Reports that an army cadet was attacked in the street and 'beheaded' by two men of 'muslim' appearance:
Live updating page here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630304 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630304)
Quote
Man dead in suspected Woolwich terror attack
Graphic footage from ITV News shows a man with bloodied hands making political statements
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Latest - London machete attack Live
In pictures: Woolwich attack
Witness: 'He pulled a gun out' Watch
A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot by police in Woolwich, south-east London.
Prime Minister David Cameron said there were "strong indications that it is a terrorist incident" and the UK would "never buckle" in the face of such attacks.
Footage has emerged showing a man wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements.
There are unconfirmed reports that the dead man was a soldier.
Both French President Francois Hollande and MP Nick Raynsford said the dead man had been a soldier at Woolwich barracks.
The footage shown on the ITV website shows a man, dressed in a grey hooded jacket, saying: "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
He added: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."
Home Secretary Theresa May has summoned a meeting of the government's emergency response committee Cobra.
....
rest of report here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303)
I take it they only got one of the suspects?
Gawker has a video, it's probably NSFW.
http://gawker.com/terror-in-london-soldier-hacked-apart-by-machete-wield-509321352
ITV News has video of the aftermath of the attack, a surreal situation with one of the attacks talking to a camera/camera phone. Also probably NSFW.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-22/exclusive-video-man-with-bloodied-hands-speaks-at-woolwich-scene/ (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-22/exclusive-video-man-with-bloodied-hands-speaks-at-woolwich-scene/)
'Strong indications that this is a terrorist incident'? Doesn't sound firm enough to me. Congress should hold hearings.
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2013, 01:57:54 PM
'Strong indications that this is a terrorist incident'? Doesn't sound firm enough to me. Congress should hold hearings.
Twat.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
I take it they only got one of the suspects?
No it looks like that shot and arrested both attackers.
My guess at least on is your typical disaffected afro-carribean guy who's converted to islam.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 22, 2013, 01:56:03 PM
Gawker has a video, it's probably NSFW.
http://gawker.com/terror-in-london-soldier-hacked-apart-by-machete-wield-509321352
Glad they got the attackers.
One wonders, if Britain is so terrible then why is he there? Why not go someplace good?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
I take it they only got one of the suspects?
Shot both. One's in serious condition; other is stable.
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
Sorry bad twitter formatting.
Quote
Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
These times i was just going to the shop for some fruit and veg and i see all that!
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Then the next breda try buss off the rusty 45 and it just backfires and blows mans finger clean off... Feds didnt pet to just take him out!!
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
The first guy goes for the female fed with the machete and she not even ramping she took man out like robocop never seen nutn like it
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Then thats how u know they were on sutn cos they actually went for armed feds with just two machete and an old rusty lookin revolver
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Then boydem turn up!! Woolwich feds didnt want it... They had to wait for armed response.. Helicopters everyting...
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
People were asking whyyy whyyy they were just saying we've had enough! They looked like they were on sutn! Then they start waving a recolver
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
The two black bredas run this white guy over over then hop out the car and start chopping mans head off with machete!!
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Mate ive seen alot of shit im my time but that has to rank sumwhere in the top 3. I couldnt believe my eyes. That was some movie shit
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Oh my God!!!! The way Feds took them out!!! It was a female police officer she come out the whip and just started bussssin shots!!
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Woolwich #se18 whyyyyyyyyyyy!!!! Fuck!!!! Right next to a primary school!
Expand
Boya Dee Boya Dee @BOYADEE 4h
Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2013, 02:03:47 PM
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
I think it was yelling "Allahu Ahkbar!" repeatedly, telling people to video tape it, and decrying the government for their policies and killing Muslims that makes it murder by terrorists.
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2013, 02:03:47 PM
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
Yes it does. And Britain and the US of A should immediately declare war on any nation of "Muslim" appearance.
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2013, 02:03:47 PM
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
The statements made by the person of Muslim appearance make it almost certain it was a terrorist attack.
