Steven Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback 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 14.03 BST A man appearing to be holding holding a knife following the Woolwich attack. Photograph: Pixel8000 (updated below) 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: 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. I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!" Drone admissionsIn 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: NoteThe 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. UPDATEIn 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: This is one of those points so glaringly obvious that it is difficult to believe that it has to be repeated. "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."
The Year Of The Fox Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 You've made quite a few sensible posts on this forum imo since I returned two weeks back, but this is a comment that you can't beat in terms of controversy and ridiculousness. Like I said, in my opinion. There is clear footage of these two blokes, one almost giving a tv interview literally seconds after after butchering another human being. They then have the audacity to stand thete crowing about it whilst casually waiting for the police to arrive. The 7/7 attacks were carried out by faceless people who died carrying out the blasts so were not able to crow about it in the chilling manner that these two did yesterday. I really find this far more disturbing than 7/7, however bad 7/7 was.
Guest Bilo Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Personally I'd be injecting them with some AIDS infected blood but each to their own. I'd agree but in my mind I cant help but feel one day they will be out, that's what we do now and we are only getting more Liberal. Very tough choice for me as if I want them to live and go to prison or have been killed then. Prison isn't Shawshank Redemption anymore anyway, we have seen what they get access to on that Lifers program. They'll do well to survive prison anyway. By the time they're sent down, they're likely to be the most hated inmates in the prison system. They may even be below paedophiles and rapists in the pecking order thanks to the savage nature of their crime. Razor blades in their food, kickings in the joinery room, boiling water thrown in their faces, trips and falls down stairs will all await them. Ian Huntley enjoys an enormous level of protection inside but has still had numerous attempts on his life, to the extent that he's spent the last five years trying to top himself. That's the next step for these animals; they'll be living a life of fear as hated cowards rather than the martyrs' deaths they'd have prayed for.
Guest MattP Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 They'll do well to survive prison anyway. By the time they're sent down, they're likely to be the most hated inmates in the prison system. They may even be below paedophiles and rapists in the pecking order thanks to the savage nature of their crime. Razor blades in their food, kickings in the joinery room, boiling water thrown in their faces, trips and falls down stairs will all await them. Ian Huntley enjoys an enormous level of protection inside but has still had numerous attempts on his life, to the extent that he's spent the last five years trying to top himself. That's the next step for these animals; they'll be iving a life of fear as hated cowards rather than the martyrs' deaths they'd have prayed for. You would hope so. Depends what sort of prison and who is running that prison. One of my ex schoolmates was given 7 years (black male which seems to be quite common among prison converts and they generally leave the whites alone) and Islamic gangs were running that place (I can't remember which one he went too unfortunately) and he was scolded for refusing to convert to Islam. Still carries the scars now so if they get into a place like that I'm sure they will be ok. But hopefully they will live in fear, suppose we'll never know.
ADK Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Knowing our system they will convert a fair few inmates to their ideology.
ADK Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback More typical nonsense from the Guardian.
z-layrex Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 More typical nonsense from the Guardian. I hate the Guardian and its pathetic, gutless readerbase.
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 You would hope so. Depends what sort of prison and who is running that prison. One of my ex schoolmates was given 7 years (black male which seems to be quite common among prison converts and they generally leave the whites alone) and Islamic gangs were running that place (I can't remember which one he went too unfortunately) and he was scolded for refusing to convert to Islam. Still carries the scars now so if they get into a place like that I'm sure they will be ok. But hopefully they will live in fear, suppose we'll never know. You would have thought the prison service would be interested in natural justice for these two, so while I don't think they'd deliberately be put into a prison where they could be directly got at, I don't think they'd be allowed to integrate with other Muslims either - the official line could be that they wouldn't want them radicalising others. And that would itself result in them being alone, around a lot of people who would wish them harm. In that case, even if nothing did in fact happen to them they'd have to live with the fear of it for the rest of their lives. Which is about right.
z-layrex Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Yeah!!! The daily mail rules!!! The DM is just as bad. Neither paper is fit to be used as toilet roll.
Guest Bilo Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 You would have thought the prison service would be interested in natural justice for these two, so while I don't think they'd deliberately be put into a prison where they could be directly got at, I don't think they'd be allowed to integrate with other Muslims either - the official line could be that they wouldn't want them radicalising others. And that would itself result in them being alone, around a lot of people who would wish them harm. In that case, even if nothing did in fact happen to them they'd have to live with the fear of it for the rest of their lives. Which is about right. Yep. They wouldn't want the media outcry of putting them in Belmarsh with other extremists. Their lives will be hell. Rightly so too.
Guest MattP Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Yeah!!! The daily mail rules!!! I can't stand the Grauniad or the Heil.
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 I hate the Guardian and its pathetic, gutless readerbase. Yeah!!! The daily mail rules!!! The only papers that actually is a decent read without much of a political slant is the Times. And if Guardian readers are gutless anti-American Muslim-apologistas, all Sun readers are knuckle-dragging pondlife only there to be manipulated into voting whoever Murdoch wants in at the next election. And all Mail readers are xenophobic officer-class knuckle-draggers who constantly entertain the delusion that the UK is the worlds biggest player and the British Empire is still here. Anyone want to add to the stereotype list?
