/ Soldier beheaded in Woolwich

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Denni on 22 May 2013
The Lemming - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Unbelievable!

Shall put SKY news on to see what is going on.
marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni: Shocking.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Surely they were on drugs, sounds like a war torn country
elsewhere on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
It may be classed as a terrorist incident rather than drugs.
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

Usual mix of rolling speculation on Sky.
Very unpleasant incident.
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Beeb's live speculation stream here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630304
winhill - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Nick Robinson (BBC) says being treated as a terror attack, ominous cries of Allahu Akbar supposedly heard.
Dave Kerr - on 22 May 2013
In reply to xplorer:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Surely they were on drugs,

Not sure what drug would explain that kind of behaviour.
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to Dave Kerr:
> (In reply to xplorer)
> [...]
>
> Not sure what drug would explain that kind of behaviour.

Religion, the most dangerous drug of them all.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Dave Kerr:

What ever is the cause, it's a completely disgusting act of violence.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Waiting to here the facts as initial reports and statements are notoriously unreliable in this sort of not unprecedented act.
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Police have assured the public that an IPPC investigation into the shooting is underway. Thank god for that, I'd hate to think they shot two meat cleaver weilding tw*ts unnecessarily..
puppythedog on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni: I've just popped the news on to find out what has actually happened, I'm not finding out what actually happened. I gather from the title a soldier was beheaded, I'm a bit disturbed by the video footage centring on a large blood stain :-( seems a bit distasteful and gratuitous to me.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:

???

I have to type some additional text to be able to post this.
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> ???
>
> I have to type some additional text to be able to post this.

Just repeating part of the police statement. Can't really say I'm overly concerned about a couple of shot perps.
Alan Taylor - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge: Great that they are still alive to answer questions
La Shamster on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:

Well said! A soldier is being brutally hacked to death in our capital city, I would expect nothing less from our armed police.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:

To my knowledge and I might be wrong any discharge of a weapon has to be reported to the IPCC for investigation the police for obvious reasons have no say in the matter.

BTW I am concerned people have been shot. Unless it was absolutely necessary for the protection of others I prefer people to stand trial.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to La Shamster:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> A soldier is being brutally hacked to death in our capital city, I would expect nothing less from our armed police.

The lynch mob has started.
marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua: As I understand it they were running around shooting a gun, near a primary school, having just run someone over and then chopped and hacked him to pieces. It would seem that it was entirely appropriate.
winhill - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to La Shamster)
>
> The lynch mob has started.

Can you outline, briefly, what you think your moronic comments are bringing to the discussion?
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Alan Taylor:
> (In reply to Ridge) Great that they are still alive to answer questions

Absolutely. Have to admit I have fingers crossed for permanently agonising and life changing injuries though.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to marsbar:

You hear you hear but what are the facts?
cragtaff - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni: I would be happy to put a year's wages on it - Muslims wanting their moment of glory by slaughtering easy target infidels! These people really haven't ever left the mediaeval times have they!
Alan Taylor - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge: Works for me
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
> [...]
>
> Have to admit I have fingers crossed for permanently agonising and life changing injuries though.

Wondering if thats the minority view of a crank or a more generally held one?
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to cragtaff:
> (In reply to Denni) I would be happy to put a year's wages on it - Muslims wanting their moment of glory by slaughtering easy target infidels! These people really haven't ever left the mediaeval times have they!

You mean those times where western armies invaded Muslim lands in an attempt to subjugate the people?
marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua: If I had the facts then that would be great. What I have read is several eyewitness accounts which mention shots fired after the initial event. I expect the facts will become clear at some point.
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> Wondering if thats the minority view of a crank or a more generally held one?

Woteva.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to cragtaff:
> (In reply to Denni) Muslims wanting their moment of glory by slaughtering easy target infidels!

What? as opposed to a hero drone operator who kills 50 civilians sorry "suspected terrorist" from 30000ft and 15000 miles away for every terrorist?

BTW those are the CIA's own statistics.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:

Your comments are no better than that of the tiny minority of extremist who do and justify this sort of thing.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to marsbar:

And what happens if your 'facts' turn out to be wrong?
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to cragtaff)
> [...]
>
> What? as opposed to a hero drone operator who kills 50 civilians sorry "suspected terrorist" from 30000ft and 15000 miles away for every terrorist?
>
> BTW those are the CIA's own statistics.

The CIA aren't very good at working out distances, are they?
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> Your comments are no better than that of the tiny minority of extremist who do and justify this sort of thing.

Get back to me when you have evidence I wander round beheading people in the street and I'll concede your point. Anyway, I'm off before I drag this thread further off topic.
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:

Or about killing civilians
The Lemming - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Unbelievable. Usually nothing bothers me as it all washes over me but for some reason this act has angered me.

BBC News is reporting that the government are treating the incident as a Terrorist Attack and that Cobra will discuss the issue, I think, tomorrow.

It has not been confirmed if the victim was in the military yet however the police are being very careful with their choice of words.

It was confirmed on BBC News that the incident was filmed by one of the two attackers but it was not confirmed if this has got onto the internet.

I'm not going to go looking either. :-(

My own personal and irrational gut-feeling is that this was a Terrorist Act to show other Islamic extremist abroad that, in the UK, extremists are just as violent in both rhetoric and deeds.

This will not end well over the coming months or years.
Jimbo W on 22 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

Based purely on reading the BBC news story, these guys just sound crazy, perhaps religious crazy, but more 4 lions than al Qaida. Whatever the case, very nasty indeed. Glad the suspects are alive to be interrogated in case it is terrorist.
Al Evans on 22 May 2013
In reply to TryfAndy: Oh efff off, at least we in the west have put the crusades behind us!
marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua: Back under your bridge my dear....
ads.ukclimbing.com
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:

I'm as appalled as anyone about whats happened in Woolwich I just chose to wait for the facts rather than take delight in posting headlines worthy of The Daily Mail. Twitter is a alight with Islamaphobia Where is this tolerant rule of law society we're supposed to live in?
winhill - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:

f*ck off and wait then.
cragtaff - on 22 May 2013
> (In reply to cragtaff)
> [...]
>
> You mean those times where western armies invaded Muslim lands in an attempt to subjugate the people?

In reply to Tryf

It was pretty normal in those days, the rest of us have progressed since then, this lot haven't!
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

All thats going to happen is this mass of reactionary islamaphobia is going to confirm in the eyes of the small minority of muslim extremists that the West is anti-isalm and anti-muslim. The next recruits to the cause will be that much easier to recruit and you and me will be that little bit more unsafe :(

The Police "being very careful with their choice of words" understand this I wish more people did.
The New NickB - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Antigua)
> [...]
>
> Just repeating part of the police statement. Can't really say I'm overly concerned about a couple of shot perps.

IPCC investigations are always useful to help distinguish between "perps" and innocent bystanders. I am glad we live in a country where a police officer discharging a weapon is rare and treated seriously.
elsewhere on 22 May 2013
They got the footage out on the internet (extract was on TV).
The New NickB - on 22 May 2013
In reply to cragtaff:

I don't know, you seem to have a good line in binary thinking.
David Farting-Cameron - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> Where is this tolerant rule of law society we're supposed to live in?

I think you'd do better to ask that of these Muslim fanatics.

Gordon Stainforth - on 22 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Antigua)
>
> f*ck off and wait then.

I'm so tired of this total lack of netiquette. If you are as reasonable as you profess, why use such terms as 'f*ck off'? You should be ashamed of yourself. It seems to me that Antigua is making a reasoned, reasonable point, and deserves to be listened to, even if you disagree with it. In my world, freedom of speech and good manners should go hand in hand,

Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to cragtaff:
> [...]
>
> In reply to Tryf
>
> It was pretty normal in those days, the rest of us have progressed since then, this lot haven't!

Not really, considering what our army & the US army have been up to in the last 10 years. Unless you forget about Iraq & Afghanistan, anyway.

Turns out they were Muslims though, ITV have got hold of video of them going on about Allah etc. What a pair of arseholes.
In reply to cragtaff:

> It was pretty normal in those days, the rest of us have progressed since then, this lot haven't!

You're not terribly clever are you? TryAndy's point (at your expense) was so obvious I'm not even sure it counts as subtext.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to cragtaff:
> (In reply to Denni) I would be happy to put a year's wages on it - Muslims wanting their moment of glory

Na definitely Christians. No wait we have no idea what their religion is we are just random guessing and demonising!
And even if they do turn out to be Muslim where the hell do you get off on taking a horrific act of violence and using it to blame a whole section of people of one religious persuasion?
Jimbo W on 22 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

In a clip I've just seen they look as high as kites on drugs!!!
winhill - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to winhill)
> [...]
>
> I'm so tired of this total lack of netiquette. If you are as reasonable as you profess, why use such terms as 'f*ck off'? You should be ashamed of yourself. It seems to me that Antigua is making a reasoned, reasonable point, and deserves to be listened to, even if you disagree with it. In my world, freedom of speech and good manners should go hand in hand,

I always thought, in Norrie's absence you were the most ill tempered old man on here Gordon, never long on patience, short on good manners. Perhaps there's a big gap between perception and reality?

Already, by posts 6 and 7 other people had provided the caution that's needed with rolling news but with a bit of wit as well. Antigua's added nothing at all, quite what you could perceive as reasoned or reasonable I have no idea but don't bother explaining it, I'm not interested.
Gordon Stainforth - on 22 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

I've got no temper at all; spend most of my life laughing. The only problem here is just what you're so het up about. I'm v troubled by the original news item, though.

Gordon Stainforth - on 22 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> I always thought, in Norrie's absence you were the most ill tempered old man on here Gordon, never long on patience, short on good manners. Perhaps there's a big gap between perception and reality?
>

PS. I would be fascinated to know when you have ever seen me being 'short of good manners' on this website. I have certainly never resorted to swearing.

Gordon Stainforth - on 22 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

PS2. You've almost certainly got me confused with someone else. :))
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Winhill and Gordon Stainforth:

The pair of you can f*ck off.
David Farting-Cameron - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni: Earlier there was a post discussing whether the murder of a police officer should be punished by a "full" life sentence. I see no reason why there should be any differentiation between those who murder a policeman and those who carried out this murder or, come to that, any other murder. In the absence of the death penalty murder is murder and life must mean life. End of.
Timmd on 22 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> I always thought, in Norrie's absence you were the most ill tempered old man on here Gordon, never long on patience, short on good manners. Perhaps there's a big gap between perception and reality?
>
> Already, by posts 6 and 7 other people had provided the caution that's needed with rolling news but with a bit of wit as well. Antigua's added nothing at all, quite what you could perceive as reasoned or reasonable I have no idea but don't bother explaining it, I'm not interested.

There's much pleasanter ways of telling people not to speculate than telling them to f*ck off.
ads.ukclimbing.com
mark s - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni: seems the police opened fire without warning them.oh I'm sure the human rights groups won't be happy about that.

I hope the two blokes survive with life changing wounds and in sure they will have a great time in prison,they will be welcomed by the pyscho's in there.
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:

I've just received an email from Gordon, in which he objected to my telling him to f*ck off earlier in this thread.

For the matter of public record, I'd like to take the opportunity of repeating the apology that I offered to Gordon. My comment was meant merely in jest, rather than malice.

... The rest of you can f*ck right off, however.
andic - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Shocking and horrific. Awful for the family and friends I hope they can cope. Speaking as an ex squadie I am quite upset.

a couple of things though
I don't think we know atm if this was a random attack or targeted but they were certainly going tooled up and appeared to be off their tits, they may or may not also be mentally ill.

Shouting a few Alluah akbars a moslem does not make.
SARS on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

These days it's hard to make any reasoned argument without being labelled racist, anti xyz religion etc etc.

All he said was that he thought it likely Muslims wanting their moment of glory. The reports so far certainly seem to suggest thus.
MG - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> I've just received an email from Gordon, in which he objected to my telling him to f*ck off earlier in this thread.

Oh dear!

mrbird - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni: The one thing I hate more than evil terrorists are people who f*ckin swear.
Eric9Points - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to winhill)
> [...]
>
> There's much pleasanter ways of telling people not to speculate than telling them to f*ck off.

Actually I think he was just telling A to phuq off in general.
It's a bit much to use the opportunity provided by a brutal murder to get up on your soapbox to spout the usual tedious "actually it's all our fault" bollox before the blood has even dried.
punj - on 22 May 2013
In reply to andic: same, im ex forces too and i feel quite upset at this.

i know how i'd be feeling if it was one of my mates outside my base and although i don't agree with it, I can understand the rage and hate pouring through my facebook feed from both serving and non. certainly doing nothing to make me feel better.
stroppygob - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> I'm as appalled as anyone about whats happened in Woolwich I just chose to wait for the facts rather than take delight in posting headlines worthy of The Daily Mail.

Godwins


> Twitter is a alight with Islamaphobia Where is this tolerant rule of law society we're supposed to live in?

I agree, what is wrong with people today? Why do we not tolerate people being hacked to death on our city streets? Are we not responsible for the Crusades and CIA drone? Dear godm, these guys were probably on drugs, or religious or something, give them a break, the poor dears are injured after all!

felt - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> I've just received an email from Gordon, in which he objected to my telling him to f*ck off earlier in this thread.
>
You're joking.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> These days it's hard to make any reasoned argument without being labelled racist, anti xyz religion etc etc.
>
> All he said was that he thought it likely Muslims wanting their moment of glory. The reports so far certainly seem to suggest thus.

Is that not jumping to conclusions though? A reasoned argument does not scapegoat groups of people. Secondly it is homing in on a single aspect of someones culture and holding it up as a reason for their behaviour.
In the same way that in the 70's if a bomb went off it was because they were Irish.
In the same way that others might say it is because they were black, or Jewish or from Liverpool. It is generalising in a negative way and re-enforcing a stereotype that can only serve to further alienate people (ie. Muslims). By all means criticise religion for what religion is but to cite the attacks as religiously motivated (which by using the term Muslim was implied) is disingenuous and inflammatory
Antigua - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> to get up on your soapbox to spout the usual tedious "actually it's all our fault" bollox before the blood has even dried.

I'll just jump in there.
I'm as revolted as anyone by whats happened but I do take exception when people appear to be happy? for no other reason than people linked to a heinous crime are shot and that 'fingers crossed' if not dead they have "permanently agonising and life changing injuries".
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 22 May 2013
I suspect one of the side effects of this horrendous crime is a lot more votes for UKIP. Having said that, one of the assailants sounded like a Londoner..
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> ... but to cite the attacks as religiously motivated (which by using the term Muslim was implied) is disingenuous and inflammatory

But the video of the man holding a machete and with blood all over his hands, and who is stating that he has just killed the person, shows that person stating that he was motivated by his Islamic beliefs and by what he saw as retaliation for Western attacks on Muslim lands. Thus it seems to be the case that extremist Islamic beliefs are a large part of his motivation.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Yea these two idiots looked like true believers. Just by the way they dressed and spoke shows their crys of god an Allah were just an excuse for what they have done.

Obviously wars whether justified or not cause people to become angered but what these guys did is disgusting, cowardly and insane. And can never be justified.

I hope there both dead to be honest and then possibly they may realise god isn't real.....
winhill - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to winhill)
>
> There's much pleasanter ways of telling people not to speculate than telling them to f*ck off.

Tim, this is the irredeemably moronic and trollish shite Antigua had to offer:

> Antigua:
> (In reply to La Shamster)
> [A soldier is being brutally hacked to death in our capital city, I would expect nothing less from our armed police.]
>
> The lynch mob has started.

It's not reasoned or reasonable, as in Gordon's imagination and requires no pleasantry.
Ridge - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

> Having said that, one of the assailants sounded like a Londoner.

That explains it. Retaliation for the crusades and drone strikes on his homeland of Stoke Newington.
phja - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

its a shame the attackers survived ...now they'll just cost tax payers money. should have been shot in the head.
xplorer on 22 May 2013
In reply to Ridge:


In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

> Having said that, one of the assailants sounded like a Londoner.

That explains it. Retaliation for the crusades and drone strikes on his homeland of Stoke Newington.




Excellent
Blizzard - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Nothing shocks me anymore, not in this modern world which we live in. Bring on the next story....more headlines to spread paranoia and fear.
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to winhill: I don't get the point.. all they said was they'd rather they stand trial..

Which most, even the police would prefer. I doubt the officer shot out of any sense of justice just danger to others.

Thankfully they are alive and can face justice but more importantly questions.. imagine if both Boston bombers had died? they'd no little.

Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> [...]
>
> But the video of the man holding a machete and with blood all over his hands, and who is stating that he has just killed the person, shows that person stating that he was motivated by his Islamic beliefs

Not in the video I saw.
He said
We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

He added: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

the people carrying out the attack were HEARD to say: "Allahu Akbar [God is Great]"

>and by what he saw as retaliation for Western attacks on Muslim lands. Thus it seems to be the case that extremist Islamic beliefs are a large part of his motivation.

But let us say that I missed a bit and this is what he said, could it not also be that his motivation was a protest against Western military policy? could it not be aimed to bring the reality of war in his country to those he saw as ignoring it? And if motivated by extremist beliefs then is that not indicative that extremism is undesirable? The original comment I protested at was "Muslims having their moment of glory". Not Extremists, or terrorists, or mental bloody idiots but Muslims, by which sweeping generalisation it encompasses all Muslims and that is divisive.
Bimble on 22 May 2013
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

> Having said that, one of the assailants sounded like a Londoner..

And? What difference does that make?
tom_in_edinburgh - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to SARS)
> [...]
By all means criticise religion for what religion is but to cite the attacks as religiously motivated (which by using the term Muslim was implied) is disingenuous and inflammatory

[Harry Callahan has to explain why he shot a man]
Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!
[walks out of the room]
The Mayor: He's got a point.

Pretty much the same logic applies with a guy waving machete's and shouting Alluah Akhbar.
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> ... could it not also be that his motivation was a protest against Western military policy?

Yes, but one way of doing that is to join a "not in my name" march. The method chosen here has all the hallmarks of radical Islamist jihad.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Perhaps to put it in more context. I have good personal friends whom happen to be Muslim and whilst not sharing their beliefs, and most certainly disagreeing with a lot of what passes for Islam in some quarters, I hate to see them being victimised purely for what they are.
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Were

> Western attacks on Muslim lands.

a result of

> extremist .... beliefs [as] a large part of .... motivation.

If Iraq had imposed sanctions then invaded the UK, murdering say 1.5/2 million white British because they felt like it and were above international law,in fact they ARE international law.Then would you be an extremist for wanting

> retaliation for "muslim" attacks on "western" lands
?
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: I know.. but to be honest these are evil bastards.. if it wasn't religion, it would be something else. Its a bit simplistic to think remove religion remove these attacks.
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> And? What difference does that make?

The difference is between a recent immigrant, and a naturalised or native person who has chosen to identify with radical Islam.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, but one way of doing that is to join a "not in my name" march. The method chosen here has all the hallmarks of radical Islamist jihad.

Totally agree with you. Then the comment should have read "Radical Jihadists after their moment of glory" or similar
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
see comments on original statement re: moment of glory
MG - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun: After the last major war in Europe, everyone seemed to agree killing each other wasn't such a good idea and, yes, those that still do (neo-Nazis, IRA,ETA) are regarded as extremists.
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> but to be honest these are evil bastards.. if it wasn't religion, it would be something else. Its a bit
> simplistic to think remove religion remove these attacks.

There are plenty of people who will do evil regardless of religion (the Mark Bridger trial is an example). But I'm reminded on the Weinberg quote "for good men to do evil, that takes religion". Or the quote (forgotten its source, Pascal?) "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". I think there are quite a few examples in these latter categories.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:I mentioned it only in relation to my own UKIP comment. I.e ukipers are anti immigration. Yet this alleged Muslim terrorist looked and sounded like a local.

I am staggered at the bravery of the lady in the photographs shielding the corpse and talking to one of the attackers.
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> By all means criticise religion for what religion is but to cite the attacks as religiously motivated (which by using the term Muslim was implied) is disingenuous and inflammatory

Sorry, but I don't get this, how can you say it was not motivated by their religion? This sort of execution, the reasons they gave and shouting "Allahu Akbar !" does seem to suggest it was. What else could it be?
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

> Yet this alleged Muslim terrorist looked and sounded like a local.

Lots of Londoners are Muslims, you know.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> There are plenty of people who will do evil regardless of religion (the Mark Bridger trial is an example). But I'm reminded on the Weinberg quote "for good men to do evil, that takes religion". Or the quote (forgotten its source, Pascal?) "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". I think there are quite a few examples in these latter categories.

But its rubbish..

Fanatical beliefs.. how many seemingly good men committed attrocities in Russia and Germany?
TheDrunkenBakers - on 22 May 2013
In reply to TryfAndy: seemed pretty lucid to me and didnt appear to be slurring or gurning like someone stoned or on other drugs. Seemed like a calculated attack by a sober individual (s).
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: yes, I know. I live surrounded by them. My point as I already made but you ignored was in relation to incidents like this potentially adding votes for ukipers when the problem COULD be homegrown. Just an observation I made when watching the news. Not earth shattering incite
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> Fanatical beliefs..

Agreed. Any totalitarian ideology can result in the same. It's just that religion is often a potent form of totalitarian ideology.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
again see why I commented in the first place
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> But its rubbish..
>
> Fanatical beliefs.. how many seemingly good men committed attrocities in Russia and Germany?

Or the worst of all -The British Empire,all the European empires,US empire,Japanese empire.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
to re-cap it was the immediate assumption that it was Muslim (before all information was out) and Muslim, not extremist etc.
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

Going by the rather loose evidence so far, he does seem local, if by accent alone.

Therefore, I don't see what the EDL gimps are achieving by calling for a demo over in Woolwich tonight, as it's not as if you can deport someone who was born & raised here, can you?

In a way, I can see why people do get radicalised in the manner of such individuals, if only in that they are told that they are a Muslim above all else and that British soldiers oppress Muslims (apart from the Muslims in the British army, but I doubt they are told about them). That still doesn't excuse beheading someone though, of course.
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> Agreed. Any totalitarian ideology can result in the same. It's just that religion is often a potent form of totalitarian ideology.

Disagrreed!

Democratic countries have caused way more death than all totalitarian ones so lets just keep to facts and not your little fantasy land ....eh?
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> Agreed. Any totalitarian ideology can result in the same. It's just that religion is often a potent form of totalitarian ideology.

True but so was communism, anarchy, etc.
Hmm thinking about it would it not be more true to say that oppression (percieved or actual) is a more potent source of such attacks than any particular religious ideology?
Pursued by a bear - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun: That's interesting. Got some data to support it? Ta.

T.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Disagrreed!
>
> Democratic countries have caused way more death than all totalitarian ones so lets just keep to facts and not your little fantasy land ....eh?

Can't see that myself. Wishful thinking?
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But I'm reminded on the Weinberg quote "for good men to do evil, that takes religion".

Or their inhuman god of money!
MG - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Shall we take it as read that democrats/TheWest/NATO etc are the epitome of evil and have killed more people than any other group, and move back on topic?
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to MG:
hear hear!
David Martin - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:
Shocking, yeah. The kind of stuff that happens on interstate buses across the US or to senior citizens in Blackheath.

But evenif there is a political or Islamic motive, why the fvck is the govt and media calling this 'terrorism'? Coming from a country that looks askance at US knee jerk politics and media.
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to the thread:

There are unverified claims by someone who claims to know the person speaking in the video that he was British born, from a Christian family, and is a convert to Islam.
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> But evenif there is a political or Islamic motive, why the fvck is the govt and media calling this 'terrorism'?

Is there a minimum number that you need to kill before it qualifies?
MG - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to the thread)
>
> There are unverified claims by someone who claims to know the person speaking in the video that he was British born, from a Christian family, and is a convert to Islam.

That or similar backgrounds seem quite common with islamic terrorists in the UK. Which makes it puzzling how they can relate so strongly to horrors overseas concerning people they have never met and use them as justification for acts here.
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> [...]
>
> Can't see that myself. Wishful thinking?

Yet we have been through this before Dunc!i don't do wishful thinking myself and you will see i am in subvert mode tonight so i will refrain from my hijack and let you all get on with the post in peace.Just drop the totalitarian,Russian and other Union Jack waving butter wouldn't melt garbage please !
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Nothing more zealous than the newly converted.

Oh, and it seems the EDL knobs are now fighting with the police in Woolwich. Bet that'll help things...
MG - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: The Cobra business does seem a bit over done I think. All very dramatic.
andyathome - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Disagrreed!
>
> Democratic countries have caused way more death than all totalitarian ones so lets just keep to facts and not your little fantasy land ....eh?

Whilst I agree with you in many ways I would have thought that the highest fatality rate of any recent direct conflict was that between Germany and Russia. It could surely be arguable about whether either of those nations was 'democratic' during the second world war.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Fredt on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

My second reaction, after the first one of horror, was that it is perfect timing for Cameron, just what he needs now, and that explains why the government and COBRA are milking it as much as they can.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Fredt: mentions a 20 minute response time by the police?
andyathome - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to the thread)
>
> There are unverified claims by someone who claims to know the person speaking in the video that.....

That's pretty conclusive then.
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to MG:

Am I the only one who thinks of some sort of underground lair with gliding silver seats & shark pools whenever I hear that COBRA is going to be meeting?
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Fredt) mentions a 20 minute response time by the police?

that would be for armed cops though i suspect.
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> That or similar backgrounds seem quite common with islamic terrorists in the UK. Which makes it puzzling how they can relate so strongly to horrors overseas concerning people they have never met and use them as justification for acts here.

that and if they were really concerned about the majority of the horrors then their targets should be, well, islamic terrorists and their supporters.
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
No prob.
We can discuss at another time how the British Empire was the best thing to happen to the world ;o)
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Fredt) mentions a 20 minute response time by the police?

I imagine that the police criticism will start soon.
20 minutes due to requirement for an armed response to the scene as a result of calls involving males with firearms and weapons fighting.
Wonder if they went straight to the scene or to an intermediate RV point before deploying.

Not quite sure what an unarmed cop would do against two muppets with knives and a gun.
Particularly as the anti-taser campaigners have successfully ensured it isn't standard issue.
Timmd on 22 May 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]
> By all means criticise religion for what religion is but to cite the attacks as religiously motivated (which by using the term Muslim was implied) is disingenuous and inflammatory
>
> [Harry Callahan has to explain why he shot a man]
> Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
> The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
> Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!
> [walks out of the room]
> The Mayor: He's got a point.
>
> Pretty much the same logic applies with a guy waving machete's and shouting Alluah Akhbar.

Everything/anything can be described as religiously motivated if that is what motivates a particular individual.

Which is why you find people doing lovely things with a religious motivation who say they follow the same religion as the nutty decapitators.

It's down to the individual.
andyathome - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I imagine that the police criticism will start soon.

You mean 'criticism of the police'?
Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
>
> Everything/anything can be described as religiously motivated if that is what motivates a particular individual.
>
> Which is why you find people doing lovely things with a religious motivation who say they follow the same religion as the nutty decapitators.
>
> It's down to the individual.

Good point Timmd


IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: I'd have expected officers on the scene in 3 minutes or so.. armed or not.. to clear the public first. But even if not I'd have expected armed responses within a city to be within 10 minutes...
stroppygob - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Bring back hanging.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> You mean 'criticism of the police'?

LOL. Yup, I suppose I do. Start with criticising my grammar....
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

> when the problem COULD be homegrown

If they are British then it is home-grown, the one I heard on the video sounded as if he was, juts like the London bombers were. Political Islam is not only a problem for people in far off lands.
Jimbo W on 22 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Is there a minimum number that you need to kill before it qualifies?

There surely need to be sonewhat more criteria than just the acclamation of God is Great. If this is not a facet of an organised sponsored attack, then it is no more terrorism than protection racketeering or the murderous activity of creggan. Which of course does not mean that it doesn't induce terror. It surely does. This does seem unusual. They could of killed many many people. They killed one. They hung around telling the public that they were doing this for them and to rid ourselves of Cameron / this Goverment. And we're remarkably capable of engaging the public in conversation and for a lady with shopping pushing passed another. Utterly bizarre.
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to andyathome:

> You mean 'criticism of the police'?

nah could mean the first one, although it would be a self fulfilling prophecy considering they go on to complain about the anti taser caampaigners.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to andyathome: http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/woolwich-attack-armed-police-response-time-concerns-671092

I'd have thought there would be specific response targets but cant see any.
Coel Hellier - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> There surely need to be sonewhat more criteria than just the acclamation of God is Great.

The main criterion is surely a political cause. (I this case an Islamist political cause, in previous cases Northern Irish politics, etc.)
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty) I'd have expected officers on the scene in 3 minutes or so.. armed or not.. to clear the public first. But even if not I'd have expected armed responses within a city to be within 10 minutes...

How can you go to the scene when the offenders are present and just "clear the scene"?
Unless you mean arrive and then run away with everyone else.

Jimbo W on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty) I'd have expected officers on the scene in 3 minutes or so.. armed or not.. to clear the public first. But even if not I'd have expected armed responses within a city to be within 10 minutes...

They set up the helicopter service in London, because it was impossible to guarantee rapid response times for ambulances. The roads in London make lit very difficult to achieve response times like 3mins. So go easy on the police. I'm sure they've done their job to the best of their abilities.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to andyathome)
>
> [...]
>
> nah could mean the first one, although it would be a self fulfilling prophecy considering they go on to complain about the anti taser caampaigners.

Get the retaliation in first...
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Any empathy Jimbo?
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to andyathome) http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/woolwich-attack-armed-police-response-time-concerns-671092
>
> I'd have thought there would be specific response targets but cant see any.

I think an I grade call has a 15 minute response target in the Met. That's for a normal patrol response.
In reply to David Martin:

> But even if there is a political or Islamic motive, why the fvck is the govt and media calling this 'terrorism'?

Why not? The guy talking to the camera seems to be making a clear political justification for the act - so why isn't that terrorism? Strikes me that the main thing that comes out of this is how well we are protected by the lack of available firearms in the UK. Compare it to the Tsarnaev brothers or Mohammed Merah all going down in a "blaze of glory", or what Nidal Hassan did at Fort Hood. This a horror and tragedy for the family and friends of poor guy who became the victim today, but at least the killers couldn't do much more.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: Eh? I'd have expected the police to put their lives in the way of the public armed or not..

I mean clear the scene of the public.. stop traffic etc..


Jimbo? I don't think I have criticised them, I'm just questioning and surprised but we don't know the facts.
The Lemming - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

May I ask how you can live in a country, society and culture that you so publicly hate through your comments on this forum?

There must be something that keeps you here?
David Farting-Cameron - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun: I think you, and a few others, could do yourselves a favour. Instead of using this terrible, unprovoked and unjustified act of violence as an opportunity to slag off western democracy - which you obvioulsy hate - why not show a little sympathy for the poor b*****d who has been killed, together with his family. You are quick to denigrate our way of life and yet you use to your advantage the priviliges that come with it.
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> to re-cap it was the immediate assumption that it was Muslim (before all information was out) and Muslim, not extremist etc.

Well the video was pretty explicit and it seemed fairly clear from the time I saw it in the news... no mention on French TV news though - probably because food was not involved.... nor was it in France. When Mohamed Merah shot some three French soldiers and then some Jewish children and a teacher it was all over the front pages. This killing seems a bit like a copy-cat to me. It might not be the last.

IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> May I ask how you can live in a country, society and culture that you so publicly hate through your comments on this forum?
>
> There must be something that keeps you here?

Nonsense. You constantly question the fit for purpose state of our MP's.. 'are they worth a pay rise' etc..

I don't agree with Gudrun much at all but the right to live in a country and question its government in a peaceful manner is a right.
SARS on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> to re-cap it was the immediate assumption that it was Muslim (before all information was out) and Muslim, not extremist etc.

Errr.. but the guy in the video with bloody hands and meat cleavers said he did it for revenge for deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan. Not sure what other proof you need to be honest.

Even without the video I'd have given it pretty high odds. Oops.... I must be anti Muslim... or maybe I just missed all the attacks that those Christian types have carried out on British shores in recent years...?
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:

> Therefore, I don't see what the EDL gimps are achieving by calling for a demo over in Woolwich tonight, as it's not as if you can deport someone who was born & raised here, can you?

Nazis have done worse in the past.
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

From the latest report it was suggested local police had arrived on the scene already.

So with that I will withdraw from this speculation.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: OK.. that was why I put a question mark.. the papers seemed to suggest they were waiting for the police for 20 mins.. not armed police..
RCC - on 22 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Strikes me that the main thing that comes out of this is how well we are protected by the lack of available firearms in the UK. Compare it to the Tsarnaev brothers or Mohammed Merah all going down in a "blaze of glory", or what Nidal Hassan did at Fort Hood. This a horror and tragedy for the family and friends of poor guy who became the victim today, but at least the killers couldn't do much more.

Is that true? It looks like they had the opportunity to kill a few more people than they did (the guy with the camera at least). It looks to me more like the attack was deliberately limited. This seems strikingly different to most islamist attacks.

Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> > Democratic countries have caused way more death than all totalitarian ones so lets just keep to facts and not your little fantasy land ....eh?

> Can't see that myself. Wishful thinking?

WW1, potato famine, genocide of the Amerindians... and that's just starters.
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> WW1, potato famine, genocide of the Amerindians... and that's just starters.

and those were instigated by democratic countries (in the sense of the majority of the adult population having the vote)?
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> From the latest report it was suggested local police had arrived on the scene already.
>
> So with that I will withdraw from this speculation.

Where's the fun in not speculating? Why else are we given rolling news, the internet & freedom of speech if not to construct our own slightly outlandish theories & argue in favour of them until new evidence comes out, allowing us to start the process all over again.
The Lemming - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Just watching BBC 2 Newsnight and can not believe what I am listening to by the alleged murderers and their rants.

To my mind, these individuals wanted to wait for the armed police so that they could attack them and attain a glorious death.

What is the Islamic community, in the UK, going to do to engage and root out extremists within them?
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to RCC:
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> [...]
>
> Is that true? It looks like they had the opportunity to kill a few more people than they did (the guy with the camera at least). It looks to me more like the attack was deliberately limited. This seems strikingly different to most islamist attacks.

Agree.. the video is chilling how calm they are, literally waiting for the police.. they could have killed many many more.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Then look how many died at the hands of communist dictators.
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to think that the police ought to take the like of today's events in their stride. A bloody horrific situation. Just another day at the office, it certainly ain't.
adam11 - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

She is a real hero. While there are people like her, the scum who carry out this kind of savagery, will never win.
In reply to RCC:
> It looks to me more like the attack was deliberately limited.

Yes, could be - which of course makes it even more 'political' - but I was thinking more about when the police arrived. The Boston bombers killed the first (?) cop to recognise them, the guy on the MIT campus.

Duncan Bourne - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> WW1 - Sarajevo?
potato famine - British but also Irish landlords
, genocide of the Amerindians - Americans (the new ones)


The Lemming - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to think that the police ought to take the like of today's events in their stride. A bloody horrific situation. Just another day at the office, it certainly ain't.

+1

Well said
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Hats off to the female firearms cop who appears to have been charged by the man.

As it was put far more eloquently on twitter:-

Oh my God!!!! The way Feds took them out!!! It was a female police officer she come out the whip and just started bussssin shots!!

The first guy goes for the female fed with the machete and she not even ramping she took man out like robocop never seen nutn like it


I hope she manages to go home at some point this evening.
Timmd on 22 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Just watching BBC 2 Newsnight and can not believe what I am listening to by the alleged murderers and their rants.
>
> To my mind, these individuals wanted to wait for the armed police so that they could attack them and attain a glorious death.
>
> What is the Islamic community, in the UK, going to do to engage and root out extremists within them?

Do you know anything about what is already being done, or what attempts are being made to, have you looked into it to any degree?
marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: I'm glad she gets to go home. I was just about to link to this...

https://twitter.com/BOYADEE

IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to think that the police ought to take the like of today's events in their stride. A bloody horrific situation. Just another day at the office, it certainly ain't.

Has anyone said they should? I don't think anyone has said anything untoward about the police, just questioned the police response time which has since been clarified, a query which arose from a statement in the press.

It never ceases to amaze me how people wish to twist any statement..
Pursued by a bear - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> WW1, potato famine, genocide of the Amerindians... and that's just starters.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.

I'm not disputing the events or the cause, but the definition of democracy. I'd argue that for instance a country which denied women the vote was not a democracy as we understand the term.

T.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
> [...]
>
> Do you know anything about what is already being done, or what attempts are being made to, have you looked into it to any degree?

Of course he hasn't.. reactionary..

The Boston bomber was turfed out of his local mosque because of his extreme views.. plenty is being done.
marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Antigua: Will that do, they went for a police office with a machete and then tried to fire at an officer. Or do you think that the police are down wit de yoof and making up tweets as well.
John Rushby - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well, while UKC is doing it's cock waving sixth form poltics, Judean People's Front routine, some mother's son is laying in a London street with his head hanging off.

I really f*cking despair
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: I read that twitter feed from BoyaDees and found it almost unintelligble and depressing in equal measure.
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> That or similar backgrounds seem quite common with islamic terrorists in the UK. Which makes it puzzling how they can relate so strongly to horrors overseas concerning people they have never met and use them as justification for acts here.

Perhaps you should read a book about islam? The unity of muslims throughout the world is a central theme. It's one of the political problems that islam poses for a nation state that values its independence, much the same as England went though when Catholicism was a political reality and the government made people choose between obeying it or the Pope.

There's nothing much new under the sun.
The Lemming - on 22 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Just watching BBC 2 Newsnight and can not believe what I am listening to by the alleged murderers and their rants.
>


What does confuse me is that there are three contributors, one of whom is a is well respected within the Muslim community. I would have loved to have heard his views but he never got a chance to talk and at times he was cut short or talked over. He just sat there quietly and respectfully waiting for an opportunity to speak.

I got the impression that he was just the token 'Tick Box Demographic' commentator to meet BBC Complyment. Here was an excellent, yet missed opportunity for this gentleman to share his views and opinions on the horror of today and Muslim perceptions in general but nobody wanted to hear them.

There has to be equal dialogue in the media otherwise resentment, confusion and ignorance will reign.
In reply to The Lemming:

> What is the Islamic community, in the UK, going to do to engage and root out extremists within them?

Well do you want them to "engage" them or "root them out"? Isn't that asking them to do two opposite things at once? Essex police have already arrested a man for an attack on Mosque, the EDL are fighting riot police in Woolwich - that's where the logic of your argument goes.

Did you see the comment on Twitter from the guy who says he grew up with the killer? "He reverted 4 months after I started practising, in 2003 - generally didn't go to a lot mosques becoz critics of Gov & War would be silenced." It's a well known pattern of people with radical beliefs stopping going to mosque because people there either try and talk them down or inform the police.


Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)

> Then look how many died at the hands of communist dictators.

Look!
Just don't ok! you will lose,trust me.
MG - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: And that explains it you think?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Balls Iain; the tone of certain posts were tending that way.
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:

> It's down to the individual.

It's also down to what the religion teaches the individual, or do you think this is irrelevant?
off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

An interesting comparison on Newsnight between the anti-Western radicalisation of Muslim youth and the "now ridiculed" (their quotes) anti-Western radicalisation of the Soviet communist era.

It made me think of you ;-)
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Well, while UKC is doing it's cock waving sixth form poltics, Judean People's Front routine, some mother's son is laying in a London street with his head hanging off.
>
> I really f*cking despair

Or "ooh i wonder why nasty Muslim people would want to hurt us peaceful British good samaritans who never harm anyone"

Grow up!
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> Perhaps you should read a book about islam?

maybe MG has and hence knows the difference between Sunni and Shia and the history of conflict between the two.
If they were concerned about people dying in "our land" then their time would be better spent targeting other islamists.

cuppatea on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
> (In reply to off-duty) I read that twitter feed from BoyaDees and found it almost unintelligble and depressing in equal measure.

Luckily it has been decreed dat de yoof must be taught grammar once more.

Tony the Blade on 22 May 2013
dissonance - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
> (In reply to off-duty) I read that twitter feed from BoyaDees and found it almost unintelligble and depressing in equal measure.

what is weird is scrolling down further looking at older tweets they are in fairly good English.
John Rushby - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

It was a comment directed at all sides.

It still stands.

Save the political grandstanding for elsewhere.
Skyfall - on 22 May 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

Hear hear John - tbis thread is pretty disgraceful and disrespectful even by ukc standards. And that's all I'm saying on the subject.
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I suppose this proves the point that if you make some substandard,grossly inadequate and extremely patchy piece of propaganda,this will be "interesting" to those of substandard,grossly inadequate and extremely patchy education.
:0
:)
Gudrun - on 22 May 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

Fair enough.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson: Rubbish.. a statement suggesting no police were on the scene for 20 mins should rightly be looked at, as MPs did according to a later link..
Bimble on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to TryfAndy)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Look!
> Just don't ok! you will lose,trust me.

I think my ability to structure my posts in a way that actually makes sense will assist in my inevitable victory. Bring it on, you pinko commie freedom-hater.
Well, bring it on tomorrow at some point, as I'm off to bed now as I've got to work.

off-duty - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> I suppose this proves the point that if you make some substandard,grossly inadequate and extremely patchy piece of propaganda,this will be "interesting" to those of substandard,grossly inadequate and extremely patchy education.
> :0
> :)

I don't quite follow you - as I presume you don't believe that suggesting that radical Islam and Communism are both "substandard,grossly inadequate and extremely patchy piece(s) of propaganda" , but I believe it was a quote by the head of the Quilliam Foundation.
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Can I remind you of your own comment at 22:32 and then ask you to reconsider which part of my original statement you disagree with?
Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> and those were instigated by democratic countries (in the sense of the majority of the adult population having the vote)?

They were democratic countries, yes. French women only got the vote in 1945, wasn't France democratic well before that? Wasn't Britain, France, German and the USA democratic during WW1? Wasn't the USA democratic during the 19th century?

As already said though this is off subject.
Skip - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

The generally accepted definition of terrorism is:

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Not sure exactly how this act has political aims.

The use of the word terrorism has reached dangerous levels, often used as a political tool in itself. The ramifications of this apparently random act may possibly be atrocious is itself.
IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson: Wow..

all of it. I never said it should be taken in their stride. I just expected a police presence inside 20 minutes.. which there was..

I questioned the police response from that statement but left it open that it wasn't clear what had actually gone on.



Bruce Hooker - on 22 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> maybe MG has

It doesn't sound like he has, you neither.
Skip - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Allahu Akbar is translated as "God is greater" or "God is [the] greatest".

Whatever the reasoning or mistaken justification for this act is, it bears no resemblance to "God", whatever an individuals perception of the concept of "God" is.
Sir Chasm - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Skip:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> The generally accepted definition of terrorism is:
>
> The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
>
> Not sure exactly how this act has political aims.
>
> The use of the word terrorism has reached dangerous levels, often used as a political tool in itself. The ramifications of this apparently random act may possibly be atrocious is itself.

They want removal of troops from "their" country, do you not think that's a political aim?

Random? Have you not got a dictionary?

IainRUK - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Skip: What ramifications?

I don't think we'll see much. They'll be questioned, find out what turned them, how, who..

It's clearly a terrorist attack, or being rationalised as such by those who committed it.

No doubt its achieved its aim of causing terror and I'd expect most soldiers on leave are feeling more vulnerable at the moment.
Darren Jackson - on 22 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Righto. We're obviously both talking bollocks now. Let's belt up.
Skip - on 22 May 2013
In reply to cragtaff:
> [...]
>
> In reply to Tryf
>
> It was pretty normal in those days, the rest of us have progressed since then, this lot haven't!

Gross generalisation.

I have spent a reasonable amount of time in Islamic countries and provinces. In general the majority of people in:Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco, The Palestinian West Bank, Kashmir, Muslim parts of North India, and Muslim cities within Western China treated me we the utmost respect and hospitality. How many times when trekking within remote parts of the UK have you been offered a bed and food for up to three nights, completely free of charge?

The people who did this are no more representative of the average Muslim than the BNP are of the average UK citizen.

marsbar - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Skip:
>
> The people who did this are no more representative of the average Muslim than the BNP are of the average UK citizen.

Worth repeating.
Skip - on 22 May 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Spot on.
Gudrun - on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> I don't quite follow you
Newsnight garbage = "substandard,grossly inadequate and extremely patchy piece of propaganda"

> but I believe it was a quote by the head of the Quilliam Foundation.

nuff said!
danny_whew - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni: firstly I'm appalled by the events that have unfolded today. Thoughts go out to the man's family. Secondly I'm amazed by the amount of narrow minded people out there. There is no excuse for taking another life. Yes religon has alot to answer for and alot of blood on it's hands, however hate perpetuates hate and the senstionalist comments I have read on here makes me ashamed at times to be human. Tentions have been rising for a while but to blame the actions of a few on a huge number, many of which are as appalled by it as the rest. People please take abit of restraint and understand this is how you create more anomosity. Anyway rant over, time to get to work.
off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

I think Maajid's credentials and experiences are somewhat more credible than yours.
Skip - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Skip) What ramifications?
>

Increased Islamiphobia, increased acts of violence against innocent Muslims and people of Middle Eastern appearance, with absolutely no idea of their religion or beliefs, some may be Christian,many will be as appalled by the senseless act of violence as any decent human being.
winhill - on 23 May 2013
In reply to danny_whew:
> (In reply to Denni) Tentions have been rising for a while but to blame the actions of a few on a huge number, many of which are as appalled by it as the rest.

I think you'll struggle to find anyone on here who has done that, apart from misinterpreting their posts, as Duncan Bourne has insisted on doing.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Skip: I'm not sure, I can't see how the muslim community could do much more than they have. TBH the response of the EDL will rapidly make people sit up and think and have more sensible ideas..

Those in the EDL etc will use this just as much as those 'terrorists' use islam. Some people just want to be involved in such activity. If it wasn't this it would be immigrants or homosexuals or some other reason/opposition..
ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Skip:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Increased Islamiphobia, increased acts of violence against innocent Muslims and people of Middle Eastern appearance, with absolutely no idea of their religion or beliefs, some may be Christian,many will be as appalled by the senseless act of violence as any decent human being.

Heard about this on the radio on the way home, but I've only just logged on to PC. There's a deluge of pics doing the rounds on Facebook which have the same general message of:

"One of our boys got hacked to death. It's time to send these b****rds back where they came from"

Worries me a lot.
Skip - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to Skip)

>
> Worries me a lot.

TBH i am scared to look at the news in the aftermath.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to David Martin)
>
> [...]
>
> Is there a minimum number that you need to kill before it qualifies?

I suspect so. Plenty of other people are killed each week. It seems the only reason this qualifies as terrorism is it appears to have a political motive. That, in my mind, is not the definition of terrorism.
winhill - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [Is there a minimum number that you need to kill before it qualifies?]
>
> I suspect so. Plenty of other people are killed each week. It seems the only reason this qualifies as terrorism is it appears to have a political motive. That, in my mind, is not the definition of terrorism.

Terrorism doesn't require death itself, a bomb placed but a warning given to avoid deaths doesn't mean the act is not terrorism.

The political dimension makes a big difference here, otherwise it would be nearer communalism.
Skip - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
That, in my mind, is not the definition of terrorism.

It is the generally accepted definition of terrorism.

To deliberately cause, with premeditation, terror within a group/nation etc is generally done with a political end in mind.

"Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level, when there are more than 2 people involved."

Blue Straggler - on 23 May 2013
Oceanrower - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to Skip)
> [...]
>
> Heard about this on the radio on the way home, but I've only just logged on to PC. There's a deluge of pics doing the rounds on Facebook which have the same general message of:
>
> "One of our boys got hacked to death. It's time to send these b****rds back where they came from"
>
> Worries me a lot.

Not on mine. I must have more tolerant (less racist?) friends than you.

Blue Straggler - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

If those are real, the top left one (the "i") has a very unfortunate juxtaposition of headline and bottom-of-front-page ad for some sort of event feature.
ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> Not on mine. I must have more tolerant (less racist?) friends than you.

Good on you.
ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> Not on mine. I must have more tolerant (less racist?) friends than you.

Maybe it's time for a bit of a purge...
Blue Straggler - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to Oceanrower)
> [...]
>
> Maybe it's time for a bit of a purge...

A few of my Facebook friends are reporting that they are "unfriending" (and blocking) their less progressive contacts.
ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> A few of my Facebook friends are reporting that they are "unfriending" (and blocking) their less progressive contacts.

I'm considering that.

I'm considering asking where they actually suggest deporting British citizens 'to', and what legal basis there is for doing that.


woolsack - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to Oceanrower)
> [...]
>
> Maybe it's time for a bit of a purge...

I won't be needing a purge, just need to unsubscribe from one of the local 'news' groups which seems to be a hotbed of racists and general knuckle draggers tonight
ice.solo - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Watched the footage of the guy covered in blood chatting to the camera. Twisted.
Made think 'philosophical extremism blended with PCP'.

Grim
ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

F*ck. Maybe it's the red wine and the shite week at work...but this type of thing does make me rethink my religious beliefs...makes me wonder if we've all led evil lives, died, and that this is the Hell we've been sent to
Gordon Stainforth - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

Sounds like you've had too much wine by a long way (but maybe I have too, having to do some house painting in the middle of the night - vinyl flooring guys coming in the morning) But why immediately think of 'religious' beliefs, rather than beliefs about life and ourselves, per se? What is screamingly obvious about the human being, which means ourselves, is that there are huge, complex and confused psychological processes going on in the gigantic mega-computer that is our brain ... which can so easily run amok, given all the deep, primitive forces in our 'unconscious' minds linked to our animal bodies. Which is just what civilization is all about overcoming; just what Nietzsche means by the 'Ubermensch' ... not 'Superman', but 'Overman', or 'Man who overcomes himself' ('sublimates' his most primitive drives.)

ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
>
> Sounds like you've had too much wine by a long way (but maybe I have too, having to do some house painting in the middle of the night - vinyl flooring guys coming in the morning) But why immediately think of 'religious' beliefs, rather than beliefs about life and ourselves, per se? What is screamingly obvious about the human being, which means ourselves, is that there are huge, complex and confused psychological processes going on in the gigantic mega-computer that is our brain ... which can so easily run amok, given all the deep, primitive forces in our 'unconscious' minds linked to our animal bodies. Which is just what civilization is all about overcoming; just what Nietzsche means by the 'Ubermensch' ... not 'Superman', but 'Overman', or 'Man who overcomes himself' ('sublimates' his most primitive drives.)



Argh!!! 5:17 am Third bottle of wine finished..massively wired and wide awake!!!! (luckily I now have five days off work).

I don't know Gordon. Some times I just get massively angry / sad at life and at people and the state of things, you know?. Such an amazing planet we live on and with a tiny bit of push in the right direction from everyone it could really be an absolute paradise with everyone fed, clothed, heated, educated, sexed, happy...but it's not.

Maybe it'll all look a bit brighter when I've slept a bit.
ThunderCat - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

Christ....it's daylight outside...


ice.solo - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

dont worry. theres too many girls in short skirts getting about for it to be hell.

the wine will wear off, things will pick up, and new excuses for old problems will come together.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to woolsack:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> I won't be needing a purge, just need to unsubscribe from one of the local 'news' groups which seems to be a hotbed of racists and general knuckle draggers tonight

I hide some people.. I get requests from runners, especially in the states as everyone ruddy FB's..

But the military guys tend to be very reactionary, especially about things like this, its understandable but does cross the line at times, so I just put them on hide..

stroppygob - on 23 May 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Argh!!! 5:17 am Third bottle of wine finished..massively wired and wide awake!!!! (luckily I now have five days off work).


Go easy on yourself mate.
woolsack - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK: This was like sitting in on a meeting of the BNP or the Klan
Rampikino - on 23 May 2013
In reply to woolsack:

This has been a very depressing thread, and not because of the original topic (which is bad enough as it is) but because of the tribalistic, willy-waving, self-justifying, hyperbole-strewn "your version of history is warped, what about the British Empire/Chinese Empire/Americans..." gutter that it very quickly sank into.

Not UKCs finest hour in my view.
stroppygob - on 23 May 2013
In reply to woolsack:
> (In reply to IainRUK) This was like sitting in on a meeting of the BNP or the Klan

And there's me thinking it was like sitting in on a young communist or "blame the white man" meeting!

Tch, you never knwo eh?

What's your view on what happened?

Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Skip and others on the same line:

> Increased Islamiphobia, increased acts of violence against innocent Muslims...

In the circumstances this would hardly seem surprising! It's really weird how so many of you appear to be denying the acts, words, and images we have all seen with our very eyes over the last few hours. Almost as if the victim threw himself at a car carrying two peaceful young men then hacked himself to death on blades they happened to have in their hands... some of you seem to need to excuse absolutely anything.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
... some of you seem to need to excuse absolutely anything.

Damn it!! Irony meter shards all over the living room.
jfw - on 23 May 2013
In reply to this thread:

I hate it when a small minded motorist sees a red light jumping cyclist then brands all cyclists as irresponsible nobs.

Why lump together all muslims - these are some whack jobs - and I wouldn't say representative of the majority of muslims in this country.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to stroppygob:

You've never been to a communist party meeting, have you?
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to jfw: Who, on this thread, is lumping all muslims together?
Rampikino - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Good grief.

Day 2 - or should we call it "Round 2" and it's kicked off already on this thread.
In reply to stroppygob:

> And there's me thinking it was like sitting in on a young communist or "blame the white man" meeting!

I feel for you brother. It's so very very hard being a middle aged, middle class, first world white guy these days isn't it?
In reply to Denni: Sad and shocking news. My thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

> Any empathy Jimbo?

Yes. Empathy for the soldier, for all those who witnessed the event, and empathy for policewoman who had to shoot someone, and yes some empathy for the perpetrators who have been influenced by somebody's malignant ideas about the world. Nevertheless it is right that they are going to see the full force if British justice, hopefully with some attempt to avoid this becoming a platform for these two. I would add that it was encouraging to hear a united front from all three commentators on Newsnight particularly with regard to providing a counter-narrative that sees a fight back on the level of ideas.
Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to jfw:

But when you criticize a cyclist who does this, or as in this case, two muslims who clearly did murder and mutilate a man in the most barbaric way shouting Islamic slogans, you are doing just that - criticizing an objectively real act by real people. That's all.

From there people may or may not consider that this act says something about cyclists or muslims in general but the actual criticism of real events whose reality is not contestable is perfectly legitimate. On the other hand covering up such reality to protect the feelings of people who may feel uncomfortable about such real events would not be a sensible thing to do.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Skip:

The term terrorism doesn't really appear to be defined, but wouldn't it be fair to say that "shock and awe", as in what we unleashed on Iraq at the beginning of the 2nd Iraq war is far closer to "terror" than two guys knifing someone in the street?

While political or religious motivation no doubt helps, I would have though the mass targetting of civilians is also a key marker of something being terrorism, which is definitely not the case here.

Basically, the howling and COBRA meetings all look to be a dramatic over-reaction to a knife attack, simply because the nutters who did it a) attacked a soldier and b) claimed a political motivation. Perhaps this is just what David Cameron needs to re-orientate the newspaper headlines away from internal party rebellion?
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: > While political or religious motivation no doubt helps, I would have though the mass targetting of civilians is also a key marker of something being terrorism,

If the IRA had shot the pm it wouldn't have been a terrorist act because only one person was targeted?
off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

I look forward to you sharing your sources that have identified this is an individual attack from two "nutters" rather than any sort of cell.
I'd be interested to know how you have access to the intelligence chatter in relation to the attacks as wellas the results of examinations of phones and other electronic comms used by the attackers.

I'm pleased that you don't consider the response to (and repurcussions of) an armed terrorist attack in the capital city as a matter worthy of the PMs attention - it displays a great deal of faith in the authorities that I would'nt have expected you to have.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

In my opinion, that is correct, it wouldn't have been. Obviously "terror" gets used more widely, but that seems a bit like "WMD" being used to describe bombs left in pressure cookers at a marathon - an attempt to milk terms to be far more dramatic than what they really are.
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: And what if the IRA killed 10 people but killed them one by one, that wouldn't be terrorism because they were individual acts of violence rather than mass targeting?
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I look forward to you providing sources that these two are part of a terrorist cell.

There are knife attacks in London every 5 minutes, murders on an ongoing basis (http://www.murdermap.co.uk/News.asp). Granted this one is dramatic in nature but most of the time we don't give a toss about a teen killed any more than we do the 400 who died in Iraq this week.

Though you are probably right, might as well start hand-wringing about the Islamics, the terrorists and collectively hide under our beds. The terrorists are coming!
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

In my mind that probably would be. Individuals get shot on an hourly basis in the US. I don't consider that to be terrorism. But when a sniper picks off 10 random people over 20 days then that has a terrorising effect.

Put another way, do you think the UK has ever committed "terrorism" i nthe last 10 years?
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: I don't know, for argument's sake I'll say yes. But I'm disagreeing with your contention that for an act to constitute terrorism it has to target a mass of people and that an act against one person can't be terrorism, if you can find any definition to back that up I'd be interested.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Don't get your point at all.. you are trying to drag this back to a 'nasty brits'..

The shock of this, like the deaths at Boston, cause it to be bigger news.

We had similar points made after Boston. But sadly bombings in Iraq are every day occurances so they don't get the press response.

The shocking nature of this killing, beheading always shocks us more, will cause terror in people.

Whether they were part of a terrorist cell or acting alone is immaterial. It was still an attack, with a political motive (even though what they wanted is all but achieved), and designed to cause terror.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Jeez, why be so sensitive with the "nasty Brits" thing?

The point I'm trying to make is that I find it fascinating how something as small as this can be blown out of proportion in to a "terror attack", cuing grave "we will not buckle!" statements and suchlike. Meanwhile, events that (in my mind at least) cause real terror (drone attacks, 500lb bombs dropped from aircraft, artillery attacks, etc) which we conduct as an ongoing part of our military operations can never ever be labelled as such. The term "terror" is pretty Orwelian in it selective application.

I struggle to see how this event was anything more than a frenzied attack, possibly pre-medidated, on an individual. If it was designed to cause terror then how come one of the murderers can hold down a calm and lucid conversation with passers-by where he apologises for the fact that women and children had to see it? Why did they not threaten or attack the numerous civilians who surrounded them and how can a woman walk up to one of them, knife in hand, and attempt to calm the situation?
Ramblin dave - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I think the major feature of terrorism is that it has to be trying to invoke terror in a significant part of the population. For quite a while after the 5/5 bombings, London felt distinctly on edge and nervy - the attacks made people feel like that sort of thing could happen at any time and like they were less safe and secure than they'd thought.

Horrible though this attack was, I can't see it creating anything like the same atmosphere, even among the armed forces, unless (god forbid) it turns out to be the first in a wave of similar attacks. But my gut feeling (and hope) is that it won't be, because two people attacking one victim in the street and then getting arrested doesn't seem like a sustainable tactic for a terror cell...

Political assassination would be another thing again. Not a "legitimate military operation" (although Western governments currently seem to feel that the only "legitimate military operation" for the other lot to take is to stand still while we shoot them) but not terror tactics either.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: I don't think its being sensitive.. I just think its immaterial..

Re your last point.. no idea. But that was one of the more chilling aspects of it.. how calm they were.

off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> I look forward to you providing sources that these two are part of a terrorist cell.
>
> There are knife attacks in London every 5 minutes, murders on an ongoing basis (http://www.murdermap.co.uk/News.asp). Granted this one is dramatic in nature but most of the time we don't give a toss about a teen killed any more than we do the 400 who died in Iraq this week.
>
> Though you are probably right, might as well start hand-wringing about the Islamics, the terrorists and collectively hide under our beds. The terrorists are coming!

Loving your argument. Because we don't know the full picture (other than the clear Islamic fundamentalist motivation) the reaction by the govt must be an over reaction.
And incidentally this incident does differ from a "normal" knife crime in many ways, not least due to the hanging around waiting for police to arrive - and clearly not with the intention of giving themselves up.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: It is unlikely that two rival gangs in North London are going to stab and kill random adults going about their daily business.

Two men who kill a soldier in front of the public, and then welcome all bystanders to interviews whilst they boast about what they have done in the name of Islam as revenge for our countries actions in the Middle East is more concerning. Because potentially we are all targets as residents of the UK and it's priviledged lifestyle. That's why I think the Government are taking it so seriously. It also resonates far more with large parts of our society.Regardless of how progressive you think you are, large parts of the UK are unhappy with the perceived Islamification of the country. I'm not talking about EDL and BNP nutters. I'm talking about middle England "swivel eyed loons" who are law abiding, tax paying non muslims. This attack will probably only add grist to that mill.

Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave: The physical act was against one person, do you think the intention was to influence more people - whether or not it has that effect doesn't alter the intention.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

So that makes it terrorism?

Interesting that you say a "clear Islamic fundamentalist motivation". That is true in one sense. Its equally true to say that their stated motivation was entirely unrelated to Islamic fundamentalism: they claim that British soldiers and the government have caused deaths in Iraq, hence their actions. As unpalattable as their actions may be, there is an awkward truth to their statement, and simply because their solution is an insane over-reaction, doesn't make it any less true.

The definitions are important. "Terrorism" and Al Qaida links are of course nasty things. They have also become convenient catch-alls for unscrupulous governments to use to justify oppression and crack-downs. Not saying the Conservative government is in the same league as Central Asian dictators, but I would not be surprised at all to find this event being over-egged for political advantage.
GrahamD - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
> I'm not talking about EDL and BNP nutters. I'm talking about middle England "swivel eyed loons" who are law abiding, tax paying non muslims. This attack will probably only add grist to that mill.

I'm sure that there is a sizeable portion of the popular press that'll make damn sure it is.

David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
> (In reply to David Martin) It is unlikely that two rival gangs in North London are going to stab and kill random adults going about their daily business.

Perhaps not as a general rule. But it is exactly what happens and is the perception you get when a bunch of hooded youths storm on to a night bus headed for Edmonton. I personally find them both more menacing and more prevalent than the threat of radicalised Islamic fundamentalists.

I certainly hear the fears of middle England. But labelling this a terrorist attack, thereby focussing on the religion of the perpetrators, does more to accentuate their fears than it does to minimise it.
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Yes, much better to make up your own definition of terrorism.
Ramblin dave - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Ramblin dave) The physical act was against one person, do you think the intention was to influence more people - whether or not it has that effect doesn't alter the intention.

I think that if it was an attempt to induce terror in the general population then it's such a self evidently insane and irrational way to attempt it that any talk about "motivation" and "intention" feels a bit irrelevant...
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave: Do you not think they had motivation and intention?
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
But labelling this a terrorist attack, thereby focussing on the religion of the perpetrators, does more to accentuate their fears than it does to minimise it.

And ignoring the motivation and intended effects will help?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: If a bunch of hoodies jump on the W8 you are riding on at Edmonton Green then your more likey to be robbed at knifepoint than beheaded for being British.

One of those events is definitely more newsworthy for the UK than the other IMO
off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

I don't know why you are so keen to avoid the label of terrorism.
It was clearly a politically motivated killing, which by their words at the scene appears to have been carried out to make some sort of point.

It is so far removed from "typical" knife crime as to make comparisons almost pointless.

Generally speaking protests against government policy are described as protests even when they involve criminal acts like damage to property. I would say slaughtering some poor guy in broad daylight in London crosses way over any sort of line between legitimate or less legitimate protest and outright terrorist action.

In the absence of a strict definition we have the Terrorism Act 2000 which talks about "serious violence" or a "threat to a person's life" to influence govt policy, or to advance a political cause.
In the "real" world - it certainly scares (if not quite terrifies) me that people like that are prepared to do things like that.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) Yes, much better to make up your own definition of terrorism.

The definition is vague and contested. Rather than swallowing what we are told, why not question it?

David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to David Martin)
> But labelling this a terrorist attack, thereby focussing on the religion of the perpetrators, does more to accentuate their fears than it does to minimise it.
>
> And ignoring the motivation and intended effects will help?

We are ignoring their motivation anyway. Or has there been discussion in the media and from the government about the role of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact they might have on further terrorist attacks, which I have missed?

In reply to David Martin:
> thereby focussing on the religion of the perpetrators, does more to accentuate their fears than it does to minimise it.

I don't think many people outside of EDL supporting twitter feeds and other not terribly clever people who can't stop writing on the internet are doing that.

"Terrorism" is a distinct word from "terror", "terrible", "terrifying" etc. We know what it means even if it has the same word stem. I'm sure it's completely bloody terrifying to have RAF Tornados drop bombs on your Afghan village etc. but we have other words to describe that like "war" and of course possibly in some cases, "war crime", "immoral" or "illegal under international law". We don't have to load moral sentiment onto describing this as "terrorism". But I think its also quite clear that there are various things that make this different to other knife crimes in London, even if for the families of the victims their experiences might not be so different.
In reply to David Martin:
> Or has there been discussion in the media and from the government about the role of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact they might have on further terrorist attacks, which I have missed?

From the lead story on the BBC currently

"Shortly after the killing in Woolwich, one man - his hands covered in blood- was filmed by a passer-by, saying he carried out the attack because British soldiers killed Muslims every day." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634468

Maybe, if they are just described as "terrorists" it's not clear what their justification might be (were they animal rights extremists? Do they want a Basque homeland etc.) but then surely we should describe them as "Jihadists" or "Islamic extremists" to more accurately portray their stated reasons?

David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

We'll have to agree to differ. They have certainly crossed the line in their form of protest. It is no longer, as you say, simply and at worse, criminal damage. Its murder. I don't see it as anything more than that.

If its terrorism, lets call it terrorism. I just find it a bit rich that when we ourselves blatantly perpetuate terror it is almost treasonous to label it as such. But when dealing with an event such as this, where the terror inflicted is marginal at best, everyone seems so quick to seize the definition - with all its loaded connotations.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> But labelling this a terrorist attack, thereby focussing on the religion of the perpetrators ...

Why are people so keen to play down the fact that this religiously motivated when it so blatantly was? (To be clear, motivated by their version of their religion, not implicating all versions of that religion.)

> Its equally true to say that their stated motivation was entirely unrelated to Islamic fundamentalism:
> they claim that British soldiers and the government have caused deaths in Iraq, hence their actions.

But even so, that it not "entirely unrelated to Islamic fundamentalism", it is everything to do with Islamism. The reason they are making this response to the Western invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan is because of their religious ideology, in which a central theme is the "war" between Islam and Westerners, who have invaded "our [Muslim] lands".
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: I am questioning it, specifically I'm questioning your definition where you say there has to be mass targeting for an attack to constitute terrorism.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> We are ignoring their motivation anyway. Or has there been discussion in the media and from the government about the role of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact they might have on further terrorist attacks, which I have missed?


If you think that is the motivation, yes, you've missed it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634095
Blue Straggler - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> But labelling this a terrorist attack, thereby focussing on the religion of the perpetrators

Terrorism doesn't always have a religious basis. e.g. Basque Separatists
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Because maybe religion is a smokescreen that gets in the way of understanding and intervening with these repetitive events at the level of ideas. Or are we doomed only to react? TobyA argues the semantics about terror and terrorism, but words do not necessarily refer to concepts that are truly distinguishable from one another, especially at the level of psychology and world views.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I don't think smokescreen is the right word.. I'm not saying it causes them but its a very strong factor and how it is abused needs to be understood.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Why are people so keen to play down the fact that this religiously motivated when it so blatantly was?

For the reasons that you state:

> (To be clear, motivated by their version of their religion, not implicating all versions of that religion.)

I don't think saying it was religiously motivated gets you very far, it might be true, but then what? Some Muslims feel like that these guys do; most don't - so it doesn't seem that Islam alone can be a causal factor. They're both black and the victim appears to have been white, if we don't state that all the time are we playing down a racial motivation?


MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I don't think saying it was religiously motivated gets you very far, it might be true, but then what? Some Muslims feel like that these guys do; most don't - so it doesn't seem that Islam alone can be a causal factor.

Do you think if the attackers didn't consider themselves muslim they would have done this?

They're both black and the victim appears to have been white, if we don't state that all the time are we playing down a racial motivation?

Is there any suggestion that colour came it things at all? If not, then how is not mentioning it playing down a racial motivation?
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

It provides a narrative and an apparent axis of superiority. Not wanting to argue the toss over the value or not of the following, we have different narratives like the superiority of democracy, of freedoms endowed within democracy and capitalism. It is very hard to argue with those because they are so systemic and successful, and being immersed within them, it is very difficult to imagine any questionable facet of them without challenging all our own worldviews.
In reply to off-duty: The Met have said police were in attendance within 9 minutes and armed response in 14.

off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> We'll have to agree to differ. They have certainly crossed the line in their form of protest. It is no longer, as you say, simply and at worse, criminal damage. Its murder. I don't see it as anything more than that.
>
> If its terrorism, lets call it terrorism. I just find it a bit rich that when we ourselves blatantly perpetuate terror it is almost treasonous to label it as such. But when dealing with an events such as this, where the terror inflicted is marginal at best, everyone seems so quick to seize the definition - with all its loaded connotations.

The only person who seemed keen to avoid calling it terrorism was you.
If you want to have a debate over whether the Wests actions are terrorist or not that is fine - regardless of your conclusion it does not detract from the circumstances of this horrific incident also being terrorism.
As for the "loaded connotations" - I don't think it's particularly loaded. It describes an act which is politically or ideologically motivated - with all the intended consequences that that definition implies. No hidden meaning there.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I don't think saying it was religiously motivated gets you very far, it might be true, but then what?

The fact that it was religiously motivated is a basic part of properly identifying and understanding the causes, and that's a necessary part of trying to address it.

> ... so it doesn't seem that Islam alone can be a causal factor.

But the extreme Islamist jihadi brand of Islam very clearly and very blatantly is a causal factor. Why are people so keen to deny that?

> They're both black and the victim appears to have been white, if we don't state that all the
> time are we playing down a racial motivation?

If they guy spouting to the camera had emphasized the racial difference and said that his motivation was retaliation for the slave trade and the economic disadvantaging of his brothers, or some such, then it would be entirely appropriate to discuss the racial angle.

But that was not what he said, it was not what *they* gave as *their* motivation. Their motivation, as they quite clearly stated, derived from extremist jihadi Islamism. Why do people twist and turn any way to avoid recognising that?
In reply to Denni: Both suspects were known to MI5 and the police, Whitehall sources have confirmed.
winhill - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> If its terrorism, lets call it terrorism. I just find it a bit rich that when we ourselves blatantly perpetuate terror it is almost treasonous to label it as such. But when dealing with an event such as this, where the terror inflicted is marginal at best, everyone seems so quick to seize the definition - with all its loaded connotations.

You really seem to be struggling with this, terrorism has been around for over 100 hundreed years, always to describe non-State actors, now you're confusing it with State actions, or just lost in trying to make moral equivalents.

BBC:

Professor Paul Rogers, from Bradford University, is an expert in terrorism and says the attack seemed to be designed to cause widespread fear. He tells BBC News: "The alleged perpetrators really wanted to publicise what they did. In a way, it's almost exactly what academics say when they talk about the term terrorism
Dave Garnett - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> They have certainly crossed the line in their form of protest.


You think?
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> But the extreme Islamist jihadi brand of Islam very clearly and very blatantly is a causal factor. Why are people so keen to deny that?

Radical capitalist self serving ideologies reside at the heart of the war in Iraq. Why are people so keen to deny that?
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Radical capitalist self serving ideologies reside at the heart of the war in Iraq.

Do they? Please explain how you arrived at that analysis.
off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Radical capitalist self serving ideologies reside at the heart of the war in Iraq. Why are people so keen to deny that?

Because that motivation is by no means as clearcut as someone standing there covered in blood saying "get out of our (sic) land"
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> Because that motivation is by no means as clearcut as someone standing there covered in blood saying "get out of our (sic) land"

Clear cut how? They mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and from the analysis so far, the "our" uttered might refer to a third country like Somalia! Very confused indeed, especially coming from the mouth of a Londoner, apologising to women for having to have witnessed their grotesque act.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> [...]
>
> Do they? Please explain how you arrived at that analysis.

Oh come on. They do clearly and blatantly represent causal factors in the illegal intervention of a country in which numerous US and British countries are now present reaping the spoils to keep the western dream going.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Clear cut how? They mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and from the analysis so far, the "our" uttered might
> refer to a third country like Somalia! Very confused indeed, especially coming from the mouth of a
> Londoner, apologising to women for having to have witnessed their grotesque act.

Yes, very clear cut, for anyone not in wilful denial.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Radical capitalist self serving ideologies reside at the heart of the war in Iraq. Why are people so keen to deny that?

Because it's clearly bollocks.

Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Oh come on. They do clearly and blatantly represent causal factors in the illegal intervention of a
> country in which numerous US and British countries are now present reaping the spoils to keep
> the western dream going.

Nope, sorry, you need to do better than that if you're going to assert that those things were the dominant motivating factors.

For one thing, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the US two trillion dollars. To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers (which is not to deny that some companies and individuals have taken the opportunity to benefit).
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers

Particularly as if that had been a motivation *not* going to war would have been far more effective. Sadaam was only too happy to trade.
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers
>
> Particularly as if that had been a motivation *not* going to war would have been far more effective. Sadaam was only too happy to trade.

He was.. but there were other concerns.. his health, security and stability of the region, his sons in power.

Although I don't think the war was about oil specifically, securing stability and reliability of the oil, rather than cheap oil, was probably an added bonus...

Markets don't like instability and unknowns.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:

And that is the reason this will never stop.. ..even after all our communications are monitored and freedoms sacrificed, your own indoctrination lies at the heart of the intransigence to stop the behaviour of others.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> Markets don't like instability and unknowns.

So go for the well-known stabilising effect of a regional war!? Iraq was about many things but "radical capitalism" wasn't one of them.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The fact that it was religiously motivated is a basic part of properly identifying and understanding the causes, and that's a necessary part of trying to address it.

If it's "a cause" why do the vast majority of people who consider themselves "religious" not commit acts of violence? Religion alone clearly isn't enough - so why not ask does them both being male make a difference? Almost certainly. Is being black of some relevance? Perhaps. Are they poor or rich and does that matter? Have they had contact with mental health services? Had they had technical educations? A significant percentage of Jihadi terrorists are engineers or have related technical degrees. Did they have employment? How old are they? Do they have families? Did they regularly attend mosque? Chances are, probably not. Have they been linked to street gangs? Have they studied abroad? Have they been under the influence of 'imams' from other countries? Any serious analysis trying to work out why THEY did this act would take into all of those issues.

> Their motivation, as they quite clearly stated, derived from extremist jihadi Islamism.

This is a transcript of what they said on the video: "We swear by the Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. We must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth… I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron’s going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/woolwich-killing-video-terrorism-observations....

It's not a particularly religious statement is it? They clearly see themselves as members of the Ummah not citizens of the UK (their use of the first person plural) and that's a religious identity, but they're justifying it in realpolitik and communitarian terms; not religious ones. You could swap their swearing before god with "FFS..." or "By Jove!..." and it doesn't change their justification for what they were doing.



David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Religion in this case seems to be little more than a collective identifier. Not a cause.

I think this is an important distinction to make. If the murderers had stated they were killing people because we are the infidel, the need for a caliphate, for Sharia law to be imposed, etc etc, then claiming an "Islamic" justification would have some traction. This may yet prove to be the case. However, aside from the individuals apparently being Muslim and unhappy at the killing of fellow Muslims, they are not making a "Muslim" attack. When a fellow democratic country is attacked and we come to its aid, you wouldn't claim democracy as the cause of our retaliation would you? This is the same slippery slope that allows Islamicists to claim we are fighting a Christian crusade when we invade their countries.

> The reason they are making this response to the Western invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan is because of their religious ideology, in which a central theme is the "war" between Islam and Westerners, who have invaded "our [Muslim] lands".

Not sure I agree. Religious "identity" perhaps, but not "ideology". The two are different things.

No doubt Islam inhabits the crappier end of the generally crappy religions spectrum. But the media focus on Islam and terrorism seem more damaging than helpful. Already we have mosques torched and the EDL gaining column inches. Why not focus on the mental health of the individuals? Why not a healthy debate on the implications of our forces having been in Iraq? Perhaps even a little introspection on the propensity of knife crime in general (soldier dies, terrible. youth dies, barely makes the news)?
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> And that is the reason this will never stop.. ..even after all our communications are monitored and freedoms sacrificed, your own indoctrination lies at the heart of the intransigence to stop the behaviour of others.


As is often the case, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
In reply to winhill:

> terrorism has been around for over 100 hundreed years, always to describe non-State actors,

That's not the case. In the 80s and 90s "state-sponsored terrorism" was a very normal term for instance; and if you get one of the basic academic texts used to teach terrorism studies, they always seem to start by pointing out the 97 or whatever we're up to different legal definitions of terrorism. The word has been used to describe acts of war committed by states in the past as well.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) I am questioning it, specifically I'm questioning your definition where you say there has to be mass targeting for an attack to constitute terrorism.

I'm not sure that is what I am saying. More that I feel the issue has become terrorising only because the media and the government has labelled it as such. Hence I see as much political opportunism from the reaction as I do from the event itself.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
>
> As is often the case, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Oh well!
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Why is this not an act of rebellion?
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> If it's "a cause" why do the vast majority of people who consider themselves "religious" not commit acts of violence? Religion alone clearly isn't enough -

True, but it (or something very similar) is required for anyone to hack a stranger to death in public and then hang around waiting to get arrested. Common criminals and even typical political exremists don't do this.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:

How do you think bombs kill? They dismember. Whether in the form of a suicide vest or a drone launched AGM-114.

Being up close and personal does take a certain degree of guts, but claiming it requires religious zealotry to commit these acts is clearly not true. There's plenty of footage available on the net where US/UK forces express clear delight as people vanish in clouds of smoke and vaporising flesh.
winhill - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to winhill)
>
> That's not the case. In the 80s and 90s "state-sponsored terrorism" was a very normal term for instance; and if you get one of the basic academic texts used to teach terrorism studies, they always seem to start by pointing out the 97 or whatever we're up to different legal definitions of terrorism. The word has been used to describe acts of war committed by states in the past as well.

State sponsored terrorism is something very specific and qualified, as is State Terror, people use analogies all the time, marriage is now a team sport according to ice solo, it doesn't mean they are redefining the word, just using it in an analogous way.

Separately, of course it does mean that the exact meaning of terrorism has never been defined but we haven't really seen the need to do so. Animal rights actions would prove more problematic than islamic terror. But generally we have come to question it more in recent years, due to islamic identity politics which objects to muslims being called terrorists. People like David Martin who think this is a useful or interesting discussion are just regurgitating the islamic identity politics, it's not really a serious distinction.
In reply to MG:

> True, but it (or something very similar) is required for anyone to hack a stranger to death in public and then hang around waiting to get arrested.

Is being a psycho-nutter something very similar? I think the "similar" thing is very slippery, because actually you'll end up with loads of other potential motivating factors beyond religion - and again you haven't really moved forward.

> Common criminals and even typical political exremists don't do this.

It's what Breivik did, although it actually sounds like these guys were more nutty and wanted to take on the police. Breivik said he would go down fighting in his book, but of course gave up as soon as the first cops pointed guns at him.

woolsack - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
>
>
> For one thing, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the US two trillion dollars. To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers (which is not to deny that some companies and individuals have taken the opportunity to benefit).

Hasn't that just been happening in the US for the best part of 60 years? An ongoing transfer of US dollars from US tax payers to various flavours of private beneficiaries whether they be arms manufacturers, service companies or other hangers on? When the Cold war had run out of steam they managed to bring on the next twenty years of revenue in the War on Terror
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> Being up close and personal does take a certain degree of guts, but claiming it requires religious zealotry to commit these acts is clearly not true. There's plenty of footage available on the net where US/UK forces express clear delight as people vanish in clouds of smoke and vaporising flesh.

Like it or not, pulling a trigger or launching a bomb (that will at least nominally be aimed at specific targets) is physcologically very different to hacking someone to death at random, even if the effects are similar.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 23 May 2013
According to the Mail, father of one of the attackers is a manager in the NHS and lives in a nice house in Lincolnshire where neighbours once saw a women in a bhurka!!

Probably not a good idea to have a picture of the house on the front page.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> Is being a psycho-nutter something very similar? I think the "similar" thing is very slippery,

The only comparable events I can think of are some of the Latin American drug war murders. Calmly hacking someone up like this does require special motivation, I think.


> [...]
>
> It's what Breivik did, although it actually sounds like these guys were more nutty and wanted to take on the police. Breivik said he would go down fighting in his book,

But he was "just" shooting people.
In reply to winhill:

> State sponsored terrorism is something very specific and qualified,

Really? Go back 15 years and I think state sponsored terrorism was by far the prevalent form, from CIA dirty ops in Central America up until the 70s, Iranian sponsored revolutionary terrorism since '79, Stasi backing from W. European radical left groups, South African backed guerrilla across southern Africa in the 80s, various countries supporting the PLO, Libya backing the IRA and ETA, the whole Afghan war and on and on.
Ramblin dave - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to TobyA)
> [...]
>
> True, but it (or something very similar) is required for anyone to hack a stranger to death in public and then hang around waiting to get arrested. Common criminals and even typical political exremists don't do this.

But angry violent unbalanced people comparatively often do regardless of their religious beliefs - I guess part of what I mean about this not feeling like a "terrorist" act of the same stripe as, say, 7/7 is that the crazy irrationality of it and the lack of a coherent idea of how their apparent motivation is served by their actions seems to have more in common with something like the Cumbrian shootings or American school shootings.
ads.ukclimbing.com
woolsack - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> He was.. but there were other concerns.. his health, security and stability of the region, his sons in power.
>
> Although I don't think the war was about oil specifically, securing stability and reliability of the oil, rather than cheap oil, was probably an added bonus...
>
> Markets don't like instability and unknowns.

They also didn't want oil being traded in Euros which, had that taken place in a big way, would have seriously undermined the US Dollar's reserve currency status.
Eric9Points - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

You know the best analysis of what happened yesterday, in my view, was one I heard on the radio this morning from a resident in Wollwich. It was along the lines of "they're a pair of idiots with no respect for the lives of others." Much the same view was expressed by a spokesman for some UK Islamic organisation who was also at pains to point out that the idiots were not muslims in any accepted sense of the term and their behaviour was totally abhorrent to muslims and against the writings of the Koran.

I think it would be much better if society as a whole regarded the individuals who carried out this despicible acts as idiots with idiotic views who lost any right to be taken seriously as soon as they got in that car with intention of carrying out a murder. We should not debtae their views at all, that only lends some degree of respectability to them in the eyes of a small minority of other idiots in our society. Revile them, ridicule their politics and and flush them down the sewer where they belong to ensure that no one else feels they can gain respect in any part of socierty by emulating them.

With that I'll take my leave of this thread as discussing their motivations and agonising over our complicity in this crime is precisely the sort of thing they were hoping for and I for one, am not going to play along with them.
In reply to MG:
> Calmly hacking someone up like this does require special motivation, I think.

Actually Mexico is interesting as the 'terror' there is horrific and money seems to be the only necessary motivator to commit those horrific acts - heads rolled onto the dance-floor etc.

> But he was "just" shooting people.

Don't think I get you here.

MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Don't think I get you here.

That pulling a trigger and butchering someone with a machete are rather different activities in terms of the required motivation but with similar outcomes. One is much more remote and detached and hence easier to do.
winhill - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to winhill)
>
> [State sponsored terrorism is something very specific and qualified,]
>
> Really? Go back 15 years and I think state sponsored terrorism was by far the prevalent form, from CIA dirty ops in Central America up until the 70s, Iranian sponsored revolutionary terrorism since '79, Stasi backing from W. European radical left groups, South African backed guerrilla across southern Africa in the 80s, various countries supporting the PLO, Libya backing the IRA and ETA, the whole Afghan war and on and on.

Yes, really. All those are prime examples of the concept. The States involved used, paid, trained other people to perform acts of terrorism for them. That's what it means!

If they use their own military or paramilitary/intelligence forces we don't call it State sponsored terrorism.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:

So religion is at fault because it allows people to kill when up close and personal? While someone pulling a trigger can kill all day long without the need to worry about remorse or internalising the effects of the round they fire? That's refreshing.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> If it's "a cause" why do the vast majority of people who consider themselves "religious" not commit acts of violence?

Because there are lots of different religions and lots of different strands. Some are totalitarian and violent (e.g. extreme jihadi Islamism) and some are not (e.g. Quakerism).

> Religion alone clearly isn't enough ...

**Some** variants of religion *are* enough. Your argument is like denying that HIV kills people because it is a virus, and many viruses are harmless, and therefore clearly a virus alone is not enough.

> Any serious analysis trying to work out why THEY did this act would take into all of those issues.

And any sensible analysis would not go to ridiculous lengths to deny the blatantly clear role of extreme jihadi Islamism as one of the prime causes.

> It's not a particularly religious statement is it?

Yes it is. It has extreme jihadi Islamism all over it.

> but they're justifying it in realpolitik and communitarian terms; not religious ones.

Their whole political and world view is infused by their Islamism! Their motivations and acts come from their view of the world as a war between the Islamic Ummah and the infidel West.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> So religion is at fault because it allows people to kill when up close and personal?

I think there is strong case for that.


While someone pulling a trigger can kill all day long without the need to worry about remorse or internalising the effects of the round they fire?

No idea where you got that from.
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> I'm not sure that is what I am saying. More that I feel the issue has become terrorising only because the media and the government has labelled it as such. Hence I see as much political opportunism from the reaction as I do from the event itself.

Earlier you said "while political or religious motivation no doubt helps, I would have though the mass targetting of civilians is also a key marker of something being terrorism, which is definitely not the case here", were you not suggesting this incident isn't terrorism because only one person was targeted?
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> When a fellow democratic country is attacked and we come to its aid, you wouldn't claim democracy as the cause of our retaliation would you?

Yes I would. If a country went to aid of another liberal democracy out of an ideological belief that its governance should be determined by its populace, and not by an invader, then yes I would attribute that aid to the Western ideology of a liberal democracy.

> Why not focus on the mental health of the individuals?

Do you have any evidence that mental health issues (as oppose to Islamist ideology) are the dominant factor in this attack, in the Boston bombings, in the 9/11 attacks, in 7/7, etc?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
> extreme jihadi Islamism as one of the prime causes.
> It has extreme jihadi Islamism all over it.

You like that phrase don't you? :)

By the way, those who would call themselves Jihadis probably wouldn't call themselves Islamists. Many Jihadi groups are against the most prominent Islamist groups. I'm sure these guys see themselves as Jihadis and that seems to describe them perfectly well. They probably wouldn't see themselves as Islamists.

> Their motivations and acts come from their view of the world as a war between the Islamic Ummah and the infidel West.

How do you actually know this? And why if that is simply the cause, do the probably thousands of other British Muslims who believe the same thing not also attack people on the streets? Why is this sort of thing so rare?
malk - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

>
> It's what Breivik did, although it actually sounds like these guys were more nutty and wanted to take on the police. Breivik said he would go down fighting in his book, but of course gave up as soon as the first cops pointed guns at him.

Breivik was much more nutty to take anyone and everyone out

why 20 min for the cops to turn up?

MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
Why not focus on the mental health of the individuals? Why not a healthy debate on the implications of our forces having been in Iraq? Perhaps even a little introspection on the propensity of knife crime in general (soldier dies, terrible. youth dies, barely makes the news)?

We could and indeed do do all those things. But it is rather bizarre to expect them to be disussed on this thread which is specificanlly about a brutal religously inspired murder in London!

Would you expect a discussion of Islamic terrorism after a youth stabbing?
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Much the same view was expressed by a spokesman for some UK Islamic organisation who was also
> at pains to point out that the idiots were not muslims in any accepted sense of the term and
> their behaviour was totally abhorrent to muslims and against the writings of the Koran.

It is common for religions to have their factions, and for different factions to tell the others they are wrong and blasphemous and against the true teachings. This is why we have so many different religions and religious sects and factions.

For example, many Protestants might consider some Catholic beliefs to be against the writings of the Bible, but they are still all Christian (under any sensible use of the label).

> We should not debtae their views at all, ...

If you are going to try to reduce future attacks of this nature you need to understand their views and motivations.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

A mass targeting of civilians would almost certainly warrant the label of "terrorism" for sure. As could a range of factors. Basically, whatever creates a feeling of terror in the population at large.

In this case, one person was singled out while every other person (perhaps with the exception of the police) was able to get up close to the chaps holding knives and engage in conversation with them.

If the same guys had then attacked these people and as many others around as they could find then I might entertain the idea of terrorism. But there is something fundamentally un-terrorising about the circumstances in this case. At least there was until the government starts to claim this is a terrorist attack.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
At least there was until the government starts to claim this is a terrorist attack.

I do agree with you here. It was a murder and probably fits most descriptions of terroism too, but the reaction from the government has been rather, umm, enthusiastic. Almost as if a disctraction from other matters is welcome!
Gordon Stainforth - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Would it be fair to say (or perhaps, offensive to muslims?) that extreme fundamental Islamism is a kind of mental health problem and/or that in this case it might be a mixture of the two: i.e, it's impossible to say (yet) how much it is a mixture of the one and the other? Sorry .. v badly expressed .. have house full of plumbers, vinyl flooring people etc. Plus emailing artist in Germany.
Rigid Raider - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

One of the men was called Michael Adebolajo, which is a Yoruba name from Nigeria. Most Yorubas are Christians so it looks like somebody did a good job on converting then radicalising him. Checking the Nigerian press websites, the news doesn't seem to have reached them yet. His family will be unhappy, Yoruba society is close-knit and family name counts for a lot.

In the end let's not forget that all religion is down to whose imagined best friend is better than who else's imagined best friend.





In reply to MG: People, kids in most cases, pleaded with Breivik not to kill them, and in a few cases he didn't. Others he shot in the face from very close range - it's was all in the court case. He continually calls himself a "cultural conservative" throughout his book. So are we saying that religious motivation allows people to try and cut other people's heads off, whilst 'extreme rightwingyness' allows you to shoot teenagers a metre from you as they plead for the lives but not the former?

I'm not sure if that's gonna help understand this any further.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> And why if that is simply the cause, do the probably thousands of other British Muslims who believe
> the same thing not also attack people on the streets? Why is this sort of thing so rare?

For someone whose analysis is normally sensible you seem very baffled by the blatantly obvious.

Let's take a comparison. A wide range of people in Northern Ireland have supported a unified Ireland. Some were moderate Irish nationalists, others were more extreme. Some supported the IRA, others wouldn't have gone as far as supporting terrorism, but would support the politics of Sinn Fein, or would shun Sinn Fein but still support the nationalism of the SDLP. Only a tiny fraction were active terrorists themselves.

Your question is like asking, if the IRA was motivated by Irish nationalism, why did the many thousands who also support Irish nationalism not commit terrorist acts? Or are you going to deny that IRA terrorism had any link to Irish nationalism?
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to David Martin:

> But there is something fundamentally un-terrorising about the circumstances in this case.

But again, "terrorize" and "terrorism" are two different words even if they have the same origins. When Roshonara Choudhry stabbed Stephen Timms because of his support for the Iraq war I think that was an act of terrorism, even if no one seemed particularly terrorized by it.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Would it be fair to say ... that extreme fundamental Islamism is a kind of mental health problem

It is tempting to regard any wacky religious beliefs as signs of mental illness, but I don't think it's true and I don't think mental-health professionals would agree.
Mr Lopez - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Somewhat i have the feeling that these guys have spent more time sucking on the crack pipe and bothering their 3 combined brain cells with crystal meth than they have reading the Quran or considering international politics...

But, hey, it's easier to scream "TERRORISTS" from the rooftops than it is to accept the fact that some people living alongside us have mental problems that may lead them to do shit like that. You know, if we don't have a 'face' to fight then how can the government protect us?
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: So it's only an act of terrorism if the population at large feels terror? You're just trolling now, poor taste.
Rob Exile Ward on 23 May 2013
In reply to Mr Lopez: You make a good point.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Somewhat i have the feeling that these guys have spent more time sucking on the crack pipe and
> bothering their 3 combined brain cells with crystal meth than they have reading the Quran or
> considering international politics...

OK, but surely we should go on evidence, not on your "feeling" about this. Do you have any evidence to substantiate your view that they were crazed drug addicts or mentally ill?
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Mr Lopez: Is a lack of mental health problems a condition of being a terrorist? Or is it possible that some terrorists are nutters?
In reply to Coel Hellier: I just hope that when you're studying physics you don't just grab on to the first explanatory factor for a phenomenon you can find and say "this and only this is enough, I don't need to consider anything else". I suppose that's what Kuhn accuses scientists of doing, as after all these things tend to be social processes, but I trust you're a good Popperian in these matters. ;)

Look, there are plenty of people who are very religious and see the west as being at war with the Ummah, but they don't attack people on the streets. Are you saying these guys were MORE religious than those other people? Do they believe in God harder? Why didn't these guys have beards or slightly too short trousers if religion was so important to them? If it's just that their form of belief is _different_ from the grumpy Salafi over there who won't talk to women, rather than _stronger_ than his belief; well what differentiated it? Why did they choose to act like this?

You keep telling me what my question is like (viruses and the IRA), but rather could you just answer it? Because I don't know what the answer is but you seem to.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> Is a lack of mental health problems a condition of being a terrorist? Or is it possible that some terrorists are nutters?

There's actually been a lot of academic work done on that question, particularly in regard to would-be suicide bombers as that seems the ultimate irrational act in some ways. This is one of the first big article written on it: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2000/09/01/rational_fanatics but of course its looking at pre-9/11 mid east groups mainly so you have a selection bias.

David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
What stops every day murder from being "terror" if the definition doesn't need fear and the threat of violence to be experienced by as many people as possible?
RCC - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> That pulling a trigger and butchering someone with a machete are rather different activities in terms of the required motivation but with similar outcomes. One is much more remote and detached and hence easier to do.


There is probably some truth to that, but the person you are butchering or shooting is perhaps more significant.

There are some horrific videos (that were shown on TV) of some friendly fire incidents during recent wars. The common theme seems to be the complete psychological collapse of the pilots when they realise what they have just done, compared to the jovial manner in which they conducted the attack, and, in one case, were preparing to kill the wounded survivors of their initial strike.

Whatever else it says, it does suggest that the target rather than the act is the major barrier.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Look, there are plenty of people who are very religious and see the west as being at war with the
> Ummah, but they don't attack people on the streets. Are you saying these guys were MORE religious than those other people?

No, they are more extreme (and differently religious), not more religious.

> Why didn't these guys have beards or slightly too short trousers if religion was so important to them?

Maybe their interpretation of their religion doesn't require beards and slightly too short trousers? You seem to have a remarkably monolithic view of religion, overlooking that there are multiple versions of most religions.

> well what differentiated it? Why did they choose to act like this?

Your question is like [! ;-)] asking why one person is a conservative, another a socialist, one a catholic, another a protestant, one a animal-rights advocate, another someone who doesn't care, one a Sinn Fein voter, another an SDLP voter. The short answer to this is different genes and different social environments and life histories.

There is a long answer to why we all have a range of different beliefs, and why some are in the mainstream, others at the extremes, and why some are willing to be violent in pursuing their ideas, others not, but that long answer would be long and I don't pretend to be an expert on it.
Coel Hellier - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> What stops every day murder from being "terror" if the definition doesn't need fear and the threat of
> violence to be experienced by as many people as possible?

Lack of political motivation. (As already stated several times on this thread.)
In reply to David Martin:

> What stops every day murder from being "terror" if the definition doesn't need fear and the threat of violence to be experienced by as many people as possible?

Fair question, and indeed reporting on violent crime clearly does scare people (violent crime going down, but fear of crime going up). I still think though the clear political/ideological motivation is the important bit. Choudary attacked an elected representative of the people for his political positions - very much using violence to make a point.
In reply to Coel Hellier: Of course I don't have a monolithic view of religion, which is why I don't think Jihadis and Islamists are the same thing! ;-) (Although more seriously Islamism is a form of politics, not a form of religion)

> The short answer to this is different genes and different social environments and life histories.