Goddamn. That is beyond fucked up.
Quote from: Josephus on May 22, 2013, 02:09:05 PM
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2013, 02:03:47 PM
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
Yes it does. And Britain and the US of A should immediately declare war on any nation of "Muslim" appearance.
No it doesn't or everytime a Muslim committed a crime it would be considered a terrorist attack. The simple fact Muslim-looking dudes did it does not make it a terrorist attack. Why exactly it matters so much whether or not a brutal murder was done out of terrorism or something else is beyond me but it seems to.
Wait did he call the UK cops 'Feds'? Nice :cool:
Quote from: Josephus on May 22, 2013, 02:09:05 PM
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2013, 02:03:47 PM
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
Yes it does.
Presumably this is meant to satirize someone, but for the life of me I can't figure out who.
That's unpossible, Islam is a religion of peace.
Seems fairly clear cut to me, a man, possibly a cadet, is attacked and murdered in broad daylight in front of many witness. One of the attackers then goes onto make a political statement to camera justifying their actions and appears to be in no hurry to flee the scene of the attack.
Not much of that has the hallmarks of a routine murder, domestic, drugs related or alcohol fuelled. For want of a better term, an act of terror, seems to cover it better.
Or were none of the violence jaded population of SE10 terrorised by what happened ?
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2013, 02:30:21 PM
Seems fairly clear cut to me, a man, possibly a cadet, is attacked and murdered in broad daylight in front of many witness. One of the attackers then goes onto make a political statement to camera justifying their actions and appears to be in no hurry to flee the screen of the attack.
Not much of that has the hallmarks of a routine murder, domestic, drugs related or alcohol related. For want of a better term, an act of terror, seems to cover it better.
Or were none of the violence jaded population of SE10 terrorised by what happened ?
Yeah I am not sure Brazen is going on about here. The entire intent of this murder is political terrorism and the perps worked hard to make sure we all knew it.
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2013, 02:30:21 PM
Seems fairly clear cut to me,
:pinch: A little respect, please? :rolleyes:
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2013, 02:30:21 PM
Seems fairly clear cut to me, a man, possibly a cadet, is attacked and murdered in broad daylight in front of many witness. One of the attackers then goes onto make a political statement to camera justifying their actions and appears to be in no hurry to flee the scene of the attack.
Not much of that has the hallmarks of a routine murder, domestic, drugs related or alcohol fuelled. For want of a better term, an act of terror, seems to cover it better.
Or were none of the violence jaded population of SE10 terrorised by what happened ?
:yes:
Yeah, cut down on the puns please.
Quote from: Legbiter on May 22, 2013, 02:36:10 PM
Yeah, cut down on the puns please.
Cut him some slack. People tend to lose their heads in situations like this - punning may be their coping mechanism.
I didn't know a knifing now counts as terrorism. I guess Bush didn't keep us as safe from Terrorism as he claimed.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
I didn't know a knifing now counts as terrorism. I guess Bush didn't keep us as safe from Terrorism as he claimed.
You're a retard.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
I didn't know a knifing now counts as terrorism. I guess Bush didn't keep us as safe from Terrorism as he claimed.
Terrorism - like hate crimes - is determined by the intent, not the murder weapon.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
I didn't know a knifing now counts as terrorism. I guess Bush didn't keep us as safe from Terrorism as he claimed.
You're a retard.
I'm going to have to agree with the neanderthal gun nut. :yes:
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2013, 02:48:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
I didn't know a knifing now counts as terrorism. I guess Bush didn't keep us as safe from Terrorism as he claimed.
Terrorism - like hate crimes - is determined by the intent, not the murder weapon.
Do I have to kill him. Can I chase someone around with a stick? Can that be terrorism?
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2013, 02:54:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
I didn't know a knifing now counts as terrorism. I guess Bush didn't keep us as safe from Terrorism as he claimed.
You're a retard.
