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

[Martinus]

I agree that there is a lot of blurred, grey area between a terrorist attack and a hate crime.

The most popular definition is "use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes".

But if a gay basher murders a gay person to express his opposition to "gay agenda" - would you consider it terrorism? What about an abortion clinic bombing? Yet it fits the description in the same way this London murder does.

I think the real problem is how you define political and whether there should be a systematic/organised component to terrorism.

[Warspite]

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

I've walked past situations that later ended up on the news -- even being 50 metres away can really cloud your understanding of what is going on.

Had I been walking down the road where this incident took place, I would have probably just seen a body (it would not be clear he was stabbed or beheaded) and two roodboys wandering around. I would not likely have seen the act itself, only the confusing aftermath.

My first thought would have likely have been that there's some sort of road traffic accident or a gang fight. Neither of which, unfortunately, are really that shocking in London.

And yes, as Dguller points out, there's the diffusion of responsibility too. But I suspect a lot of people were on the phone to the police and were quickly told to not expose themselves to danger. The last thing the Feds want is more bodies to deal with.

[jimmy olsen]

The last thing the Feds want is more bodies to deal with.

Why do you call them Feds? Cultural osmosis via US tv?

[Duque de Bragança]

As for the terrorism or just murder, this attack reminds me of the Mohammed Merah case (shootings in and and around Toulouse).

11 March: paratrooper in Toulouse [edit]
On 11 March, Master Sergeant Imad Ibn-Ziaten, aged 30, an off-duty paratrooper in the 1st Parachute Logistics Regiment (1er régiment du train parachutiste) was killed when he was shot in the head at point-blank range outside a gym in Toulouse.[3][4] At the time Ibn-Ziaten was waiting to meet someone who had claimed to be interested in buying a motorcycle from him; however, it is suspected that the supposed buyer attacked him instead.[4] The perpetrator was described as wearing a helmet and riding a motorcycle.[34]
The family of Ibn-Ziaten subsequently buried him in their hometown of M'diq, Morocco.[35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings

More soldiers and people at a jewish school were killer later on.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm inclined to agree with Brazen. The media frenzy and COBRA meetings just feed the egotism of these narcissistic losers who are best regarded as brutal murderers.

[Brazen]

News Statesman puts their finger on it:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/after-woolwich-how-media-got-it-wrong-and-how-public-can-get-it-right

After Woolwich: how the media got it wrong and how the public can get it right

Too many titles handed the killers the megaphone they craved. Those who quietly reject the offer of hatred and division deserve to be heard too.

The horrific murder of a soldier in Woolwich naturally generates a deep sense of shock and disgust. Though they may be motivated by an extremely atavastic ideology, the killers would seem to have an unfortunately strong intuitive grasp of our modern media culture.

This creates dilemmas for broadcasters and newspapers. This is important news, which needs to be reported powerfully on the front pages, and the right responses to prevent such debated everywhere. Censorship is rightly resisted. But there are important editorial choices to be made. The fact that everything is available somewhere on the internet does not absolve editors. There is plenty of stuff out there on extremist jihadi websites that does not get put on TV. There can be little doubt that the media platform to spread the message of hatred, fear and division is an important, central motive for the crime. What can we do about the fact that the need to report the grisly news will give the perpetrators the platform that they crave?

This morning, the Metro, the Guardian and the Telegraph all offer headlines which primarily communicate the message of the murderers, so handing them the media megaphone which their crime was designed to create. They also, in print, can seem to give more shape to what seems a rather more rambling and incoherent rant. (None of us can yet know quite the precise balance of extremist ideology or mental illness behind this particular crime).

Perhaps surprisingly, it is the Guardian's front page which comes uncomfortably close to being the poster front which the murderer might have designed for himself, with its headline "You will never be safe". If there were an al-Qaeda version of Alastair Campbell somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan borders, they would surely also be delighted by how the Telegraph - "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We won't stop fighting you until you leave us alone" - and the Metro - "You will never be safe, we will not stop fighting" have got the desired message across.

