Is the Woolwich Attack a Reflection of Broader Terrorist Ideologies?

[cristo]

Unfortunately, being in the US, I'm a bit numb to a single murder. But I understand that this kind of violence is perhaps not as common there. I was watching a news clip about this yesterday where a witness kept saying over and over "he had a handgun, a handgun, he pulled out a handgun". I wish I lived in a country where someone having a handgun was shocking.

Let's hope this was just two lone lunatics and an isolated event.

This wasn't just a murder, it was a brutal decapitation in the middle of a street in broad daylight.

You're right about the handgun thing though, it is shocking to see handguns, because we rarely do. There are the odd armed police around, but really they are few and far between. I've never seen a handgun carried by anyone other than a police officer.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

And yet the radicals don't mind that they blow up innocent Muslims on a daily basis in Afganistan and Iraq. Seriously just about every day there is a bomb in some market or at some funeral or wedding and a Westerner isn't around for miles. The hypocrisy is out of this world.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

btw, withdrawing all western presence will not stop the radicals. You think these radicals will just say "ok" and become farmers? No, it is now in their nature. They will spread propaganda. They need a boogy man to survive and gain support. Just like North Korea. Even if there is no current reason to seek payback, they can forever seek vengeance for what we did in the past.

 

[WannabeNewton]

And yet the radicals don't mind that they blow up innocent Muslims on a daily basis in Afganistan and Iraq. Seriously just about every day there is a bomb in some market or at some funeral or wedding and a Westerner isn't around for miles. The hypocrisy is out of this world.

Well no one is in the right here, is what I'm saying. A number of people from all groups involved are doing bad things to each other. It's not the good vs. evil that respective parties make it out to be in the eyes of their fellow citizens.

 

[reenmachine]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

Imagine if we went to Iran and started a cult and we would discuss how we could conquer the islamic world by force.They would kill us right away.But hey , "we're better than that" , we are accepting.There is no logical basis on which I should accept and respect Islam more than your average local cult.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Imagine if we went to Iran and started a cult and we would discuss how we could conquer the islamic world by force.They would kill us right away.But hey , "we're better than that" , we are accepting.There is no logical basis on which I should accept and respect Islam more than your average local cult.

As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides. Everyone involved in the big picture is wrong in my eyes. A human death is a human death, I don't care if it is a British person or a Middle-Easterner or what have you because it is wrong to kill people either way for such superficial causes.

 

[Evo]

I read that one of the murderers was born and raised in London, being of Nigerian descent, and the others involved (two more people were arrested) were also Nigerian. I am not aware of a current western occupation of Nigeria.

http://news.yahoo.com/british-soldier-hacked-death-suspected-islamist-attack-060253278.html

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

What's hard to understand? It happens accidentally sometimes when killing non-innocent lives.

As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides.

I've never heard a good justification for not differentiating between purposeful and accidental killing. You're drawing a false equivalence and doing it in the name of "not taking sides" doesn't justify the negative implications of what you are saying:

I suppose it is possible that if we become hermits, the radicals will be a little less angry and will do a little less killing of our innocents, but if we were in that situation, it would be tough to watch innocent lives being taken for no reason and not try to do something about it. You're asking us to accept such a situation where they can kill us and we do nothing about it.

 

[russ_watters]

Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:

I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.

As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.

The assailants, after all, didn't make any attempt to go after any civilians, so from that we can conclude there was no danger to civilians from these guys. I suppose in a way that puts them a level above the garden variety terrorist (the Boston bombers are typical) and the typical radical Islamic position on the issue. Please don't construe that to be a defense though; as murders go, this was a pretty heinous one.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What's hard to understand? It happens accidentally sometimes when killing non-innocent lives. I've never heard a good justification for not differentiating between purposeful and accidental killing. You're drawing a false equivalence and doing it in the name of "not taking sides" doesn't justify the negative implications of what you are saying:

I suppose it is possible that if we become hermits, the radicals will be a little less angry and will do a little less killing of our innocents, but if we were in that situation, it would be tough to watch innocent lives being taken for no reason and not try to do something about it. You're asking us to accept such a situation where they can kill us and we do nothing about it.

We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization. I am reminded of Bob Dylan's brilliant song "With God on Our Side".

 

[reenmachine]

As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides. Everyone involved in the big picture is wrong in my eyes. A human death is a human death, I don't care if it is a British person or a Middle-Easterner or what have you because it is wrong to kill people either way for such superficial causes.

I am in no way justifying anybody's action.In my ideal world , humanity would spend much more energy on trying to get closer and closer to absolute truth.There would be no time for wars or power struggles.We would make smart decisions on a mass level everyday to ensure our survival.There would be no violence in school.Everybody in school would be interested and curious to learn more , which would naturally boost the value of teachers (and particularly scientists and philosophers) around the world.

