Woolwich Beheading Blowback from UK's Neo-Colonial Crimes?

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP
Woolwich Beheading Blowback from UK's Neo-Colonial Crimes?

UK's Colonial Past a Possible Factor in Brutal Woolwich Killing

http://rt.com/news/woolwich-the-attack-uk-666/

"...Brian Becker from anti-war coalition ANSWER told RT that the UK's neo-colonial approach to the Middle East, along with its NATO and US alliance, was leading to an 'escalating cycle of violence.'

'The British colonial past and its current legacy of intervention and war is undoubtedly a factor,' Becker said. 'The British government joined George W Bush in the invasion of Iraq and supported the war in Afghanistan.'

UK politician George Galloway also intimated that the attack could have been a consequence of British actions abroad, drawing a parallel with Syria: 'This sickening atrocity in London is exactly what we are paying the same kind of people to do in Syria."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The question I'd like answered is was this just a random soldier or was he targeted for specific behaviour he took part in while serving in an occupying army.  Not that it makes beheading any less a gruesome and inexcusable crime but if he was a war criminal then it at least makes some sense.

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The question I'd like answered is was this just a random soldier or was he targeted for specific behaviour he took part in while serving in an occupying army.  Not that it makes beheading any less a gruesome and inexcusable crime but if he was a war criminal then it at least makes some sense.

But Kropotkin aren't all soldiers who serve in occupying armies 'war criminals'?

NDPP

Shocking Woolwich Attack: LIVE UPDATES

http://rt.com/news/london-terror-live-updates-654/

"The Ministry of Defense identifies the soldier killed in Wednesday's attack as Lee Rigby, 25 [ a drummer]. Foreign Secretary William Hague told ITV News, British foreign policy is 'no excuse for the murder.'

 

The Boston Connection

http://rt.com/news/cameron-london-woolwich-attack-678/

"...OSCE (Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe) Secretary General Lamberto Zannier likened the attack in London to the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three people in April. He told RT that the attacks in London and Boston are a 'new trend and a new threat that the international comunity is facing, and in fact in the OSCE we are now re-discussing security. This calls for a new level of cooperation, new kind of strategy for the international community,' he added."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

OathofStone wrote:

But Kropotkin aren't all soldiers who serve in occupying armies 'war criminals'?

Their governments are but not necessarily the people on the ground.  The pictures of soldiers willfully and happily abusing civilians that regularly come out of Afghanistan is what I am talking about.  The presence of an occupying army is a war crime but the individual soldier might not be war criminals. I don't consider all the Canadian soldiers who fought in Korea war criminals although our military committed war crimes and so did many individual soldiers. Just because you served in Canada's navy over the last 15 years while it engaged in illegal blockades of sovereign nations doesn't make every sailor a war criminal even though it can be argued that their collective actions constitute a war crime against the civilian populations targeted for this terror by sanction.

Bacchus

Well he was a drummer in the band so maybe his drums was a war crime to those that hate the sound of drums?

Slumberjack

Members of the Czar's Imperial Army who subsequently joined the Red Army proved that soldiers aren't always loyal to a given cause.

contrarianna

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The question I'd like answered is was this just a random soldier or was he targeted for specific behaviour he took part in while serving in an occupying army.  ...

Without evidence otherwise, I'd guess he was a random soldier.
However, the criteria for the almost universal media and political very selective terrorist designation of that disgusting slaughter is part of the propaganda milieu that we swim in:

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?
        Glenn Greenwald   
        guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 May 2013
.....
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. ...

 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....

   
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terr...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

OathofStone wrote:
But Kropotkin aren't all soldiers who serve in occupying armies 'war criminals'?

This is a perfect example of baiting. Please don't do that.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Bacchus wrote:

Well he was a drummer in the band so maybe his drums was a war crime to those that hate the sound of drums?

Quote:

Unlike army musicians who form bands and will usually be limited to medical orderly duties in wartime, corps of drums drummers are principally fully trained infantry soldiers, with recruitment into the corps of drums coming after standard infantry training. A corps of drums will deploy with the rest of the battalion, and will often form specialist platoons such as assault pioneers, supporting fire or force protection.

