babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

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

NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

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."


Comments

kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2013

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

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
Online
Joined: Apr 16 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2013

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

 

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

'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
Offline
Joined: Oct 2 2008

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
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2008
This thread is odious!

talkback
Offline
Joined: Mar 29 2012

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
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2008
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
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006


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
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

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.

 

 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments