26
   

Terrorist attack in London

 
 
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 02:19 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
But way way way too many Americans continually swallow this nonsense fed to them by their governments and media. Again, one has to wonder what mental defect it is that plagues Americans.


Not just Americans, but many British people as well, as that excellent Guardian article pointed out. Thanks for posting that.

Not everybody, of course. In 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:

Quote:
"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."


People are saying it clearly, but nobody seems to be listening.

BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 02:23 pm
@contrex,
My you must be the only one on this system that had not long long ago had placed JTT on ignore as I happily had not seen anyone replying to or quoting his or her nonsense for a long time.

Now that I see you agreeing with JTT I think I will added you to my ignore list also.

Yes indeed military actions against terrorists is the same as cutting some guy head off that is also your fellow citizen.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 02:24 pm
@contrex,
Please feel free to discuss Mr Greenwald's points, C. They are much much too important to remain undiscussed.
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 02:41 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Now that I see you agreeing with JTT I think I will added you to my ignore list also.


I am not "agreeing with JTT" just because of some kind of perverse reason; it's because I agree with the article he quoted and the things he has said about this matter. If you put me on ignore just because I "agreed with JTT" then you will be guilty of the same kind of schoolyard style cliquey sheep-thinking you appear to be accusing me of. I already knew you were like that, so this comes as no surprise.

0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 02:45 pm
Don't know if everybody can see this... (Guardian cartoon by Martin Rowson yesterday)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/24/1369428641190/Martin-Rowson-on-the-US-d-002.jpg
contrex
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 02:54 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Please feel free to discuss Mr Greenwald's points, C. They are much much too important to remain undiscussed.


This is a key one in my opinion. Don't get me wrong - what these guys did was wrong; it was murder, it was wrong; they shouldn't have done it, but as this points out, they aren't the only ones.

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 soldier of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 03:01 pm
@contrex,
This is the same thing as when I used to work up south of Dundalk NI, they had signs showing that the IRA had snipers in the area and it was a good isea NOT to be in a Brit uniform.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 03:11 pm
@farmerman,
I wonder why Farmer, the academic, would go immediately to another, "Hey look, everybody, a squirrel!!".
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 04:21 pm
@izzythepush,
Well, at least you finally identified true faux outrage.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 04:22 pm
@contrex,
Let me try to digest what you are trying to say. What I hear you say is "any violence committed against an unarmed man, woman or child can be justified because somewhere else other people have also been the victims of senseless violence". Is that what you are trying to say? So, how do you solve this, decriminalize crime? Actually, don't bother to rationalize your tolerance for violence, I think you believe that regardless of age or innocence, you are ok with senseless violence because senseless violence has occurred, and everybody gets what they deserve. You have taken 'turn the other cheek' to depraved new heights.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 04:22 pm
@izzythepush,
As opposed to who?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 04:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
And she was a cub scout leader. Imagine such bravery from a cowardly homophobe!
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 04:44 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
As usual, you are delusional (there's no "selected militia")
Its ez to check the history of militia, Setanta
(without un-solicited analysis of my mental health).

There were 2 kinds:
first the private militia (i.e., the guys in the naborhood)
who sometimes trained to be effective, in the absence
of any armed force (if the army were not around)
and, on the other hand:
government sponsored, sometimes government equipped,
militia for when the army is not around,
or does not exist (e.g., the Free French or the Mormon Militia,
or defensively armed merchants, during race riots).

Private militia are simply an armed citizenry,
organized in their own defense
.

U simply have been ignorant of this history,
and then u blamed ME, in your ignorance.

For the record:
I do not suggest that the words "selected militia" appear
in the text of the Constitution; thay do not.



Setanta wrote:
and you indulge your polemic rather than either reality or good sense.
U hurl invective rather than research
the applicable history; there were 2 varieties of militia.
The 2 militia might be brought into military conflict
with one another.

The concept is not hard to comprehend.
When George Mason & George Washington organized
the Fairfax County Militia, thay did not have the King's permission,
and there already WAS a Royal Militia, of long standing.




Setanta wrote:
Conservatives attempt to introduce religion into government,
that's why they're called the religious right.
Was what I already posted
beyond your ability to grasp ?
I don t feel like posting redundantly.
Thay 'd be conservative in so doing IF
America were a theocracy; it never was.
The Founders were not theocrats,
regardless of what anyone "called" anything.
If someone leans toward theocracy, then that is DEVIATION
from the secular Constitution and is therefore LIBERAL.
I think Lincoln remarked something about an ass being an ass,
no matter what anyone "called" him.

(Was Barry Goldwater guilty of attempting
"to introduce religion into government" ??)

A conservative who turns away from the subject matter
of the conservation (e.g., the Constitution), falls into
de facto apostasy; that is antithetical to conservatism.
Got the idea now ??






Setanta wrote:
There really is no point in discussing these things with you,
because you introduce terms which don't appear in the constitution,
and you define terms to suit your polemic.
I see; u have been the victim of EXTORTION,
wherein someone forced u to comment on my post; a scandal.
Call the Mounties; give my regards to Sgt. Preston & King.





David
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 05:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And she was a cub scout leader. Imagine such bravery from a cowardly homophobe!