Historically, the drum was used to convey orders during a battle, so the corps of drums was a fully integrated feature of an infantry battalion. Later on, when the bugle was adopted to convey orders, drummers were given bugles, but also maintained their drums and flutes.

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

It seems that no matter where you are born you are not really British unless you are white.  The suspects are being called Nigerians of British birth.  How racist can you get? It reminds me of a certain Canadian track star who went from being a Canadian hero to a Jamaican bum in seconds flat.

Bacchus

That kind of racism is very normal I fear. Its almost woven into the fabric of our society. As soon as anyone has done anything in a negative light you will see the digging for something in their background, or upbringing or religion very quickly (unless your a WASP then its just because you were insane, on drugs or 'went bad')

Bacchus

As per CNN:The British soldier killed in a gruesome attack was a ceremonial drummer and had served as a machine gunner in Afghanistan

 

Though the pic of him is as a band member and the drummer part if highlighted first

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

A more generic picture of what British troops look like in Afghanistan would not evoke the same response as an "innocent" band member with no real connection to the UK's Afghan troops. The British press wants people to see Heroes instead of the image that the locals have which is of foreigners who regularly kill civilians. 

Paladin1

Catchfire wrote:

OathofStone wrote:
But Kropotkin aren't all soldiers who serve in occupying armies 'war criminals'?

This is a perfect example of baiting. Please don't do that.

 

You are quite right.

Kropokin I apologize for attempting to bait you, it was small of me. Thank you for your genuine response.

6079_Smith_W

Despite what Mr. Greenwald says, just because the U.S. and U.K. don't recognize their own actions as terrorist doesn't mean the word has no meaning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22636624

If this BBC piece is correct, does anyone here believe the perpetators would want to have their act dismissed as the product of insanity? I sure don't.

And it's not like this is the first time this has happened in Britain. It's not even the first time soldiers from that barracks have been targetted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Arms,_Woolwich

 

 

contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Despite what Mr. Greenwald says, just because the U.S. and U.K. don't recognize their own actions as terrorist doesn't mean the word has no meaning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22636624

If this BBC piece is correct, does anyone here believe the perpetators would want to have their act dismissed as the product of insanity? I sure don't.

And it's not like this is the first time this has happened in Britain. It's not even the first time soldiers from that barracks have been targetted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Arms,_Woolwich

"Despite what Greenwald says..." There's no obvious clue that you are commenting on what he said.

You have shot down several arguments never made.
 

6079_Smith_W

Not sure where you get that from. I'm just looking at the headline. I think he poses some interesting and some good points, but really, the piece is heavy rhetoric verging on satire.

Like this:

Quote:

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".


And the Michael Moore quote, and using the U.S. refusal to recognize its own terrorism as a foil.

It is cute to a point, but sorry; terrorism exists. It is not just some construct. States use it, and movements use it. And dancing around that is no more productive than dancing around the question of when and against whom it is fair game.

contrarianna

 

You may be "sorry",  but not because "terrorism exists".

For you to conclude that Greenwald's accurate statement that:

Quote:

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".

somehow equals your strawman target  "terrorism doesn't exist" is sorry indeed.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well what does the statement say, if not that "terrorism" is simply a construct that some states apply to the actions of others?

As for its accuracy, the at least some in the British press have enough perspective to see beyond that, because their first comparision was with another case of terrorism they have experience with - the troubles.

And on that strawman.. the whole editorial is theory and propagada. But frankly, it is 101, especially in this crowd. And I find it kind of lacking when it comes to addressing the actual murder.

 

 

 

contrarianna

What part of the word "operationally" don't you understand?

In pointing out the selective propagandist application of the term, it is not Greenwald who brings the term into meaningless incoherence.

He, in fact, describes a "coherent definition" supplied, only to point out the failure to adhere to it.

If a word is debased, not used in the same way for comparable activities, one normally should not blame the messenger for pointing out that irrationality.

6079_Smith_W

contrarianna wrote:

What part of the word "operationally" don't you understand?

Well from a narrow American perspective, perhaps, it is a term of hatred against Islam and nothing else. But there are enough people who know from very recent experience  that it also means more than that, and not just those who remember the bombing in that neighbourhood 40 years ago. In fact, the parallels are worth noting, because that crime also had a reaction which saw innocent people targetted, tortured and imprisoned.

