Soldier killed

[NJS 4399]

 

Colour, Clans, Ethnicity, Class, Family groups. All of these things are non religious and still cause Discrimination today.

 

But in NI as Renton said, all of those would be the same without the biggie.

 

(Unless you wanted to split hairs of Irish versus Scottish ethnicity which is pretty fine)

[ewerk 30761]

But in NI as Renton said, all of those would be the same without the biggie.

 

(Unless you wanted to split hairs of Irish versus Scottish ethnicity which is pretty fine)

 

We don't have a massive problem with discrimination in NI today but it was one of the major causes of the conflict. The divisions were not necessarily caused by religion but were along religious lines.

[NJS 4399]

 

We don't have a massive problem with discrimination in NI today but it was one of the major causes of the conflict. The divisions were not necessarily caused by religion but were along religious lines.

 

People have moved on to a decent degree and I see that as natural progress. I still think it would benefit from true secularisation in education and housing though.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3925]

It's all about power. People have throughout history wanted to have power over others. They have used many things to aid them in this struggle and one of the biggest was and is religion. However do not be fooled that there is anything else for these people at the top. What they want is power over people, over land and over thought.

[aimaad22 4168]

Do they cause barbarism like we saw on Wednesday though?

 

How do you define barbarism? Was Hitler religiously motivated? What about the link I posted above about the old man being cut down? What about dropping bombs on a bunch of children attending school or a wedding? The fact its done by the push of a button rather than hacking at them with knives makes it not barbaric?

Edited May 24, 2013 by aimaad22

[PaddockLad 17363]

How do you define barbarism? Was Hitler religiously motivated? What about the link I posted above about the old man being cut down? What about dropping bombs on a bunch of children attending school or a wedding? The fact its done by the push of a button rather than hacking at them with knives makes it not barbaric?

Did you identify with the victims of 9-11 in the same way?

[ewerk 30761]

How do you define barbarism? Was Hitler religiously motivated? What about the link I posted above about the old man being cut down? What about dropping bombs on a bunch of children attending school or a wedding? The fact its done by the push of a button rather than hacking at them with knives makes it not barbaric?

 

I don't think anyone on here would try and defend those actions either.

[Happy Face 29]

Why do you think they targeted a military individual? Is that not an act of war rather than terrorism?

 

A guardian article picks up this note and moves the discussion on to religious vs political motivation

 

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

 

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

 

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

 

It's true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone"). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are "asleep", that you don't "have to wake them up before you shoot them" and "make it a fair fight". Once you declare that the "entire globe is a battlefield" (which includes London) and that any "combatant" (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed - as the US has done - then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"?

 

When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it "terrorism" given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that "terrorism" means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that "the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and warned that "you people will never be safe. Remove your government", the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it "terrorism".

 

That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn't that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

 

The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?

 

I know this vital caveat will fall on deaf ears for some, but nothing about this discussion has anything to do with justifiability. An act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being "terrorism": indeed, most of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, from the Holocaust to the wanton slaughter of Stalin and Pol Pot and the massive destruction of human life in Vietnam, are not typically described as "terrorism". To question whether something qualifies as "terrorism" is not remotely to justify or even mitigate it. That should go without saying, though I know it doesn't.

 

The reason it's so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that "terrorism" provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

 

There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here, and my interview with Remi Brulin here). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims". When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.

 

One last point: in the wake of the Boston Marathon attacks, I documented that the perpetrators of virtually every recent attempted and successful "terrorist" attack against the west cited as their motive the continuous violence by western states against Muslim civilians. It's certainly true that Islam plays an important role in making these individuals willing to fight and die for this perceived just cause (just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and nationalism lead some people to be willing to fight and die for their cause). But the proximate cause of these attacks are plainly political grievances: namely, the belief that engaging in violence against aggressive western nations is the only way to deter and/or avenge western violence that kills Muslim civilians.

 

Add the London knife attack on this soldier to that growing list. One of the perpetrators said on camera that "the only reason we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and "we apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." As I've endlessly pointed out, highlighting this causation doesn't remotely justify the acts. But it should make it anything other than surprising. On Twitter last night, Michael Moore sardonically summarized western reaction to the London killing this way:

 

"I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!"

 

Basic human nature simply does not allow you to cheer on your government as it carries out massive violence in multiple countries around the world and then have you be completely immune from having that violence returned.

 

Drone admissions

In not unrelated news, the US government yesterday admitted for the first time what everyone has long known: that it killed four Muslim American citizens with drones during the Obama presidency, including a US-born teenager whom everyone acknowledges was guilty of nothing. As Jeremy Scahill - whose soon-to-be-released film "Dirty Wars" examines US covert killings aimed at Muslims - noted yesterday about this admission, it "leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen". Related to all of these issues, please watch this two-minute trailer for "Dirty Wars", which I reviewed a few weeks ago here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CWnrk35qYMs

 

UPDATE

In the Guardian today, former British soldier Joe Glenton, who served in the war in Afghanistan, writes under the headline "Woolwich attack: of course British foreign policy had a role". He explains:

 

"While nothing can justify the savage killing in Woolwich yesterday of a man since confirmed to have been a serving British soldier, it should not be hard to explain why the murder happened. . . . It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between."

 

This is one of those points so glaringly obvious that it is difficult to believe that it has to be repeated.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback?utm_source=feedly

[Happy Face 29]

What a pleasure it is that 8 pages of discussion on a "hot button" topic like this has been 99.9% civil and courteous btw, and when it has got silly there's been an instant apology and it's moved on.