Perfect; I agree entirely. And if we try understanding those things we can start trying to work out why these two did something so horrific, whilst people who are 'religiously' basically the same as them, didn't.

MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Perfect; I agree entirely. And if we try understanding those things we can start trying to work out why these two did something so horrific, whilst people who are 'religiously' basically the same as them, didn't.


OK but others on this thread seem to be trying to pretend religous played no part at all. From the attackers own words it seems pretty clear that it did, and in particular a certain strain of Islam did. Narrowing things further will help understand motivations etc more, I am sure. But pretending religion has nothing to do with it won't.
Shani - on 23 May 2013
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to David Martin)
>
> [...]
>
> Lack of political motivation. (As already stated several times on this thread.)

That to me is simply "political violence". At least the causes and consequences of which can be discussed. Calling someone a terrorist automatically invalidates any political point they make, hence it is a loaded term and not particularly helpfull - unless of course the intention is to stop a discussion of their political point.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:

Religion here is the cultural identifier though. I think the "role" of religion is being overstated.
ccmm on 23 May 2013 - 194.82.141.222 whois?
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> You know the best analysis of what happened yesterday, in my view, was one I heard on the radio this morning from a resident in Wollwich. It was along the lines of "they're a pair of idiots with no respect for the lives of others." Much the same view was expressed by a spokesman for some UK Islamic organisation who was also at pains to point out that the idiots were not muslims in any accepted sense of the term and their behaviour was totally abhorrent to muslims and against the writings of the Koran.
>
> I think it would be much better if society as a whole regarded the individuals who carried out this despicible acts as idiots with idiotic views who lost any right to be taken seriously as soon as they got in that car with intention of carrying out a murder. We should not debtae their views at all, that only lends some degree of respectability to them in the eyes of a small minority of other idiots in our society. Revile them, ridicule their politics and and flush them down the sewer where they belong to ensure that no one else feels they can gain respect in any part of socierty by emulating them.
>
> With that I'll take my leave of this thread as discussing their motivations and agonising over our complicity in this crime is precisely the sort of thing they were hoping for and I for one, am not going to play along with them.

Well said Eric. These idiots don't deserve publicity. I'd have prefered the front pages of today's papers to focus on the victim.
Sir Chasm - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: > Calling someone a terrorist automatically invalidates any political point they make

Maybe to you, to me it's just a description of what they are and i can still consider their point.
dale1968 - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni: RIP and condolences to the family
winhill - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> That to me is simply "political violence". At least the causes and consequences of which can be discussed. Calling someone a terrorist automatically invalidates any political point they make, hence it is a loaded term and not particularly helpfull - unless of course the intention is to stop a discussion of their political point.

The IRA were labelled terrorists and now they are in Government.

Many terrorist groups are self identified and explain their actions as terrorism, there are acres of writing on the value of terrorism, your OCD on this point is bizarre.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 23 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to David Martin)
> [...]
>
> The IRA were labelled terrorists and now they are in Government.
>

That isn't quite true and I think Sinn Fein might take exception.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> That isn't quite true and I think Sinn Fein might take exception.

Sinn Fein might take exception, but they were clearly the political facade for the IRA.
David Martin - on 23 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

Nelson Mandela was also a terrorist. Had he not been labelled one I suspect a more mature debate would have been had by Thatcher's government on the topic of apartheid.

It is a term thrown around and misused to inflate threats. I wouldn't be so bothered by it if it wasn't for the hypocrisy; the inability to be equally loose with its use when describing our own actions. Its Orwelian, it cheapens the meaning of a very serious concept and its offensive that it might all be in the interests of distracting public opinion from other political matters. Apologies if that's OCD to you.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Sound like a nice guy, not just an asset, but someone who lifted those around him.. ..really sad loss. A shame these ignorant tw*ts couldn't have seen that character rather than just as an object to facilitate their macabre insane theatre. Will these guys likely get life=life terms???
Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> I would not be surprised at all to find this event being over-egged for political advantage.

I don't quite see how such a weird and desperate act of barbarity can be "over-egged"! What do you think they could have done to make it more unpleasant and terrifying than an attack in broad daylight on a chosen individual by first ramming him with a car then setting about him with knives and a meat cleaver?

Your reaction seems to demonstrate an astonishing level of desensitizing... It is in all reality a fairly extraordinary act, perceived as such in the foreign press too - that there was "only" one victim does nothing to reduce the effect, especially as it comes after other similar acts of what seem to be individual terrorism - the bomb at the marathon, the killing spree in France, which also targeted soldiers BTW.

All of these acts are obviously of a terrorist nature as they create a feeling that no one can feel really safe, that apparently unrelated acts can happen making it very difficult to protect the public from. All this discussion about whether the word terrorist is appropriate or whether the countries attacked France, UK and USA can themselves be criticized don't really have much relevance IMO.
Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> They mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and from the analysis so far, the "our" uttered might refer to a third country like Somalia!

The "our" referred to "Muslim", they aren't referring to themselves as black, nor of any particular country, but a part of the "nation of Islam" - "ummah" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

A lot of black Africans are Muslims, something which is perhaps less evident in Britain as most black Brits are from, or their ancestors were from, further south in Africa or the Caribbean, in France the majority of blacks are from countries where the main religion is Islam. The difference comes from the different zones of the world colonized by the Britain and France.
Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> securing stability

Are we both looking at the same Iraq every night on the news? The one I see is the very opposite of stable.
In reply to Denni: Having a debate about whether it technically constitutes "Terrorism" is missing the point rather, isn't it?
andymac - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Glad I haven't followed this sad event on the TV news ,or seen any of the footage.

Got angry enough looking at the pictures in the papers.

Why are those 2 animals lying in hospital beds?
elsewhere on 23 May 2013
In reply to andymac:
Because we're better than them.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> Are we both looking at the same Iraq every night on the news? The one I see is the very opposite of stable.

For the public for sure things aren't stable.. whether its better depends on who you ask..

But for oil I'm not sure, it may well now be a more stable supply.. I'm unsure.
andymac - on 23 May 2013
In reply to elsewhere:

Yes.
But.

In 20 years time those 2 will still be being fed and watered at our expense.

And in 40 years ,if they are good boys ,they could even be walking the streets.

Antigua - on 23 May 2013
In reply to andymac:
> (In reply to elsewhere)
>
> being fed and watered at our expense.

Am surprised at how common this view is.
elsewhere on 23 May 2013
In reply to andymac:
but hardly anybody will remember their names - no point creating martyrs
Aret - on 23 May 2013
In reply to andymac:

> And in 40 years ,if they are good boys ,they could even be walking the streets.

"Murder for political, religious or ideological cause" nowadays gets you a whole life tariff - see here.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/murder/

So no more walking the streets for them, even in 40 years. (Unless the law changes again in the meantime of course, which is always possible)
off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't know what the coverage is like abroad but one of the very few positives to come out of this is the combination of prominent Muslims coming forward to unreservedly condemn these actions and the news coverage that they are receiving.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

has this been linked?

I think it is.. but I can see the arguments either side.. but I guess we'll know at the trial.
IainRUK - on 23 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: agree. I actually think the EDL have done more good than harm strangely enough... they've made people think and most seemes to have come out on the opposite side to them..
marsbar - on 23 May 2013
In reply to andymac: Because making them martyrs really wouldn't help? Because we don't do that here? Because we want to find out who is behind this?
Moley on 23 May 2013
In reply to Aret:
> (In reply to andymac)
>
> [...]
>
> "Murder for political, religious or ideological cause" nowadays gets you a whole life tariff - see here.
>
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/murder/
>
> So no more walking the streets for them, even in 40 years. (Unless the law changes again in the meantime of course, which is always possible)

I thought the IRA did some pretty grim murders under the guise of those causes, many/most of them seem to have walked away. Perhaps that set a precedent for others to think they can follow?
woolsack - on 23 May 2013
In reply to andymac:
> (In reply to elsewhere)
>
> Yes.
> But.
>
> In 20 years time those 2 will still be being fed and watered at our expense.
>
> And in 40 years ,if they are good boys ,they could even be walking the streets.

And until then, they are safely under lock and key. I'm happy to put a few quid in to make that happen
Bruce Hooker - on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
>
> has this been linked?
>
> I think it is.. but I can see the arguments either side.. but I guess we'll know at the trial.

Someone else who seems to be obsessed by dictionary definitions, as if definitions decide reality rather than just make it easier to describe it. The exact meaning of the word doesn't exist, you can use the word how you want within limits and the limits are fairly well accepted - terrorism is the use of terror, violent acts for political ends. It is a method and can be done for a good or bad causes, the point being it is not the use of violence to weaken the enemy militarily but to create a political effect.

One of the clearest examples I know dates back to WW2 when the French resistance (hence good guys) decided that the French people were sinking into a lethargic acceptation of German occupation. To break the population out of this, making the Germans maintain more occupying troops in France and hence fewer on the front the decision was made to start a campaign of terrorism and this started by a young resistant who shot a young German officer in the head in the Paris metro, precipitating the rounding up of civilian hostages who were then executed. Other acts of terrorism followed and each time the Germans executed more hostages, twenty per officer assassinated - they reacted as they had in areas of France occupied during WW1, but with greater severity. The resulting shock woke the French people up and attitudes changed, the German army was kept in a state of alert, the tactic had worked exactly as planned.

This was a classic use of terrorism, the political end achieved was by provoking the stronger force into acts which led to a political gain for the very much weaker party - no religions were involved and the initial act was an individual act of terror used to provoke a retaliation.

The Woolwich case seems to fit into a similar, but different, act and uses terror (anyone who denies that the act was done deliberately to provoke this feeling is being dishonest) to provoke a political reaction - the back-lash against Muslims, polarising society being the main objective IMO, and it seems to have worked. Whether it will turn out to be successful in any significant way doesn't prevent it being terrorism, just as the marathon bombers and Mohammed Merah attacks in France were. Another objective is probably to encourage others to commit such individual acts in an uncoordinated way making them very difficult to prevent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings

You know about the marathon bombings already.
Jimbo W on 23 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:


This reflects the incredible number who have been motivated to post on Facebook who have only been of one voice in questioning the liberal use of the word terrorism.
birdie num num - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Num Num just regards this as a random and rather shocking brutal murder. Nothing more. The perpetrators will be locked up and forgotten. Whatever cause they may bleat about as justification is no mitigation and sorrowfully, next week the public will be thinking of other things than Lee Rigby.
Terrorism?! These people didn't even have the good grace to blow themselves up at the same time.
MG - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Good post. Whether or not this is terrorism is also independent of whether CIA drone attacks are.
off-duty - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> This reflects the incredible number who have been motivated to post on Facebook who have only been of one voice in questioning the liberal use of the word terrorism.

I still don't get the desire to avoid describing this act as terrorism.

The article can be summed up as :-
"I think what the West does is terrorism. We don't call that terrorism so this shouldn't be described as terrorism.
I think racist attacks should be described as terrorism, since they aren't this shouldn't be described as terrorism."

If anything they are saying that the word terrorism should be used MORE liberally.
Gudrun - on 23 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers
>
> Particularly as if that had been a motivation *not* going to war would have been far more effective. Sadaam was only too happy to trade.

Attack is the best form of defence MG so well done but your argument is the one that is "Bonkers".

> Saddam was only too happy to trade

Are you that niave? i mean ....really?

The "Extremists" in charge of the evil empire at the time were well known to have wanted a war but as you correctly said it wasn't all about financial gain but 90% of it was.As George Soros stated what is extreme became normal under the George Bush admin.The US and it's military machine are always looking for a war or opportunity to use it's vast weaponry to boost US economic growth and global muscle.

The war was for oil.

Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia in oil production which until 2003 was completely nationalized and *closed* to Western oil companies.Now it is practically all privatized and completely dominated by US "Big oil" companies.

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."


Aret - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Moley:
> (In reply to Aret)
> [...]
>
> I thought the IRA did some pretty grim murders under the guise of those causes, many/most of them seem to have walked away. Perhaps that set a precedent for others to think they can follow?

The IRA campaigns were well before the legislation I mentioned was passed, in the days when the Home Secretary still had the final say on if and when prisoners serving life were released and the judge just made a recommendation to him. And there was specific legislation passed after the Good Friday Agreement allowing the early release of IRA prisoners.

Of course a lot can change in 40 years and who knows - one day there might be a Good Friday style agreement with Al Qaeda. But as the law stands now they're likely to get whole life tariffs which would mean that unless the law changes they'll die in prison.

I doubt whether they spent much time worrying about whether they'd be released after thirty years or serve life anyway - it sounds like they were expecting to be shot dead at the scene and go straight to their fifty virgins or whatever.

Gudrun - on 23 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)

> For one thing, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the US two trillion dollars. To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers (which is not to deny that some companies and individuals have taken the opportunity to benefit).

"taken the opportunity to benefit",That must be one of the coldest ,unfeeling and fraudulent emphemisms i have ever heard!

Now get this....has cost the US *taxpayer*(proles) $1.7 Trillion, but made many private US multinationals(The rich)much more rich from many multi- billion dollar contracts.Bechtel Corp and their relations in the Republican party and CIA/military,Hallibuton(ditto),Brown & Root(ditto)ExxonMobil,Chevron,ConocoPhillips,Research Triangle Institute, Creative Associates International,Fluor Corp.(ditto CIA)Carlyle Group,Blackwater and all the other securities(US special forces) etc etc

so not bonkers at all.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Good post. Whether or not this is terrorism is also independent of whether CIA drone attacks are.

Indeed, and whether either are included within the definition if terrorism dies not mean that the categorisation is in any way helpful.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Good post. Whether or not this is terrorism is also independent of whether CIA drone attacks are.

Indeed, and whether either are included within the definition of terrorism does not mean that the categorisation is in any way helpful. Except if you want to inspire fear and a particular climate for responses, and the already posited "necessary" legislation.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> [...]
>
> Nope, sorry, you need to do better than that if you're going to assert that those things were the dominant motivating factors.
>
> For one thing, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the US two trillion dollars. To assert that financial gain and "reaping the spoils" was the prime motivation is bonkers (which is not to deny that some companies and individuals have taken the opportunity to benefit).

So they built a big fire and burnt 2 trillion dollars on it... ...did they heck. American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited from that money, as have US companies operating within Iraq creating new sources of decades of profit and security of oil supply which will also benefit the US economy in the long term.

Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to birdie num num: Numnum can regard this act as random if he likes, but actually it was a targeted act. Silly numnum.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> So they built a big fire and burnt 2 trillion dollars on it... ...did they heck. American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited from that money, as have US companies operating within Iraq creating new sources of decades of profit and security of oil supply which will also benefit the US economy in the long term.

Do you have any figures to back up your assertion that the war was profitable?
MG - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> So they built a big fire and burnt 2 trillion dollars on it... ...did they heck. American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited from that money, as have US companies operating within Iraq creating new sources of decades of profit and security of oil supply

16% of of the Iraqi oil fields are in US company hands. 60% in the hands of Iraq, China or Russia so hardly a secure supply given current politics, and much less secure than with Sadaam who would have reliably sold to anyone. FWIW I think Iraq was a total, immoral disaster but trying to make out it was for "radical capitalism" or even mainly about oil is nonsense.
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> Indeed, and whether either are included within the definition of terrorism does not mean that the categorisation is in any way helpful. Except if you want to inspire fear and a particular climate for responses, and the already posited "necessary" legislation.


Why this continued semantic squirming. Helpful or not, by every definition of the word, what happened in Woolwich appears to have been a terrorist act.

If you want to argue that certain acts by the West are also terrorist then that is a separate debate - and I don't see how it is particularly "helpful".
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I'm not sure we would be having COBRA meetings, statements from the PM, EDL attacks and half the column inches if the government hadn't come out so strongly immediately after the event referring to it as terrorism.

I'm afraid it very much makes a difference. It was a favourite ploy of the Bush regime to use terrorism to describe anything they didn't like, wanted the populace to mobilise against, but which was in fact a long way from terrorism.

Equally relevant is the failure to use the term, as it feeds in to how Islamic extremists can so easily point to hypocrisy in the West. This (http://www.itv.com/news/2013-03-18/ten-years-on-the-iraqi-orphan-who-touched-the-world/ ) for example, is apparently not "terror" or the result of "terrorism". But a farmer picked up in a field in Afghanistan, can be shipped off around the world, thrown in a cage without trial and tortured all because we choose to call him a "terrorist".
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: So how would you describe the attack? You don't think "murder" really captures what went on, do you?
winhill - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:
> (In reply to winhill)
> [The IRA were labelled terrorists and now they are in Government.]
>
> That isn't quite true and I think Sinn Fein might take exception.

Martin McGuinness
ex0 - on 24 May 2013
In reply to MG:

There's been far worse murders (with more than one person killed) that have been labelled murders, even when there's political motivation.

Guess you have to draw your own conclusions. It shouldn't be labelled terrorism just because the men were Muslims.
IainRUK - on 24 May 2013
In reply to ex0:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> There's been far worse murders (with more than one person killed) that have been labelled murders, even when there's political motivation.
>
> Guess you have to draw your own conclusions. It shouldn't be labelled terrorism just because the men were Muslims.

Plenty of murders by muslims aren't terrorism.. its only been linked as there was clearly a political message delivered..
Darren Jackson - on 24 May 2013
In reply to ex0:
>
> Guess you have to draw your own conclusions. It shouldn't be labelled terrorism just because the men were Muslims.

It was certainly terrorism, in my eyes. And it hasn't been labelled so merely because of the terrorists religion, but rather because of the nature of their deeds and words. Couldn't be clearer.
cuppatea on 24 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Was the clear political message "vote for us, not for ukip"?

There's always a lot of spin on those wheels within wheels. I'm always glad that it's not me charged with sorting all the country's problems out, but it isfun to speculate.
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> So they built a big fire and burnt 2 trillion dollars on it... ...did they heck. American companies,
> and in the long run, the US economy has benefited ...

Are you really of the opinion that, in the long run, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were overall a benefit to the wealth of the US?
Donnie - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Denni: First, I'm very sorry for the soldier and his family and friends and colleagues. What those men did is totally disgusting and in no way excusable. I also think even the non-jihad related views (eg on women, homosexuality etc.) of hard line Muslims are pretty horrible.

But, we 'the West', do much worse than those men did yesterday, and I'm not sure why this is called terrorism and what we do isn't. They killed an off duty combatant, and we regularly do the same. And we do it knowing that innocent civilians will be killed too. Sometimes we do it based on the probability that terrorists will be there, with no hard proper intelligence.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to MG:

In my mind "murder" is a substantially better explanation of what went on than "terrorism". Unless of course this (http://goo.gl/CAZRR), this (http://goo.gl/YYrE0), this (http://goo.gl/2b4Bm) and this (http://goo.gl/rGNWC) were also terrorism?

The only thing that seems to connect this to terrorism is a vaguely political motive. That might be convincing if it weren't for the fact these individuals quite clearly made no attempt to target any bystanders, to the point of apologizing to women and children.

If anything they are deluded individuals, committing a murder but excusing their actions for political reasons.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: So you think they had a desire to murder someone (anyone) and used jihad as an excuse?
thomm - on 24 May 2013
It was terrorism because it was politically-motivated and may be linked to, or inspire, other attacks with the same motives. The 'terrorism' response was correct because for all we knew, this was the start of a wave of planned attacks (thankfuly/hopefully not). I think it was stupid and unhelpful for the media to broadcast the murderer's proclamations on television, and the general media sensationalism is infuriating as usual, but I'm not sure what can be done about this, apart from avoiding watching or buying the worst peddlers of it.
elsewhere on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Are you really of the opinion that, in the long run, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were overall a benefit to the wealth of the US?

Surely* boosted the economic activity Jimbo refered to and surely* boosted the US govt debt you referred to.

Ask your question again in 2063. I expect you'll get the same arguments you get now about Keynes rather than a clear answer based on hindsight

*deliberate use of the topic word surely
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Are you really of the opinion that, in the long run, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were overall a benefit to the wealth of the US?

Yes. Infrastructure spending and sunk cost in destroyed equipment make up the main facets of overall Iraq war spending that would not have some eventual feedback into the US economy. Oil is a big benefit, as is security of supply, and as Iraq has been opened up to IOCs, the current estimates are that 90% of Iraqi oil fields have yet been determined, expansion into the autonomous Kurdish region is happening by US companies now against the wishes of the Iraqi government. The benefits are only just starting.....
Donnie - on 24 May 2013
In reply to thomm: is people getting killed in your own country a political motivation?

There's politics in their in the sense that they want to influence the democratic process over here to achieve their aim, but it's not what's motivating them....

So, motivation - us killing people. Aim - us stopping killing people. Means - violence to influence the political process.

Morgan Woods - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Denni) They killed an off duty combatant

You really think this guy has some skin in the game? He was born and bred in London and has jumped on an extremist bandwagon.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: A quick google suggests 80% of Iraq's oil production is destined for Asia (mainly China), how does that secure oil for the us?
RCC - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) A quick google suggests 80% of Iraq's oil production is destined for Asia (mainly China), how does that secure oil for the us?

Oil is (more or less) a commodity, it doesn't really matter where Iraqi oil (in particular) goes.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to RCC:
> Oil is (more or less) a commodity, it doesn't really matter where Iraqi oil (in particular) goes.

How does the US profit if Iraq sells oil to China?
RCC - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> How does the US profit if Iraq sells oil to China?

Because China isn't buying as much oil from elsewhere, so the oil price goes down. That means less of the US GDP is being spent on buying oil.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to RCC: Really? Isn't China's demand for oil rising? Which countries is China buying less oil from?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> The only thing that seems to connect this to terrorism is a vaguely political motive.

"Only"? "vaguely"?

> That might be convincing if it weren't for the fact these individuals quite clearly made no attempt to target any bystanders ...

They were aiming at soldiers and police; they had made their point by killing one of them and wanted to publicise it. I don't see how the lack of attacks on bystanders negates their political motive.

> If anything they are deluded individuals, committing a murder but excusing their actions for political reasons.

So what were their motives, if the political one is just a cover story?
RCC - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to RCC) Really? Isn't China's demand for oil rising? Which countries is China buying less oil from?


It is, but it wouldn't stop rising just because Iraq wasn't selling them oil, they would still be buying it from somewhere.

If you want to say that it mitigates the effect of increasing demand, then that's fine; the principle remains the same.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to RCC: We've come quite a long way from jimbo's claim of the us profiteering from Iraqi oil haven't we?
malk - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: my quick google says <15% of the total production (tot=3.5m barrels/day ~$>100b/yr?) goes to China

also:

"in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

and

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/business/iraq-war-contractors
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't see any negating of a political motive. But, if a political motive is enough to label something "terrorism" then every action by US/UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan was terrorism. We were after all there for political reasons.

As for their motives, I would have thought anyone who knifes someone in a street is simply a murderer. We don't normally go on to categorise them by motive, be it revenge or perceived offence do we?,

Perhaps if you want to define terrorism as having a political motive then we could agree on the following definition: "The enacting of political violence, excluding however political violence enacted by ourselves". At least that would be more accurate wouldn't it?

It should be pretty obvious the term is loaded and being used for political ends in this case.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I have a strong suspicion the US intended to profit from the Iraq war. They reportedly did so from the first Gulf War, and with the mission accomplished in Afghanistan why would they have expected differently in their invasion of Iraq?

That it didn't turn out as such points to incompetence, rather than lack of motive. And despite that, certain companies and organisations have made a fortune none the less.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
>
> Why this continued semantic squirming. Helpful or not, by every definition of the word, what happened in Woolwich appears to have been a terrorist act.
>
> If you want to argue that certain acts by the West are also terrorist then that is a separate debate - and I don't see how it is particularly "helpful".

Because the question is what use it serves us to put this into a particular category called "terrorism". The main beneficiaries will be those who would like to see invasive legislation leading to the monitoring of private communication online, and the climate of fear amongst the electorate that will help to facilitate that. For me, in marked distinction to the 7/7 bombings, there has appeared next to no induction of fear because of the action of these individuals, which I suspect is what lies at the heart of what I am seeing as a pretty systemic repudiation of this being quickly labelled as "terrorism". Indeed, the only people who seem to feel terrorised on the back of these events are poor muslim communities fearing retaliation from groups like the EDL and other racist vigilantes.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to malk: Destined, as in predicted to be 80%. And how does having us contractors in Iraq secure oil for the us?
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to RCC) We've come quite a long way from jimbo's claim of the us profiteering from Iraqi oil haven't we?

Well, my original claim was about the ideological motivation behind the Iraq war, deliberately paralleling Coel's description of terrorism.. ..none of which needs to evidence actual production of profit, which represents a strawman argument, which distracts from the main point about motivation.. ..the latter which is pretty openly admitted by most of the political administration involved.

As for my one use of the word "profit": I did not say that the war *was* "profitable", I said that the US and US companies *would* profit for decades to come.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Maybe they did intend to profit, but jimbo's claim is that they have profited and will continue to do so, figures are awaited with interest.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think he said "American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited ...". I wouldn't see much to argue with there. Undeniably many US companies have made a fortune and if US interests are ultimately realised I'm sure a benefit will come to the US economy.
Donnie - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Morgan Woods: I don't know about the guy, and whether he's had his whole family killed by a drone in pakistan or has never been out of the uk what he did was disgusting... I'm just raising the point that what 'we' do worst.

we condem these killings, as we should, but fail to condem it when it's us. and for that we, as a country, should be ashamed
Steve John B - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> Indeed, the only people who seem to feel terrorised on the back of these events are poor muslim communities fearing retaliation from groups like the EDL and other racist vigilantes.

None of the muslim friends or co-workers (some practicing, others lapsed) I've spoken to about the events have expressed a fear about reprisals from EDL/BNP types. They've been more concerned (aside from a general sense of revulsion at the crimes) with misrepresentation of their faith and cultural values by both the killers and by self-appointed spokespeople such as Choudary.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Yes, he said the us economy has benefited. But I can't see a net benefit if they've got back less than the 2 trillion investment, maybe, possibly, conceivably they might profit in the future, but as an assertion it's groundless.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to RCC)
> [...]
>
> How does the US profit if Iraq sells oil to China?

Ah, well that's the cunning ploy!
winhill - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Indeed, the only people who seem to feel terrorised on the back of these events are poor muslim communities fearing retaliation from groups like the EDL and other racist vigilantes.

This seems a perverse and unempathetic reaction.

What on earth do you think if feels like for the people who were involved first hand, or the families of other Services personnel?
andic - on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
> Why this continued semantic squirming. Helpful or not, by every definition of the word, what happened in Woolwich appears to have been a terrorist act.
>

Or horrific murder committed by two very disturbed persons. Awful though it was I don't see any reason for a full on anti terrorist lock down style response for two dick heads acting alone with no "proper" terrifying weapons. I think this has more in common with the failed attempt on Joss Stone's life than with 7/7 etc.

DC calling a meeting of cobra, BJ giving his Londoners stand together speech and every other nobody grandstanding off the back of this just makes me sick.

In reply to David Martin: This definition stuff is pretty pointless really, a US professor years back said terrorism is violence we disapprove of, so fine. Analytically its more interesting to study the power Relations shown by the use of the term - see the whole Critical Terrorism Studies school. In this case though the one guy being filmed years back prancing around behind Anjem Choudray at al-Mujaharoun demos makes claiming this was just a plain and simple murder rather weak. With EDL responding violently its amazing how small these circular radicalization circles are.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> I think he said "American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited ...". I wouldn't see much to argue with there. Undeniably many US companies have made a fortune and if US interests are ultimately realised I'm sure a benefit will come to the US economy.

Britain too, but to a lesser extent. I mean for obvious reasons there was almost no internal contractors used, and the vast majority came from the US, importing not just the company, its expertise, but also US labour. Much of the money spent is not sunk cost. It has benefited US companies directly, and will continue to do so through many companies that remain to provide privatised utilities etc. Oil is just one aspect. Even with regard to the military spending, huge amounts of money have benefited numerous US military companies, and employed US personnel in the US and Iraq. Almost all the figures quoted look at one thing.. ..how much left the coffers via appropriation etc, almost no figures quoted make any attempt to take into account what % of the capital has benefited US companies, and US people, and of course this isn't a calculation which began and ended with war itself, the benefits which will continue for decades, and as someone mentioned above would only be scrutible with the benefit of hindsight.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Again, I think the original point he was making is being missed.
That was that we are quick to assert Islam is a causal factor in this case but shy away from pointing the finger at, for example, capitalist ideals as a causal factor in the Iraq invasion. I think that point stands regardless of whether the goals were ultimately realised.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
> This seems a perverse and unempathetic reaction.
>
> What on earth do you think if feels like for the people who were involved first hand, or the families of other Services personnel?

Oh, I'm sorry for not always making an exhaustive f*cking list! See my reply about empathy above. I don't know, they were sufficiently non threatening to draw a large crowd and for shoppers to walk right past them on their way from A to B. And in any case I was making a reference to an interview in which muslims from the area were speaking of fear of reprisals from EDL etc
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> As for their motives, I would have thought anyone who knifes someone in a street is simply a murderer.
> We don't normally go on to categorise them by motive, be it revenge or perceived offence do we?,

Why yes, we do. There is legislation about racially and religiously aggravated "hate" crimes. The police do keep records of different categories, according to motive, and the press often to comment on motive -- for example whether it is drug-gang violence or a love triangle or whatever.

> It should be pretty obvious the term is loaded and being used for political ends in this case.

And it should be pretty obvious that the reluctance to accept the term, and the denial of Islamist motivation, is an attempt to ignore the very clear motives behind this attack.
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> I have a strong suspicion the US intended to profit from the Iraq war. They reportedly did so from the first Gulf War, ...

Evidence for that claim?
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) Maybe they did intend to profit, but jimbo's claim is that they have profited and will continue to do so, figures are awaited with interest.

The idea that the war *was* (past tense) already profitable was a strawman introduced by others. As for companies that have already profited.. ..a quick google will give you some very long lists.
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> ... I'm sure a benefit will come to the US economy.

I'm sure that, while some US companies and individuals might make money, the US overall will not. There are no benefits even close to the two trillion cost.

The oil thing is absurd. Even Iran sells oil on the international market. The only way that the oil supply would be endangered is if Islamist regimes refuse to sell oil at all. Saddam was a bulwark *against* Islamism; overthrowing him has, if anything, increased the likelihood of Islamism in the Middle East.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Indeed, the only people who seem to feel terrorised on the back of these events are poor muslim communities fearing retaliation from groups like the EDL and other racist vigilantes.

Often the objective of terrorism is precisely this sort of indirect political result, as in the example I gave of the decision by the French resistance, communist led, to use terror to provoke the occupying forces into action against the French population and to break their lethargy and lack of coactivity. Similar tactics were used in Kosovo when Serbian police posts were deliberately attacked in a most brutal manner to provoke Serbian reactions of even more brutal nature. This was the political objective as it was then exploitable to bring in outside forces against the Serbs. Another example was Bloody Sunday, the presence of armed men in the crowd provoked an excessive reaction by the British army which could then be exploited politically.

All these examples are considered terrorist as they use terror to have a political effect rather than a strictly military one - clearly such small attacks will not defeat the much stronger "enemy". I think one of the problems is that people see the term "terrorist" as a pejorative, insulting term to justify a government reaction whereas in fact it is a neutral term, it describes a tactic, and one which is often used in unequal war situations where the militarily weak side uses terrorist violence as a tactic to further it's cause indirectly.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: You said that the us had (i.e. already) benefited. Where is the net benefit if they've spent more than they have recouped?
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I'm sure that, while some US companies and individuals might make money, the US overall will not. There are no benefits even close to the two trillion cost.

What % of that 2 trillion represents totally sunk cost, i.e. payment not going to US contractors (military, infrastructural, oil, utilities), US soldiers, imported US workers, their training, increased skill bases, wages, companies involved in training to provide all of the above? Oil only represents one aspect from where long term benefits will come!
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Where did I say that?
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> for example, capitalist ideals as a causal factor in the Iraq invasion.

You can fairly point to quite a lot of ideological ideas underpinning the American invasion of Iraq, but I really don't think that "capitalist ideals" is among them.
Steve John B - on 24 May 2013
In reply to andic:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> I think this has more in common with the failed attempt on Joss Stone's life than with 7/7 etc.

But she sang "It's a Man's World" - you'd think Islamic fundamentalists would agree with that...
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

I agree to an extent. In light of the al-Mujaharoun footage he clearly has Islamic affiliations. But still, does that imply terrorism or simply an Islamic political motive?

The definition of what terrorism is doesn't really concern me. More that it is such a heavily loaded term for a government to be throwing around with such inconsistency. I find it laughable how quickly and conveniently David Cameron jumped to a terrorist conclusion and in contrast, as repeatedly stated, how unwilling they would ever be to acknowledge our own violence as terrorism. All very convenient given the hammering he has been getting in the media in recent weeks. Combined with the sensationalist reporting ("We will not be bowed!", "It will only make us stronger!", "The day terror stalked the streets of London", etc) the reaction seems every bit as excitable as that we see in the US, which is something the UK always claimed to be above.

If this is terrorism, then fair enough - but is Cameron then likely to have an examination of how, as many predicted and as Tony Blair and others denied, invading Iraq would leave us open to such attack? Unlikely.
winhill - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to winhill)
> [(In reply to Jimbo W)
> [Indeed, the only people who seem to feel terrorised on the back of these events are poor muslim communities fearing retaliation from groups like the EDL and other racist vigilantes.]
>
> [This seems a perverse and unempathetic reaction.
>
> What on earth do you think if feels like for the people who were involved first hand, or the families of other Services personnel?]
>
> Oh, I'm sorry for not always making an exhaustive f*cking list!

But you did make "an exhaustive f*cking list!"

You said the ONLY people, that is exhaustive. Just f*cking weird and perverse Jimbo, an irrational and inappropriate emotional response, forum tourettes, like most of the weird stuff on this thread.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: 8:13 today, you said "American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited from that money". You can amend that if you want to say that American companies have already benefited and the US economy might benefit (a very big might and you're only guessing) in the future, but it doesn't say it now.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Surely if I have shares in Chevron I would benefit from a sympathetic government in Iran or Iraq, given the high likelihood of said company then having opportunity to build infrastructure and increase its profits and my share value?

Just because an unsympathetic country can sell oil on an international market doesn't detract from the huge additional profits available if a more amenable government was installed.
malk - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
>
>
> Evidence for that claim?

simple cost benefit analysis. see my wikilink for estimated cost of iraq war and compare with contractor profits and oil exports

Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to malk: The contractors were (still are) paid by the us government, that's not exactly the government turning a profit.
malk - on 24 May 2013
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> Surely if I have shares in Chevron I ...

Some US companies benefiting =/= US as a whole benefiting. I fully accept that some companies will have benefited. I don't accept that "US companies benefiting" is any major part of the original motivation for the Iraq war.
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> In light of the al-Mujaharoun footage ... an Islamic political motive?

I'm glad we've got round to accepting an Islamist motive!
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> I find it laughable how quickly and conveniently David Cameron jumped to a terrorist conclusion and in contrast, as repeatedly stated, how unwilling they would ever be to acknowledge our own violence as terrorism.

I agree with this, but its a general problem of media and politicians more generally. For example, Damilola Taylor dying in a stair well was found by a guy who during the 999 call said that there was a boy who'd been stabbed etc. The word was taken up by media, and Tony Blair was quick to state that they would find those responsible. This presumed that there was a stabbing, and that the injury was caused by someone. The injury was toward the middle of the back of the knee.. ..a pretty strange place to be stabbed. The police were initially looking for a knife, which they couldn't find, but a review of the injury by a 2nd expert suggested that it couldn't have been a knife but rather glass.. ..then the police found the glass stubbie bottle with some blood on it. So we end up with a boy supposedly stabbed in the back of the knee with a broken stubbie beer bottle. Was it surprising that the first charges were brought against toe-rags who had nothing to do with the event?
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to malk:

>> Evidence for that claim?

> simple cost benefit analysis. see my wikilink for ...

You are replying about the second Iraq invasion. My "evidence for that claim" was about the first one, namely David Martin's claim: "They [the US] reportedly did so [profit] from the first Gulf War, ...".
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
winhill - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> The Woolwich case seems to fit into a similar, but different, act and uses terror (anyone who denies that the act was done deliberately to provoke this feeling is being dishonest) to provoke a political reaction - the back-lash against Muslims, polarising society being the main objective IMO, and it seems to have worked. Whether it will turn out to be successful in any significant way doesn't prevent it being terrorism, just as the marathon bombers and Mohammed Merah attacks in France were.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings

The expected backlash after these attacks is usually vastly over-stated and often misunderstood.

A mosque had a pig's head left on it's gates after the Toulouse shootings and was widely cited as an Islamophobic backlash but in fact the number of actions that took place that supported the shootings was far larger and more violent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings#Anti-Semitic_incidents

Not reported in the wiki article is that the school where the shootings took place and the headteacher's daughter was killed, received 2-300 anti-semitic emails and telephone calls in the weeks after the attack.

The 'backlash' was very mild in comparison to the continuation of violence from muslims sympathetic to Merah.

malk - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: what *was* the major motivation then Coel?
IainRUK - on 24 May 2013
In reply to malk: I think there was many, many supported the war on a human rights basis, a strategic act to secure the area, to remove a tyrant, to get a war criminal, to remove someone considered a threat.. undoubtably security of oil would have been seen as an additional benefit.

you may disagree with them, and some of them haven't held true, but I don't think financial gain was an motive.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

> But you did make "an exhaustive f*cking list!"
>
> You said the ONLY people, that is exhaustive. Just f*cking weird and perverse Jimbo, an irrational and inappropriate emotional response, forum tourettes, like most of the weird stuff on this thread.

When added to the word "seem" it is not an "exhaustive f*cking list!".. ..because it refers not to what I feel (see my post about empathy well above), but rather to what I've objectively witnessed from the people giving interviews etc
malk - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
>
> You are replying about the second Iraq invasion. My "evidence for that claim" was about the first one, namely David Martin's claim: "They [the US] reportedly did so [profit] from the first Gulf War, ...".

follow the money..
'None has benefited more than KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, was awarded at least $39.5bn in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.

Two Kuwaiti companies -- Agility Logistics and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corporation -- are the second and third-biggest winners, securing contracts worth $7.2bn and $6.3bn respectively.'


Ramblin dave - on 24 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
You don't think there were any representatives from Blackwater or Lockheed Martin or whoever in Washington buying dinners, bending ears, talking up the right things, waving away concerns, muttering about campaign contributions? Lockheed currently spend about $10 million a year on political lobbying, which isn't small change even for a company that size - someone should probably let them know if they're wasting it...
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to malk:

> what *was* the major motivation then Coel?

Since you ask, and IMO, the motivation went like this:

9/11 was so major and so traumatic that the US had to "do something". Afghanistan was a start but not enough, they had to "do something", anything. They felt that America needed to act the world policeman and set the world to rights. So what would they do?

Well, Saddam had been thumbing his nose at them ever since the the first Gulf War, and they felt it was unfinished business. His mere presence was an affront. And "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad". Then there was the suspicion of WMDs, which, if the US was going to set the world to rights, then US obviously had to deal with.

So, from the "We need to do something" the "what shall we do?" settled on Iraq as the "something". The lack of any connection with 9/11 was brushed over.

Then there was the ideological idea that Western-style liberal democracies were clearly superior, coupled with the naive idea that most of the world's populace would welcome and vote for such liberal democracies if only their dictators were removed. So "setting the world to rights" clearly involved removing dictators and installing democratic governments along the Western model.

And from there they talked themselves into invading Iraq. That -- as I see it -- was their motivation. Was it ideological? Sure, the above has ideology all over it. Was it "capitalism" or a desire to make money? No, at root it wasn't (though some will then have taken the opportunity to profit from it).
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to malk:

> follow the money..
> 'None has benefited more than KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former
> subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush,
> was awarded at least $39.5bn in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.

> Two Kuwaiti companies -- Agility Logistics and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corporation -- are the
> second and third-biggest winners, securing contracts worth $7.2bn and $6.3bn respectively.'

US companies gaining US government money is NOT the same as the US economy overall benefiting. Nor is Kuwaiti companies getting money from these wars the same as the US economy overall benefiting.
Ramblin dave - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to malk)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> US companies gaining US government money is NOT the same as the US economy overall benefiting.

No, although cynically speaking I'd say that it's a higher priority for the Washington policymakers if they can justify it politically.
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I don't know why you are bringing wildly different events and then trying to draw comparisons.
The first Damilola case was brought because of an eyewitness who was found to be unreliable. Forensic experts supported the suggestion of stabbing with a bottle (though the second prosecution went forward on the basis that he fell on the bottle).
The two convicted for the manslaughter were suspects from very early in the investigation (and in the same gang as those in the first trial).
I struggle to see how you feel government and media reaction had any real bearing on the prosecution.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) 8:13 today, you said "American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited from that money". You can amend that if you want to say that American companies have already benefited and the US economy might benefit (a very big might and you're only guessing) in the future, but it doesn't say it now.

This is what I actually said:
> So they built a big fire and burnt 2 trillion dollars on it... ...did they heck. American companies, and in the long run, the US economy has benefited from that money, as have US companies operating within Iraq creating new sources of decades of profit and security of oil supply which will also benefit the US economy in the long term.

My point was that the money wasn't put in a hole, it was spent primarily on buying the services of predominantly US companies, employing US people, and creating infrastructure using US companies, providing privatised utilities by US companies, and a massive amount of specialist training of both military and non-combatant US people to facilitate that. So much of that money has gone straight to US companies and US people, the benefits of US oil company investment is only just beginning with 90% of estimated oil still available in what is open to IOCs. So my point was always that the US has benefited, and will continue to benefit, because much of this money never really left the US economy per se.
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

US government money that is spent on US companies that act in Iraq, building infrastructure in Iraq, paying people in Iraq, etc, is a net movement of money from the US to Iraq. Even if 10 or 20% returns to the US as profit of US companies, it still is a big flow of money out of the country.

Yes, some US companies will continue to make money in Iraq, and repatriate some profits, but that is hardly going to cover the cost of the war.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm not sure that's accurate. Like aid, I imagine the vast majority of costs filtered right back to the US economy, de-facto stimulus or armaments-related industry subsidy. For instance, the building infrastructure in Iraq is likely to use US contractors and US materials.

No doubt it is at present a net loss to the US, but a very large sector has done extremely well out of the war, probably at the expense of local libraries, schools and civil infrastructure within the US.

Don't underestimate the value of the US now having a direct say in Iraqi and Iraqi Kurdistan's politics and economy.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: So the us has benefited because the us spent money on the us? That's fascinating, I've just given myself a tenner and I'm really happy because now I've got all that extra money.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

I didn't say anything about the level of the backlash, in the Merah case it's true that for many he has become a hero, a sort of Clyde without a Bonnie. Calling what he did "terrorism" is fine by me but I don't think he was part of any organised movement anymore than the Woolwich killers. They may have been groomed, encouraged and, for Merah at least, helped in what he did but it seems doubtful at present that these events are coordinated in any way.

As for the rise in "anti-Semitism" in France at present I think this is a misleading term - anti-Jewish, and anti-Israeli, possibly but not anti-Semitic in the traditional French conservative/extreme right sense, it is more reactions from people of muslim descent who are pissed off with what is happening in the Middle East and what Israel is doing. The pro-Israeli lobby is strong in France and likes to mix the issues up.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Was it "capitalism" or a desire to make money?

It all depends what one thinks is the ideology of capitalism - if it is free market economies in a liberal, democratic political system then it is not that far from the reality to say "capitalist" ideals were behind the US interventions in the Middle East.

If it's not this what is the ideology of capitalism in today's terms?
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> I don't know why you are bringing wildly different events and then trying to draw comparisons.
> The first Damilola case was brought because of an eyewitness who was found to be unreliable. Forensic experts supported the suggestion of stabbing with a bottle (though the second prosecution went forward on the basis that he fell on the bottle).
> The two convicted for the manslaughter were suspects from very early in the investigation (and in the same gang as those in the first trial).
> I struggle to see how you feel government and media reaction had any real bearing on the prosecution.

It had an influence on the line of investigation and on the first prosecution because it defined an openly publicised and politically endorsed presumption of a mechanism of injury that suggested murder. The police standing over the first pathologist asked loaded questions about whether the injury was consistent with a knife which was responded in the affirmative. As I understand it several knives were found, none of which of course were responsible. Why? Why the loaded question? Why the search for knives?

Break a stubbie bottle creating a sharp shard and grip it by its short neck and try to stab a beef joint with it of sufficient depth ~>8cm deep sufficient to nick the popliteal vessels... ...if you can do it, and do it without damaging yourself in the process, I'd be very surprised, now imagine a 12 or 13 year old doing it.

Only after the review of injuries was glass implicated and the stubbie thought to be responsible, but the MOI was still presumed to be stabbing, and charges of murder brought. Only for two were charges dropped due to the lack of witness credibility.
elsewhere on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) So the us has benefited because the us spent money on the us? That's fascinating, I've just given myself a tenner and I'm really happy because now I've got all that extra money.

I may be wrong but that sounds like Quantitive Easing.

The Iraq was was more like "I've just borrowed a tenner and I'm really happy because now I've got all that extra money to spend."

Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to elsewhere: quantitive easing probably has a lower body count, so far anyway.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> So the us has benefited because the us spent money on the us? That's fascinating, I've just given myself a tenner and I'm really happy because now I've got all that extra money.

Some of it is like that, but much of the money was borrowed, and thus is still acting as a stimulus package which goes some small way to explain the US' better performance post financial crisis than our own. Money was invested in US businesses and US people.. ..those companies have more money to invest, grow and create new profits, people have more money to spend etc.
Sir Chasm - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: So it hasn't come from oil in Iraq then. Really I think you're letting the fact you're a bit under the weather interfere with your ninja posting skills.
Donnie - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm, Jimbo etc.:

This has maybe been pointed out already, but thinking of the US as a single entity that might or might not have benefited from various wars is a bit misleading.

The 'US industrial military complex'- ie the US army, US arms manufacturers, private military firms etc- have most certainly got richer/more funding from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

People that might have had a better public services if money had been spent else where, actual soldiers on the ground and their families... bit of a different story.

RE whether the US benefits from Iraq's oil. See what companies are drilling the oil over the next decade or two and then we'll know.
Morgan Woods - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Morgan Woods) I don't know about the guy, and whether he's had his whole family killed by a drone in pakistan or has never been out of the uk what he did was disgusting... I'm just raising the point that what 'we' do worst.
>
> we condem these killings, as we should, but fail to condem it when it's us. and for that we, as a country, should be ashamed

I'm not sure it's that simple and I for one are glad we went after bin Laden and that Saddam is gone. This bloke's message is that the west should not set foot in "muslim lands" which I don't agree with. The intervention by the west is a very nuanced thing and some might agree with some elements of it and not others so it is not a question of wholesale condemnation "when it's us".
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> It had an influence on the line of investigation and on the first prosecution because it defined an openly publicised and politically endorsed presumption of a mechanism of injury that suggested murder. The police standing over the first pathologist asked loaded questions about whether the injury was consistent with a knife which was responded in the affirmative. As I understand it several knives were found, none of which of course were responsible. Why? Why the loaded question? Why the search for knives?
>

I think that jumping to the conclusion that the police investigation was steered by government and media speculation doesn't really reflect the reality of any serious crime investigation I am aware of.

If you have inside information then that's fine - but I can think of many reasons for seizing on the wrong line of enquiry that have nothing to do with Tony Blair saying it was a stabbing.

Since that is the thrust of your argument then I see little point in quibbling about the red herring of whether it was the police browbeating experts to fit the facts to the case, or whether it was insufficiently clear information from experts that might have prevented the police going down a blind alley.

Two people who were amongst the prime suspects in the first instance were convicted of manslaughter, with the key evidence being forensic - that came to light following a review.
I'm not clear of any evidence that the media or the prime minister delayed or prevented that from happening.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> As for the rise in "anti-Semitism" in France at present I think this is a misleading term - anti-Jewish, and anti-Israeli, possibly but not anti-Semitic in the traditional French conservative/extreme right sense, it is more reactions from people of muslim descent who are pissed off with what is happening in the Middle East and what Israel is doing. The pro-Israeli lobby is strong in France and likes to mix the issues up.

There is huge amounts of "classical" antisemitism amongst Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims - they've taken classic European anti-Semitic texts like the Protocols... and run with them. This is linked to Israels founding and the crisis since, but form it takes it is no different to European anti-Semitism, why else would French people who happen to be Jews get beaten up by French people who happen to be Muslim?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I'm glad we've got round to accepting an Islamist motive!

I thought you thought it was a religious motive? Actually I think al-Muhajiroun are against Islamists of the AKP and Ikhwan stripe because of their attachment to states, but never the less are we back into politics rather than religion per se?

David - I suspect that with the guy being named on twitter so quickly (and accurately), the authorities would have known even quicker. As soon as the police pulled his wallet out in the ambulance and radioed his name in, his MI5 file would have popped and the government straight away would have known the al-Muhajiroun connection and therefore started calling it "terrorism". The British guy who tried to blow himself up in the Tel Aviv night club (8 or 10 years back now!?) had also gone through al-Muhajiroun which is why Choudary is so loathed. After past attacks, (doctors plot, 7/7, the failed bombs the week after 7/7) I think the security services have to take seriously the idea that there is going to be other linked events, so are probably far more nervous than us outside are.

Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

>> I'm glad we've got round to accepting an Islamist motive!

> I thought you thought it was a religious motive?

<rolls eyes> Yep, Islamism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Islam or religion. <--- heavy sarcasm.

> ... are we back into politics rather than religion per se?

Your presumption that it must be either/or comes from a specific perspective, that of Western secularist separation of church and state, namely the stance that politics should be demarked from personal religion.

This is actually atypical in history. It was not the position for most of Christendom, and it is not the position of most of the Islamic world. To argue that something is political and therefore, ipso facto, not religious, is just WRONG.

Islamism is both political AND religious. #statingthebleedingobvious.
Mike Highbury - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
>
> The British guy who tried to blow himself up in the Tel Aviv night club (8 or 10 years back now!?) had also gone through al-Muhajiroun which is why Choudary is so loathed.

Maybe a bit of a side issue but WTF?

I do hope that is just a poorly constructed sentence.

Antigua - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Read this article at lunch and found it a very worth while read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
Turdus torquatus on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> Break a stubbie bottle creating a sharp shard and grip it by its short neck and try to stab a beef joint with it of sufficient depth ~>8cm deep sufficient to nick the popliteal vessels... ...if you can do it, and do it without damaging yourself in the process, I'd be very surprised

You've tried that haven't you?
Donnie - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Morgan Woods: I mean when it's us that do similar and worse things to what these guys did. And we do do things that are similar and worse. This guy killed an unarmed off duty soldier outside of a combat zone. We do that all the time and we do it knowing that there will be 'collateral damage' eg innocent woman and children.
winhill - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Read this article at lunch and found it a very worth while read
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

It's further up the thread, greenwald writes this shit all the time, it's debunked the same way your shit is.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> I think that jumping to the conclusion that the police investigation was steered by government and media speculation doesn't really reflect the reality of any serious crime investigation I am aware of.

Within 24hrs of the poor lads death, every single newspaper, news broadcaster and Tony Blair were on the record of describing a murder by stabbing. You may think that that is psychologically indolent, and I suppose that all use of the words "allegedly" in any context are also unnecessary and entirely indolent with respect to their effect, e.g. on juries! Of course if a strong narrative is put out in public endorsed by media and top politicians alike, I'm not quite sure how easy the job of the police would be to say.. ...whoa, whoa, whoa.. ..this could have been an accident. I'm not saying it was an accident, but it wasn't murder either, and the police should have been free to pursue all possible lines of enquiry. If you think that with that weight of pressure on a pre-determined narrative, especially in the aftermath of the inadequacies of the Stephen Lawrence investigations, I think you are deluded.

> If you have inside information then that's fine - but I can think of many reasons for seizing on the wrong line of enquiry that have nothing to do with Tony Blair saying it was a stabbing.

You're right, its not the only reason... ...here's another... ...forensic pathologists being in the employ of the police and police standing over pathologists asking loaded questions during the post mortem. That must stop.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Turdus torquatus:

> You've tried that haven't you?

Yes
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Morgan Woods) I mean when it's us that do similar and worse things to what these guys did. And we do do things that are similar and worse. This guy killed an unarmed off duty soldier outside of a combat zone. We do that all the time and we do it knowing that there will be 'collateral damage' eg innocent woman and children.

And, as was pointed out very emphatically by one of the (Muslim) commentators, if you disagree with the actions of the government then you take action at the ballot box, you lobby and you campaign using the democratic outlets available to you. You do not engage in terrorist acts in "retaliation"

.
Even if what the West did was clearly and undeniably "terrorism" (which many would dispute) it does not suddenly lessen the atrocity in Woolwich, nor stop it being a terrorist act.
Donnie - on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty: I agree entirely. I hope I've not given the impression that I thought otherwise?
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I think there are undoubtedly pressures on SIO's as a result of unrealistic expectations placed by external sources, but a poor investigation is a poor investigation, full stop.

This investigation ultimately resulted in 2 convictions for manslaughter, in circumstances that appeared to involve an unlawful act of either a fight or a robbery which caused the victim to fall on the bottle causing his fatal injury.

You then drag up the Lawrence investigation - yet another extremely complex investigation marred by initial incompetence in the primary investigation which Macpherson chose to blame on "institutional racism", though he did at least inspire the creation of dedicated murder squads.

Neither of these have any real bearing on whether the atrocity in Woolwich was a terrorist act.

As for asking loaded questions of a pathologist during a PM, I would be extremely disappointed if an expert in that environment was unable to present a balanced picture to the police, because apart from anything else that would suggest they would be very poor in the witness box.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> why else would French people who happen to be Jews get beaten up by French people who happen to be Muslim?

For similar reasons to the inverse... a French Muslim was also stabbed to death by a French Jew the other the other day, for example. By "classical" anti-Semitism I mean the catholic sort, based on weird notions like Jews being the people who killed Christ - as if Christ could be killed and forgetting he was himself Jewish... obviously Muslims will have missed out on this sort of medieval Christian "culture". I see Arab/Jewish animosity in and around Palestine as simple tribal warfare over who should occupy the land. It lacks the underlying racist nastiness as, obviously, both Jews and Arabs are identical racially, all are semitic.
Gudrun - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to malk)
> Since you ask, and IMO, the motivation went like this:
> 9/11 was so major and so traumatic that the US had to "do something". Afghanistan was a start but not enough, they had to "do something", anything.
Yet they did way more than invading Afghanistan and Iraq, they had already bombed,invaded and removed the Taliban from Afghanistan and put the ATA in their place,created the"War on terror" and the Department of Homeland Security as well as the US patriot Act and it's disgusting Guantanamo Bay detention camp.Extraordinary rendition was added as another facet of the Bush admins"War on Terror".$80 billion a year spent by the Military Intelligence Program alone,which has tripled after 9/11,so many things were happening other than Afghanistan.
> They felt that America needed to act the world policeman and set the world to rights. So what would they do?
Coel the US were acting as the "world policeman",since 1989 and well before that to so put the straw away please!
> Then there was the suspicion of WMDs, which, if the US was going to set the world to rights, then US obviously had to deal with.
Tell me are you deliberately deluding yourself to fit your ideology or are you trying to delude everyone else because of your ideology?
There were no WMD's the Bush admin knew this before and were even told so by the UN.
Do you have a secret wee store of straw from last years harvest?:)
> So, from the "We need to do something" the "what shall we do?" settled on Iraq as the "something". The lack of any connection with 9/11 was brushed over.
No,we have seen that they did many many other "something[s]" so there was no need to invade Iraq.The Bush oil men ...sorry admin also knew there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Q,it like the WMD was a lie.
> Then there was the ideological idea that Western-style liberal democracies were clearly superior, coupled with the naive idea that most of the world's populace would welcome and vote for such liberal democracies if only their dictators were removed.
Why didn't they remove them all then? Especially the ones like Saddam that the US had helped to put in place,maintain and protect.
> So "setting the world to rights" clearly involved removing dictators and installing democratic governments along the Western model.
Jesus,Joseph and Mary!What of "Democratic governments"that install dictators?
Was this "removing [of]dictators" extended to Saudi,Bahrain,Tunisia,Quatar,Egypt or all the other US dictators?
You are being really niave Coel,the US has put many dictators in power all over the world to financially benefit the US,it maintains the ones that do what they are told and eliminates the ones that don't do what they are told,just like it eliminates *any*and *all* leaders and people who want a different economic system from US capitalism.See all the cases when the US removed democratically elected leaders and installed a fascist/tyrannt/dictator was that a part of "installing democratic governments along the Western model"too?
> And from there they talked themselves into invading Iraq.
No
They talked and lied to fool the US public,British public and the world into believing Iraq could kill them all with "A mushroom cloud over NY" and all manner of lies to cover up the fact that they wanted their blood soaked hands on Iraqi oil reserves and would kill as many as it took to achieve this and, just like you make up all sorts of fantasy to try and dupe everyone.

> That -- as I see it -- was their motivation. Was it ideological? Sure, the above has ideology all over it. Was it "capitalism" or a desire to make money? No, at root it wasn't (though some will then have taken the opportunity to profit from it).
They did it for money and oil everyone knows this Coel please catch up.They took the opportunity presented by 9/11 to do a bit of invading,regime change and murder(His Dad had been doing that in Iraq for a decade anyway,oh continued by Clinton and Blair of course!)in the country with the 2nd biggest oil reserves in the world that were *nationalized* and you know how the capitalist warmongers don't like that.
What is the "ideology" you speak of Coel?
Neoliberalism?Fascism?Crypto-Fascism?Imperialism? or all of the above?
Where is the "Capitalism" in this?
At it's heart that's where.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Your presumption that it must be either/or comes from a specific perspective, that of Western secularist separation of church and state, namely the stance that politics should be demarked from personal religion.

Coel, you shouldn't let yourself get so easily riled up so easily. ;) I don't know, but I suspect I've probably read more of the early Islamist works than you have as I went through that 'stage' so I have a fair grasp of what Islamism is. Of course it's not a demarcation between the politics and religion, but Islamism IS a political project (to turn religious edicts into a socio-political system), not a religious school of thought.
In reply to Gudrun: Seriously Shona, please use the space bar once in a while. Punctuation doesn't replace a space between words you know.
In reply to Mike Highbury: Reread it lots of time, but still can't see what you think I meant? Unless you're a fan of Choudary? But that seems rather unlikely.
Mike Highbury - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Mike Highbury) Reread it lots of time, but still can't see what you think I meant? Unless you're a fan of Choudary? But that seems rather unlikely.

OK, I read it poorly

But I'm still amused by how it sounded to me
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> ... but Islamism IS a political project (to turn religious edicts into a socio-political system), ...

Agreed.

> ... not a religious school of thought.

You need an "and" there, not a "not".
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> so I have a fair grasp of what Islamism is

Then why do you do such a good job giving the impression you don't? You know that in Islam there is no clear difference between politics and religion as there is at least nominally in Christianity and yet you appear to suggest it makes any sense in this case to distinguish between political and religious motives.

Why do you have this overwhelming need to justify the unjustifiable?
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

You may be overlooking that that account of mine was my estimate of how *they* (Bush et al) were thinking at the time, and that I wasn't necessarily agreeing with that analysis.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> I think there are undoubtedly pressures on SIO's as a result of unrealistic expectations placed by external sources, but a poor investigation is a poor investigation, full stop.
> This investigation ultimately resulted in 2 convictions for manslaughter, in circumstances that appeared to involve an unlawful act of either a fight or a robbery which caused the victim to fall on the bottle causing his fatal injury.

Well, at least they got the mechanism of injury right in the end.

> Neither of these have any real bearing on whether the atrocity in Woolwich was a terrorist act.

Catchy narratives are disseminated quickly, especially when cobra is convened and Camo comes home all authoritarian like. Its everywhere these days.. ..the dissemination of opinion at the same time as factual news, and I detest it.

> As for asking loaded questions of a pathologist during a PM, I would be extremely disappointed if an expert in that environment was unable to present a balanced picture to the police, because apart from anything else that would suggest they would be very poor in the witness box.

Would it? It means their integrity might be questionable, or that they are impressionable to the pre-conceived narratives of senior officers present, especially given the employer-employee relationship, but it does not mean that they are ineffective performers in the witness box.
Steve John B - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> By "classical" anti-Semitism I mean the catholic sort, based on weird notions like Jews being the people who killed Christ

You do know there was a fair bit of anti-semitism in the 20th century unrelated to Catholicism, and prior to the existence of Israel, don't you?
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Antigua)
> [...]
>
> It's further up the thread, greenwald writes this shit all the time, it's debunked the same way your shit is.

Errr, how exactly. I'm struggling to find flaws in his points.

I'm not seeing a huge amount of difference between the soldier's death and this one (http://goo.gl/HKlTp). But the political and media reaction couldn't be more different.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> You need an "and" there, not a "not".

But you're missing the point again. The founders of modern Islamism were geographically and religiously diverse; Maududi and Jamaat-e-Islami come from different religious traditions to al-Banna and the Ikhwan. There is no "Islamist" school of Islam, in the same way that there is no "Christian Democrat" school of Christianity - you can be a Catholic or Lutheran or Calvanist Christian Democrat. Islamism is a relatively diverse political doctrine, Islamist parties differ widely on what they take to be the religious rules they are trying to turn into a socio-political system.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I'm not sure what you think I'm justifying - its an odd accusation as you seem to have just above been explaining away Muslim anti-semitism?
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> So it hasn't come from oil in Iraq then. Really I think you're letting the fact you're a bit under the weather interfere with your ninja posting skills.

It is a bit difficult when feeling nauseous and the screen is in a constant desire to move left! However, I wasn't making the point that oil was the be all and end all of economic benefit to the US. This was much more my point:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/an-iraq-recession/
winhill - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to winhill)
> [
> It's further up the thread, greenwald writes this shit all the time, it's debunked the same way your shit is.]
>
> Errr, how exactly. I'm struggling to find flaws in his points.
>
> I'm not seeing a huge amount of difference between the soldier's death and this one (http://goo.gl/HKlTp). But the political and media reaction couldn't be more different.

You're struggling in lots of ways with this topic and seeing pink elephants, I don't think you have the logic skills to improve on your current understanding.

I don't see much difference between your approach (or Duncan Bourne's or Skip's etc) and that of the EDL, you are two sides of the same coin.

You are both blind sided by muslim identity politics, the EDL crudely challenges and confronts it, whereas you crudely swallow it and regurgitate it.

We don't tend to do identity politics in the UK, so groups that do it well (and muslims are past masters), lead the way and poison the well, so the EDL and the Greenwalds and David Martins are easy prey.
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to winhill)
> [...]
>
> Errr, how exactly. I'm struggling to find flaws in his points.
>

It's just an example of whataboutery. Suggesting that other things "should" be terrorism as well doesn't minimise the fact that this atrocity is terrorism.

> I'm not seeing a huge amount of difference between the soldier's death and this one (http://goo.gl/HKlTp). But the political and media reaction couldn't be more different.

A quick look would suggest that the tragic murder in Birmingham is as yet motiveless. You COULD jump to the conclusion that it is religious/racially motivated - and I am fairly sure that the 100 strong team in the West Mids are probably treating it as such.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22573186

The murder in Woolwich was a clearly politically motivated murder. The victim appears to have been selected due to his profession, not his race. The offenders clearly spelled out their motivation and to an extent what they wanted to achieve by their actions.

Whilst the media storm surrounding this particular incident might be different it was racist murders and attacks that led to changes in legislation that created specific aggravated racially/religiously motivated offences. Previous events like these also mean that the "racism" tag pushes a job to the top of a priority queue and focuses force resources on it.
Similarly because of previous racist attacks, the local community will be being actively spoken to, have their concerns addressed and if necessary receive extra patrols and resources.

Dauphin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It lacks the underlying racist nastiness as, obviously, both Jews and Arabs are identical racially, all are semitic.

Jews & arabs are not a identical race, not even arabs are, nor jews, so how could jews and arabs be identical racially. And there is a fair bit of 'racial' nastiness spoken by jews about arabs and vice versa. However 'wrong'.