I certainly don't agree with carving some poor fellow's head off with a cleaver to make a point. But if I felt strongly enough about something to do that,  wait for the police to arrive, and tell people that they should not trust their government, and get their army out of others' countries or there will be more blood, I'd appreciate it if someone actually got that point. I'm not sure what I'd think of some fellow, however well-intended, who responded by asking what it meant, and turned it into an argument about semantics and western denial.

Again, it's not that I disagree with all Greenwald's arguments, and much of it is very good. But the faux-ignorance is just a little trite when one considers what took place.

Does he need another demonstration to get the point? Of course it is a terrorist act and it is an outrage that someone feels driven to do that. Whether or not someone is waiting to follow through on his threat, it is deadly serious.

 

NDPP

'We Built Frankenstein Monsters, Spawned Millions of Radicalized Muslims' - MP George Galloway (and vid)

http://rt.com/op-edge/woolwich-attack-radicalized-muslims-galloway-718/

"...So I simply ask David Cameron as I asked him before in Parliament if he would adumbrate the key differences between the hand chopping throat cutting fanatics that we saw in Woolwich yesterday and the hand chopping throat cutting fanatics we are giving money and weapons to in Syria..."

 

British Muslims 'Terrorized' Over Soldier Death (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/24/305115/british-muslims-terroriz...

"Muslim groups in the UK has reported a rising level of Islamaphobic hate-crime after a British soldier was killed in London by two young men. Islamophobic  and Zionist groups like the English Defence League used the murder and the media hype to stage provocative protests.."

Kara

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police

Seemingly to the UK government, media and much of the population, brutal murders only matter when the victim is white and not when the perpetrator is white.  Mohammed Saleem's murder was very brutal and on a public street yet received little attention, similar to the far too many crimes happening frequently in the UK targetting POC.  If the perpetrators of the killing of Rigby are classified as terrorists, why aren't the thugs who roam too many UK streets targetting POC classified as the same?

Fidel

Woolwich London Killing: Terrorism or False Flag?

Stephen Lendman wrote:

Reports said two assailants hacked a British soldier to death. He’s been identified as Lee Rigby. He was killed in broad daylight. It was several hundred meters from southeast London’s Woolwich Royal Artillery barracks.

Weapons included a machete type knife. Alleged attackers remained on the scene. They did so until police arrived 20 minutes later.

Why wasn’t explained. Killers don’t usually stay around to be captured. Both assailants were shot and apprehended. They were hospitalized for treatment.

Another non-corporate, independent point of view.

6079_Smith_W

Kara wrote:

If the perpetrators of the killing of Rigby are classified as terrorists, why aren't the thugs who roam too many UK streets targetting POC classified as the same?

I think we all know the answer. One can argue they are both terrorist, and there are enough instances in which that is clearly stated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/06/neo-nazi-cell-trial-germany-...

I'd only add that this case is more explicitly so because the alleged attacker had a very clear political message regarding the public and the government. Assuming these people did carry out the attack, the only other option - that they are not criminally responsible because of insanity - is something that some terrorists (Anders Brejvik, for one) want to avoid because it undermines the whole reason for their action in the first place.

autoworker

This thread is odious!

talkback

Are you people really this out to fucking lunch? When someone hacks a person to death, with bystanders watching impassively, this is depraved and indefensible--PERIOD AND FULL STOP. Why are you equivocating between the slaughter of Lee Rigby and his murderer's addled jihadi jibber jabber? Tossing around garbage like 'neocolonialism' to justify bloody, public homocide is beyond sick. And I see that the original poster is picking sides in the Syrian mess, as well. The rebels may not be saints, but the Assad regime is vicious and brutal, with a horrific tally of corpses of men, women and children under the Syrian Army jackboots. But because the Assad regime is anti-Israel/U.S., they are the good guys? This kind of discourse really does reek of what apologists for Marxism-Leninism in the Holodomor, Maoist mass murder and starvation, Pol Pot in Cambodia, or Jugoslav paramilitaries in Kosovo and Bosnia trafficked in. Trying to find any justification in something like this is as warped as neo Nazis blaming the gas chambers on rich bankers, or Agusto Pinochet's crimes on some leftist conspiracy. Smarten up!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Explanation is NOT justification. 

What happened to Drummer Rigby is abominable-but it isn't as simple as saying that the two men who did this are solely responsible.

The rush to war and the arrogance of British and American power have Rigby's blood on their hands as much as the killers themselves do.

 

autoworker

Ken Burch wrote:

Explanation is NOT justification. 

What happened to Drummer Rigby is abominable-but it isn't as simple as saying that the two men who did this are solely responsible.

The rush to war and the arrogance of British and American power have Rigby's blood on their hands as much as the killers themselves do.

 

Bullshit!

contrarianna

Quote:

Andrew Sullivan, terrorism, and the art of distortion

Challenging the conventional western narrative on terrorism produces unique amounts of rage and bile. It's worth examining why.
Glenn Greenwald   
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 25 May 2013
....
Having written about these matters many times before, I know exactly how some people reflexively try to radically distort the argument beyond recognition in order to smear you as a Terror apologist, a Terrorist-lover or worse, all for the thought crime of raising these issues. To do so, they deceitfully conflate claims of causation (A is one of the causes of B) with justification (B is justified). Anyone operating with the most basic levels of rationality understands that these concepts are distinct. To discuss what motivates a person to engage in Action B is not remotely to justify Action B.
....
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."
....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/25/andrew-sullivan-dist...

6079_Smith_W

So now it has morphed into Americans arguing with Americans about what it all means.

Just because Andrew Sullivan is wrong doesn't mean that Glenn Greenwald isn't off on a tangent.

Governments demonize their enemies as terrorist, but don't admit to being terrorists themselves. Simple.

Besides, I think Terry Jones had the last word on that one some time ago:

“What really alarms me about President Bush's 'War on Terrorism' is the grammar. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? How is 'Terrorism' going to surrender? It's well known, in philological circles, that it's very hard for abstract nouns to surrender.”

Do we waste time scratching our chins wondering if Augusto Pinochet was a fascist or not, as if the word has some magical power to justify or condemn?

The important thing here is that some fellow has allegedly murdered a soldier as a warning to Britons to get their army out of other peoples' countries. Musing about whether it is terrorist or not (and I'd say it fits the definition nicely) is kind of a distraction from that.

Do you think he cares what they call it? My guess is he's more interested in people listening to what he said.

 

 

contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Besides, I think Terry Jones had the last word on that one some time ago:

“What really alarms me about President Bush's 'War on Terrorism' is the grammar. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? How is 'Terrorism' going to surrender? It's well known, in philological circles, that it's very hard for abstract nouns to surrender.”

Do we waste time scratching our chins wondering if Augusto Pinochet was a fascist or not, as if the word has some magical power to justify or condemn?

Certainly words have "some magical power to justify or condemn" (magic being an effect contrary to normal causality).

This is not about "scratching our heads" about what shades of colour can be included in the colour blue, or  even whether or not Pinochet was a fascist (being a fascist, in itself, is not what he could have been prosecuted for).

Grammatically correct or not "the war on terror" is not an academic puzzle, it is a  propagandistically laden phrase around which laws and state policy are manufactured and justified to a consenting public.
"Semantics", rather than just a term of dismissal, comprises meaning, and disjunctive meanings shape the world:

Quote:
Concerning whether this attack should be categorized as "terrorism", I explained precisely why it's vital to ask that question: because the term bears such great significance legally, politically, culturally, and emotionally and yet has no clear or consistently applied definition, and is thus used as a propaganda tool to glorify violence and other conduct by western states while rendering inherently illegitimate all violence directed at those states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/25/andrew-sullivan-dist...

Kara

talkback wrote:

Are you people really this out to fucking lunch? When someone hacks a person to death, with bystanders watching impassively, this is depraved and indefensible--PERIOD AND FULL STOP. Why are you equivocating between the slaughter of Lee Rigby and his murderer's addled jihadi jibber jabber?

Where is anyone defending this murder?  Asking if these types of incidents are blowback for the actions of western countires is not defending these acts at all.

Did you get this outraged about the children and innocent civilians slaughtered by NATO troops, American drones, Israeli missile attacks, etc.?  Or is blowing innocent people to bits somehow better or more humane?  Those killings are every bit as public and bloody.