 

The quantity of posts on TT may have dropped of late, but the quality is much improved...as a direct result i would guess.

 

 

Mentioning no names.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

What a pleasure it is that 8 pages of discussion on a "hot button" topic like this has been 99.9% civil and courteous btw, and when it has got silly there's been an instant apology and it's moved on.

 

The quantity of posts on TT may have dropped of late, but the quality is much improved...as a direct result i would guess.

 

 

Mentioning no names.

 

Makes a refreshing change from other forums, threads have descended into the realms of embarrassment.

[Kid Dynamite 7076]

Bit harsh on CT

[PaddockLad 17363]

Makes a refreshing change from other forums, threads have descended into the realms of embarrassment.

 

The amount of shit thats going around on the internet in general about this is fuckin depressing. My brother hasnt got a bad bone in his body (he's a much nicer person than me!) and hes putting EDL stuff up on facebook...people just react without thinking and just dont give a fuck about the other side of any issue. And as has been illustrated in this thread, any discussion as to the possible motivation for this horrendous act is misconstrued as trying to justify it.

[Renton 21746]

I'd like to think I haven't misconstrued people justifying the attack. No-one has done that. I just disagree with others on the motivation, in this particular case, I might add. But of course that has yet to be fully elucidated.

 

Interesting article on Islamism today in the BBC magazine as it happens, written by a Muslim.

[PaddockLad 17363]

Its easy to get the wrong end of the stick on something like this when emotions are running high. Am just waiting for someone to kill a Moslem for no reason in the next month, bit like this, the same day that some Moslems were jailed for plotting terror attacks:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10033881/Racist-fear-in-Birmingham-murder-of-Muslim-grandfather.html

[aimaad22 4168]

Did you identify with the victims of 9-11 in the same way?

 

Obviously, and the London train bombings etc etc. Its usually the common folk who fall prey to the consipracies of the powerful.

 

 

I don't think anyone on here would try and defend those actions either.

 

I know, Im just saying you cant generalise these things and they arent any less 'barbaric' just because suited booted people carry them out.

[aimaad22 4168]

Multiculturism will inevitably lead to extremism and events like we have seen, and is tragic. Yet for pointing this out, I've been accused of being racist and worse. I'm no Leazes like, but within his warped ideology he did have some valid points.

 

Its not that, its just how your remark came off. Im not fickle enought to make a judgement like that on someone based on what they write on an internet forum on an emotinally charged topic.

[Dr Gloom 22022]

The amount of shit thats going around on the internet in general about this is fuckin depressing. My brother hasnt got a bad bone in his body (he's a much nicer person than me!) and hes putting EDL stuff up on facebook...people just react without thinking and just dont give a fuck about the other side of any issue. And as has been illustrated in this thread, any discussion as to the possible motivation for this horrendous act is misconstrued as trying to justify it.

 

conversely, i'd say that some on the left are too quick to brand those that are rightly disgusted by the events as racist. english defence league wankers deserve to be attacked but i find attempts to justify or defend the actions of the two butchers equally offensive

[PaddockLad 17363]

conversely, i'd say that some on the left are too quick to brand those that are rightly disgusted by the events as racist. english defence league wankers deserve to be attacked but i find attempts to justify or defend the actions of the two butchers equally offensive

 

Well what do do you mean by that?...this is what am on about....who has tried to justify it?...

[Dr Gloom 22022]

I've read people bring up the west's misguided foreign policy when others have expressed disgust at the attack. Trying to explain the reasoning behind what the two murderers did or arguing that this attack shouldn't be getting as much coverage or provoking as much outrage when it is just one guy that has been killed as oppose to the hundreds that regularly die in Afghanistan or Iraq, which we barely register.

 

I'm not pointing the finger specifically at anyone on this thread. Just something I've noticed a lot reading comments online. A lot of us on the left are too quick to show compassion, misplaced IMO, or to try to explain or understand the motivation of two men that were simply psychopathic killers. Their actions were just as disgusting as some of the UK's actions in recent years. Both should be condemned as bad as each other.

[The Fish 10900]

I don't believe these are psychopaths, or sociopaths. Just religious zealots. But don't worry religion does a lot of good in the world... right?

[Dr Gloom 22022]

hacking someone to death with a butcher's knife is psychopathic behaviour in my book.

[PaddockLad 17363]

I've purposely avoided all online comment sections this week tbh, apart from on here obviously. If am not mistaken a psychopath is someone incapable of showing empathy; The video evidence does suggest that they truly didnt give a fuck. Don't know what that makes someone launching a drone from thousands of miles away though. Tough one.

[The Fish 10900]

hacking someone to death with a butcher's knife is psychopathic behaviour in my book.

Nah, they've just been sufficiently indoctrinated into a bastardised version of a religion to have them truly believing they're doing something reasonable.

 

Shipman? Psychopath

These lot? Religious Fundamentalists

 

Take away the religious side of their lives and I don't believe for a second they'd commit such an atrocity. I don't buy that this is their reaction to crimes committed on the other side of the planet. This is some stupid kids that've bought into a cult-ish version of Islam. These kids who are the same as the drones used by the Armed forces of the West. Those "piloting" them (for the want of a better phrase) couldn't give a toss about the device that commits the act, or the innocents caught up in it, it's just a means to an end.

[ChezGiven 0]

I've struggled with this one but I think I am now firmly of the view that this tragic death is unfortunately just another form of collateral damage. Awful thing to happen but awful things do happen. The drone strikes and Guantanamo debates in the US were poignantly timed.

[tooner 243]

[youtube

]