiers death over ruled my normal thoughts on the matter.

Thank you for your insight and thought into this.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by rob love

Hanno. If this is too political, then please feel free do delete it.

Rob,

No it isn't. Actually it is a very well articulated analysis. The type of reaction which differentiaties this forum from many other places on the internet.

Thank you,
Hanno

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by motto

Hanno

There is an historical and military connection here that few people would be aware of even among our Australian members.

Google 'Battle of Broken Hill' and you will see what I'm referring to. This is an event that took place during WW1. An attack on unarmed persons by a couple of fanatics who expected to die for the cause as a result. Not much has changed in 100 years.

David,

I will have to look it up as I am not aware of the connection you refer to. The very fact that you put this incident in a historical context proves we are here to discuss military history and are not in the business of mud-slinging.

Thanks again,
Hanno

[Private_collector]

I agree that event is a new (and disgusting) chapter in Military History. An event that deficates in the face of the laws of a country in which these two individuals were happy to remain, as citizens. It disgusts and sickens me to the core. Whatever the motivation, it's not an act that reflects the common feeling of the vast majority of members of the chosen religion of the criminals involved. They were obviously too blinded to see the extreme damage they were about to cause for members of their faith. I'm sure the justice about to descend on their heads will not be impacted one way or another by the religion they hide behind, nor their delusional rationality in commiting the act.

For instances like this, where there is simply no doubt of guilt, I say bring back capital punishment. Now there's a controvertial opinion, and I say this not out of desire for revenge, but to perhaps swing the balance of good back in our favor a little. That, and a wish to be able to sleep a bit safer. No much admittedly, there are untold numbers of 'malfunctioning' brains walking around out there in guise of normality. Treat everyone the same, but for christ sake do something when that trust is so diabolically betrayed.

That's my two bobs worth anyway.

Ahhhhhh, I feel better now.

[rob love]

Since the two were willing to die for their cause, the threat of capital punishment would not likely have any real deterrent on them.

[Private_collector]

I was thinking more for our benefit, rather than theirs

Oh well, it's all rhetoric anyway.

[lynx42]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

David,

I will have to look it up as I am not aware of the connection you refer to. The very fact that you put this incident in a historical context proves we are here to discuss military history and are not in the business of mud-slinging.

Thanks again,
Hanno

Hanno and others,

Here is the Wikipedia account of the Battle of Broken Hill.

The Battle of Broken Hill otherwise known as the Broken Hill Massacre, was a fatal incident which took place near Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia on 1 January 1915. Two Muslim men shot dead four people and wounded seven more, before being killed by police and military officers. While the attack was politically and religiously inspired, as declared by the perpetrators in notes, the men were not members of any sanctioned armed force. The two men were later identified as being Muslims from the British colony of India, modern day Pakistan.[1][2]

The assailants
A replica of Badsha Mahommed Gool's ice cream cart, located near the white quartz outcrop where the battle occurred.

The attackers were both former camel-drivers working at Broken Hill. They were Badsha Mahommed Gool (born c. 1874[3]), an ice-cream vendor, and Mullah Abdullah (born c. 1854[4]), a local imam and halal butcher.

Gool's ice-cream cart was well known in town and was used to transport the men to the attack site.[1][5] They also fashioned a home-made Ottoman flag which they flew. There appears to have been little effort made at hiding their identities.

Abdullah had arrived in Broken Hill around 1898 and worked as a camel driver, before becoming a mullah and slaughtering animals according to halal Islamic rites. Several days before the killings Adbullah was convicted by Chief Sanitary Inspector Brosnan for slaughtering sheep on premises not licensed for slaughtering. It was not his first charge.[6] Considering the slaughter-house regulators believed that the halal method of slaughter was inhumane, there was little scope for Abdullah to legally prepare such meat for the Muslim community. In addition, he had ceased wearing his turban years before, "since the day some larrikin threw stones at me, and I did not like it".[5]

Gool lived next door to Mullah Adbullah. Gool was a member of the Afridi, a Pashtun clan, from Afghanistan. He claimed he had been in the Turkish Army several times and was believed to regularly smoke strong marijuana.[7] Police Constable Mills later conjectured that Gool had used Abdullah's concerns over the fine as leverage to convince him to take part in the killings.
Picnic train targeted

Each New Year's Day the local lodge of the Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows held a picnic at Silverton. The train from Broken Hill to Silverton was crowded with 1200 picnickers on 40 open ore trucks. Three kilometres out of town, Gool and Abdullah positioned themselves on an embankment located about 30 metres from the tracks. As the train passed they opened fire with two rifles, discharging 20 to 30 shots.