Guest MattP Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 The only papers that actually is a decent read without much of a political slant is the Times. And if Guardian readers are gutless anti-American Muslim-apologistas, all Sun readers are knuckle-dragging pondlife only there to be manipulated into voting whoever Murdoch wants in at the next election. And all Mail readers are xenophobic officer-class knuckle-draggers who constantly entertain the delusion that the UK is the worlds biggest player and the British Empire is still here. Anyone want to add to the stereotype list? Daily Star readers are all hairy arsed fat fcuks who spend all morning queuing for the Portakabin on a building site before heading to the pub or bookies at midday.
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Daily Star readers are all hairy arsed fat fcuks who spend all morning queuing for the Portakabin on a building site before heading to the pub or bookies at midday. Telegraph readers are all stuffy out-of-touch retired military boyos obsessed with Liz Hurley.
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 just hang them and save us money Easy way out for me. Make them live a life of fear, with all the days possible for them to wonder where the next fist/snooker ball in a sock/hot water jug is going to come from.
KFS Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 The taxpayer will shell out up to 40k (last time I checked) in money towards their lifestyle in prison. I hope I get my money's worth and they get kicked about.
Harry - LCFC Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 More typical nonsense from the Guardian. The article points out that people in Afghanistan have suffered atrocities too. We're not the only victim here. Think of the innocent people who are killed by misplaced bombs and bullets. It's not deliberate but you can hardly blame them for being angry. Of course that doesn't justify the events we have seen recently but it does explain why these people have a motive to act in the way they do. I think the article goes too far in labelling the actions of coalition forces as 'terrorism' because the casualties to civilians we cause are not on purpose. None the less we cannot ignore the impact we are having.
Guest MattP Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 The article points out that people in Afghanistan have suffered atrocities too. We're not the only victim here. Think of the innocent people who are killed by misplaced bombs and bullets. It's not deliberate but you can hardly blame them for being angry. Of course that doesn't justify the events we have seen recently but it does explain why these people have a motive to act in the way they do. I think the article goes too far in labelling the actions of coalition forces as 'terrorism' because the casualties to civilians we cause are not on purpose. None the less we cannot ignore the impact we are having. Problem most people have is there is a time and a place, let the families grieve etc bury the poor lad and then we can discuss the political side of it. The Guardian can't wait though, no surprise. I'm sure if we drop enough acid in their offices they can come up with someone to blame it on Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill.
Guest MattP Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Telegraph readers are all stuffy out-of-touch retired military boyos obsessed with Liz Hurley. Socialist Worker - A stinking cess pit of human failure, so ugly you can barely look at them, the only paper salesperson that looks worse than a Big Issue seller. Singing Billy Bragg on a old guitar in their spare time and masturbating furiously at the thought of an underage white girl being raped. (presumably by a Muslim gang). Blames everything that has gone wrong in their life down to Thatcher/Religion or Bankers (since 2007) Sorry I thought we said stereotypes.
Dr The Singh Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 The article points out that people in Afghanistan have suffered atrocities too. We're not the only victim here. Think of the innocent people who are killed by misplaced bombs and bullets. It's not deliberate but you can hardly blame them for being angry. Of course that doesn't justify the events we have seen recently but it does explain why these people have a motive to act in the way they do. I think the article goes too far in labelling the actions of coalition forces as 'terrorism' because the casualties to civilians we cause are not on purpose. None the less we cannot ignore the impact we are having. I don't agree with that nonsense, if muslims should have any grief, it should be against the likes of the pakistani institutes, which sell the blood of there people for money, they go with there begging bowl to the US, and allow such actions. Pakistan itself trained and funded islamist for years, you reap what you sow. Unfortunaltey there's always colatoral damage in war, and the innocent poor always suffer if all people start thinking 'eye for eye', it will be caos, if british muslims or muslims in britain have a grief against the people of britian then they should not be here, I call it treason. If they have a problem with the acts of british government, they have the right to protest, they have a right to vote or a right to leave.
Harry - LCFC Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 Problem most people have is there is a time and a place, let the families grieve etc bury the poor lad and then we can discuss the political side of it. The Guardian can't wait though, no surprise. I'm sure if we drop enough acid in their offices they can come up with someone to blame it on Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill. That's a good point actually, I hadn't really thought about that. Yes, timing is important and I suppose this article could've waited. Even so I'm not going to totally dismiss it, it does raise some important points (and some bad ones too) but it is probably inappropriate right now. I don't agree with that nonsense, if muslims should have any grief, it should be against the likes of the pakistani institutes, which sell the blood of there people for money, they go with there begging bowl to the US, and allow such actions. Pakistan itself trained and funded islamist for years, you reap what you sow. Unfortunaltey there's always colatoral damage in war, and the innocent poor always suffer if all people start thinking 'eye for eye', it will be caos, if british muslims or muslims in britain have a grief against the people of britian then they should not be here, I call it treason. If they have a problem with the acts of british government, they have the right to protest, they have a right to vote or a right to leave. Of course it doesn't justify terrorism in the UK but I want people to realise that we aren't the only victim here. That's all.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.