There are many, many more Lee Rigby's (i.e. people who did not deserve their fate) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.  Just because we don't see the blood doesn't mean it isn't there.

The highlighted phrase seems pretty racist so perhaps you should think about retracting that.

talkback wrote:

Smarten up!

You are the one who should "smarten up" because you seem to be the one who is "out to fucking lunch".

6079_Smith_W

Again, it only vital to those who pitch and accept official rhetoric, and those interested in going down some rabbit hole.

The word itself may have some shades of meaning, but it's a pretty simple concept, actually. It is an extremely violent act specifically intended to scare people into doing something.

I probably wouldn't have taken issue with Greenwald, except for his claim that the term no longer has any meaning beyond anti-Islamic propaganda. As I said already, I am sure anyone in the neighbourhood where the murder took place who has any sense of history knows that is complete nonsense.

(edit)

I know it is well-intended, but it is still a classic example of the American trait of seeing their thing as the only thing that matters, and not recognizing anything outside their own experience.

 

 

contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, it only vital to those who pitch and accept official rhetoric....

That would include the, not insignificant, majority.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The word itself may have some shades of meaning, but it's a pretty simple concept, actually. It is an extremely violent act specifically intended to scare people into doing something.

There are many problems with any "simple" definition, and none really has curency  in isolation from the various political contexts, as the many links from this Wikipedia article illustrate:

Quote:

....
A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[7] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".[8]
....
The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[21] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that

    "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]


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

6079_Smith_W

Well let's see now.

Fellow targets a soldier, saws the guy's head off in public, waits for the cops, and recites a manifesto about resisting government policy and makes threats of more violence .

Given that we all agree that some abuse the term, and assuming the alleged attacker is not insane, do you really feel you need to apply for a research grant to figure out how to describe the act?

Because I don't. I call it terrorism. I'm a bit more concerned about what drove him to it, and what happens next.

 

6079_Smith_W

Interview with Anjem Chouardy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22650053

Unfortunately identified as "extremist" , and talked over and invited to leave the country by the interviewer. But it is interesting to watch.

I wonder if the BBC has run any similar programs questioning the British presence in Afghanistan following the murder. It is unfortunate that the whole spotlight here is on the Muslim community.

(edit)

And this happened yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/24/raf-jet-diverted-pakistani-p...

I wonder if they would have called the fighter jets on a plane from New York.

 

talkback

Did you get this outraged about the children and innocent civilians slaughtered by NATO troops, American drones, Israeli missile attacks, etc.?

 

Yes. Israel, for example, has run a brutal campaign of defacto ethnic cleansing--not only against Palestinian Muslims, but also Christians. And don't forget Russia's vicious war in Chechnya (an "oil war," if there ever was one), China's Han racist-colonialist policies in Tibet, Mongolia and 'Xinjiang,' etc. And NATO's drone strikes have been ham fisted, with often massive collateral casualties, though nothing like the deliberate slaughter of innocents comitted by Syrian forces. I calls it when I sees it.

As for the Westboro Baptist Church and Qur'an burning...why aren't people outraged when sectarian violence (Sunni vs Shi'a vs Ahmadiyya) results in Muslims torching each others' mosques, with both Qur'ans and PEOPLE inside?

The point is that there is no point in linking a public homocide with some political cause. And the response of the British public (most of whom meekly watched the carnage, or took pictures) and unarmed police was appalling. Especially the police, who watched a man be slaughtered, but rushed to defend politically correct sensibilities:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330180/Woolwich-attacks-Man-cha...

talkback

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I wonder if the BBC has run any similar programs questioning the British presence in Afghanistan following the murder. It is unfortunate that the whole spotlight here is on the Muslim community?

For the billionth time: NATO troops are in Afghanistan because the then Taliban government protected a terrorist group (al Qaeda) that slaughtered nearly 3,000 people on the soil of a NATO member country. And, prior to 9/11, even progressives complained of the horrific mysogeny of the Taliban. NATO has been a largely benevolent and soft occupying power. If al Qaeda had attacked Russia, China, or even India (all countries that have, unlike Britain and the U.S., NOT been kind to their Muslim minorities), Kandahar and Kabul would now be radioactive craters.