I'm going to have to agree with the neanderthal gun nut. :yes:
Do go on. Please, elaborate on what the neanderthal means. I expect very a solid case pointing out the flaws of my statement.
Maybe Raz is just kindheartedly trying to take the heat off Brazen and Josephus. :sleep:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2013, 02:02:12 PM
One wonders, if Britain is so terrible then why is he there? Why not go someplace good?
because it's their duty to enlighten the world they live in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 03:01:12 PM
Maybe Raz is just kindheartedly trying to take the heat off Brazen and Josephus. :sleep:
How many acts of terrorism do you think were committed in the US with small weapons like knives and guns between 2001 and 2008?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 03:01:12 PM
Maybe Raz is just kindheartedly trying to take the heat off Brazen and Josephus. :sleep:
How many acts of terrorism do you think were committed in the US with small weapons like knives and guns between 2001 and 2008?
Walk over to your medicine cabinet, Open and close to door three times, then take your meds.
Raz: I'd sit the rest of this one out.
Damn the torpedos Raz, full speed ahead. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 03:08:19 PM
Damn the torpedos Raz, full speed ahead. :lol:
:lol: No shit, huh? We're watching him go into a steep dive and firewall the throttles.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:00:32 PM
Do go on. Please, elaborate on what the neanderthal means. I expect very a solid case pointing out the flaws of my statement.
As seems to be the case with pretty much every one of your posts over the last few months, they're predicated on deliberately missing the context in the most idiotic way possible. Talking about whether knifing is an act of terror is completely nonsensical; terrorism is about motives, not weapons. You can knife someone as an act of terror, or you can explode a bomb on a plane without it being an act of terror, if you're trying to get rid of just one passenger for the inheritance.
Which motives constitute terror and which do not?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
Which motives constitute terror and which do not?
Terrorism, noun, The use of violence or threats of violence to achieve political ends
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 03:01:12 PM
Maybe Raz is just kindheartedly trying to take the heat off Brazen and Josephus. :sleep:
How many acts of terrorism do you think were committed in the US with small weapons like knives and guns between 2001 and 2008?
Walk over to your medicine cabinet, Open and close to door three times, then take your meds.
Sounds like the medicine bottles talked him out of taking the meds.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
Which motives constitute terror and which do not?
I'd say the motives very clearly demonstrated by the perps in this particular case constitute terror.
:wacko:
Whose dick do I have to suck around here to get the Ignore feature turned back on? :)
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
Which motives constitute terror and which do not?
I'd say the motives very clearly demonstrated by the perps in this particular case constitute terror.
Retaliation? "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
I'm sorry I'm not engaging in enough group think for you guys. This is the first time I've ever heard of a knifing being counted as a terrorist attack.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2013, 03:19:29 PM
:wacko:
Whose dick do I have to suck around here to get the Ignore feature turned back on? :)
That would be mine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 03:08:19 PM
Damn the torpedos Raz, full speed ahead. :lol:
Could you give me an answer?
If you're that fixated on the knife thing, what about the Daniel Pearl execution? Was that not terrorism?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
I'm sorry I'm not engaging in enough group think for you guys. This is the first time I've ever heard of a knifing being counted as a terrorist attack.
Um some of the most famous terrorist campaigns and attacks in history have been carried out with blades. I can only assume you have spent your life deaf and blind in a cave somewhere?
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 03:26:02 PM
If you're that fixated on the knife thing, what about the Daniel Pearl execution? Was that not terrorism?
See? That's all you had to do. Give me an example. I accept that. I'll chock this down as terrorism.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 03:26:02 PM
If you're that fixated on the knife thing, what about the Daniel Pearl execution? Was that not terrorism?
And the Italian guy and the Korean guy. They ginzued a lot of of heads in Iraq.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 03:26:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
I'm sorry I'm not engaging in enough group think for you guys. This is the first time I've ever heard of a knifing being counted as a terrorist attack.
Um some of the most famous terrorist campaigns and attacks in history have been carried out with blades. I can only assume you have spent your life deaf and blind in a cave somewhere?
