Another Belter From The R0P

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35685981
Wonder what this poor little sod did to offend.

[Ellipsis]

Yes, today's (Life Inside ‘Islamic State’: Diary 2) is here ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03l206z

[Hypognosis]

(From page 2)

@13:05 Mon 29th Jan
andy-hughes said:
//But for the record - I am making assumptions about the murder of Lee Rigby, and I am happy to acknowledge those - on the basis that the two murderers did happen across Mr Rigby by accident. They came to the barracks armed with weapons with the intention of murdering a soldier. I think it reasonable to conclude that it was an act of Jihad, and yes I do know what it means, thank you.
//

If you know what Jihad means, would it be too much trouble to share your understanding of what it means?

My, perhaps poor, understanding of it is that it involves
i) (generic) "struggle" to improve one's character, in service of the deity
ii) (generic) "struggle" to spread the faith (to those who are, as yet, unbelievers
iii) (generic) "struggle" to advance the aims of the faith by generally working hard, making money and distributing that which is beyond ones daily needs to the poor and needy (although remote family probably have first dibs compated to the street beggar, closer to home).
iv) death in battle, defending Islam (and/or its revenue-generating landholdings)
v) death in battle, defending a Mosque

So, if I may be picky about the meaning of "battle", this usually entails the opponent being armed and actively attacking you, not minding their own business, crossing the road with a bag on their shoulder. It happened he was a soldier (do bandsmen even get involved with weapons at all??) but he could just as easily have been a random member of the public, for all you could see from inside the car (in the CCTV, they began accelerating from some distance away).

I will try to get this back to the OP as soon as you've corrected all my mistakes.

[Hypognosis]

via the linked DM on page 8

//
'It was a shock for her. She came back to Moscow in shock. They said she became detached, silent and devout.

'She started spending a lot of time on the internet, reading in social networks, writing. It wasn't in Russian so Volodya and Katya could not understand. And there was a prayer carpet in the apartment.'
//

"It wasn't in Russian" certainly caught my eye but it is unfortunately unspecific and we should NOT leap to the conclusion it was a radical Islamist in the other end (social network site is specified). Do Uzbeks use a script unintelligible to Russians, for instance?

[Hypognosis]

wow, 6 crossword threads in 2 minutes. At half past eleven at night. My but you lot are keen to get this thread out of sight.

[Hypognosis]

More from DM.

//
This source told Komsomolskaya Pravda she became more devout and spent a long time praying.

'Not very long ago they had a serious conversation with her.

'Like, "are you tired, perhaps? If you want, we can find someone else"... But Gulchekhra said: "No need".

'She kept spending time in the social networks.

'At one point Volodya cut off the internet at home and when they got home, they saw that Gulchekhra somehow got it working again and was at the computer again, and wasn't looking after Nastya.

'They had decided they would look for a replacement nanny.
//

Knows well enough to get the internet going again (ie knows how to switch a router back on) and employer making moves to ditch her.

All said, only detective dramas use motives as weak as that.

So, if she had communicated with brainwashing radicals, I wonder what sort of things the voices in her head were telling her? It could take months to get the fulll truth out of her.

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - //But like every other Islamist outrage, the friends of the ROP will tell you, again, 'It's nothing to do with Islam'. //

I am unsure who you believe to be ' ... the friends of the ROP ... ' but I don't believe there are any of them on here.

There are plenty of people who will say that, as in this instance, there is no conclusive evidence that faith was involved in this atrocity, but that is not the same as saying it had nothing to do with it.

[Svejk]

I'm sick of hearing people on here and elsewhere saying it's 'Nothing to do with Islam' after every terrorist incident or when talking about IS. It's used to such an extent that it has become an acronym, NTDWI, but I didn't want to give the AB pedants unnecessary ammunition by using it.

[Ellipsis]

Picture yourself, standing in the street in Moscow. You see a woman, dressed in a hijab, shouting "Allahu Akbar", carrying the severed head of a four year old girl. Picture yourself there.

> no conclusive evidence that faith was involved in this atrocity

???

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - //I'm sick of hearing people on here and elsewhere saying it's 'Nothing to do with Islam' after every terrorist incident or when talking about IS. It's used to such an extent that it has become an acronym, NTDWI, but I didn't want to give the AB pedants unnecessary ammunition by using //

I can only speak personally, obviously, but I have never opined that a terrorist incident is nothing to do with Islam, under any circumstances, so I have to declare myself out as far as that part of your post.

But as far as this post is concerned, there is no known link between this woman's heinous crime, and her religion.

I know I keep repeating that simple point, but it bears repeating because, in the absence of any other evidence at the time the OP was posted, it remains a fact.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - //Picture yourself, standing in the street in Moscow. You see a woman, dressed in a hijab, shouting "Allahu Akbar", carrying the severed head of a four year old girl. Picture yourself there.

> no conclusive evidence that faith was involved in this atrocity

??? //

No - no conclusive evidence.

Seriously strong indications - based on first sight and hearing - but that is not the same as 'conclusive evidence'.

[agchristie]

Andy > Seriously strong indications - based on first sight and hearing - but that is not the same as 'conclusive evidence'

From what Andy is saying that the evidence would meet a civil threshold and not a criminal one (based on the issue of whether religion was the deciding factor)

Fair assumption Andy?

[Sqad]

^^

"Beyond reasonable doubt"

"Likelier than not"

ag seems to have summed up 171 posts quite eloquantly.

[andy-hughes]

AG - //Andy > Seriously strong indications - based on first sight and hearing - but that is not the same as 'conclusive evidence'

From what Andy is saying that the evidence would meet a civil threshold and not a criminal one (based on the issue of whether religion was the deciding factor)

Fair assumption Andy? //

I must decline to offer an opinion, on the basis of lack of qualification to make an informed decision.

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - //^^

"Beyond reasonable doubt"

"Likelier than not"

ag seems to have summed up 171 posts quite eloquantly. //

Except for the minor item that neither of the 'quotes' you have advised are in her post!

It is the leaping to conclusions based on evidence that does not prove something that has been the entire thrust of my argument throughout this thread.

[agchristie]

Thanks Sqad. The thread has toiled on for some time with little movement! ;)

Seriously, why not wait for more info?

[Ellipsis]

andy-hughes, define what you mean by "this atrocity"

* the murder? (if it was separate from the beheading)
* the beheading?
* the carrying of the head in the street, shouting "Allahu Akbar"?

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - //andy-hughes, define what you mean by "this atrocity"

* the murder? (if it was separate from the beheading)
* the beheading?
* the carrying of the head in the street, shouting "Allahu Akbar"? //

In the interests of civil debate, you might want to consider a 'please' somewhere in your next request for a response -

To answer your request - it's all of the above, how could it be anything else.

[agchristie]

Andy, Sqad was correct in his interpretation.

Ok, how about this, from the information that is in the public domain, does your interpretation fit more in line with the balance of probabilities only?

[Ellipsis]

> To answer your request - it's all of the above, how could it be anything else.

If it's all of the above, including the carrying of the head in the street, by a Muslim woman shouting "Allahu Akbar" ... how can you say that there is no conclusive evidence that faith was involved?

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - //> To answer your request - it's all of the above, how could it be anything else.

If it's all of the above, including the carrying of the head in the street, by a Muslim woman shouting "Allahu Akbar" ... how can you say that there is no conclusive evidence that faith was involved? //

Because it is an assumption without proof.

Conclusive evidence is just that - conclusive - beyond doubt and argument.

Until this woman states in front of witnesses that she murdered this child because of her religion, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption.