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

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

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....

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.

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

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 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.
 

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.

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.

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.

This thread is odious!

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.

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."
....

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...

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.

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.

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 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.

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] ....

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 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.

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.

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.