Also, no ifs ands or buts, Anjem Choudary is a scumbag extremist and public safety threat:

http://ibloga.blogspot.ca/2009/03/all-homosexuals-should-be-stoned-to.html

re., homosexuality:

'If a man likes another man, it can happen, but if you go on to fulfil your desire, if it is proved, then there is a punishment to follow. You don't stone to death unless there are four eyewitnesses. It is a very stringent procedure.

'There are some people who are attracted to donkeys but that does not mean it is right.'

The Westboro Babptist Church--which has NEVER called for the murder of gays--seems positively pro-GLBTG by comparison.

contrarianna

talkback wrote:

... there is no point in linking a public homocide with some political cause.

That of course is ONE definition of a terrrorist act
Not that a  gun luvin' Bob Ford apologist, soft on Al Qaida in Syria, would have anything serious to say on anything.

Kara

talkback wrote:

NATO has been a largely benevolent and soft occupying power.

You cannot possibly be serious with this statement!?!?!?

contrarianna

The criterum for acceptable 12-year (so far) foreign occupations is that they be  "NATO-benevolent". Good to know.

Quote:
Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
From Wikipedia,

The decade-long War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has caused the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of Afghan civilians indirectly as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, and crime resulting from the war. The war, launched by the United States as "Operation Enduring Freedom" in 2001, began with an initial air campaign that almost immediately prompted concerns over the number of Afghan civilians being killed[1] as well as international protests. With civilian deaths from airstrikes rising again in recent years,[2] ....

6079_Smith_W

Hey talkback. I can evaluate Choudary's position just as you can. My point is, I don't think I need help from an overzealous interviewer.

And funny, I always thought NATO was in Afghanistan because people might start to get suspicious if Bush invaded Iraq first.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

talkback wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I wonder if the BBC has run any similar programs questioning the British presence in Afghanistan following the murder. It is unfortunate that the whole spotlight here is on the Muslim community?

For the billionth time: NATO troops are in Afghanistan because the then Taliban government protected a terrorist group (al Qaeda) that slaughtered nearly 3,000 people on the soil of a NATO member country. And, prior to 9/11, even progressives complained of the horrific mysogeny of the Taliban. NATO has been a largely benevolent and soft occupying power. If al Qaeda had attacked Russia, China, or even India (all countries that have, unlike Britain and the U.S., NOT been kind to their Muslim minorities), Kandahar and Kabul would now be radioactive craters.

Also, no ifs ands or buts, Anjem Choudary is a scumbag extremist and public safety threat:

http://ibloga.blogspot.ca/2009/03/all-homosexuals-should-be-stoned-to.html

re., homosexuality:

'If a man likes another man, it can happen, but if you go on to fulfil your desire, if it is proved, then there is a punishment to follow. You don't stone to death unless there are four eyewitnesses. It is a very stringent procedure.

'There are some people who are attracted to donkeys but that does not mean it is right.'

The Westboro Babptist Church--which has NEVER called for the murder of gays--seems positively pro-GLBTG by comparison.

The Westboro Baptist Church has NEVER called for the murder of gays?  Dude, have you never read their signs?

And, as to Afghanistan...the Taliban isn't running the place anymore, therefore there's NO LONGER any reason for "NATO" to be there.
It's time to end the colonial occupation and bring the troops home.  There's no longer anything they can do(if they were ever really able to do anything that mattered in the past)to make the place better.  We should just leave it to Karzai and let it go at that.  OK? 

NDPP

MI5 'Tried to Recruit' Woolwich Murder Suspect

http://rt.com/news/mi5-job-woolwich-suspect-782/

"UK Intelligence service MI5 approached Woolwich killing suspect Michael Adebolajo to offer him a job, a friend of the alleged murderer claimed in a BBC interview. MI5 acknowledged on Thursday that Adebolajo had been known to them for eight years, prompting criticism that they could have taken steps to prevent the murder of 25-year-old Army Drummer [and machine-gunner] Lee Rigby."

 

RT Interview with Annie Machon: 'Woolwich-Style Attacks to Become One of the New Ways People Protest' (and vid)

http://anniemachon.ch/annie_machon/2013/05/rt-interview-about-the-woolwi...

"The British and American governments and the NATO countries are disingenuous if they think that their strategy of violent interventionism across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia will have no consequences..."