By contrast, the Mail - "Blood on his hands, hatred in his eyes" - and the Independent - "Sickening, deluded and uncomfortable" - chose headlines which editorialise against the killers on their front pages. Both the Times - "Soldier hacked to death in London terror attack" - and the Daily Star - "Soldier beheaded on London Street" - are among those to offer headlines which report the news.

In truth, despite yesterday's horror, violent Islamist extremism is considerably less effective than the promoters of its legend would have it, though it has, of course, taken much vigilance across the eight years since the last terrorist attack in London to keep us safe.

Events will always be more powerful than trends. Guardian writers often warn that an alarmist media culture is one reason why fear of crime can rise while levels of violent crime fall. It may, however, be more difficult in future for Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee to regard her own paper as an "honourable exception" to this general rule.

Perhaps it is a shame that no newspaper inverted the lens. As one of the killers told her "we want to start a war in London tonight", the astonishingly brave scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett answered him: "it is only you versus many people. You are going to lose" Could that not have been the stuff of front page headlines too?

Politicians have condemned the murder and called for calm. There was little public appetite for the yobbish antics of the English Defence League in Woolwich last night. Both the EDL and the BNP are in potentially fatal disrepair, so will naturally seek to grasp a lifeline, but academic expert Matthew Goodwin notes how much weaker the extreme right is today than it was in 2005.

Many millions of decent Londoners feel impotent in the face of such evil, though we know that our city will reject the desire of the killers to "create a war in London", just as we did eight years ago, the last time there was a terrorist atrocity on our streets. But how can we show that? There are calls not to over-react, but that may put too much emphasis on how not to react. We should talk about how to react too. What would be the analogous response to the riots clean up two summers ago?

Many people will donate to Help for Heroes or the Royal British Legion. The Challenge Network, which brings people together in social and voluntary activity, suggests a "peace march" across different faiths and communities. Many British Muslims are thinking, too, about whether, beyond the vociferous condemnation which quickly followed the atrocity, there is a more positive and constructive response to offer too.

The form such responses take will depend on what local in people in Woolwich decide that they want to do. There will be a broader appetite across London to make sure that it is not only the killers who grab the media megaphone. How might the voice of millions who quietly reject the offer of hatred and division make sure that we get a hearing too?

[Camerus]

A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.

[Gups]

I'm inclined to agree with Brazen. The media frenzy and COBRA meetings just feed the egotism of these narcissistic losers who are best regarded as brutal murderers.

At the risk of being too cynical they also take away the headlines from Cameron's euro omnishambles.

I'm not sure where the powerful  need to label these events somes from. Whether it's terrorism or not is much less important immediately than whether the murderers acted as part of a group or by themselves.

[Martinus]

A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.

You are being sarcastic, right?

[Camerus]

A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.

You are being sarcastic, right?

What do you think?   

[Martinus]

A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.

You are being sarcastic, right?

What do you think?   

There was an off-chance you might have just been woefully misinformed.

[Warspite]

I'm inclined to agree with Brazen. The media frenzy and COBRA meetings just feed the egotism of these narcissistic losers who are best regarded as brutal murderers.

At the risk of being too cynical they also take away the headlines from Cameron's euro omnishambles.

I'm not sure where the powerful  need to label these events somes from. Whether it's terrorism or not is much less important immediately than whether the murderers acted as part of a group or by themselves.

It was Theresa May who summoned COBRA, wasn't it? She has her own agenda too.

[garbon]

The ignore function is for people who can't even muster the self-control not to post and have to have Mommy fix it for them.

Be a man; do what I do - post, and immediately regret it.

I don't know, I could see people not wanting what they consider little better than spam posts all over the place.

[merithyn]

I'm not sure where the powerful  need to label these events somes from. Whether it's terrorism or not is much less important immediately than whether the murderers acted as part of a group or by themselves.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure where the powerful  need to label these events somes from. Whether it's terrorism or not is much less important immediately than whether the murderers acted as part of a group or by themselves.

Desire for the correct use of English words is where I am mostly coming from.  If what happened is not terrorism then we should just retire the word.