This isn't the world we live in today.It's not about taking side , it's about being born in a world which have sides , and it's also about being born (or raised) on one of those sides.How far are you willing to take your abstract principles? Suppose a new religion/country/group-of-people-with-an-opposite-ideology "RF" comes around and their goal is to kill everybody that isn't a RFer.RFers are being killed everyday.The RFers try to invade your country and they start entering the city you live in and kill citizens.Clearly , you could feel as much empathy for a RFer being killed in RF land and a western country citizen being killed in a western country.This is the same race , the human race , and a specimen suffering a dramatic event , which can be a hard pill to swallow for another member (you) of that race , if only in reaction of the reminder that this is a faith that could be reserved for you in this world.

Abstractly , I wouldn't feel very differently for both guys from both sides who got killed coldly in a barbaric way.I would feel their fear , try to put my mind as if I was in this situation facing a guy with a knife who's probably going to succeed in stabbing me to death.Or a soldier coming at me with the permission and ambition to kill me as quickly as possible.Imagine the fear.This is outrageous behavior for an intellectually advanced race (relatively).But in the end , if the RFer are coming to town with the goal to kill me or everything I believe in , I have to let go of my abstractions in order to survive.

 

[256bits]

I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.

As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.

Quite well said actually. I guess we will see you the juducial system actually deals with it.
Are the individuals' thought processes so deranged to the point where they thought that the taking the life of an innocent individual ( in our definition innocent, in a terrorists no one of the other side is innocent ) will promote their cause as being just. Can they be considered actually insane? No sane person goes around doing stuff like this.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Can they be considered actually insane? No sane person goes around doing stuff like this.

Revenge can cloud judgement in times of rage / fury so I don't know if they are clinically insane. The insanity plea is so overused in court systems though.

 

[micromass]

We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization. I am reminded of Bob Dylan's brilliant song "With God on Our Side".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnRdsSC3YwM

 

[Cthugha]

As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.

When I heard the news, I immediately thought about a recent statement in another recent thread:

The fact that we use drones (or any weapons) to attack legitimate military targets is what differentiates military attacks from terrorist attacks.

(Although I have to admit that if the facility that drones were operated from were attacked by a suicide car bomb, the public would still probably cry that it was a terrorist attack. Terminology seems to be rather sloppy when it comes to terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, for that matter.)

I found it quite disturbing that it this speculation turned real so quickly (in a similar way).

 

[russ_watters]

I found it quite disturbing that it this speculation turned real so quickly (in a similar way).

Er, no - maybe people forgot already, but a similar incident happened in Ft. Hood a couple of years ago:

The Fort Hood shooting was a mass murder that took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and over 30 people were injured. It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2] Several individuals, including Senator Lieberman,[3] General McCaffrey,[4] and others have called the event a terrorist attack.[5][6] The Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies have classified the shootings as an act of workplace violence. They have declined requests from survivors and family members of the slain to categorize it as act of terrorism, or motivated by militant Islamic religious convictions.[7] In November 2011 a group of survivors and family members filed a lawsuit against the government for negligence in preventing the attack, and to force the government to classify the shootings as terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

The similarities between the perpetrators and crimes are striking.

[edit] At the time of this shooting, I argued it was terrorism. Now I'm not so sure. For some reason it was my understanding at the time that this happened at a store, not his actual workplace and I was not aware he notably passed up opportunities to kill civilians (though he did kill some in the course of the attack).

In both cases, the Islamic extremism motive and connection to the War on Terror is there even if it doesn't exactly fit the description of "terrorism". The lines get thin though since these were not combatants on a battlefield. A good quote from the wiki:

Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism wrote that the case sits at the crossroads of crime, terrorism and mental distress.

 

[cristo]

I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.

I suspect, if nothing else happens, then it will be prosecuted as a simple murder. From what I gather, the reason that this was described as a terrorist attack was that the security services have long been warning that intelligence points to terrorist cells' plans to target military personnel. This hinted that (and it might still hint that) it is part of a bigger attack. Let's hope that's not the case.

 

[russ_watters]

We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization.

1. I didn't claim we are good and whether we are are aren't isn't relevant here. I only pointed out that we are better.
2. "Supposedly"? Are you sure you aren't taking sides? Because now it sounds like you are suggesting we are purposely killing civilians.
3. There is nothing blind about stating facts and using logic.
4. I never suggested we were any kind of "shining angels" or that this was an issue of "good vs evil".

That whole thing reads like a hateful, disjointed, irrational rant.

 

[russ_watters]

I suspect, if nothing else happens, then it will be prosecuted as a simple murder. From what I gather, the reason that this was described as a terrorist attack was that the security services have long been warning that intelligence points to terrorist cells' plans to target military personnel.

One practical reason to treat it as a simple murder for legal purposes is that it is just simpler to deal with it that way and since it happened on British soil, all of the law enforcement resources and procedures are readily available - unlike some of the people the US captured abroad, but is now trying in criminal court.

 

[DrDu]

Black rights? Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:

Every now an then people murder other persons because they claim that god did command it.
We consider them to be as mad as hatters.
I wonder why we should consider people massacring others more sane when they start arguing with allah instead.

 

[aquitaine]

Well no one is in the right here, is what I'm saying. A number of people from all groups involved are doing bad things to each other. It's not the good vs. evil that respective parties make it out to be in the eyes of their fellow citizens.

Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. This here is perhaps the best response to that exact question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKXzER5AH8

The problem is you're making assumptions about their motivations that just aren't true. This isn't really about drone strikes, this is about their own imperial ambitions for Europe.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I cannot tolerate listening to people like Hitchens - he is just an arrogant, hate filled, and rhetoric spewing individual. Since you are so quick to dismiss the emotions of family members whose loved ones are killed by reckless military action, why don't you give me a list of accumulated events that justify your claims that there is an active campaign by some supposed major group (that you have failed to define) to gain imperial control of Europe. As long as you don't bring nationalistic dogma into the fray, I'm more than willing to hear you out :)

P.S. for those of who haven't already read the story about Ingrid: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

She's pretty badass.

 

[mheslep]

I cannot tolerate listening to people like Hitchens - he is just an arrogant, hate filled, and rhetoric spewing individual.

Perhaps, but Hitchens was clearly not "just" those things. As usual in that video he displays an encyclopedic command of the facts: the published demands of Bin Laden, reasons given for jihadist attacks in Asia, islamic treatment of women, violent threats and attacks against free speech in Europe. Which is why, when you make a call for more data like this ...

why don't you give me a list of accumulated events that justify your claims that there is an active campaign by some supposed major group (that you haven't failed to define) to gain imperial control of Europe.

it is hard to take your request seriously.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You are taking the example of a single violent Islamic group (and a couple of events tied to them - not even major attempts) and saying anyone who commits a murder in the name of their "God" is doing so for Imperial control. How does that make any sense? The murders clearly state their qualms in the video. Why do you want to deny their reasons when they clearly state it themselves?

 

[russ_watters]

You are taking the example of a single violent Islamic group (and a couple of events tied to them - not even major attempts) and saying anyone who commits a murder in the name of their "God" is doing so for Imperial control. How does that make any sense?

Huh? The youtube link was discussing Bin Laden, who started the War on Terror when he committed the largest single act of terrorism on 9/11/01, after failing to ignite the war several times prior, including the first WTC bombing in 1993, when western anti-Islam sentiment was at perhaps its lowest level in the past 50 years!

Bin Laden, who was angry with the US for being in the Holy Land of his birth, which we were in because his government begged us to protect them from the secular dictator next-door. Bin Laden, who we helped try to fight the Soviets.

Bin Laden's manifesto said basically "convert to Islam or die". "Imperialism" is a cumbersome label for that, but it is nevertheless accurate to say he desired a world where everyone was an Islamic extremist.

The murders clearly state their qualms in the video. Why do you want to deny their reasons when they clearly state it themselves?

Because their reasons are at best misrepresentations? Why do you support their misrepresentations? (resisting the urge to just call it an insane rant...) For example, beyond how the wars started, do you think the killers understand that the US and the UK withdrew from Iraq and are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan? The UK hasn't killed anyone in Iraq in more than a year (the last US troops left in Dec., 2011, not sure about UK troops).

Since the war in Afghanistan is being drawn-down, do you think it is rational for them to be provoking people who are trying to withdraw from a fight with them?

 

[Cthugha]

Huh? The youtube link was discussing Bin Laden, who started the War on Terror when he committed the largest single act of terrorism on 9/11/11
[...]
(the last US troops left in Dec., 2001, not sure about UK troops).

Ehm...no. Exchanging the years will make more sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Ehm...no. Exchanging the years will make more sense.

Fixed, thanks.

 

[CherryTrooper]

So horrifyingly disturbing. The key to defeating this, aside from military means to smite the leadership, is education. We can't have these absurd liberal terrorist sympathizing views being popular. If I see another internet post about the Boston Marathon Bomber being "cute" and should be "freed" I will scream. Something is wrong with the youth pop culture, where it's acceptable to post "eviction notices" on Jewish students doors, but God forbid you identify a terrorist as Islamic. People NEED real education. Yes, free speech, free ideas, form your own opinions - but when this sort of thing becomes a social norm (Jihad sympathy, etc), then these terrorists get free roam without any stopping power what so ever. The youth needs to be educated and stop being left to try with silly, left wing media biased information shortcuts.

