Breaking News - Reports of an Ongoing Terrorist 'Incident' in Woolwich,London.

[Gups]

At some point they must have figured the dudes weren't looking to up their body count. They clearly wanted to kill the one guy and not everyone.

My hunch is that several of them were in on it and were taking videos etc for popaganda purposes.

[Kleves]

Remember that the people standing around the street did not have a perfect understanding of what was going on.

Hell, in the US people would probably think they were getting punk'd or something.

[MadImmortalMan]

At some point they must have figured the dudes weren't looking to up their body count. They clearly wanted to kill the one guy and not everyone.

My hunch is that several of them were in on it and were taking videos etc for popaganda purposes.

I didn't consider that, but it makes sense.

[mongers]

The murderer in the videos seems slightly familiar to me, if he's apparently been out in South-East London street proselytising, there's a small chance he might have also made an appearance at Speaker's Corner, when these 'characters' often make turn up.

[Admiral Yi]

I still think calling it a terrorist attack rather than a random religious motivated murder is giving it exactly the oxygen of publicity the perpetrators hoped.

I don't see how changing the label would decrease the amount of attention given to a meat cleaver attack committed in broad daylight followed by a religiopolitical diatribe.  If the IRA pub bombings had been called random religiously motivated murders do you think people would have tuned them out?

[grumbler]

I still think calling it a terrorist attack rather than a random religious motivated murder is giving it exactly the oxygen of publicity the perpetrators hoped.

I don't see how changing the label would decrease the amount of attention given to a meat cleaver attack committed in broad daylight followed by a religiopolitical diatribe.  If the IRA pub bombings had been called random religiously motivated murders do you think people would have tuned them out?

I'm with you, and on top of that wonder why Brazen thinks this murder was "random."

[Gups]

Yep, there's no way this isn't being the lead story everywhere, however it's labelled.

[11B4V]

Dont know if this has been posted yet. The Lad that was murdered.

(Newser) – The victim in yesterday's London attack has been identified as 25-year-old Lee Rigby, reports the BBC. Rigby was indeed in the British army, having served as both a machine gunner and a drummer in a unit called the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He has a 2-year-old son named Jack. "He was one of the battalion's great characters—always smiling and always ready to brighten the mood with his fellow Fusiliers," says one sergeant. The Guardian has a fuller statement from the defense department about "Riggers," recounting his military bio, his "larger than life" personality, and his passion for the Man U soccer team.

[citizen k]

Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

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:
Note

The headline briefly referred to the attack as a "machete killing", which is how initial reports described it, but the word "machete" was deleted to reflect uncertainty over the exact type of knife use. As the first paragraph now indicates, the weapon appeared to be some sort of meat cleaver.
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

[Valmy]

To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians

Well I guess if that is the definition then I guess not.

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.

Fortunately, being an opponent of these policies I do not have to deal with this crap.  I mean I do have to deal with it but not on an ideological level where I need to justify it.

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 is why it is called 'terror bombing' but correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression we never actually did the 'shock and awe' thing it was just pre-invasion propaganda to freak people out.

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".

It has a pretty clear definition.  The scholarship is simply showing the press and polticians are inconsistent.  The term is just fine thanks and has nothing to do with Muslims.

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.

Basic human nature has been doing this for thousands fo years so I am not sure why it does not allow you to do that.

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.

So it is some sort of mystery that this had to do with the war on terrorism thing (or the US Imperial Project...whatever) even though the guy announced that on tape?  I guess what annoys me about this article is people have been saying these things for years and this guy has this tone as if he is the first one to shine the light of wisdom on us.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Dude's article is reasonable.  This is where it falls apart. 

[Valmy]

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.

Dude's article is reasonable.  This is where it falls apart. 

Yeah this is what he wants the definition to be.  I mean there is no question the term is used by governments and the media for its own purposes but the term still has a pretty clear meaning and its not that.

[The Brain]

Islamopologists come out in force. Film at 11.

[Malthus]

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

Heh I wonder what his reaction was to Anders Breivik's murder spree. 

[Kleves]

It's pretty stupid to draw some kind of moral equivalency between the West and the terrorists because the means used by the West sometimes superficially resemble those used by terrorists (especially if you squint hard enough, look at it from just the right angle, and have an axe to grind). The key, fundamental moral difference is not necessarily in the means used, but in the ends sought. That's why the US (accidently) killing a civilian in a drone strike might be justified, but a Muslim terrorist killing civilians will never be.