26
   

Terrorist attack in London

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 03:19 pm
@izzythepush,
Explain ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 03:19 pm
@izzythepush,
Well, it's not very nice, but it's rather mild by the standards of this site.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 03:20 pm
@Setanta,
Remember how bad it was on Abuzz ?
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 03:22 pm
Since we all apparently no longer are concerned about the British soldier killed by crazed fellow British citizens on a British street, I would like to mention that the final episode of Seinfeld was below expectations.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 03:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Not really--i left when it got crazy, and i didn't miss it. Other people continued to hang around for a long time, as i understand it.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 04:16 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Btw, do you have to call people pikers? It sounds too much like pikeys to me, which has loads of racist overtones.

Not accusing you of anything, just saying that's all.


That's just silly, Izzy. You know it's not the BrE word you've mentioned. It's not even the meaning described by Set, though piker also holds those meanings.

It's this one,

Quote:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piker

piker

2
: one who does things in a small way;
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 04:39 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Piker originally meant a gambler who only makes small bets.


It means this in British English, too, to my certain knowledge, although it is somewhat old fashioned in Rightpondia. The fact that it sounds/looks like "pikey" is just a coincidence, I feel.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 06:32 pm
Andrew Sullivan recently responded to Glenn Greenwald's refusal to use the label terrorism:

Quote:
Greenwald refuses to label the beheading in London “terrorism,” calling it just another attempt to stir paranoia against Muslims: "[T]he 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 …"

I really have to try restrain my anger here. First off, Glenn’s adoption of the view that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to “continuous violence by western states against Muslim civilians” seems a new step toward the memes of Islamist propaganda. Does Glenn really believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, however flawed, were deliberate attempts to kill Muslim civilians, in the way al Qaeda deliberately targets and kills Muslim civilians?

If he does, then I beg to differ. The reason we invaded Afghanistan was not because we decided to launch a war on Islam. It was because wealthy, Islamist, hypocritical bigots launched an unprovoked Jihadist mass murder of Western innocents from a cell based in a country run by a regime that specialized and specializes in the mass murder of other Muslims.

Before 9/11, America had saved Muslims in the Balkans from Christianist fanatics. We helped liberate Muslims in Afghanistan from Soviet oppression. We continue to give vast amounts of money to Muslim countries like Egypt, and, because of our economic development and need for oil made multi-billionaires out of Saudi clerics. And the war against Saddam, though a criminal enterprise and strategic catastrophe, nonetheless removed one of the most vicious mass murderers of Muslims on the planet. And the sectarian murder of Muslims that followed, however the ultimate responsibility for the occupying forces, was not done by Westerners. It was done by Muslims killing Muslims. The West, moreover, is committed to removing its troops from Afghanistan by next year and is fast winding down drone strikes.

How can that legitimize a British citizen’s brutal beheading of a fellow British citizen on the streets of London? If we cannot call a man who does that in the name of God and finishes by warning his fellow citizens “You will never be safe” a terrorist, who would fit that description, apart, of course, in Glenn’s view, Barack Obama?

The barbarian with the machete was not born in a Muslim country or land. He was born in Britain, educated at Marshalls Park school in Romford and Greenwich University.

He does not have a history of concern with foreign policy – or even sensitivity toward the mass murder of Muslims. There is no record of his protest against the mass murders by the Taliban – because those kinds of murders of Muslims he approves of. He is a convert to the Sunni Islamism of Anjem Choudary, whose street thugs were involved in a melee in a London street only last week as they attacked and scuffled with Shi’a Muslims. Choudary’s group wants Sharia law imposed on the UK, a war against Shiites everywhere, the brutal subjugation of women, and suppression of every freedom Glenn cares about. The idea that this foul, religious bigotry – when it provokes its adherents to the kind of barbarism we saw two days ago – is some kind of legitimate protest against a fast-ending war is just perverse.

I want the war in Af-Pak to end. I agree that blowback is a real problem. I was horrified by the Iraq war. I remain appalled by GTMO and the legacy of torture. But I cannot defend any analysis of what happened in London as some kind of legitimate protest against Western foreign policy rather than terrorism in its most animal-like form, created and sustained entirely by religious fanaticism which would find any excuse to murder, destroy and oppress Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of God.

They did this before 9/11 and before our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are doing it now in Syria in the name of the same God. These genocidal theocrats did not need to be spurred by the US and UK’s actions – although they can view those as a further inflammation. They are living out their twisted, foul faith – which requires them not merely to kill, but to hack and mutilate and dismember another human being and celebrate that fact with a glee and a pride that has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy and everything to do with the evil lurking in the totalitarian’s soul.

I have to say I have always respected the sincerity and clarity of Greenwald’s critique of the war on terror. But his blindness to the savagery at the heart of Salafism is very hard to understand, let alone forgive.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 08:55 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
No, Saab, I most certainly do not do this. I blame the US and the UK [and others] for committing the war crimes that they alone have committed, for the acts of terrorism that they alone have committed.

No such war crimes. No such terrorism.



JTT wrote:
The US and the UK illegally invaded those two countries.

Nothing even remotely illegal about our invasion of Afghanistan.



JTT wrote:
Those invasions were of the same nature as Nazi Germany's invasions of countries in WWII. They broke international law, the same crimes that Germans and Japanese were imprisoned and hung for.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan is a just war of self defense (which is about as far from the Nazi invasions as you can get), in neither invasion did we systematically massacre millions of innocent people the way the Nazis did.

Instead, we brought freedom and democracy to both nations.



JTT wrote:
saab wrote:
Girls are killed in Afghanistan just because they go to school.
Men and women are stoned to death.

A lot of this is pure US propaganda, Saab.

No it isn't. The Taliban regularly pour strong acid over the faces of six year old girls to punish them for learning how to read.



JTT wrote:
The US actually supported some of the most vicious Afghan fanatics. Read this one article. It illustrates clearly how the US didn't care at all about the people of Afghanistan. The US only cares about making sure that American business interests are made safe.
The US created and supported the Taliban.

Nonsense. Winning the Cold War was not about making business interests safe. It was about preventing the Soviets from conquering and enslaving us.

And we did not create the Taliban. We did funnel money through Pakistan to be used in fighting Soviet domination, but it was Pakistan who decided that our money should go to the whacky extremists who became the Taliban.



Quote:
Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban

by Phil Gasper

Nonsense. Bin Laden had nothing to do with the CIA.



Quote:
The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater."' According to journalist Tim Weiner, " [Hekmatyar's] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him 'scary,' 'vicious,' 'a fascist,' 'definite dictatorship material."

Actually it was Pakistan who chose which groups our money would be funneled to.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 08:58 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 May 2013 14.03 BST
Quote:
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.

Correct.



Quote:
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."

How about calling the killer a murderer?



Quote:
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?

Actually yes, that can in fact be the case if you use the right definition. However I prefer to stick to a definition of terrorism that emphasizes the targeting of civilians, because I feel that that is the most important difference between us and the terrorists.



Quote:
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.

Not terrorism. If they engaged in combat against our soldiers, they are guilty of murder if the fighting resulted in any fatalities, and are guilty of attempted murder otherwise.



Quote:
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"?

Let's call it murder.



Quote:
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?

No. Our attacks are not directed at civilian populations.



Quote:
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?

Shock and Awe was a proposed air bombardment that never happened. It was publicized before the war in order to direct Saddam's defensive efforts towards an attack that we were not planning to carry out (and away from the attack that we did carry out).

In reality the war started with a pinpoint bombing right where we thought Saddam was (unfortunately a miss), followed by a rapid overland tank advance.



Quote:
That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent.

Nonsense. Shock and Awe emphasized avoiding all civilian casualties.

Whether or not it would have achieved that goal will never be known since the plan was never carried out, but Shock and Awe very clearly strove to avoid harming civilians.



Quote:
That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II.

I don't think so. I can't say I'm an expert on the UK's WWII targeting policies, but I think they were trying to destroy military targets.

I know the UK burned entire cities. But there were military facilities within those cities. Keep in mind that targeting in WWII was not nearly as accurate as targeting is today.



Quote:
It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s

We sometimes had to ally with some evil people in order to resist the even-greater evil of Soviet domination.



Quote:
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.

Nonsense. The intent is to flash-fry our enemies.

Thermobaric immolation for the win!



Quote:
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.

Nonsense. The intent is to impose economic pain directly on those who are in power.



Quote:
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?

It can be done. But it shouldn't be done.

The best definition of terrorism is one that emphasizes that terrorists target civilians.



Quote:
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.

To tell you the truth, I'd prefer to call the World Trade Center attack a crime against humanity as opposed to terrorism.



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".

That would be a factually inaccurate definition, given that they are the aggressors and the West are the ones who are retaliating.



Quote:
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.

No. The "Western violence" is legitimate already. And the attacks against us are already illegitimate.

No terminology is required to achieve this legitimacy/illegitimacy.



Quote:
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.

Might depend on how short a timespan "recent" covers. Is it only within the past two months?

In any case, if they didn't want us to be defending ourselves against them, they shouldn't have been coming here and massacring us.



Quote:
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.

If they want to use violence against us to prevent us from defending ourselves against their violence against us, the solution is simple: Kill them before they attack us.



Quote:
On Twitter last night, Michael Moore sardonically summarized western reaction to the London killing this way:
I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!"

Michael Moore is infamous for his evilness.



Quote:
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.

Except they are not the ones returning the violence. They came here and started attacking us first.

It is the West that is "returning the violence".
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 09:46 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base,


The "gentleman" above was also a US soldier who willingly took the oath of a US soldier so not only was he a murderer but he were a traitor to his nation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 09:55 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/24/1369428641190/Martin-Rowson-on-the-US-d-002.jpg


We're not going to lose. We're going to use whatever level of violence is necessary to eliminate those who insist on attacking us.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 09:57 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
We sometimes had to ally with some evil people in order to resist the even-greater evil of Soviet domination.


Churchill stated that if Hitler would invaded Hell he would find at least one nice thing to say about the devil on the floor of the house.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 02:32 am
@oralloy,
You really are disgusting, leave the soldier alone. His memory shouldn't be sullied by filth like you. There's no depths you won't sink to you low life piece of muck.
0 Replies
 
shahen22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 03:25 am
@neologist,
It's really horrifying what's happening to this country! Someone should act before it's too late...
contrex
 
  5  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 03:33 am
@shahen22,
shahen22 wrote:

It's really horrifying what's happening to this country! Someone should act before it's too late...


1. What country?
2. Who should act?
3. What should they do?
4. What will happen when it's "too late"?

Answer or be considered a troll.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 08:32 am
@shahen22,
Quote:
@neologist,
It's really horrifying what's happening to this country! Someone should act before it's too late...


It's not just the UK, if that's the country you meant. What do you recommend to do, though?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 04:26 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 04:45 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
commit genocide against all non-Muslims


Hell these assholes will and have killed large numbers of Muslims who ancestors picked the "wrong" side of who should be the leaders of the movement a thousand years ago!!!!!!

May I however suggest that engaging JTT in discussions is kind of pointless and he or she or it will always find justifications for mass murders as long as it is done in the name of being anti-American.


Every time someone references JTT he feels as if he has scored a point.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2013 04:49 pm
@glitterbag,
You, obviously, don't watch Fox News or you wouldn't have such an outlandish opinion of it.

But you regurgitate the nonsense feed to you by Liberal Blogs quite well.
 

Related Topics

Report: CIA foiled al-Qaida plot - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Happy New Year from Pakistan - Discussion by djjd62
ISIS or Daesh - Question by usmankhalid665
Nothing about Brussels? - Discussion by McGentrix
Flavors of terrorists - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 02:12:59