 

[Lavabug]

I cannot tolerate listening to people like Hitchens - he is just an arrogant, hate filled, and rhetoric spewing individual. Since you are so quick to dismiss the emotions of family members whose loved ones are killed by reckless military action, why don't you give me a list of accumulated events that justify your claims that there is an active campaign by some supposed major group (that you have failed to define) to gain imperial control of Europe. As long as you don't bring nationalistic dogma into the fray, I'm more than willing to hear you out :)

P.S. for those of who haven't already read the story about Ingrid: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

She's pretty badass.

I can't point to any groups other than the big name terror cells and the Islamic equivalents of televangelists within the UK, or the groups that peddle for blasphemy laws in all of Europe (which should be sufficient), but this is a good place to start:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion
I just spent a year in London and that article is putting things very mildly. Islam in the UK (and Denmark and the Netherlands, with their long history of Islamic harassment and violence towards journalists, cartoonists and artists) is about as overtly theocratic and imperialist as any ideology gets. Polls show something like 2/3 of UK Muslims (that's about 1 million people) think Western culture is degenerate and should be corrected by imposing Shariah.

Hitchens is right on the money with practically everything he says. It's a tough cookie to swallow when you've been around people condemning the Iraq war or general military intervention your whole life (it was for me), but if you read some of his background and justifications it gets very hard to argue against his positions. They'll never make their way to the mainstream anytime soon though.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/religion.world

...Polls show something like 2/3 of UK Muslims (that's about 1 million people)

Those figures date to around 2001. Per the 2011 UK census, Muslims makeup 2.7 million (5%) of the England and Wales population. The Tower Hamlets borrow of London has the highest concentration at ~35% Muslim.

Others in the UK beside Muslims have supported sharia law in the UK, including this prince of the church of England.

 

[JesseC]

Muslims makeup 2.7 million (5%) of the total UK population, with England and Wales about 25% Muslim.

25%? Think you got something mixed up there or I've misunderstood what you've written. England and Wales is def. not 25% Muslim.

 

[mheslep]

25%? Think you got something mixed up there or I've misunderstood what you've written. England and Wales is def. not 25% Muslim.

You're right - fixed. The group was "No religion" at 25%.

 

[Evo]

Seems the murderers were part of an Islamic terrorist group.

UK police arrest 10th suspect in soldier's slaying

LONDON (AP) — British police arrested a 10th suspect Monday in connection with the vicious street killing of a soldier in London, an apparent Islamic extremist attack that has horrified the country and heightened racial tensions.

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-arrest-10th-suspect-soldiers-slaying-153409017.html

 

[aquitaine]

You are taking the example of a single violent Islamic group (and a couple of events tied to them - not even major attempts) and saying anyone who commits a murder in the name of their "God" is doing so for Imperial control. How does that make any sense? The murders clearly state their qualms in the video. Why do you want to deny their reasons when they clearly state it themselves?

Islam has always been a tool for conquest, going all the way back to the beginning. Is there some kind of central plot for a worldwide caliphate? No, the nature of it is highly decentralized. Within Islam is an undercurrent of imperialism that carries lots of Bin Ladens and lots of terrorists of many stripes. But they have different factions that are opposed to each other, which is why even though they kill us for "killing Muslims" they have no qualms about taking the life of a Muslim from an opposing group. They also will set aside their long term goal of Islamizing the world with their factions' ideology and form temporary alliances with infidels if there is a common enemy, such as the alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire, or Bin Laden and the CIA. They never last though, as soon as the common enemy is vanquished or no longer is a threat they will become your enemy again, as Bin Laden did after the Soviets left Afghanistan. You can't take their word at face value. For further reading I suggest Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh.

This is not an issue of nationalism, it is about the survival of our values in the face of a hostile insurgent ideology, 500 years of progress is on the line here.

Others in the UK beside Muslims have supported sharia law in the UK, including this prince of the church of England.

I think this is an important point that is often overlooked. They are such a small population, yet how do they have such a huge influence? I think it's because they've been able to conscript the multiculturalists and social scientists to do their fighting for them in addition to employing terror attacks to silence opposition.

Seems the murderers were part of an Islamic terrorist group.

UK police arrest 10th suspect in soldier's slaying

LONDON (AP) — British police arrested a 10th suspect Monday in connection with the vicious street killing of a soldier in London, an apparent Islamic extremist attack that has horrified the country and heightened racial tensions.
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-arre...153409017.html

I have to question that notion that it heightens racial tensions. Islam is a religion, not a race.