The picnickers initially thought that the shots were being discharged in honour of the train's passing, but once their companions started falling, the reality sank in.

Alma Cowie, aged 17 died instantly. William John Shaw, a foreman in the Sanitary Department, was killed on the train and his daughter Lucy Shaw was injured. Six other people on the train were injured: Mary Kavanagh, George Stokes, Thomas Campbell, Alma Crocker, Rose Crabb and Constable Robert Mills.[8]

The railway guard on the train was "Tiger" Dick (Eric Edward) Nyholm, soon to be a father of six children, including the late Prof Sir Ronald Nyholm,[9] also of Broken Hill. Nyholm was a renowned marksman and proved instrumental in protecting the train's passengers from further injury.
Police response
Part of the rocky outcrop where the final battle took place.

Gool and Mulla made their way from the train towards the West Camel camp where they lived. On the way they killed Alfred E. Millard who had taken shelter in his hut. By this time the train had pulled over at a siding and the police were telephoned. The police contacted Lieutenant Resch at the local army base who despatched his men. When police encountered Gool and Abdullah near the Cable Hotel, the pair shot and wounded Constable Mills. Gool and Abdullah then took shelter within a white quartz outcrop, which provided good cover. A 90-minute gun battle followed, during which armed members of the public arrived to join the police and military. By the end of the battle very little shooting came from the pair and most of it was off target, leading Constable Ward to conclude that Mullah Abdullah was already dead and Gool was wounded.

James Craig, a 69-year-old occupant of a house behind the Cable Hotel, resisted his daughter's warning about chopping wood during a gun battle and was hit by a stray bullet and killed. He was the fourth to die.

At "one o'clock a rush took place to the Turks' stronghold".[8] An eyewitness later stated that Gool had stood with a white rag tied to his rifle but was cut down by gunfire. He was found with 16 wounds. The mob would not allow Abdullah's body to be taken away in the ambulance. Later that day both bodies were disposed of in secret by the police.
Aftermath

The attackers left notes connecting their actions to the hostilities between the Ottoman and British Empires, which had been officially declared in October 1914. Believing he would be killed, Gool Mahomed left a letter in his waist-belt which stated that he was a subject of the Ottoman Sultan and that, "I must kill you and give my life for my faith, Allāhu Akbar."

Mullah Abdullah said in his last letter that he was dying for his faith and in obedience to the order of the Sultan, "but owing to my grudge against Chief Sanitary Inspector Brosnan it was my intention to kill him first."[10]

Apart from the fact that the police were forced to stop a mob from marching on an Afghan camp the following night, there was no violence against the Muslim community afterwards. Instead, the actions were seen as representative of 'enemy aliens' and the Germans in the area were the focus of violence. Believing the Germans had agitated the assailants to attack, the local German Club was burnt to ground, the angry mob cutting the hoses of the firemen who came to fight the flames.[11][10]

The next day the mines of Broken Hill fired all employees deemed 'enemy aliens' under the 1914 Commonwealth War Precautions Act. Six Austrians, four Germans and one Turk were ordered out of town by the public. Shortly after all 'enemy aliens' in Australia were interned for the duration of the war.[11]

It is claimed that the letter from the Ottoman Sultan was a forged one, and the Turkish flag found with the perpetrators was planted. It is claimed that the incident was attributed to Turks in order to rally the Australian public for the war.[12]

The Silverton Tramway Company refunded in full the fares for the picnic train and the money was used to launch a public relief fund.

Regards Rick.

[motto]

Thanks for posting the Wiki text Rick. I haven't a clue how to do it.

The historical and military connections are in the parallels between the Broken Hill incident and the London killing. In both cases premeditated murder was carried out against unarmed persons by a pair of disaffected perpetrators supposedly in response to the use of troops in a distant land.

The truth is perhaps far less grand. These people try and legitimise their actions by espousing support for a 'cause' when in reality they are merely giving vent to their prejudices and their hatred. This was certainly the case with the Broken Hill pair and will most likely prove to be the case with the London pair. 'Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel'. Just a convenient flag to hide behind when they do what they felt like doing anyway.

There is not and never will be any justification for the actions they took no matter how they try and dress it up.

David