D
Coel Hellier - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> There is no "Islamist" school of Islam, ...

"Islamism" is a term for a variety of different strands of Islam that all have one thing in common, namely the idea that Islam is primary and the state should be subject to Islam. It is a rejection of secularist notions of church/state separation and a stance that politics is the "political wing" of Islam, there to serve the ends of Islam.

The fact that different Islamists might disagree with each other over some theological doctrines or over interpretation of some bits of the Koran doesn't alter the fact that Islamism is all about Islam and all about religion.

You can fairly say that Islamism is political, yes it indeed is. But saying that it is thereby "not religious" is just batty, just ga-ga. It is willful denial.
off-duty - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> Well, at least they got the mechanism of injury right in the end.
>

I'm hoping that, being police officers, there was a good pathologist able to explain it to them.

>
> Catchy narratives are disseminated quickly, especially when cobra is convened and Camo comes home all authoritarian like. Its everywhere these days.. ..the dissemination of opinion at the same time as factual news, and I detest it.
>


Well, that and having the murderer's agenda spelled out in all it's bloody horror on youtube.


>
> Would it? It means their integrity might be questionable, or that they are impressionable to the pre-conceived narratives of senior officers present, especially given the employer-employee relationship, but it does not mean that they are ineffective performers in the witness box.

Yep, questionable integrity or impressionable to officers = not very good when cross examined by barristers who present them with "pre-conceived narratives" on behalf of the defence.
I am also distinctly under impressed by those professional/expert witnesses who operate as an "opinion for hire" dependent on whether they are being paid by the prosecution or the defence. That rarely seems to happen with pathologists, on the majority of occasions the experts seem to concur.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

Oh dear, you appear to have lost it.
David Martin - on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

The "whataboutery" is entirely valid. The use of term "terrorism" exists in a context and by conveniently ignoring that context you ignore the failures in its use. Overlooking the failure to apply it evenly would indicate the term is miss-used and it becomes pretty meaningless as a result.

A quick look at the murder linked points towards race hate, a chap stabbed in such a frenzy the kinife-point emerged from the other side of his body. It contains much of the shock value and motive of the Woolwich murder. But there will be no meeting of politicians, no family on every newspaper, no dramatic descriptions of the victims life.

You can hunt for grand differences between the two murders to justify the disparity in media reactions. I'm saying those differences are much smaller than the big difference in the government and media's reaction. I reckon yesterday proved a convenient day to bury the government's bad news - unemployment, economy, gay marriage, party rebellion and so on.
Jimbo W on 24 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> Yep, questionable integrity or impressionable to officers = not very good when cross examined by barristers who present them with "pre-conceived narratives" on behalf of the defence.

I wonder what specific experience you have to make that determination. In my experience, performance in the witness stand has far more to do with strength of ego, character, self belief than anything to do with rigid independent integrity prepared to provide evidence that contradicts the police narrative.

> I am also distinctly under impressed by those professional/expert witnesses who operate as an "opinion for hire" dependent on whether they are being paid by the prosecution or the defence. That rarely seems to happen with pathologists, on the majority of occasions the experts seem to concur.

Most are likely to concur, because most don't involve ambiguity, so the latter is to some extent an irrelevant moot point. However, even if it weren't there'd still be the problem that the pathologists don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. As for you being under impressed by other expert witnesses, that is hardly surprising when prosecution experts are in police employ, and while defence experts are far more likely to be privately engaged and of a contrary opinion.
Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Steve John B:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> You do know there was a fair bit of anti-semitism in the 20th century unrelated to Catholicism, and prior to the existence of Israel, don't you?

There was a fair bit of anti-Semitism for centuries, Jews were expelled from most countries at one time or another, including England - Cromwell was responsible for a renewed toleration of Jews in Britain - but "modern" anti-Semitism grew in the 19th century on the basis of Christian (right wing Catholicism in particular) myths and this was taken up by the 20th century fanatics who you refer too - it didn't just pop up out of the blue. Most things don't, Zionism for example, again starting in the 19th century but reaching it's terrible maturity in the 20th.

Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) I'm not sure what you think I'm justifying - its an odd accusation as you seem to have just above been explaining away Muslim anti-semitism?

Remove "away" from the sentence and it makes more sense. To be clear, it's not hard to see why a Palestinian who had lost his home, seen his family massacred and been driven to live in a refugee camp, or in Gaza under continual bombardment by Jewish occupiers of his land, would have a certain level of dislike for Jews but can even you not distinguish his feelings from the irrational, murderous anti-Semitism of a German Nazi?

Bruce Hooker - on 24 May 2013
In reply to Dauphin:

> Jews & arabs are not a identical race,

They are both semitic races according to people who study such things, like T E Lawrence and people he quotes, all peoples who came out of the Arabian peninsula pushing North and West towards the Mediterranean at different periods. This refers to the ethnic Jews though, the modern "people" are far more mixed origins as many were converted to Judaism during the Roman Empire and are only really Jewish culturally, not racially.
Gudrun - on 25 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

Very good post David!
God how refreshing to find someone who sees it like it is!
> I reckon yesterday proved a convenient day to bury the government's bad news - unemployment, economy, gay marriage, party rebellion and so on.

Also a good time to unite everyone behind our foot soldiers of 100 years of disastrous foreign policy for the many Arab and African Muslim victims,just for the financial benefit of the UK.Thereby further fanning the flames to hide the matches.

Some ordinary poor Tommy is another sacrifice for the millions of Muslims we have murdered in recent times in far off lands.Why do people choose not to see the reality of our actions and their subsequent effects?Because we are duped by the media barons and the wealthy capitalist gangsters of business into believing that everything we do is for the benefit of others or some noble ideal,when it is the exact opposite.

Nato terrorize throughout the world,that ---- Cameron is paying 10's of millions of £'s of *UK taxpayer* money to fund terrorist maniacs that are beheading people almost everyday in Syria.

3,500 Cubans have been murdered and thousands more disabled and disfigured by CIA terrorists happily residing in Miami.

stroppygob - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Please do not feed the Troll.
Gudrun - on 25 May 2013
In reply to stroppygob:

I wasn't and where is this troll except in your small head.
Jimbo W on 25 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

The plot thickens! It seems it wasn't just that these guys were known to MI5, but according to an acquaintance, one of them had been interacting with MI5....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664468
Interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664457
Bruce Hooker - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> The plot thickens!

In what way does it thicken? Are you really surprised that someone who regularly militated for a cause such as this, handing out tracts, getting involved in a fight in front of a court and so on is "known to the police"? The opposite would be surprising. Even before the "war on terror" and the legislation that followed militants in political parties judged "extreme", trade union militants, and such like have been tagged by those paid to do such things, it's not exactly news.
Jimbo W on 25 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> In what way does it thicken? Are you really surprised that someone who regularly militated for a cause such as this, handing out tracts, getting involved in a fight in front of a court and so on is "known to the police"? The opposite would be surprising. Even before the "war on terror" and the legislation that followed militants in political parties judged "extreme", trade union militants, and such like have been tagged by those paid to do such things, it's not exactly news.

Not surprised hat they were known to MI5 at all. More surprised at the alleged level of interaction, attempted recruitment, and events alleged to have occurred in Kenya. It doesn't sound like this guy was radicalised by charismatic preachers, and rather espoused alleged views in contradiction to those of known radicalising preachers. So what did tip this guy over the edge. The reason for my post is it sounds less and less like the narratives that we have been made aware with regard to other terrorists castiing further doubt on the utility of that term here.
estivoautumnal - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Everyone's out of step except out Gudrun.

Tommy.
Jimbo W on 25 May 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> Everyone's out of step except out Gudrun.
>
> Tommy.

Why is that then?
Antigua - on 25 May 2013
In reply to thomm:
> The 'terrorism' response was correct because for all we knew, this was the start of a wave of planned attacks (thankfuly/hopefully not).

Or to advance a govt. agenda

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22652051
estivoautumnal - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to estivoautumnal)
> [...]
>
> Why is that then?

Really?
Antigua - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Attacks on muslims in the UK have soared since the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Are we to believe that those at the receiving end of UK foreign policy in Afghanistan, Iraq etc aren't seething with the same anger thats being vented here towards muslims?
David Martin - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Judging by what is coming out about his background he became a regular toe-rag in his late teens - spitting on people, joining gangs, chucking bricks through car windows, and so on. No apparent Islamic connection there

I imagine if he hadn't subsequently found a cause in radical Islam he would have continued this way in gang related gun and drug crime and general criminal culture. No doubt Islam will have provided him easy, if false, answers to why he wasn't fitting in and given the religion's relative comfort with be-headings that probably coloured the Woolwich murder.
But it seems pretty likely he would have ended up in prison/on a murder charge with or without Islam.
Rob Exile Ward on 25 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I'm a bit annoyed about this more recent reporting. Patently these blokes were a bit bonkers, for whatever reason - their actions make no sense in any context, other than something - drugs? can't get girlfriends? coun;dn't get enrolled on a terrorism course? - that has tipped them over the edge.

Yet, on the basis of an uncorroborated chat with a single person who claims that these nutters are his friends, it's being reported as 'fact ' that MI5 had approached them! I would have hoped that Newsnight would have learnt by now - chatting to a fantasist doesn't actually constitute investigative reporting. And do you know what - I think he was making it all up, every sodding word, the sexual abuse in Nigeria, the harrassment by MI5, eeverything - he's a fantasist just like his chums. If it wasn't for poor Rigby the only sensible response would be to pi$$ ourselves laughing that these clowns think they represent some sort of threat.
David Martin - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Antigua:

I would expect so. It strikes me as odd the way people can be so aghast by one killing in the street here. Yet, according to the Lancet, I think some 600,000 extra deaths were recorded in Iraq as a result of our invasion....and we cannot understand, or expect there to be no, reciprocal violent anger in our direction. The negative impacts of our military adventures are as unlikely to be acknowledged as a paedophile uncle at the dinner table, or explained away as benevolent and intended to save those in suffering (but perhaps having failed due to technical reasons).

Likewise, there is a pretty long history of UK/US meddling in the Middle East, frequently with disasterous (and extremist inspiring) results for the average person in the street there. I'm not aware of similar actions being perpetuated by them in return.

Frankly, if the only price we've had to pay are relatively small scale attacks on us in return, we've got off very very lightly.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 25 May 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) I'm a bit annoyed about this more recent reporting. Patently these blokes were a bit bonkers, for whatever reason - their actions make no sense in any context, other than something - drugs? can't get girlfriends? coun;dn't get enrolled on a terrorism course? - that has tipped them over the edge.
>
> Yet, on the basis of an uncorroborated chat with a single person who claims that these nutters are his friends, it's being reported as 'fact ' that MI5 had approached them! I would have hoped that Newsnight would have learnt by now - chatting to a fantasist doesn't actually constitute investigative reporting. And do you know what - I think he was making it all up, every sodding word, the sexual abuse in Nigeria, the harrassment by MI5, eeverything - he's a fantasist just like his chums. If it wasn't for poor Rigby the only sensible response would be to pi$$ ourselves laughing that these clowns think they represent some sort of threat.

No one said it was fact, they said it was "plausible" but unverified / uncorroborated. For what it's worth I don't think this guy was a fantasist at all, but doesn't mean what he'd been told was the truth.
Rob Exile Ward on 25 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: There isn't a single scrap of evidence that a) the bloke saying he was a childhood friend was in fact a childhood friend and b) that MI5 had approached Adebolajo in any shape or form.

If I phone up the BBC and claim to be a mate as well, and say the he was in fact motivated by the rough treatment he received in Iceland attending a Star Trek conference will they make that the centre of their news coverage for the next few days instead? Because they'll have precisely as much corroborative evidence as for teh story that they are currently running with.

C'mon, get real. This is a disgrace.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> But saying that it is thereby "not religious" is just batty, just ga-ga. It is willful denial.

But that's not what I said.

I said it's not a religious school of thought; you said it is, but it isn't. It is a political movement aimed at basing state structures one or other interpretation of Islam; just like the Moral Majority in the US is not a Christian denomination or religious school of thought, it's a political movement aimed at bringing one or other (or probably most accurately - some blended of hybrid) version of Christianity into state/legal structures.
Jimbo W on 25 May 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) There isn't a single scrap of evidence that a) the bloke saying he was a childhood friend was in fact a childhood friend and b) that MI5 had approached Adebolajo in any shape or form.

Correction, there is the testimony of an individual which is whether you like it or not a form of evidence, and while you and I might not be aware of any other evidence does not at all mean that "there isn't a single scrap of evidence". Furthermore, unless I have misunderstood, this guy was a source for Richard Watson who he brought in.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Apparently it's not being reported in Britain yet but there has been an attack on a young soldier in the Paris suburbs today at La Defense. He was on patrol in uniform and armed with two other soldiers in a busy shopping area when a man attacked him from behind with a knife or Stanley cutter. There was a lot of blood and he was taken to hospital where he is still alive and, apparently, off the danger list.

The Minister of the Interior was on the news and said they were doing the best they could to find the attacker, which seems the least they could do, and although they were keeping all options open what happened in London was in their minds.
elsewhere on 25 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Nope, definitely being reported here when I saw the news about an hour ago.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 May 2013
In reply to elsewhere:

I just looked at the BBC web site. Are they making a connection with the Woolwich attack?
Bruce Hooker - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

On the BBC now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22669367

Just says the same as me.
Coel Hellier - on 25 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I said it [Islamism] is not a religious school of thought; you said it is, but it isn't.

I didn't say it was a "religious school of thought", I said that it was religious and clearly motivated by religious belief.

> just like the Moral Majority in the US is not a Christian denomination or religious school of
> thought, it's a political movement aimed at bringing one or other ... version of Christianity into state/legal structures.

Yep, and that is also very religious and very motivated by religious belief. If you think that the American Christian religious right has nothing to do with religion or Christian belief then you're likely the only one who thinks that.

If you want to convince me that Islamism is unrelated to religious belief then you could point me to all the Islamists who are, say, Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists. If Islamism is purely political and "not religious" then there should be plenty of those, surely?
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I didn't say it was a "religious school of thought", I said that it was religious and clearly motivated by religious belief.

Yeah, you did

I originally wrote >> ... not a religious school of thought.

You quoted that and replied > You need an "and" there, not a "not".

> If you want to convince me that Islamism is unrelated to religious belief

Why on earth would I want to do that? Haven't I said numerous times that Islamism is an attempt to conceptualize religious edict as political ideology? You don't seem to get the difference between theology and politics, but compare Egyptian Islamist politics to politically quietist Salafi-strains in Saudi Arabia for example.

Interestingly, I think it's generally accepted by historians that, the rise of Islamism 100 years ago was in many ways far more a political response to western power than it was a product of any change in Islamic theology; but we can probably leave that discussion for now.

An aside:

> you could point me to all the Islamists who are, say, Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists.

How about Christian? http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/a-coptic-christians-reasons-for-backing-the-muslim-... Nowt as queer as folk, eh?

MG - on 25 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: For someone who was bemoaning the authorities jumping to conclusions you do seem very fond of speculation and latching on to sketchy details.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

I don't know if you are religious or not but you would certainly have made a good Jesuit! I've never seen anyone for such nit-picking and playing on words, all to cloud the issues and create red-herrings of course. So now "Islamism" isn't religious it's political? And it couldn't be both, could it?

Meanwhile an off-duty soldier has been murdered in London, and another victim of an attempted murder in Paris... I wonder if those who know them would appreciate your verbal antics?
Jimbo W on 25 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) For someone who was bemoaning the authorities jumping to conclusions you do seem very fond of speculation and latching on to sketchy details.

The authorities, like the police, have seemed to be doing their jobs just fine.. ..it's the politicians and media who I have a problem with. I was however very careful to emphasise the speculative nature of the information that does make this even sound quite unusual.

I've been provoked into re-reading Camus' the rebel, and thus far it is making the whole liberal meda and politician's use of the word "terrorism" in this context appear quite absurd.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I don't know if you are religious or not

I'm not.

> So now "Islamism" isn't religious it's political? And it couldn't be both, could it?

I don't know if you're thick or not, but am currently leaning towards the former as you don't seem to be able to read very well.

Seriously, what is so hard to grasp about Islamism being a relatively heterogeneous political movement based on turning some interpretation of Islam into a socio-political system? Leaders of Islamist parties are politicians not imams just like Angela Merkel is a politician not a vicar! Saying Merkel is a politician doesn't stop the CDU from a being a christian democrat party does it?

It was French academics that coined the word "Islamism" in its modern sense, you should find one of Gilles Kepel or Olivier Roy's works in your local library Bruce; I'm sure you would find it fascinating particularly as Kepel centrally argues that Islamist politics is a result of the failure of socialism/communism in the Muslim world.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

But the word "islamist" is used in so many ways that your insistence that it "means" something in particular is as ridiculous as all those on this thread trying to make a big deal out of whether the use of the word "terrorism" is "correct" or not, just as Jesuits and the like sent people to the stake for centuries because they defined "Trinity" in the "wrong" way.

Merkel is a political leader but of a party calling itself "Christian Democrat" which is not anodyne either. In France those, often themselves muslim in origin, who discuss islam in a modern, progressive and often critical way use the term "political islam" rather than simply "islamist" and I think it is clearer too. It's like terms such as "fundamentalist", "extreme", "traditionalist" etc. when applied to a religion, islmam, christian, jewish, hindu or whatever, they are descriptive terms which don't correspond to any determined political or religious movement in a precise way. It's absurd, therefore, to argue in the way you do as if they did.

It's your usual method, slop in lots or terms, names, obscure references and links rather than discuss a subject in a clear way, using terms that any readers will be familiar with, or at least defining an ambiguous term when you use it. Bertand Russel (to name drop myself) said that someone who really commands a subject can explain it in simple terms so that anyone can follow his arguments, I think he was quite right.
Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> But the word "islamist" is used in so many ways that your insistence that it "means" something in particular is as ridiculous as all those on this thread trying to make a big deal out of whether the use of the word "terrorism" is "correct" or not, just as Jesuits and the like sent people to the stake for centuries because they defined "Trinity" in the "wrong" way.

Ridiculous why? "terrorism" is a powerful emotive term which it would be better used appropriately than not.

> It's your usual method, slop in lots or terms, names, obscure references and links rather than discuss a subject in a clear way, using terms that any readers will be familiar with, or at least defining an ambiguous term when you use it.

Language just isn't like that. By the standards of "clarity" (read an absurdly simplified tiny lexicon) necessary for digestion on UKC, Bertrand Russell would be as undigestible as any philosopher. The term "terrorism" is heavily influenced by the way the term has been utilised over the last decade, and that usage may not be helpful, or historically at all consistent.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to TobyA)

> It's your usual method, slop in lots or terms, names, obscure references and links

You mean to actually know something about the subject under discussion?

> Bertand Russel (to name drop myself) said that someone who really commands a subject can explain it in simple terms so that anyone can follow his arguments, I think he was quite right.

I don't actually believe that you don't understand for a moment what I'm saying - and it's hardly controversial or complicated. Rather it just seems you want to argue with me about something you think I believe despite the fact I haven't actually said it. We know Coel just wants to say religion is bad, fine - that's his thing, not sure what yours is besides trying to provoke arguments.

Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I don't actually believe that you don't understand for a moment what I'm saying - and it's hardly controversial or complicated. Rather it just seems you want to argue with me about something you think I believe despite the fact I haven't actually said it. We know Coel just wants to say religion is bad, fine - that's his thing, not sure what yours is besides trying to provoke arguments.

Regarding Coel's obsession with religion = bad, what is your view?
Do you think religion intrinsically responsible for the emergence of a politicised religionism that is useful for the control of people and exertion of power?
Or do you think the human propensity to want to control, gain and exert power make use of whatever mechanism available to do so, such as via religion?

Or is that kind of analysis just wrong, and if so why? What alternative would you suggest?
Bruce Hooker - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Ridiculous why? "terrorism" is a powerful emotive term which it would be better used appropriately than not.

It's ridiculous because it is subjective, how many times have you heard the quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."?

Again coming back to my historical example, the Nazi press in France during the war always referred to resistance fighters as "terrorists" and shot them as such when they were captured. I doubt that many British or French would agree that they were "terrorists" though, even though they did use terrorist methods quite deliberately.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Bertrand Russell would be as undigestible as any philosopher.

From what I remember this is not the case, but it was 40 years ago.
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to Jimbo W: I don't really know - it seems that religious impulses are intrinsic or evolved into us, or some sort of term like that. Most people do and always have believed in something, and some people have always been driven to exert control over others and are quite willing to use religion in that aim. I don't really believe in religion existing outside of peoples' beliefs and outside of accumulated and sedimented cultural practices; so there is nothing there per se innocent and uncorrupted to be corrupted by human action. Of course the form that different religions appear in has massive implications for the political movements that stem from them though. The BJP in India is different from the CDU in Germany, although religion is by no means the sole cause of that difference.

I'm sure the men who did this horrible crime truly believed they were doing the 'right' thing, that they were acting morally as their religion demanded. I'm sure they aren't atheists cynically pretending to be Muslims. But I don't think that religious dimension explains much because other sincerely religious people don't do horrible things like that. The difference has to be somewhere beyond theology; political, psychological, whatever.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

What you say about such and such being "political" rather than "religious", or vice versa, makes no sense to me at all. It may be just that I'm incapable of understanding the genius of your knowledge but it seems to me that, as usual, you appear to feel the need to defend islam and muslims whatever they do, like many of the others posting on the thread. It does no service to the truth, IMO, and even less to muslims who don't agree with killing people in the street like this.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> It may be just that I'm incapable of understanding

I guess so then. As I've made the point about 17 times above, I guess doing so again isn't going to help you. I'm sure you would be interested in reading something like Kepel's "Jihad: the trail of political Islam" (or in French Wikipedia informs me: Jihad: Expansion et Déclin de l'Islamisme).

> but it seems to me that, as usual, you appear to feel the need to defend islam and muslims whatever they do

Again, in your imagination I'm sure that's exactly what I'm doing. Oh well, crack on chaps.
Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> It's ridiculous because it is subjective, how many times have you heard the quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."?

All language can be viewed in such obsessively subjective terms, and an insistence on doing so is an insistence on rendering discourse meaningless.

> Again coming back to my historical example, the Nazi press in France during the war always referred to resistance fighters as "terrorists" and shot them as such when they were captured. I doubt that many British or French would agree that they were "terrorists" though, even though they did use terrorist methods quite deliberately.

So there is a contextual betrayal of motive behind he use of the word.. ..so what?! The objections above about the use of the word "terrorism" seem to be exactly that.. ..more revealing of the motives of others than an objective analysis of the action of these two murderous individuals.
Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> (In reply to Jimbo W) I don't really know - it seems that religious impulses are intrinsic or evolved into us, or some sort of term like that. Most people do and always have believed in something

If that were so, then anti-religionism, such as Coel's, represents a form of human self destruction, or at the very least the insistence upon a new religion, not unlike Hitler's self deification and call to idolatry in himself and nihilistic action.
Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> It was French academics that coined the word "Islamism" in its modern sense, you should find one of Gilles Kepel or Olivier Roy's works in your local library Bruce; I'm sure you would find it fascinating particularly as Kepel centrally argues that Islamist politics is a result of the failure of socialism/communism in the Muslim world.

Is it not more that Islamism is resistant to the influence of socialism and communism?
"Philosophers concur that when a text, any text, can be interpreted by anyone using any means at their disposal, the most likely result will be for the text to become subservient to ideology. Wahhab was a rebel; his ideology was intolerance, patriarchy and violence. It coloured what kind of ideological direction Muslim dissenters of the future would take."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/28/theislamicreformation
In reply to Jimbo W:

> If that were so, then anti-religionism, such as Coel's, represents a form of human self destruction, or at the very least the insistence upon a new religion, not unlike Hitler's self deification and call to idolatry in himself and nihilistic action.

I really don't think so, but I'd start another thread to argue that one out.
Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I'm sure the men who did this horrible crime truly believed they were doing the 'right' thing, that they were acting morally as their religion demanded. I'm sure they aren't atheists cynically pretending to be Muslims. But I don't think that religious dimension explains much because other sincerely religious people don't do horrible things like that. The difference has to be somewhere beyond theology; political, psychological, whatever.

I'm not sure I agree. Was this really a rational act? If you think there was a belief in the rightness of it, some form of justification, then you must see it as rational. Was Hitler rational? Or was he an irrational actor who had no sense of the possibility or hope of empire which his action appeared to tend towards? Wasn't his irrationality at the heart of the inevitable destruction of Germany, because where else could nihilism end?
Rob Exile Ward on 26 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I would have thought that Hitler's political philosophy, such as it was - Volk, Aryan superiority, lebensraum for Germans, German culture (as he understood it) at the heart of civilization - this was pretty much the polar opposite of nihilism.

And I'm also not entirely sure that the outcome of the war couldn't have been very different, any number of factors - from Halifax becoming PM, Germans maintaining the offensive at Dunkirk, Roosevelt dying earlier, Japan NOT bombing Pearl Harbour - might have meant we could today be part of a German-dominated Europe.

Oh hang on a moment...:-)

(The rest is meant seriously though, the outcome of WWII was not inevitable.)

Coel Hellier - on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> We know Coel just wants to say religion is bad, fine - that's his thing, ...

Or rather, I'm trying to rebut the common argument: religion is good, therefore if something is bad, it must be "not religion".

> But I don't think that religious dimension explains much because other sincerely religious people
> don't do horrible things like that.

That's just your monolithic view of religion: "If one version of religion is benign, then some other version cannot be harmful". That is utterly invalid reasoning (as per my virus analogy up-thread).

> The difference has to be somewhere beyond theology;

Why? Why can't some versions of theology be far nastier and more harmful than others?
Coel Hellier - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> If that were so, then anti-religionism, such as Coel's, represents a form of human self destruction,
> or at the very least the insistence upon a new religion, not unlike Hitler's self deification
> and call to idolatry in himself and nihilistic action.

What utter drivel.

Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> What utter drivel.

Just like your hilarious analysis of Nazi racial ideology as religious... ...just totally superficial and vacuous.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Just like your hilarious analysis of Nazi racial ideology as religious...

It was religious, a lot of his rhetoric was full of mysticism a religious references, just it was a particularly unpleasant form of religion.

Just as islam is a religion, a fairly backward one as it's principal version is blocked in interpretations that date back to medieval times. Within this there are more or les archaic and more or less violent versions though. Saying all islam is bad is like saying all religion is bad - I'd go along with that as basically true, but some forms of religions are much nastier than others. These present killers are clearly influenced by a particularly nasty version of islam, that's undeniable, that other muslims may not be so extreme doesn't change that.

Same with Christians or Jews, some are particularly violent, some aren't, but those who are do not justify muslims doing the same.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Who said that? Certainly not me.

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they say!"

Luke 23:34
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Or rather, I'm trying to rebut the common argument: religion is good, therefore if something is bad, it must be "not religion".

Fine, but I haven't said that nor do I believe it.

> That's just your monolithic view of religion: "If one version of religion is benign, then some other version cannot be harmful". That is utterly invalid reasoning (as per my virus analogy up-thread).

Seriously man, what on earth are you on about? Why are you using quotations marks to suggest that's my view? It isn't, and I haven't ever said that.

> Why can't some versions of theology be far nastier and more harmful than others?

Who said they can't be? I thought that would be rather obvious to anyone with a passing interesting in the world around them.


Jimbo W on 26 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> [...]
>
> It was religious, a lot of his rhetoric

Rhetoric is the right word... ....which is a million miles from ideology, which was not at all religious.
Bruce Hooker - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

In fact you are very much like Coel except that he insists on the religious nature of Nazis because he hates religion, which I quite understand BTW, so he needs the Nazis to be religious, whereas you being a bit of a religious fanatic can't stand the idea that the Nazis were religious as you feel this reflects badly on religion... So basically you are both, to some extent, seeing the side of things that fits in with your ideas about religion.

Obviously the truth is that whether Hitler was religious or not proves little about whether religion is good, bad or indifferent, just as Hitler's vegetarianism says nothing about veggies in general.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> In fact you are very much like Coel except that he insists on the religious nature of Nazis because he hates religion, which I quite understand BTW, so he needs the Nazis to be religious, whereas you being a bit of a religious fanatic can't stand the idea that the Nazis were religious as you feel this reflects badly on religion... So basically you are both, to some extent, seeing the side of things that fits in with your ideas about religion.

In what way am I a fanatic? No, I would very much take the point of view you suggest below. I have on numerous occasions discussed the culpability of the church in facilitating the Nazi exertion of power, and on the other hand the role of particular Christians in putting their lives on the line to stand up against Hitler. I don't see why objecting to Coel's history by selective reaping of quotes and artefacts in consistency with a predetermined thesis has anything to do with fanaticism, it's just cheap, and dishonest, and represents an anti-religious motivation which does not contribute to a healthier society whatever its spectrum of religions and worldviews.

> Obviously the truth is that whether Hitler was religious or not proves little about whether religion is good, bad or indifferent, just as Hitler's vegetarianism says nothing about veggies in general.

Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Just like your hilarious analysis of Nazi racial ideology as religious... ...just totally superficial and vacuous.

Of course it was religious! It had religion all over it!

Let me guess, your counterargument is "it was bad, therefore it can't have been religious"?
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Seriously man, what on earth are you on about? Why are you using quotations marks to suggest
> that's my view? It isn't, and I haven't ever said that.

Yes you have, you said: "I don't think that religious dimension explains much because other sincerely religious people don't do horrible things like that."

That is what I paraphrased as: "If one version of religion is benign, then some other version cannot be harmful". Your claim amounts to the idea that if one sincerely religious Quaker would not be motivated to violence by his religion, then no other strand of religion can motivate someone to violence.

If that is not what you mean, then why bother pointing out that "other sincerely religious people don't do horrible things like that"?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> In fact you are very much like Coel except that he insists on the religious nature of Nazis because he hates religion, ...

Nope, I insist on that because that's what the facts show.

> whether Hitler was religious or not proves little about whether religion is good, bad or indifferent,
> just as Hitler's vegetarianism says nothing about veggies in general.

No, that analysis is wrong. If vegetarianism had been an inspiration and ideology underpinning Nazi crimes then it would say something about the ideology of vegetarianism. And it is the case that Nazi racial ideology was religious and creationist.
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Rhetoric is the right word... ....which is a million miles from ideology, which was not at all religious.

Their ideology was thoroughly steeped in religion.

> ... Coel's history by selective reaping of quotes and artefacts in consistency with a predetermined
> thesis ... it's just cheap, and dishonest, ...

Responding like that is not a rebuttal, not a counterargument. If you want to produce an actual rebuttal, *showing* that my quotes are "selective", "cheap" and "dishonest" then feel free to try.
Bruce Hooker - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> and represents an anti-religious motivation which does not contribute to a healthier society

There I must beg to differ, religion is a gangrene that rots humanity from within, anyone who campaigns against religion is doing a lot towards a far healthier society - as this horrible murder demonstrates vividly.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Their ideology was thoroughly steeped in religion.
> Responding like that is not a rebuttal, not a counterargument. If you want to produce an actual rebuttal, *showing* that my quotes are "selective", "cheap" and "dishonest" then feel free to try.

The evidence is on your blog, embodied in your references. You have scoured sources for quotes that suit your pre-determined idea of the truth and serve nothing in the way of balance. While the bias of the historian must always be born in mind, this isn't even an attempt at historical analysis, it is clear polemical propaganda that suits your vicious political agenda.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> There I must beg to differ, religion is a gangrene that rots humanity from within, anyone who campaigns against religion is doing a lot towards a far healthier society - as this horrible murder demonstrates vividly.

What in your view *is* religion, and how can you justify it all as a gangrene that rots humanity from within. Hoe do these horrible murders demonstrate that systemic view of religion as gangrenous.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Nope, I insist on that because that's what the facts show.

No, its what your choice aggregation of facts have been collected to try to show.

> No, that analysis is wrong. If vegetarianism had been an inspiration and ideology underpinning Nazi crimes then it would say something about the ideology of vegetarianism. And it is the case that Nazi racial ideology was religious and creationist.