I typically counted those as assassinations.
Now instead of all insulting me, you could have just followed Derspeiss's lead and tried to reason with me. That's all it takes.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Now instead of all insulting me, you could have just followed Derspeiss's lead and tried to reason with me. That's all it takes.
Quit playing dumb, then trying to get sympathy.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Now instead of all insulting me, you could have just followed Derspeiss's lead and tried to reason with me. That's all it takes.
Quit playing dumb, then trying to get sympathy.
Well, when I asked people to use reason, I meant people capable of it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Now instead of all insulting me, you could have just followed Derspeiss's lead and tried to reason with me. That's all it takes.
Quit playing dumb, then trying to get sympathy.
Well, when I asked people to use reason, I meant people capable of it.
Raz vomit.
What the else do you want from me?
Holy crap, it is like the Daily Mail comments section in here.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
Holy crap, it is like the Daily Mail comments section in here.
Hardly. Where's the WOTS ALL THIS THEN?
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
Holy crap, it is like the Daily Mail comments section in here.
Hardly. Where's the WOTS ALL THIS THEN?
:D
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 03:08:19 PM
Damn the torpedos Raz, full speed ahead. :lol:
:lol: No shit, huh? We're watching him go into a steep dive and firewall the throttles.
WHERE IS THE OVERRIDE? THE OVERRIDE?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
Holy crap, it is like the Daily Mail comments section in here.
No shit.
Raz, go take your meds, have some ice cream, watch some light-hearted fare like
The Apple Dumpling Gang, and come back later.
You're being even more Razzy than usual the last couple days.
Fairly clear eyewitness testimony about what happened in the immediate aftermath of the murder:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22633922 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22633922)
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2013, 03:19:29 PM
:wacko:
Whose dick do I have to suck around here to get the Ignore feature turned back on? :)
I hate ignore features. If Raz is such a problem, just tell CdM that he likes anime and alternate history maps and he'll drop the hammer on him.
Keep Raz, pulverize Tim.
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2013, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2013, 03:19:29 PM
:wacko:
Whose dick do I have to suck around here to get the Ignore feature turned back on? :)
I hate ignore features. If Raz is such a problem, just tell CdM that he likes anime and alternate history maps and he'll drop the hammer on him.
:lol: God I love this place.
I'm not familiar with the immediate area of the attack, but have drunk in pubs and done a gig about 300 yards away. Plus I used to visit a friend who lived a mile away.
It isn't an especially bad area, just somewhat rundown when I used to visit, but I'd guess parts of the 'town' have gone upmarket as part of the general gentrification/boom London's seen in the last 15-20 years.
Daily Fail says the EDL has shown up.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2013, 01:57:54 PM
'Strong indications that this is a terrorist incident'? Doesn't sound firm enough to me. Congress should hold hearings.
Twat.
What? You don't think it's a good idea for the GOP to obstruct everything that moves until they win the Presidency of the UK too?
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2013, 05:20:59 PM
I'm not familiar with the immediate area of the attack, but have drunk in pubs and done a gig about 300 yards away. Plus I used to visit a friend who lived a mile away.
It isn't an especially bad area, just somewhat rundown when I used to visit, but I'd guess parts of the 'town' have gone upmarket as part of the general gentrification/boom London's seen in the last 15-20 years.
Woolwich is still a bit of a rough area, and I don't think it's really started gentrifying yet...
Rough area or no rough area, it's still pretty fucked up to commit that kind of attack in broad daylight and stick around for video time with passersby.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 06:11:56 PM
Rough area or no rough area, it's still pretty fucked up to commit that kind of attack in broad daylight and stick around for video time with passersby.
Yeah. No attempt to get away or anything. Also, just pretty fucked up to see people in the background just standing around, like it was some traffic accident or something. Nobody is trying to blindside the dude while he's talking to the camera, and nobody seems to be running away.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 06:14:36 PM
Yeah. No attempt to get away or anything. Also, just pretty fucked up to see people in the background just standing around, like it was some traffic accident or something. Nobody is trying to blindside the dude while he's talking to the camera, and nobody seems to be running away.
I can't say I wouldn't have brained the fucker with a tire iron during his pontification. Or being armed? The situation would've be resolved accordingly.
I would have concussed him with my "two dragons roaring out to sea" nunchaku technique.
BS. I would have done the Usain Bolt two-step.
Mart would have tackled them, if they had a gun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 06:24:33 PM
BS. I would have done the Usain Bolt two-step.
Yes, that's the rational response when you're watching someone give their post-game "we went out there with the intent of shutting down the passing game, Steve" interview after hacking someone to death in the middle of the street.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: Brazen on May 22, 2013, 02:03:47 PM
It was a murder. Being committed by people "of Muslim appearance does not make it a terrorist attack.
The statements made by the person of Muslim appearance make it almost certain it was a terrorist attack.
It was a palindrome.
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2013, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2013, 05:20:59 PM
I'm not familiar with the immediate area of the attack, but have drunk in pubs and done a gig about 300 yards away. Plus I used to visit a friend who lived a mile away.
It isn't an especially bad area, just somewhat rundown when I used to visit, but I'd guess parts of the 'town' have gone upmarket as part of the general gentrification/boom London's seen in the last 15-20 years.
Woolwich is still a bit of a rough area, and I don't think it's really started gentrifying yet...
Oh good or bad to know.
Though I'd still say I've never felt threatened in London, whereas I have in area 10 miles from home !
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 06:14:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 06:11:56 PM
Rough area or no rough area, it's still pretty fucked up to commit that kind of attack in broad daylight and stick around for video time with passersby.
Yeah. No attempt to get away or anything. Also, just pretty fucked up to see people in the background just standing around, like it was some traffic accident or something. Nobody is trying to blindside the dude while he's talking to the camera, and nobody seems to be running away.
Witness have said one of the attackers had a pistol and the other had a machete and knives, so some may have chosen not to attack them given the risks and what they've just seen these two attackers do.
Though I think the bigger explanation for the inaction, but with some people still hanging around, was just how utterly different the event was to anything anyone had experienced before.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the onlookers thought it was some sort of weird public theatre/activism/performance ?
But clearly others reacted differently, like the van driver who passed right by, thought it was a traffic accident, went and parked his car, walked up the hill to see if he could help/see what happened, but on nearing the scene realised something was very wrong and warned off a group of school children/teachers from approaching.
I don't know what was more English about this:
1) how it took 20 minutes to locate an officer with a firearm,
2) how the EDL promptly mustered out to defend the realm, or
3) how two separate mosques were attacked hours after the incident.
Oh, islam. :shame:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 08:14:57 PM
I don't know what was more English about this:
1) how it took 20 minutes to locate an officer with a firearm,
2) how the EDL promptly mustered out to defend the realm, or
3) how two separate mosques were attacked hours after the incident.
That chick that told 'em off had MASSIVE brass balls.
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2013, 07:35:23 PM
Witness have said one of the attackers had a pistol and the other had a machete and knives, so some may have chosen not to attack them given the risks and what they've just seen these two attackers do.
Doesn't appear that anyone was even assessing the risk of doing so. At least in some places in the US, people would have subdued the attackers and possibly had them beaten to death by the time the cops got there.
QuoteThough I think the bigger explanation for the inaction, but with some people still hanging around, was just how utterly different the event was to anything anyone had experienced before.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the onlookers thought it was some sort of weird public theatre/activism/performance ?
But clearly others reacted differently, like the van driver who passed right by, thought it was a traffic accident, went and parked his car, walked up the hill to see if he could help/see what happened, but on nearing the scene realised something was very wrong and warned off a group of school children/teachers from approaching.