Are you talking the British scouts where being gay isn't an issue? In fact they have looked to increase gay participation.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  5  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 05:38 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

Let me try to digest what you are trying to say. What I hear you say is "any violence committed against an unarmed man, woman or child can be justified because somewhere else other people have also been the victims of senseless violence". Is that what you are trying to say?


I will be charitable and assume that your response was a type-from-the-hip, ill thought-out effort from someone whose judgement is dimmed, maybe by anger and rage, possibly by excessive exposure to Fox News, possibly alcohol or drugs, perhaps innate stupidity. Whatever.

You have not even attempted to "digest" what "I am trying to say", which is the exact opposite of your suggested précis. My position is that "no violence committed against an unarmed man, woman or child can be justified because somewhere else other people have also been the victims of senseless violence". Whether on the streets of London or Boston or the villages of Afghanistan or anywhere else. I believe I know why these nut cases did what they did. It isn't hard to work it out. What they did was wrong; (I stated this clearly) what caused them to do it was wrong too.


JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 06:00 pm
@contrex,
Not that I am in any way at all criticizing you for your reply, C.

It's just that I am truly mystified as to why we should have to so gingerly step around the gigantic elephant found in this cyber room.

But I guess I really shouldn't be mystified. Very few have been willing to mention this ever since the west unjustifiably grabbed the high ground after 9-11.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 06:05 pm
@JTT,
Another opinion, from an former UK soldier who served in Afghanistan.

I'll bet that not many know who Ross Caputi, the man mentioned in the story, is.

Quote:

Woolwich attack: of course British foreign policy had a role
While nothing can justify the killing of a British soldier, the link to Britain's vicious occupations abroad cannot be ignored

Joe Glenton
The Guardian, Thursday 23 May 2013 15.30 BST

I am a former soldier. I completed one tour of duty in Afghanistan, refused on legal and moral grounds to serve a second tour, and spent five months in a military prison as a result. When the news about the attack in Woolwich broke, by pure coincidence Ross Caputi was crashing on my sofa. Ross is a soft-spoken ex-US marine turned film-maker who served in Iraq and witnessed the pillaging and irradiation of Falluja. He is also a native of Boston, the scene of a recent homegrown terror attack. Together, we watched the news, and right away we were certain that what we were seeing was informed by the misguided military adventures in which we had taken part.

So at the very outset, and before the rising tide of prejudice and pseudo-patriotism fully encloses us, let us be clear: 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.

These awful events cannot be explained in the almost Texan terms of Colonel Richard Kemp, who served as commander of British forces in Afghanistan in 2001. He tweeted on last night that they were "not about Iraq or Afghanistan", but were an attack on "our way of life". Plenty of others are saying the same.

But let's start by examining what emerged from the mouths of the assailants themselves. In an accent that was pure London, according to one of the courageous women who intervened at the scene, one alleged killer claimed he was "… fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan …". It is unclear whether it was the same man, or his alleged co-assailant, who said "… bring our [Note: our] troops home so we can all live in peace".

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.

It is equally important to point out, however, that rejection of and opposition to the toxic wars that informed yesterday's attacks is by no means a "Muslim" trait. Vast swaths of the British population also stand in opposition to these wars, including many veterans of the wars like myself and Ross, as well as serving soldiers I speak to who cannot be named here for fear of persecution.

Yet this anti-war view, so widely held and strongly felt, finds no expression in a parliament for whom the merest whiff of boot polish or military jargon causes a fit of "Tommy this, Tommy that …" jingoism. The fact is, there are two majority views in this country: one in the political body that says war, war and more war; and one in the population which says it's had enough of giving up its sons and daughter abroad and now, again, at home.

For 12 years British Muslims have been set upon, pilloried and alienated by successive governments and by the media for things that they did not do. We must say clearly that the alleged actions of these two men are theirs alone, regardless of being informed by the wars, and we should not descend into yet another round of collective responsibility peddling.

Indeed, if there is collective responsibility for the killings, it belongs to the hawks whose policies have caused bloodbaths – directly, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, and indirectly in places as far apart as Woolwich and Boston, which in turn have created political space for the far right to peddle their hatred, as we saw in the immediate aftermath of the Woolwich attack.

What we must do now is straightforward enough. Our own responsibilities are first of all to make sure innocents are not subject to blanket punishment for things that they did not do, and to force our government – safe in their houses – to put an end to Britain's involvement in the vicious foreign occupations that have again created bloodshed in London.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-british-foreign-policy-role
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 06:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And she was a cub scout leader. Imagine such bravery from a cowardly homophobe!


that would only apply if she'd been in the U.S.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 07:00 pm
@BillRM,
By placing Contrex and me on 'ignore', Bill, you also miss out on the numerous UK and US writers who we quote.

Instead of taking the cowardly approach, really, Americans are supposed to be great debaters, read what Mr Greenwald, a noted US constitutional scholar, and Mr Glenton, a former UK soldier, have to say.

Discuss what they have to say, or put them on 'ignore'.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 07:03 pm
@ehBeth,
What do you think, Beth? Why is virtually everyone afraid to address Mr Greenwald and Mr Glenton's arguments?
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.05 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 03:24:33