Religious in what way?
Bruce Hooker - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

If you can't see how religion turned these two fairly standard minor criminals into full blown murderers, quite willing to let themselves be killed as well as killing a young bloke who had done them no direct wrong at all then it's hard to see what I could say that would convince you!
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> If you can't see how religion turned these two fairly standard minor criminals into full blown murderers, quite willing to let themselves be killed as well as killing a young bloke who had done them no direct wrong at all then it's hard to see what I could say that would convince you!

I can see how some nefarious character with a noxious view of the west can use the words of the Koran to persuade some individuals to act. However, I do not see that makes religion systemically gangrenous. I also do not, in terms of the history of ideas, see why religion is anywhere near as bad systemically speaking as nationalism, patriotism, capitalism, imperialism, communism, Marxism, republicanism, etc etc in terms of the use of those ideas to control people, exert power, inspire revolution and bring about the deaths of a great many people.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'd ask again, seeing as you didn't answer, what in your view *is* religion?
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> I'd ask again, seeing as you didn't answer, what in your view *is* religion?

I'd say something like: belief in a god, and the behaviour and organisations that result from such a belief.

MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG: or gods.
Gareth Edwards - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

From John Pilger:

"Last week, the killing of 57 Iraqis in 1 day was a non-event compared with the murder of a British soldier in Lonon"

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-iraq-a-tragic-reminder

Facts: 1. People beheading other people in the streets is a terrible crime

2. USA / UK foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan et al is also a terrible crime
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> I'd say something like: belief in a god, and the behaviour and organisations that result from such a belief.

So, you would not accept Marxism as a religion? What about Buddhism? What about Rosenberg's "religion of the blood"?
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> So, you would not accept Marxism as a religion?

No, although it has similarities.

What about Buddhism?

That has gods, as I understand it.

What about Rosenberg's "religion of the blood"?

Never heard of it.

Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Their ideology was thoroughly steeped in religion.
> Responding like that is not a rebuttal, not a counterargument. If you want to produce an actual rebuttal, *showing* that my quotes are "selective", "cheap" and "dishonest" then feel free to try.

For example, what attempt have you made to pull apart the artificiality of the overtly political movement of "postive christianity" from that of a genuinely held christianity motivating the Nazi ideology? You haven't, indeed, you even utilise a symbol of the "positive christianity" movement as evidence for your thesis, which is utterly hilarious, and betrays the lack of honest historical scholarship behind your work.
Ridge - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Gareth Edwards:

Fact 3. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in the west pre dates Iraq, Afghanistan and 'et al'. Whilst I agree Iraq was about as sensible as seeing a hornets nest and deciding to stick your knob in it, Islamism was alive, well and growing in the UK before then.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> No, although it has similarities.

So, in terms of descriptive character, in what way does adherents of Marxism differ from the adherents of Christianity?

> > What about Buddhism?
> That has gods, as I understand it.

Does it? Not explicitly so.
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> So, in terms of descriptive character, in what way does adherents of Marxism differ from the adherents of Christianity?


I think the god bit is one obvious difference.
MG - on 27 May 2013
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> Here they are!

Gods? or Idols?

I refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Is_Buddhism_a_religion.3F
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> I think the god bit is one obvious difference.

God doesn't exist, so that can't define the difference.. ..it has to be something about the adherents / followers... ..idolatory, veneration of symbols etc etc.. ..thats what I was asking for in terms of the character of what occurs in theistic religion versus various isms.
Duncan Bourne - on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
>
> What about Buddhism?
>
> That has gods, as I understand it.
>

Buddhism can be both a religion and a philosophy. The Buddha never claimed divinity for himself and many schools of Buddhism, most notably that of Japanese Zen are pretty much religion free. However that has not stopped others from applying divinity to the Buddha and setting him up alongside other deities. Tibetan Buddhism is full of icons and, re-incarnations, and other trappings of religion, While Newarie Buddhism is Hinduism-with-Buddha.
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> God doesn't exist, so that can't define the difference..

Eh? I thought you believed? Anyway, the facts are not part of the definition I gave, just a belief in god.

..it has to be something about the adherents / followers..

Yes, belief in a god is one aspect of religion, clearly absent from Marxism.


Anyway, enough distraction. I think Bruce has a point. But it is also true to say religion inpsires lots of nice stuff.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

> Eh? I thought you believed? Anyway, the facts are not part of the definition I gave, just a belief in god.
> ..it has to be something about the adherents / followers..

> Yes, belief in a god is one aspect of religion, clearly absent from Marxism.

"god" is just one idea amongst many ideas. Does it really have any special status that sets it apart from other ideas, such as the example of Buddha, or the superiority of the Nordic Aryan race, both of which also do not exist. So I don't think that belief in "god" is necessarily a defining characteristic of religion, that distinguishes it from other isms.
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> "god" is just one idea amongst many ideas. Does it really have any special status that sets it apart from other ideas, such as the example of Buddha, or the superiority of the Nordic Aryan race, both of which also do not exist. So I don't think that belief in "god" is necessarily a defining characteristic of religion, that distinguishes it from other isms.


Well I think your wrong. Without god there would be no need for the term religion.

I also think this is an(other) extended attempt on your part to try and claim belief in god (and hence support for religion) can never inspire harm.
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> Well that's just an assertion... ...any hope for some rationale to go with it?
>

I would have thought it was obvious. We have terms like politics for other groupings that are similar to religion but without belief in god. We need the specific term "religion" because people do things when they believe in god(s) that they don't otherwise (e.g. building churches, praying and, occasionally, hacking people's heads off).


> [...]
>
> I think people inspire harm, and I wonder what belief in god, in particular, is supposed to so uniquely lead to an inspiration of harm.

There is nothing unique about it, it's just one of a variety of possible causes of harm. It does however seem to inspire particularly brutal forms of violence that occur rarely, if ever, without religous inspiration.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

In reply to MG:

> Well I think your wrong. Without god there would be no need for the term religion.

Well that's just an assertion... ...any hope for some rationale to go with it?

> I also think this is an(other) extended attempt on your part to try and claim belief in god (and hence support for religion) can never inspire harm.

I think people inspire harm, and I wonder what belief in god, in particular, is supposed to so uniquely lead to an inspiration of harm. I'm waiting for some reasoning, rather than just assertions, and a bit of playing the ball and not the man.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

Oops, sorry, I edited my post before seeing your reply//
..sorry
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to MG:

In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
> I would have thought it was obvious. We have terms like politics for other groupings that are similar to religion but without belief in god. We need the specific term "religion" because people do things when they believe in god(s) that they don't otherwise (e.g. building churches, praying and, occasionally, hacking people's heads off).

So its not unique, and then at the end, if they do things like hacking heads off that they wouldn't do otherwise, they are unique? Which is it and why?

> There is nothing unique about it, it's just one of a variety of possible causes of harm. It does however seem to inspire particularly brutal forms of violence that occur rarely, if ever, without religous inspiration.

I presume that's a joke?! What about the Rwandan genocide? Or perhaps you have in mind the benignity of Saint-Just?
MG - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> In reply to MG:
> [...]
>
> So its not unique, and then at the end, if they do things like hacking heads off that they wouldn't do otherwise, they are unique? Which is it and why?

Don't follow you. We were talking about what religion is and why we need the term.

>
> [...]
>
> I presume that's a joke?! What about the Rwandan genocide?

No, although as above there are a few other examples (American drug lords being another) but they are very rare. Coming back to this thread, if you honestly think the machete wielder in London would have done what he did without Islamic inspiration, I think you are deluded.
Bruce Hooker - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> I'd ask again, seeing as you didn't answer, what in your view *is* religion?

Bit of a daft question, isn't it? Especially from someone who's openly religious like you... Don't you know even?
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Bit of a daft question, isn't it? Especially from someone who's openly religious like you... Don't you know even?

I'm afraid I'm one of those awkward bastards who would deny their religiosity on the basis of it being idolatry, literally putting man and his constructs in God's place... ...that is what all religion is. Religion involves the worship of idols, icons, images, symbols, involvement in ritual etc. An idea, symbol, idol or god are sufficient for the inspiration of such religiosity. Hitler made himself god and Nazism was all about the ritual worship in which the rule of law was replaced by military action. Saint-Just made the sovereignty of the people "the new god".
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> The evidence is on your blog, embodied in your references. You have scoured sources for quotes
> that suit your pre-determined idea of the truth and serve nothing in the way of balance.

For that to be true there must be large numbers of other quotes that show that I'm wrong. How come people don't quote them at me? How come even Christians such as Richard Weikart, who have written whole books on this, can't find them?

> Religious in what way?

In short, Nazi racial ideology said that the different races were separate creations and that they were created by God in their present form. The Aryans were the "master race", created in primordial excellence as "God's highest handiwork" in the Garden of Eden. The other races (Jews, Blacks, Slavs etc) were literally "sub-human", separate creations about which God cared less. Further, their ideology claimed, God desired that his favoured "master race" be preserved; yet it was being threatened by inter-breeding with "lesser" races; they considered this to be a highest sin against God's will, and preventing it, by removing the possibility of inter-breeding with "lesser" races, was such a high ideal that it justified the means (the "final solution") to that end.

How exactly can that *not* be religious??

Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> For example, what attempt have you made to pull apart the artificiality of the overtly political
> movement of "postive christianity" from that of a genuinely held christianity motivating the Nazi ideology?

Typical ploy! You label their theology "artificial" and "political", whereas your theology is "genuinely held" -- all a device to claim that their religion wasn't really "religion" whereas yours is.

> I'm afraid I'm one of those awkward bastards who would deny their religiosity on the basis of
> it being idolatry, literally putting man and his constructs in God's place... ...that is what all religion is.

In other words if they worship the *right* god (namely yours) then it is religion, if they worship the wrong god, then it is "idolatry" and thus not religion.

In the same way (no doubt) Catholicism is not true religion because it is idolatry (lots of worshiping of Mary, statues, saints etc). Religious people are always coming up with excuses for why only their own religion is valid!
andy hunter - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

i've often thought that protestants and roman catholics belong to the same religion - christianity - and that a good rule of thumb for what to do in life, for any followers of christ, would be to ask "what would jesus do, in this situation?",

don't you think?
Sir Chasm - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> I'm afraid I'm one of those awkward bastards who would deny their religiosity on the basis of it being idolatry, literally putting man and his constructs in God's place... ...that is what all religion is. Religion involves the worship of idols, icons, images, symbols, involvement in ritual etc. An idea, symbol, idol or god are sufficient for the inspiration of such religiosity. Hitler made himself god and Nazism was all about the ritual worship in which the rule of law was replaced by military action. Saint-Just made the sovereignty of the people "the new god".

Do you consider yourself a christian?
Bruce Hooker - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

So you knew all along, or at least you had your idea, and were just trying to trip me up! I can see you're a tricky one, like most religious people I've met, but no need to try, you won't convert me :-)

If I ever do become a believer it will be because I have received proof that supernatural forces do exist but it won't be through listening to words from any human mouth. It would be quite nice really but I don't have high hopes.
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Gods? or Idols?

"Idol" == "god that isn't my god".
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> ... quotes that suit your pre-determined idea of the truth ...

By the way, this is wrong. For ages I took the standard line about Nazi Germany for granted. It was only gradually that I came to realise it was just about the opposite of the truth. That change came from seeing others arguing about it on the internet, and then when I read "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945" (Cambridge University Press) back in 2004. This is fully academic analysis by an academic historian, Richard Steigmann-Gall.

It shows that the standard line is just propaganda, propaganda about Nazi Germany coming from the Allies who were largely Christian themselves and who wanted to paint Nazi Germany as black as possible and to disassociate themselves from Nazi Germany as much as possible. Thus they invented a line that the Nazis were anti-Christian and anti-religion. This propaganda effort has been highly successful -- I took it for granted for ages -- but it is nothing like the truth. The truth is that the Nazis were religious and creationist and most of them regarded themselves as Christian.

So, I didn't come to this topic with a pre-conceived idea, or at least, any such pre-conception was the opposite of where I arrived at after looking into it.

And there are plenty of academic historians who take the same line nowadays. In addition to Steigmann-Gall another is Susannah Heschel. You can read the first chapter of her "The Aryan Jesus" (Princeton University Press) online at http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8820.html

Another is Robert Richards (U. Chicago), who has a book on this stuff about to appear.

So you can yell at me and call me biased all you like, but if you want to refute me you'll need to start discussing actual evidence.
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> "Idol" == "god that isn't my god".

No, an Idol is an image that is venerated, whether or not it refers to some kind of spiritual being.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> By the way, this is wrong. For ages I took the standard line about Nazi Germany for granted. It was only gradually that I came to realise it was just about the opposite of the truth. That change came from seeing others arguing about it on the internet, and then when I read "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945" (Cambridge University Press) back in 2004. This is fully academic analysis by an academic historian, Richard Steigmann-Gall. etc etc

Then I suggest that you edit the wiki page for religion in Nazi Germany accordingly, and see how it fares.. ..and perhaps submit a revised form of your blog to one of the popular history magazines, and await its reception.
In reply to Coel Hellier: we were talking about what you were calling "Islamists" not Quakers. I'm not really sure why you want to discuss Quakers or Buddhists or Sikhs or Roman Catholics on a thread about an act of terrorism in London, but if you do I'll leave that one very much up to you and Jimbo.

Anyway, those guys probably would refer to themselves as Salafis rather than Islamists, and there are other Salafis who are very 'fundamentalist' (although really they are all radically revisionist), but who don't commit violence. Sometimes these gets called the "scientific salafis", as opposed to the "jihadi salafis" of the al Qaeda type or the political Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both groups of Salafis are committed to a very intolerant and reactionary form of Islam, but one group is revolutionary and the other not - indeed often the scientific salafis are specifically anti-violence.

If you know what is theologically different between someone like Abdul Haqq Baker from Brixton Mosque and the people who committed this crime (indeed, the type of people who follow Choudary) I'd be very interested to know - if there is a theological difference it must be on something rather obscure. Perhaps if you can identify that specific piece of theological reasoning, then excellent - find a way to discover if that is how someone sees the world, then you have discovered your terrorist in waiting. But I don't think that's very likely; to me it has always seemed more ideological than theological - the difference seems to be a political position on the legitimacy of the Saudi royal family that distinguishes between the Salafis who don't and won't radically challenge state legitimacy and those who will. And I don't think theology has much to say about how people develop those understandings in their heads.
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Then I suggest that you edit the wiki page for religion in Nazi Germany accordingly, and see how it
> fares.. ..and perhaps submit a revised form of your blog to one of the popular history magazines, and await its reception.

It's noticeable, reading that page, how much of it is quoting, not the Nazis themselves or actual evidence, but opinions of historians. Sure, if your main source is *opinions* of historians then you can readily pick enough quotes to support the mainstream-Christian line. It's when you look at actual evidence that the line becomes unsupported, and amounts to historians putting their own biases into it.

Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> .. we were talking about what you were calling "Islamists" not Quakers.

I was pointing out to you that religious beliefs come in a diverse array!

> Anyway, those guys probably would refer to themselves as Salafis rather than Islamists ...

Yes, "Islamists" is a Western term for certain flavours of political Islam.

> Both groups of Salafis are committed to a very intolerant and reactionary form of Islam,
> but one group is revolutionary and the other not - indeed often the scientific salafis are specifically anti-violence.

Ok ...

> if there is a theological difference it must be on something rather obscure.

You've just pointed to some significant differences!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I was pointing out to you that religious beliefs come in a diverse array!

Probably, and unsurprisingly, I completely agree! :)

> You've just pointed to some significant differences!

Yes, but my point is simply I don't see the difference as being theological - or not to the extent that saying this person is an adherent of the ultra-conservative and reactionary Salafi form of Islam tells you anything useful about their propensity to commit acts of violence, not amongst western Muslims anyway.

It seems amongst western Muslims who commit terrorist actions, converts are significantly over-represented, and both of these guys were born into Christian families. So trying to work out why converts go loco more often seems a far more useful line of inquiry.
Coel Hellier - on 27 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Yes, but my point is simply I don't see the difference as being theological -

"God doesn't want me to use violence to advance me cause" versus "Does does want me to use violence". That's theological, and it's a significant difference. Anyhow, religions are about more than narrow theological questions.
dissonance - on 27 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> It seems amongst western Muslims who commit terrorist actions, converts are significantly over-represented, and both of these guys were born into Christian families. So trying to work out why converts go loco more often seems a far more useful line of inquiry.

significantly over-represented compared to whom?
If its the entire Muslim population then surely it would be higher on the grounds they sought out the religion compared to those who simply go due to being brought up to do so and hence really more box ticking.
Paul F - on 27 May 2013
In reply to dissonance: % of convicted terrorists who are converts is higher than % of Muslims who are converts. Maajid Nawaz said it on the Today Programme recently, but I've heard it before.

Only applies to UK (and other western countries I believe), obviously not in mid-East for example.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> "God doesn't want me to use violence to advance me cause" versus "Does does want me to use violence".

That's a bit garbled but I think I get what you meant - but if that's the case why do some Salafis take one side, and others the opposite?
dissonance - on 27 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to dissonance) % of convicted terrorists who are converts is higher than % of Muslims who are converts. Maajid Nawaz said it on the Today Programme recently, but I've heard it before.

What I am interested in is how they define Muslim.
Generally I would expect a convert, to whatever religion, to be among the more committed believers and comparing them against the entire population would be flawed.
I know several Muslims and they vary from being keen believers to making me look religious although in the latter category they still attend the mosque occasionally to keep the family happy.
If the latter are counted in that percentage it makes it as nonsensical as counting me as a Roman Catholic.

Jimbo W on 27 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's noticeable, reading that page, how much of it is quoting, not the Nazis themselves or actual evidence, but opinions of historians. Sure, if your main source is *opinions* of historians then you can readily pick enough quotes to support the mainstream-Christian line. It's when you look at actual evidence that the line becomes unsupported, and amounts to historians putting their own biases into it.

Nice cop out... ...but not one that I've advocated or one I'd accept... ...put it out there and stop arguing the toss!
tlm - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> If I ever do become a believer it will be because I have received proof that supernatural forces do exist but it won't be through listening to words from any human mouth. It would be quite nice really but I don't have high hopes.

If you did get 'proof' of them, wouldn't that then make them natural, rather than supernatural forces?;-)

Bruce Hooker - on 27 May 2013
In reply to tlm:

I'm not sure, I'll let you know if it happens. I have an experiment running with the Virgin Mary... not a joke in fact.
dissonance - on 27 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I'm not sure, I'll let you know if it happens. I have an experiment running with the Virgin Mary... not a joke in fact.

you cant come out with that and not give some more details.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> - but if that's the case why do some Salafis take one side, and others the opposite?

Because they have different opinions on what God wants.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> ...put it out there and stop arguing the toss!

It is out there, on the internet for all to see. And so far no-one has pointed me at anything that suggests it is wrong. And, as I said, there are several academic books that are also "out there".
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Because they have different opinions on what God wants.

Do they? How and why do those opinions differ then? I haven't been able to work out the difference.

And even if that simply is the case; why can't the we ask why there is that divide? Why couldn't it be that salafi-jihadis are angry young men who fundamentally distrust the idea of birthright legitimacy (in the case of the Saudi royal family to control the holiest places in Islam)? Or because these killers felt themselves racist victims of the British state and wanted revenge? Or any other of a myriad reasons? "God wants it so" might be their justification, but is it the reason? Is that it and you stop asking questions at that point?
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It is out there, on the internet for all to see. And so far no-one has pointed me at anything that suggests it is wrong. And, as I said, there are several academic books that are also "out there".

Well its on the internet along with so much garbage why would anyone happen upon yours? Put it where it will get noticed. Or edit it and perhaps offer some balance?
http://www.mconway.net/page1/page4/files/Holy%20Reich.pdf
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> you cant come out with that and not give some more details.

I'm afraid I have to, it's personal. I've put myself in a delicate situation due to weakness, but I'm not the first and I doubt I'll be the last.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Is that it and you stop asking questions at that point?

It is mind-bogglingly obvious that lots of political, social, historical & personal factors come in to who decides to use violence and terrorism. It is also mind-bogglingly obvious that -- regarding Islamists -- religious ideas and motives are also a major part of that mix.

> Do they? How and why do those opinions differ then?

As I said up-thread, the short answer is a mix of genes and environmental factors. As I also said, the long-answer as to why different humans have different opinions on different issues would be long.

Why on earth are people such as yourself (and Scott Atran and similar) so ready to accept that political, social, historical, and personal factors are all involved -- and yet so insistent that religious motivations cannot possibly have any role whatsoever? Thus, anything that appears to be a religious motivation must be analysed into political, social, historical and personal factors; yet political, social & historical factors are never analysed into religious ones.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Well its on the internet along with so much garbage why would anyone happen upon yours?

Search engines. It comes quite high on Google searches for relevant key words, and gets about 20 hits a day by that route.

> Or edit it and perhaps offer some balance?

You keep claiming it is unbalanced, but you don't tell me what is unbalanced about it (other than the fact that you don't like its thesis).
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well how about some inclusion of the existence of the confessing church, the Barmen declaration etc. How about some discussion of the fact that "positive christianity" involved a wholesale rewrite of christianity, expelling the old testament entirely, and making Jesus an Aryan Nordic hero, and replacement of a doctrine of love, with a doctrine of honour to Germany. How about some discussion of Nazism as a adopting a deliberately political religious nature, the icons, symbols, and deification of Germany with the messianic Hitler. How about the obvious political expedient requirement to attain the conformity of the German people who were the majority catholic of protestant. How about adding some balance by inclusion of those Nazis who are quoted and wrote explicitly against Christianity. That would be a start.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Why on earth are people such as yourself (and Scott Atran and similar) so ready to accept that political, social, historical, and personal factors are all involved -- and yet so insistent that religious motivations cannot possibly have any role whatsoever?

Again - what are you on about? They're 'effing jihadi salafis; how much MORE 'religious' could they be? And how can you separate political, social, historical from religious? I had to google Atran and don't think I've ever read anything by him, so please don't do a Bruce and tell me what I think in order to slot it into some pre-existing debate you're involved in.

I'm asking you what theological differences are there between British Salafis like Abdul Haqq Baker and his pro-Saudi friends, and Salafis of the type that seem to congregate around people like Choudary (or Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada etc) then end up going off with the intention of hurting people in horrible ways? I don't know, but you said you did so I'm genuinely interested. How has god commanded one set this way and the other set that way?

I'm really not interested in discussing whether religion is good or bad, it seems like a sort of pointless question to me, but please do accuse me of being a PoMo relativist who doesn't believe in anything if you wish. I am very interested in what this thread began about; why these two men could commit such a horrible crime in London.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Well how about some inclusion of the existence of the confessing church, the Barmen declaration etc.

It is mentioned: "The advance of the Deutsche Christen led to the opposing “Confessional Church” who in 1934 issued the Barmen Declaration, objecting to Nazi doctrine and to the interference of the State in Church affairs."

http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed...

> How about some discussion of the fact that "positive christianity" involved a wholesale rewrite of
> christianity, expelling the old testament entirely, and making Jesus an Aryan Nordic hero

Like this?: "Nazi theology, however, departed from mainstream Christianity in regarding the Christian churches as misguided and having been corrupted from the original aims of Jesus by Jewish influence, particularly that of Paul. The Nazis claimed that Jesus was not a Jew, but instead an Aryan (again, to the Nazis these were separately created races). ..."

And:

"This institute produced their own Bible, a Nazified version of the New Testament, Die Botschaft Gottes (‘The Message of God’). Jewish references were erased, except where they painted Jews as opposed to Jesus, and Jewish names were removed, with Jerusalem being called “the eternal city of God”. Published in 1940, 200,000 copies were distributed to churches. They also produced “Germans with God: a German Catechism” in which the first commandment was: “Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly”, to which they added the Nazi commandments: “Keep the blood pure and your honour holy” and “Honour your Fuehrer”."


> How about some discussion of ... deification of Germany with the messianic Hitler.

I do:

"The Nazis (and perhaps Hitler himself) seemed to regard Hitler as a new Jesus, sent by God to rescue the German people. For example:

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany. (Herman Goering)

"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge.(Rudolf Hess)

"We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God … where the Fuhrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty. (Joseph Goebbels)

"He who serves our Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, serves Germany and he who serves Germany, serves God. (Baldur von Schirach, Head of the Hitler Youth)

"We believe that Almighty God has sent us Adolf Hitler so that he may rid Germany of the hypocrites and Pharisees. (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front)

> How about adding some balance by inclusion of those Nazis who are quoted and wrote explicitly against Christianity.

I do, for example: "Himmler ... saw mainstream Christianity as weak and incompatible with Nazi racial ideology, describing it as a “perverse ideology that is alien to life”"

> That would be a start.

Already in there!
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I'm really not interested in discussing whether religion is good or bad, it seems like a sort of pointless question to me, but please do accuse me of being a PoMo relativist who doesn't believe in anything if you wish. I am very interested in what this thread began about; why these two men could commit such a horrible crime in London.

Its the same answer from Coel as you'll find here:
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed...
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes, its in there, but you could write entire blogs about any which one of those subjects.. ..that would be balance.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Just above I point out that what you ask for is already in my article. However, note that the theme of the piece, as per the title, is that Nazi racial ideology is (1) religious, (2) creationist, and (3) opposed to Darwinism.

Whether their ideology was *Christian* or not is a different issue. One could quite reasonably make the case that their ideology, though retaining Christian elements, had departed so far from mainstream Christianity that it was not "Christian". If you want to argue that then I'll respond "nolo contendere".

A comparison would be with Mormons, who re-wrote their version of Christianity and added a whole lot of stuff. Are they "Christian"? Well, that depends entirely on how one defines "Christianity", which is largely personal taste. It is very common for different Christian sects to explain why some other sect's version is "not true Christianity".

The link you gave above is to an article doing exactly that, pointing out theological differences between Christianity and Nazi doctrine. (In the same way one can find Protestants and Catholics explaining where the other is going wrong.)

Whether or not Nazi doctrine qualifies as "Christian" is not the theme of my article and not a question that particularly interests me. The point I was making is that it quite clearly is religious and theistic. Which brand of religious theism is then another question.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> And how can you separate political, social, historical from religious?

Thank you! And if you can't, then how can one claim something is "political and NOT religious"? As I've argued all along, it is political AND religious!

> I'm asking you what theological differences are there between British Salafis ... then end up going
> off with the intention of hurting people in horrible ways?

As I said, one strand thinks that God wants them to use violence to pursue their ends, the other group thinks that God does not want them to.

> How has god commanded one set this way and the other set that way?

He hasn't. But different groups think differently about what god's commands on this are.

Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I am very interested in what this thread began about; why these two men could commit such a horrible crime in London.

Anyone wanting to deny a religious motive is invited to read this, "last words of a terrorist", found in the baggage of Mohamed Atta. Read it, and then try to claim that religious belief was no part of his motivation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.september113
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Isn't it perhaps historically truer to say that it was 'mock-theistic', i.e having pseudo-pagan religious overtones, cleverly designed to appeal to a huge swathe of Germans who were both broadly religious and very nationalistic - because there is no evidence (is there? in his writings or otherwise) that Hitler himself was remotely religious in any meaningful sense of the term?
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Read it, and then try to claim that religious belief was no part of his motivation:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.september113

Sorry, but who claimed this? I haven't seen anyone claim this.

You are doing a Bruce now and telling people what they think in order to tell them how wrong they are.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> As I said, one strand thinks that God wants them to use violence to pursue their ends, the other group thinks that God does not want them to.

Yes you have said that before, but that's like me saying "the moon is cheese" and when asked how I know this, me saying again "because it's made of cheese".
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Isn't it perhaps historically truer to say that it was 'mock-theistic', ...

What's the evidence that it was all a pretence, that it was "mock"-theistic? Why the reluctance to accept that they did actually believe what they said?

> ... cleverly designed to appeal to a huge swathe of Germans who ...

So they didn't mean it, it was all made up to fool people? What's your evidence for this?

> because there is no evidence (is there? in his writings or otherwise) that Hitler himself was remotely religious

There is loads and loads and loads of evidence, all over his writings! Of course if you discount all of this as "mock" and made up to fool people, then you can reject all the evidence.

> ... in any meaningful sense of the term?

What is the "meaningful" sense of the term "religious"? Is it just another excuse to deny that the Nazis were religious?

All the evidence is that Hitler really did mean it, that he felt his ideology so strongly that he made it his life's work to pursue it.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Sorry, but who claimed this? I haven't seen anyone claim this.

You claim it, every time you claim it is "political" and thus "not religious".
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I'm asking you what theological differences are there between British Salafis like ...

Your emphasizing the closeness of different theological strands ignores the nature of religion, best illustrated by the joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
puppythedog on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: That's Brilliant
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Yes you have said that before, but that's like me saying "the moon is cheese" and when asked how
> I know this, me saying again "because it's made of cheese".

So what are you asking me? Are you asking me why one group has one theological opinion (that God wants them to use violence to pursue their ends) and that another group has a different theological opinion (that God does not want them to use violence)?

If so, I've already answered that twice, see my reply about "short answer" and "long answer" up-thread.
In reply to Coel Hellier: I haven't mentioned Mohammed Atta nor made any claim about what motivated him to act. We're talking about who we now know to be Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale and why they did what they did.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> We're talking about who we now know to be Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale and why
> they did what they did.

Do you think that their religious beliefs played a role in it?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Just above I point out that what you ask for is already in my article. However, note that the theme of the piece, as per the title, is that Nazi racial ideology is (1) religious, (2) creationist, and (3) opposed to Darwinism.

Okay, I admit I thought your thesis was broader taking on the "Holy Reich" line that it was at least in part Christian, and certainly not anti-Christian.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

This sounds as if it could be quite interesting/pertinent:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-God-Bible-Ray-Comfort/dp/1936488248/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Sorry, can't stop ... am working with an artist at the moment (who, ironically, is German).
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Do you think that their religious beliefs played a role in it?

I think they may well have believed that they had some justification for their actions in Koranic verse, fed them by highly manipulative individuals who wanted to make them into actors for a political cause. However, I do not think that that means religion lies in any way at the heart of their action.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> [...]
>
> Do you think that their religious beliefs played a role in it?

My hunch is that religious beliefs played a v small part in it, and psychiatric disorders played the main role. They just needed a (recently found) political-religious label to hang their thirst for blood on. Anyway, the vast majority of moderate Muslems don't appear to recognize that their pronouncements have anything to do with Islam.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Yes, of course, but as in my first response to you in this thread days back: "I don't think saying it was religiously motivated gets you very far, it might be true, but then what?"

I don't think you even disagree with me do you? That their religious beliefs alone don't account for their actions? You mentioned genes and life experiences above for example.
MJ - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Coel might be more interested in this book by the same author: -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scientific-Facts-Bible-Reasons-Supernatural/dp/0882708791/ref=sr_1_1?s=books...
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> This sounds as if it could be quite interesting/pertinent:

Ray Comfort is a well known creationist loony religious apologist. He has no academic credentials at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Ah, I didn't realise that. Saw it on Amazon, and that was not immediately obvious.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> My hunch is that religious beliefs played a v small part in it, and psychiatric disorders played the main role.

Typical denial, using any excuse to minimise the religious motivation. Out of all the previous Islamist terrorists there is very little evidence that "psychiatric disorders played the main role".
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

How can a 'hunch' be anything like as strong as a denial? Just a tentative suggestion, based on what the Islamic faith in London have been saying (who know 99% more about Islamism than I do.)
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Yes, of course, ...

Good!

> but as in my first response to you in this thread days back: "I don't think saying it was religiously
> motivated gets you very far, it might be true, but then what?"

Understanding the causes is one step towards dealing with it.

> That their religious beliefs alone don't account for their actions?

Well no, of course not, lots of other political, social and environmental factors played a role (as did their genes and personality). What I'm arguing against, however, is the tendency to try to minimise the religious element and interpret it as "really" being one of the other factors.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> How can a 'hunch' be anything like as strong as a denial?

That "hunch" reveals a motivation to downplay religious factors and up-play any possible alternatives.

> based on what the Islamic faith in London have been saying (who know 99% more about Islamism than I do.)