It's your country, so you're in a better position to judge, but it still seems bizarre that fight or flight did not kick in for all those standing around.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
That chick that told 'em off had MASSIVE brass balls.
God Bless the Pepperpots.
Ah, British English, so refined and proper. :lol:
Feds? I think this guy watches too much American tv
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BK4fY4zCUAEyAc4.jpg)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
Holy crap, it is like the Daily Mail comments section in here.
No shit.
Raz, go take your meds, have some ice cream, watch some light-hearted fare like The Apple Dumpling Gang, and come back later.
You're being even more Razzy than usual the last couple days.
You guys can tell?
One of the attackers has been named on twitter/social media as a British Nigerian muslim convert who goes by the name of Mujahid Adeboloja. No idea if this is accurate or confirmed officially.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 08:46:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
Holy crap, it is like the Daily Mail comments section in here.
No shit.
Raz, go take your meds, have some ice cream, watch some light-hearted fare like The Apple Dumpling Gang, and come back later.
You're being even more Razzy than usual the last couple days.
You guys can tell?
That's what we're here for buddy. To look after you. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 08:32:51 PM
It's your country, so you're in a better position to judge, but it still seems bizarre that fight or flight did not kick in for all those standing around.
Why would it kick in? The bystanders weren't in immediate danger, getting involved is what would've put them in immediate danger. In situations like that, what can kick in is diffusion of responsibility, and it seems like that in fact did happen.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 08:32:51 PM
It's your country, so you're in a better position to judge, but it still seems bizarre that fight or flight did not kick in for all those standing around.
Mayhem isn't exactly the first thing that comes to the rational actor's mind in that sort of situation.
Still don't understand it.
Shit happens here all the time.
Arlington, Virginia--
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/18/shock-video-bystanders-walk-by-dying-man-as-he-lays-motionless-on-the-sidewalk-in-virginia/
Boston, Massachusetts--
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/woman-attacked-by-four-thugs-witnesses-walk-away/
New Yawk, New Yawk--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/26/new-york-stabbed-samaritan-dies
I can't really fault untrained civilians not getting involved when they face danger. There is a reason we must train and pay cops to do that for us.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2013, 09:30:57 PM
I can't really fault untrained civilians not getting involved when they face danger. There is a reason we must train and pay cops to do that for us.
For the most part, I can't either. Not getting the fuck out of there, though, seems odd.
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.
Bunch of rationalizing know-it-alls :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2013, 09:20:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 08:32:51 PM
It's your country, so you're in a better position to judge, but it still seems bizarre that fight or flight did not kick in for all those standing around.
Why would it kick in? The bystanders weren't in immediate danger, getting involved is what would've put them in immediate danger. In situations like that, what can kick in is diffusion of responsibility, and it seems like that in fact did happen.
It's called fight or
flight!
A couple of crazies just chopped a dude's head off. If you don't want to get involved why wouldn't you run? Not in immediate danger? How do they know that? These guys are unbalanced.
You don't see a guy beheaded every day. I hope.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2013, 03:19:29 PM
:wacko:
Whose dick do I have to suck around here to get the Ignore feature turned back on? :)
I know. I want it back precisely to be able to ignore Raz.
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.
During one of the London Languish meets an old dude collapsed and probably had a heart attack or a stroke or something on the sidewalk, there was like 20 people standing around in a circle and watching as he was literally dying at their feet, and nobody, and I mean NOBODY called an ambulance until RH asked if anyone has.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
You don't see a guy beheaded every day. I hope.
Welcome to the new normal.
You see people brushing right by the murderer with bloody hands as he's addressing the camera. Not scared, but not getting involved. A pair of girls go up an check the victim's pulse then ask the other guy what he's done. It took 20 minutes for the police to arrive - maybe everyone thought it's so serious surely someone's done it already?
Intervention is a strange subject in London. More than once I've helped out as someone's collapsed in the street and either called for an ambulance or ensured someone else already had. But just yesterday I passed a man lying in the gardens in front of a block of flats and neither tried to check he was OK or called the emergency services, just assuming he was a drunk who passed out.
I like to think I would have tried first aid on the victim, but almost certainly not with two armed madmen dripping blood next to me. A "has anyone called the cops?" probably wouldn't have gone amiss. If there had been other soldiers in the vicinity, there might not have been much left for the cops to arrest.
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. There are a shocking number of people knifed or hacked to death in gang violence every day in London which are sufficiently common to barely be covered in the press.
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.
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.
Quote from: Warspite on May 23, 2013, 05:22:53 AMThe last thing the Feds want is more bodies to deal with.
Why do you call them Feds? Cultural osmosis via US tv?
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings)
More soldiers and people at a jewish school were killer later on.
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.
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 (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/after-woolwich-how-media-got-it-wrong-and-how-public-can-get-it-right)
QuoteAfter 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?
A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 23, 2013, 05:52:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 23, 2013, 06:43:52 AM
A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.
You are being sarcastic, right? :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 06:50:00 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 23, 2013, 06:43:52 AM
A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.
You are being sarcastic, right? :P
What do you think? ;)
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 23, 2013, 06:54:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 06:50:00 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 23, 2013, 06:43:52 AM
A pretty disgusting contrast to the usual restraint of British journalists.
You are being sarcastic, right? :P
What do you think? ;)
There was an off-chance you might have just been woefully misinformed. :P
Quote from: Gups on May 23, 2013, 06:48:09 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 23, 2013, 05:52:26 AM
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.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 23, 2013, 12:15:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on May 23, 2013, 06:48:09 AM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: Gups on May 23, 2013, 06:48:09 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2013, 10:04:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Warspite on May 23, 2013, 05:22:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on May 23, 2013, 09:45:59 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2013, 10:04:33 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Brazen on May 23, 2013, 05:08:56 AM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2013, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 23, 2013, 05:08:56 AM
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."
Yep, there's no way this isn't being the lead story everywhere, however it's labelled.
Dont know if this has been posted yet. The Lad that was murdered.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1-cdn.newser.com%2Fimage%2F934814-0-20130523113030.jpeg&hash=5a3d5e5b0ae508a7f8cc7b34dc8a60bdc7671db0)
Quote(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.
Quote
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback/print)
QuoteTo 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteThere 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.
QuoteBasic 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.
QuoteIn 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.
QuotePut 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
QuotePut 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.
Islamopologists come out in force. Film at 11.
QuoteI 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. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 01:20:08 PMYeah 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.
My reading is that he's not saying that's what terrorism means, but that that's how the term is used.
Quote from: Jacob on May 23, 2013, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 01:20:08 PMYeah 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.
My reading is that he's not saying that's what terrorism means, but that that's how the term is used.
I think he is weaseling out of conceding that it is terrorism by modifying the definition of terrorism to include elements that, supposedly, "many argue" that terrorism "must" include.
It is a crap argument, meant solely to introduce his moral equivalency argument. And that argument is introduced merely to support the idea that it is all the West's fault.
Terrorism seems like a quite useful and appropriate label for this murder.
It has the virtue of allowing politicians to condemn the crime, say we will not be swayed and for the mass of the population to continue going about our daily lives in defiance of this or any other act of terror.
Rather than the endlessly playing with different word forms and positions that can't help but betray our own political bias, as the journalist did in the above item. Which might help to generate a divided response to this crime and give the terrorist's sympathisers the idea that their actions have had an effect.
Quote from: Warspite on May 23, 2013, 07:06:01 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 23, 2013, 06:48:09 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 23, 2013, 05:52:26 AM
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.
She's obviously a pawn of Cobra Commander.
Quote from: citizen k on May 23, 2013, 12:52:36 PM
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.
If any Islamoid savage wants to take said columnist and chop him into bite-sized pieces with a machete, I'll be very happy to go "No Islam to see here, nothing to do with Islam, all these body parts in the street are a deplorable misinterpretation of Islam". :)