 

French Soldier Stabbed by Man 'Of North African Origin' in Paris - Manhunt Ongoing

http://rt.com/news/france-soldier-stabbed-paris-798/

howeird beale

NDPP wrote:

 

"UK Intelligence service MI5 approached Woolwich killing suspect Michael Adebolajo to offer him a job

 

Well, that's what cops do. They approach unstable sketchy idiots about the opportunity to be a rat. They do it because it works. Rats are unstable idiots, are weak willed, are easily induced into betrayal of those near to them, are easily manipulated by authority, and, thus, fit the profile.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Bacchus wrote:

Well he was a drummer in the band so maybe his drums was a war crime to those that hate the sound of drums?

He was also a machine-gunner.  So he wasn't exactly "just with the band".   Drummer Rigby didn't deserve that death-and, by the same token, almost no one in Afghanistan or Iraq deserved the deaths THEY suffered through.

We must ALWAYS remember that.  Nothing in this is ever as simple as "what this person did was wrong and that's ALL there is to it".

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

autoworker wrote:
This thread is odious!

How so?  Everyone agrees that Rigby didn't deserve to die, and especially didn't deserve to die in that particularly gruesome way.  The issue is...who and what are responsible.

It just plain isn't as simple as reducing it to "these two are monsters".  They did a monstrous thing...but it didn't start with them.  And the only way to prevent more killings, either in the UK, the US, Canada or(most importantly)Afghanistan itself is to study the connections between events of the past and this action and the roots of the twisted rage in these two men.  Reducing this to an individual act serves no purpose and surely isn't reflective of reality.

 

autoworker

Ken Burch wrote:

autoworker wrote:
This thread is odious!

How so?  Everyone agrees that Rigby didn't deserve to die, and especially didn't deserve to die in that particularly gruesome way.  The issue is...who and what are responsible.

It just plain isn't as simple as reducing it to "these two are monsters".  They did a monstrous thing...but it didn't start with them.  And the only way to prevent more killings, either in the UK, the US, Canada or(most importantly)Afghanistan itself is to study the connections between events of the past and this action and the roots of the twisted rage in these two men.  Reducing this to an individual act serves no purpose and surely isn't reflective of reality.

 

In the UK, the cause of this so-called 'blowback' is already being attributed to cuts in the security budget (has anyone looked at UKIP's latest poll numbers?). Now, we have the incident in Paris, where the military already patrols the streets. The Boston lockdown was only a
dress reversal, IMO. People aren't looking for anti-Imperialist explanations for the horror perpetrated on their streets, whether it's by Islamic terrorists, or the Red Brigades.

talkback

Quote:

You cannot possibly be serious with this statement!?!?!?

Again, NATO troops have largely (not entirely) avoided targeting civilians, built schools, etc. Most of the blunders were the work of drones. And some of the NATO member countries have not even participated in military exercises. Think, for a moment, what would have happened if al Qaeda attacked Russia (over Chechenya), China (over Xinjiang), or India (over Hindu-Muslim tensions), on the scale of 9/11. I can guarantee you that Russian, Chinese, or Indian militaries would not be opening girls' schools, or free clinics in Afghanistan.

Most Muslims in the UK are well assimilated. These include sects like the very liberal Ismailis. But there is a hard strain of Salafism, represented by the likes of Mr Choudary, that is a serious public safety issue. And this strain is winning converts, and promoting violence. The 7/7 bombings were a spectacular example of this. And there is deep rot in British society, when throngs of people simply WATCH something like this happen. Nor are unarmed police anything but a joke (the cops at the scene were forced to hang back until 'Firearms Constables' arrived). You don't talk politics with someone dismembering someone with a machete: you just shoot them in the head.

NDPP

The Entire Globe is a Battlefield for Pentagon  -  by Pepe Escobar

http://rt.com/op-edge/us-pentagon-cia-war-742/

"...What's the difference between a British soldier (the UK is attached to GWOT via the 'special relationship), stationed at an army barracks, gruesomely hacked to death with a meat cleaver in a London street and a Syrian solider beheaded/disemboweled/cannibalized in 'rebel' - held territory by a mercenary Sunni jihadi?

The difference is that the Nigerian-British killer in London is a terrorist and the jihadi in Syria is a freedom fighter..."

Pages