And once again, religions are not monolithic. The fact that a majority says this is "not true Islam" or "not true Christianity" or whatever doesn't rebut the idea that something can be motivated by *their* strand of their religion, and *their* understanding of their religion.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I have no motivation here whatever; simply an interest in what the truth behind this attack might be. Which I'm sure will become clearer as the investigation proceeds.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I have no motivation here whatever; ...

Sorry, every human being has motivations. If you're not aware of your motivations in writing your above comments, then I suggest you have an unconscious bias towards trying to exonerate religion.
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But different groups think differently about what god's commands on this are.

And it's pretty hard to contradict them as they are the only ones who hear god on direct :-)
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

My motivation in commenting, as I said before, amounted to nothing more than curiosity. If it emerged that this was primarily a 'religious' attack I would be as repulsed as you by it.
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> You are doing a Bruce now and telling people what they think in order to tell them how wrong they are.

Can you give us a link to a text where I do this?

Even with Coel on the subject you appear to be contradicting yourself, Coel say their motivation is "political AND religious", in what way do you disagree with that? If you don't disagree you can stop arguing you know.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

... it.. meaning the religious motivation (I'm already repulsed by the attack! ... Sorry, v difficult to work and comment on anything completely unrelated at the same time.)
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Okay, I admit I thought your thesis was broader taking on the "Holy Reich" line that it was at
> least in part Christian, and certainly not anti-Christian.

I was largely avoiding those issues, since they interest me less. And anyhow, the answer will depend on who gets to draw the boundary as to what counts as "Christian", and it also depends on who we are discussing, since the Nazis had some range of opinions (as you'd expect).

On the one hand you have a handful of leading figures, notably Rosenberg and Bormann, who likely saw themselves as religious and theistic but anti-Christian. Hitler himself likely saw himself as Christian, but he wanted radical reform of Christianity, and his version of Christianity was well outside mainstream Christianity (much as Mormons are). Then other leading Nazis were mainstream Christian, and regarded stuff written by, e.g., Rosenberg as "incomprehensible" and batty.

Then the vast majority of the Nazi party members (8 million at the peak), and members of the SS, etc, would have regarded themselves as mainstream Christian. Thus discussing the issue of how "Christian" the Nazis were is complex, and as you say would need a long and balanced article (and that was not the issue I was concentrating on in my article).
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> My motivation in commenting, as I said before, amounted to nothing more than curiosity.

Yet it's notable that your comment on Nazi religion was that it was "mock" and put on to fool people; and your comment on the Woolwich attackers was that they were more likely to have been mentally ill than motivated by religion. In neither case do you have evidence, thus the suggestion that you have a bias towards exonerating religion is fair. That same bias is common in many people, given the prevalence of the "religion is good" meme in our society.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well, the Nazi religion was certainly 'mock' in that it was a concoction of nationalistic folklore, with no clear creed (beyond the superiority of the Aryan race). Nietzsche very good on this (as he is on Christianity in e.g The Antichrist). Re. the Woolwich attackers. The most pertinent fact is that c 99.999% of the population would be quite unable to carry out such a cruel, cold bloodied murder of a complete stranger in this way, simply because he represented vague ideas (mostly political) that he didn't agree with - completely irrespective of whether they are 'religious' or not. So, what we are clearly looking at, first and foremost, is a dangerous case of psychosis, and the scientific approach would surely be to tackle it from that point of view first of all? There are no neat little pill-like parcels called 'memes' - though it's a fun metaphor. I think 'theme' is quite good enough for what is meant. Plenty of young people (perhaps a majority in the UK) now have a 'religion is bad' "meme" anyway. But let's try and look at this beyond the level of soundbites and try to find out what's really going on in their heads.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Re. Nazism: of course their 'god' was 'Mein Fuhrer' ...
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Well, the Nazi religion was certainly 'mock' in that it was a concoction of nationalistic folklore,
> with no clear creed (beyond the superiority of the Aryan race).

They had plenty of "clear creed", at least to the extent that most religions do. As you admit, one "clear creed" was the superiority of the Aryan race. Again, you seem to be finding excuses for calling their religious views "mock".

> Re. Nazism: of course their 'god' was 'Mein Fuhrer' ...

Why do you say "of course"? If you consider that they believed in no god beyond 'Mein Fuhrer' then please present your evidence. I'll repeat some evidence from above:

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany. (Herman Goering)

"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge.(Rudolf Hess)

"We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God … where the Fuhrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty. (Joseph Goebbels)

"He who serves our Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, serves Germany and he who serves Germany, serves God. (Baldur von Schirach, Head of the Hitler Youth)

"We believe that Almighty God has sent us Adolf Hitler so that he may rid Germany of the hypocrites and Pharisees. (Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front)
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> The most pertinent fact is that c 99.999% of the population would be quite unable to carry out such
> a cruel, cold bloodied murder of a complete stranger in this way, ...

I'm not so sure, the evidence is that in war situations a much larger fraction of people than that are willing to kill those they consider to be the enemy.

Timmd on 28 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/27/york-mosque-protest-tea-biscuits

A York mosque dealt with a potentially volatile situation after reports that it was going to be the focus of a demonstration organised by a far-right street protest movement - by inviting those taking part in the protest in for tea and biscuits.

Around half a dozen people arrived for the protest, promoted online by supporters of the EDL. A St George's flag was nailed to the wooden fence in front of the mosque.

However, after members of the group accepted an invitation into the mosque, tensions were rapidly defused over tea and plates of custard creams, followed by an impromptu game of football.

Leanne Staven, who had come for the protest, said that she had not come to the mosque to cause trouble but because "We need a voice". "I think white British who have any concerns feel we can't speak freely," she said.

"Change has been coming for a long time and in light of what happened to that soldier in Woolwich there have to be restrictions on people learning extremist behaviour and it has to stop."

Mohammed el-Gomati, a lecturer at the University of York, said: "There is the possibility of having dialogue. Even the EDL who were having a shouting match started talking and we found out that we share and are prepared to agree that violent extremism is wrong.

"We have to start there. Who knows, perhaps the EDL will invite us to an event and the Muslim community will be generous in accepting that invitation?"

Ismail Miah, president of York mosque, added: "Under the banner of Islam there are very different politics: democratic politics, the far right, left, central, all over. You can't target a whole community for what one or two people have done.

"What they've done in London is for their own reasons but there's no reasoning behind it from an Islamic point of view."
Timmd on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not so sure, the evidence is that in war situations a much larger fraction of people than that are willing to kill those they consider to be the enemy.

They can end up traumatised form doing so too, I've read of plenty of soldiers from Iraq and Afganistan who struggle to come to terms with having killed other humans.
Jimbo W on 28 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:

What a positive hopeful piece of news!! Thanks for that!
SCrossley on 28 May 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/27/york-mosque-protest-tea-biscuits
>
>
>
> However, after members of the group accepted an invitation into the mosque, tensions were rapidly defused over tea and plates of custard creams, followed by an impromptu game of football.
>
>

LOL http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=550751&v=1#x7356576
elsewhere on 28 May 2013
In reply to sjc:
Can you give me the lottery numbers for Friday please?
Timmd on 28 May 2013
In reply to elsewhere:
> (In reply to sjc)
> Can you give me the lottery numbers for Friday please?

<like>
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not so sure, the evidence is that in war situations a much larger fraction of people than that are willing to kill those they consider to be the enemy.

OK, don't let's worry about the proportion, let's worry about the phenomenon. 'Those who they consider the enemy' is probably a bit nearer the truth, anyway. A deed this bloody and vicious against an purely token/abstract target, picked almost at random from hundreds of such token possible targets, is, I submit rather rare; and that's the problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think intellectual theories about ideology in relation to such unhinged thugs quite closes the explanatory gap, that's all.

Sir Chasm - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: "purely token/abstract target, picked almost at random"
Really? Not deliberately targeted as a member of the uk armed forces? Is that just a hunch or do you have anything to support it?
Mike Stretford - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) So it hasn't come from oil in Iraq then. Really I think you're letting the fact you're a bit under the weather interfere with your ninja posting skills.

You must a have been 'a bit under the weather' since 02/Jul/10.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) "purely token/abstract target, picked almost at random"
> Really? Not deliberately targeted as a member of the uk armed forces? Is that just a hunch or do you have anything to support it?

'a member of the UK armed forces.' How much more token and abstract can you get than that? What happened (and what you have just correctly reported) 'support' it.

Sir Chasm - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: It's not random is it? And using "token" seems bizarre, no terrorist action is aimed at the whole of an army.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Just to clarify what I meant. The victim here appears - from investigations so far - to have been targeted almost at random from a huge range of such possible targets in the UK armed forces i.e. almost anybody in the services would probably have served their 'cause' equally well. Which is just about the opposite end of the spectrum from the vast majority of murders, which are targeted against very specific individuals for very specific, often unique, reasons (e.g this particular person A in the whole world ran off with this particular person B in the whole world)
Sir Chasm - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: We've been through this upthread, it was targeted terrorism, not a run of the mill domestic.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Most terrorist actions are a bit different again, in that they are usually aimed at a large mass of people (the more killed, it seems, the more 'successful' the terrorists judge the deed). They seem to be aimed at innocent civilians as often as members of the armed forces. I'm saying the selection of this victim, from the range of possibilities, even from that barracks, seemed random. It could just as equally have been someone else. Whereas a murder or assassination is usually aimed at a specific individual or individuals. If you intend to kill President Lincoln and you shoot someone else you have failed in your quest.
Sir Chasm - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: That's just blinkered, what about all the IRA actions against the army and ruc? They weren't aiming for a specific individual as long as they represented the crown. Were they not terrorist acts?
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) We've been through this upthread, it was targeted terrorism, not a run of the mill domestic.

Yes, sorry, I've been working, so not been able to follow this thread at all closely. But of course any target of a gun (or a knife etc) is a target. That's what the word target means. But if by 'target' we mean something else like 'UK armed forces', as you suggested, then that's a huge target, that you can hit wherever you like. There's no bull's eye.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) That's just blinkered, what about all the IRA actions against the army and ruc? They weren't aiming for a specific individual as long as they represented the crown. Were they not terrorist acts?

Of course they were terrorist acts. And usually the target was quite big, i.e a lot of members of the armed forces blown up by bomb/s. Individuals, on the other hand, were/are usually targeted for very specific reasons e.g. someone who had betrayed some IRA secret, for example.

A lot of people have been pointing out that there a lot of features of this Woolwich murder that are quite unusual.
Mike Stretford - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm, Jimbo etc.)
>

>
> RE whether the US benefits from Iraq's oil. See what companies are drilling the oil over the next decade or two and then we'll know.

The big positives for the US were meant to be Western companies drilling for the oil, and US companies then getting the contacts for 'rebuilding' paid for with the Oil. Both these have happened but overall the US is a lot worse off as the it ending up spending much more than anticipated.

Recent article on Iraq and Oil

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

There was a case in France where a young bloke with something of a similar profile to this bloke killed three soldiers then some schoolchildren and their teacher in a Jewish school... He shot them and died in a shoot out with the police later on - he didn't' docilely wait to be shot so that was a difference, then just a few days ago, after the Woolwich murder someone attacked a French soldier on patrol in uniform with a knife to the throat. He hasn't been caught yet but the security cameras showed someone with a North African aspect and clothes as the attacker so again it seems similar.

I don't think it is necessarily an organised campaign but it could quite well be a certain type of young man, with problems and verging on minor criminality who after contact with people who indoctrinate them and training abroad - the French one had been to Pakistan - then decide quite deliberately to make such a violent gesture. There are plenty who encourage them, plenty ready to excuse them, as this thread shows, but also plenty of images on the telly showing warfare, bombing and speeches glorifying this, clinical bombing, extra-judicial murder by helicopter gunship and so on to tip even a stable person over the top in the right (or wrong rather) moment.

To just say they are bonkers, clinically mad, is not really adequate I think. I'm surprised there aren't more, especially when you consider the number of young men who leave their homes in rich countries like Britain, France or even the USA to go and die as jihadists in hot dusty squalor on the other side of the planet.
Sir Chasm - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Of course they were terrorist acts. And usually the target was quite big, i.e a lot of members of the armed forces blown up by bomb/s. Individuals, on the other hand, were/are usually targeted for very specific reasons e.g. someone who had betrayed some IRA secret, for example.

That's just wrong, targets varied from solitary officers to mass bombings, there was no "usually"about it.

> A lot of people have been pointing out that there a lot of features of this Woolwich murder that are quite unusual.

There certainly are, it's an unusual terrorist act.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Oh, good, we're agreed at last.
malk - on 28 May 2013
In reply: what evidence for beheadment?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> What I'm arguing against, however, is the tendency to try to minimise the religious element and interpret it as "really" being one of the other factors.

But you kept saying you knew the difference between one salafi group and another was religious: that they thought god told them to do/not to something differently. But I don't think you actually have any more idea than I do as to whether that's true or not - you're simply making your regular point about the social ills of religion. I don't disagree that religion cause vast numbers of problems around the world, but having met salafis, having read lots about them and having read things by them I'm not convinced that this difference is really religious. I think that difference (between Salafis) is better described as a political or ideological position.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> But you kept saying you knew the difference between one salafi group and another was religious:
> that they thought god told them to do/not to something differently.

Well I'm willing to bet that the violent/Jihadi Salafis are not thinking "this violence is utterly against God's wishes", and I'm willing to bet that the non-violent ones are not thinking: "God is going to be so pissed off by my unwillingness to pursue violence".

> I think that difference (between Salafis) is better described as a political or ideological position.

So you think that both moderate/non-violent and radical/violent/Jihadi Moslems have exactly the same position on whether God allows or desires the use of violence?
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

Is there anything useful in saying the differences are religious rather than ideological rather than political or any combination of the three? It seems it's a bit like the rather sterile debate higher up the thread as to whether this attack was "terrorism" or not. A rose by any other name etc.

Any religion, and especially islam, has theological, political and ideological aspects... it's hard to see why you have posted getting on for a dozen posts on such a quibble?
In reply to Coel Hellier: But it's very normal for Salafis to support violence elsewhere, the classic case being condemning suicide bombings in London or Riyadh but refusing to do so in Jerusalem or Kabul (not unlike some "anti-imperialist" leftists!). I guess they say its god's will that you don't rebel against "legitimate" rulers but its fine with god to attack "occupiers" or their lackys bbut don't we get to a reductio ad absurdum position that anything a person who considers themselves as religious does is going said to be "religious"; i.e. cornflakes or crispies for breakfast? When does it stop being a religious issue and just be a political or ideological issue? I suspect these guys didn't act because of that sort of theological nuance on the idea of legitimate leadership for the Ummah.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Is there anything useful in saying the differences are religious rather than ideological rather than political or any combination of the three?

I mainly agree with you, and if you talk to counter-terrorism police or people in govt.s who have to make policy on these sorts of things, they want to understand why people commit crimes like this and how to stop them. I don't think saying its religion that made them do this, or even some very special specific aspect of their religion, is enough to answer those questions.
Coel Hellier - on 28 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I don't think saying its religion that made them do this ... is enough to answer those questions.

It's not "enough" on its own, but it's a big part of the answer. And saying that religion had nothing to do with it would definitely produce a wrong answer.
Bruce Hooker - on 29 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

They have caught the French bloke who tried to do a copy-cat killing on a French soldier, who survived BTW. It turns out he was similar to the London killers, young, converted to Islam a few years ago, petty-criminal and fairly screwed up and caught up with "radical-islamists" to quote the State prosecutor, who also called the crime an act of "terrorism" attributed to religious beliefs, with an undoubted intent to kill. He has admitted the crime and is in custody.

So religion strikes again apparently.
Ian Black - on 29 May 2013
In reply to Denni: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1613786

I don't know if this has been posted Denni but allegedly a hoax, however it makes perfect sense to me.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Ian Black:

No doubt a hoax. No way would Gillard be stupid enough to come out with that crap. Where do non-Christian born and bred Aussies stand in that rant? And what about the millions of years of Australia prior to white, English speaking, Christian life? It's a bit rich to hear Aussies claim their rights as indigenous
aln - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: Are you feeling OK? You've made a few posts now that didn't end with ?

Jimbo W on 30 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> So religion strikes again apparently.

What a load of tosh!
Jimbo W on 30 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's not "enough" on its own, but it's a big part of the answer. And saying that religion had nothing to do with it would definitely produce a wrong answer.

What is the supposed chain of causative contribution that makes religion a contribution to this supposed terrorism?
MG - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: You are in serious denial about this arent you? What would convince you of religion being a contributing factor?
off-duty - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> What is the supposed chain of causative contribution that makes religion a contribution to this supposed terrorism?

The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.

“And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.

“So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us?

“Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person?

“Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family?

“This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature…

Through many passages in the (Arabic) Koran we must fight them as they fight us.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

“I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same.

“You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you.

“You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns?

“You think politicians are going to die?

“No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children.

“So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace.

“So leave our lands and we can all live in peace.

“That’s all I have to say.

“Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.”
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> What a load of tosh!

Possibly but not according to the police spokes-people, the procureur de la République de Paris, François Molins, the Minister of the Interior, Emmanuel Walce, and any other people following the case closely, a little closer than you.

Also he was not of Arab or North African origins, his name is Alexander Dhaussy and he is as French as a camembert, so his motivation can't even be down to a racist one - he converted to Islam a few years ago and had been under observation in radical Islamic circles for some time... so the only possible motivation is the religious one.

Incidentally, he is 22, the soldier he attacked 23, what a waste of two young lives as both will certainly be marked for life and he will spend much of his in prison... all in caused by beliefs as out of date as a stone axe head.

Coel Hellier - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> What is the supposed chain of causative contribution that makes religion a contribution to this supposed terrorism?

Conversion to Islam; absorbing of radical Islamist doctrine from radical Islamist preachers; acting on that doctrine by pursuing a supposed "war" between Islam and the West.
winhill - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [It's not "enough" on its own, but it's a big part of the answer. And saying that religion had nothing to do with it would definitely produce a wrong answer.]
>
> What is the supposed chain of causative contribution that makes religion a contribution to this supposed terrorism?

If you're looking for a single factor or single chain then you're probably adopting the wrong methodology.

For instance the latest jihadists have all been converts, fairly young and not converts for an awfully long time.

So what makes them take on the mantle of muslim butthurt on behalf of the ummah?

Perhaps a mixture of racist ideology and psychosis?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/religious-converts-terrorism_b_3352369.html?
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
> The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.

Excuse the selective quoting, but they seem to state quite clearly there the reason for the attack. There might have inaccuracies in it (Muslims also kill Muslims, British soldiers probably aren't killing Muslims daily, etc), it might be an awkward truth that our soldiers have gone and killed many Muslims needlessly, and you may fault their claim to be representing a religious group's needs, but that doesn't negate their personal intent.

Equally, while they claim to be acting on the behalf of Muslims, they are orienting themselves against the "British". It would appear Islam in this context is their cultural identity. I don't see that being the cause, any more than British soldiers, who kill Muslims, do so because they are British. Likewise, if our soldiers kill someone in a foreign war, we don't state this is done because they are "soldiers" or because we are "British" - they are fighting for a reason, in our case "terrorism", in these guys case against what they probably perceive as "terrorism".
Sir Chasm - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: In an effort to eliminate any religious motivation excluding "through many passages in the Koran we must fight them as they fight us" and saying "excuse the selective quoting" is risible.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

So, given Donald Rumsfeld included quotes from the bible on the covers of the daily war briefings to Bush during the Iraq war, it would be fair to say the US was waging a Christian war in Iraq?

If tomorrow the US goes storming in to Syria, to prevent ongoing massacres of civilians and the threat of chemical weapons falling in to Al Qaida's hands, and in a grand speech on the White House lawn Obama quotes Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.", it would be a Christian action we are taking?

"Freedom is on the march in this world. I believe everybody in the Middle East desires to live in freedom. I believe women in the Middle East want to live in a free society. I believe mothers and fathers want to raise their children in a free and peaceful world. I believe all these things, because freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."
Oct 22, 2004. GWB.

You seem to be expending effort in failing to acknowledge a UK foreign policy motivation in Woolwich, 7/7, and so on. Or perhaps you have and I missed it? In which case I apologise.
Coel Hellier - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> ... failing to acknowledge a UK foreign policy motivation in Woolwich, 7/7, and so on.

*Of* *course* there is a "UK foreign policy motivation" is such things, that is mind-bogglingly *obvious*. But surely it is also mind-bogglingly obvious that a religious/Islamist motivation is also a large part of it?
Sir Chasm - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Yes, if they said the bible told them to do it I think I would have to conclude they were, at least in part, religiously motivated.

You haven't missed me saying there is no uk foreign policy motivation because I'm not claiming that.
MG - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Is anyone denying that recent foreign policy may be *a* motivation? It's yours and others somersaults to avoid acknowledging the religious aspect in the face of overwhelming evidence that is odd

BTW I suspect some neocons were motivated to an extent by Christianity in Afghanistan yes.
Mr Lopez - on 30 May 2013
Coel Hellier - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> The most pertinent fact is that c 99.999% of the population would be quite unable to carry out
> such a cruel, cold bloodied murder ...

"MOST people find it hard to imagine stabbing another human being, let alone almost decapitating someone with a meat cleaver. ...

"I'm ashamed to say I can. For I was similar to them once. ..."

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/i-was-a-radical-islamist-who-hated-all-of-you/story-fncynjr2-12...

At no point in his article does he suggest that mental illness is a factor.
MG - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Mr Lopez: Why Christian?
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Great, its nice to see a UKC consensus. Can we then go back to why the media and government has been so quick to focus on Islam and "terror" with scant mention, if any, of the role UK govt will have had in causing this? Where are the politicians saying, instead of "its time to move on from the Iraq war", this is the chooks coming home to roost?
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) Yes, if they said the bible told them to do it I think I would have to conclude they were, at least in part, religiously motivated.

I may be misreading nuance in this. But are you implying that they (Bush and Co.) didn't claim the bible told them to do it (Iraq, etc) but that the Woolwich murderers did? And that is the difference between there being a religious motivation and not being one?

> You haven't missed me saying there is no uk foreign policy motivation because I'm not claiming that.

That's comforting. I guess I find it conspicuous by its absence in the debate. Islam is the cause, Islam is the problem, no mention of UK foreign policy.
Sir Chasm - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: The BBC, Guardian and Times have run pieces looking at the effect of uk foreign policy in motivating terror attacks. Other media may have too but I'm sure you can google. If you're interested.
Coel Hellier - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> with scant mention, if any, of the role UK govt will have had in causing this?

There has, since 2001, been lots and lots and lots of discussion in the media of UK foreign policy and the sense and legitimacy of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
MG - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Are you religious?
Mr Lopez - on 30 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Mr Lopez) Why Christian?

Oh, you know, just a random generalisation based on his skin color, nationality, and some biblical references shouted while holding a head in his hand. Isn't that how it works?

David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to MG:

We seem to be reaching a middle ground. I wouldn't deny religion is part of the puzzle. I just don't think it should be the central focus of what happened. It is one of many factors, up there with all the other elements that lead to a teenager's undoing; falling in with the wrong crowd, believing a knife will solve a problem, failure to integrate, shortage of role-models and all the other pinko-lefty stuff. Saying "Islam is the problem" is the easy answer and as misleading as saying a shortage of guns in schools leaves kids open to massacre.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) The BBC, Guardian and Times have run pieces looking at the effect of uk foreign policy in motivating terror attacks.

Oh, c'mon. The occasional op-ed here and there does not make for a public examination of the root cause, no less the stated cause, of an attack.

Any sign of those architects and supporters of our post-9/11 foreign policy stepping on screen? Closer consideration of what "our boys" may have done?
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to David Martin) Are you religious?

Not in the slightest.
Don't know how that has an implication on the discussion though.
Sir Chasm - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: The root cause? Are you claiming the root cause is the uk's (or the west's in general) foreign policy? How far back are you going? Do you want to claim the Moors in Spain were reacting to uk foreign policy?
Coel Hellier - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> does not make for a public examination of the root cause, ... Any sign of those architects and supporters
> of our post-9/11 foreign policy

In talking about *the* root cause you are being too simplistic. All such things have a complex web of causes. It is indeed the case that British foreign policy is part of the causes, but not the case that it is "the root cause".

> Saying "Islam is the problem" is

Ditto. Any pointing at one thing as "the problem" is too simplistic. It is fair, though, to say that Islam is *a* problem (specifically Islamism).
Coel Hellier - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Do you want to claim the Moors in Spain were reacting to uk foreign policy?

Yep, it's all the fault of Richard Coeur de Lion!
Sir Chasm - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: Aye, he had no religious motivation either.
off-duty - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

I'm not sure anyone is saying Islam is the problem
What I am suggesting is that this was a terrorist act motivated by some extremist Islamic beliefs (caused no doubt by the radicalisation of the offenders by evil and misguided men).
The sad fact is that this route to radicalisation is paved by the agonised breast-thumping of those in the West who are happy to create a straight line between acts carried out by the west- which"must" be terrorist acts, and a "natural response" of terror attacks in the Uk and elsewhere.

I have heard some strident, forthright and admirable condemnations of the Woolwich attacks from a number of Muslims, but sadly a number from the left prefer to pander to the views of Choudhary, a position almost as distasteful as those from the right attempting to stereotype all Muslims by the actions of these two.
MG - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Not really. You seem convinced it's basically"our" fault and I don't accept that. I also think the religious aspect is central to the whole crime
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Only guesswork on my part, but I'd imagine they were mobilised by events of the last 10 to 20 year or so. No doubt that was healthy supported by every perceived injustice to their own since protozoa appeared on earth. But I wouldn't underestimate the ability of invasions by the most powerful militaries in the world against the least powerful, drones, carpet bombs, "shock and awe", and ever present hypocrisy to focus the minds of those who feel a little aggrieved.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to David Martin) Not really. You seem convinced it's basically"our" fault and I don't accept that. I also think the religious aspect is central to the whole crime

I wouldn't go as far as to say its our fault. These guys after all picked up the knives and chose to do what they did. To that extent fault lies entirely in their own central nervous systems.

But I don't think any of the events we've called terrorism in the UK would be happening if it weren't for the UK's involvement in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan. In that sense, I believe it is 100% our fault.

David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I'm no spokesman for the left, but I'd imagine most simply see this murder as that: a murder, little different from the more extreme murders that take place in this country every week.

To that extent, yes, some of us are less strident in our condemnation...when compared to the huge amount of condemnation that the media coverage has elicited. But that doesn't mean I'm less vocal about this murder than any other that occurs in the UK. Most pass without notice. Are you saying the Left isn't showing enough outrage? Or not enough relative to the perceived gravity of the act?
dissonance - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> But I don't think any of the events we've called terrorism in the UK would be happening if it weren't for the UK's involvement in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan. In that sense, I believe it is 100% our fault.

considering the USA was attacked several times before I am not sure you can say that with any surety.
off-duty - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> I'm no spokesman for the left, but I'd imagine most simply see this murder as that: a murder, little different from the more extreme murders that take place in this country every week.
>
> To that extent, yes, some of us are less strident in our condemnation...when compared to the huge amount of condemnation that the media coverage has elicited. But that doesn't mean I'm less vocal about this murder than any other that occurs in the UK. Most pass without notice. Are you saying the Left isn't showing enough outrage? Or not enough relative to the perceived gravity of the act?

The reaction to the attack from some on the left has been to deny the motivation of the attackers, to suggest that it is in fact a direct responsibility of the West's actions and to suggest that it is received wisdom that the West are terrorists too.

An argument that is less an echo, more a copy, of radicalising hate preachers like Choudary.

The actions of the West appear to be summarised in nice black and white simplicity, whilst the actions of the terrorists appear to be ascribed to a myriad of complex motives, excuses, justifications and explanations.
Sir Chasm - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin: Perceived injustice to their own? But the person who killed Lee Rigby was from the uk, not a country invaded by the uk, what could possibly have made him feel he had to defend injustices carried out in a far-off land to people he had no relation to?
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) Perceived injustice to their own? But the person who killed Lee Rigby was from the uk, not a country invaded by the uk, what could possibly have made him feel he had to defend injustices carried out in a far-off land to people he had no relation to?

What could possibly lead us to launch military operations against the Serbs or Libyan regime (to name just two) benefiting people in far off lands we have no relation to?

What we define as a community is not universal or static and perceived by people in different ways.
winhill - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> But I don't think any of the events we've called terrorism in the UK would be happening if it weren't for the UK's involvement in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan. In that sense, I believe it is 100% our fault.


Still hung up on this diversion about what "we've called terrorism", huh?

In the years 2006-2008 Europol listed over 1500 terror attacks in Europe. Of these only 6 were attributed to muslim extremists.

Why are you only arguing about whether 6 out of 1500 (99.6%) should be considered terrorism, where were you when you could have been complaining about the definition all those 1494 other times?

You seem to have an unhealthy obession with claiming that Islamic attacks are not terror, because foreign policy.
winhill - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Denni:

Jihadists don't need foreign policy as an excuse and jihad has been around for a bit longer than the last 10 years:

Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world. Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn't look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn't care about land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfil that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad.

Abul A'la Maududi
Founder, Jamaat-e-Islami Party (Pakistan)
Jihad in Islam, Speech, Lahore 1939
Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> Great, its nice to see a UKC consensus.

What consensus? Most don't agree with you if that's what you mean but it's not quite a consensus.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Are you really implying those who suggest a link to UK foreign policy are copying Choudary. This is partly why I opposed the over-use of the term "terrorism" to begin with. It creates a very permissive environment for these kinds of insinuations: Bearded man preaches support for terror attacks on the west, two individuals attack the west citing foreign policy, those who question foreign policy have unacceptable commonality with bearded man.

As to "denying" their motivation, if you are referring to "Islam", I don't think that has been the case. People just have different ideas of what Islam means in the context of the two guys involved, what claims they make to Islam, and how far their actions should be extended to a religion as a whole.

The actions of the West are indeed complex. We've been over some of them already, and when it came to Iraq I think there was a general acceptance of false fear of WMD, do-gooding, finishing off dad's work, etc etc. Some of our motives that end up killing Muslims are every bit as benevolent as those that aren't. The road to hell is paved with good intentions though and no matter how many factors we add, the bottom line is the invasion of Iraq led to upwards of 600,000 dead and upheaval on a grand scale. The end result is the same - "terror", regardless of us having built a few schools and water treatment plants here and there. Seems only fair that the murderers in this case should have all the factors in their attacks considered, with none ascribed more focus than it is due, with the end result still being "murder".
Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Martin) Perceived injustice to their own? But the person who killed Lee Rigby was from the uk, not a country invaded by the uk, what could possibly have made him feel he had to defend injustices carried out in a far-off land to people he had no relation to?

Here I can't agree, for someone who takes his islam seriously the world is divided into them and us, they are the non-muslims and we are those who submit to Allah and his teachings as revealed by Momo. Countries as we see them don't really matter much. All muslims are part of a world wide "Ummah", the nation of islam, and have a duty to stick together and fight for each other against the infidels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

That's what they believe.

David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to winhill:

> Why are you only arguing about whether 6 out of 1500 (99.6%) should be considered terrorism, where were you when you could have been complaining about the definition all those 1494 other times?

I'm not arguing about six. I'm arguing about one. I'm certainly not focussing on the Muslim ones. But to humour your question, I'm probably only interested in this one as the rest register barely a squeak in the media and from the government, elicit no duos of COBRA meetings, nor do they so conveniently (though many do) change the political focus so conveniently away from awkward domestic news.

> You seem to have an unhealthy obession with claiming that Islamic attacks are not terror, because foreign policy.
Errr, nope. Where did I say foreign policy motivated attacks can't be terror? I've been implying many foreign policy motivated attacks, Muslim ones no less, are terror attacks (7/7, 9/11 as prominent examples).

The centrality of foreign policy, in particular invasion and occupation, to terrorist attacks seems to have missed your attention. University of Chicago conducted a "Terrorism and Security" study not that long ago analysing suicide bombings worldwide since 1980. Some 95% were motivated by occupation with a 600% increase from 2004. Do you think instead we'd be better placed focusing on the role of Islam, rather than occupation, in such attacks?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> the invasion of Iraq led to upwards of 600,000 dead

The invasion of Iran by Iraq under Saddam Hussein led to 2 million dead.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Who is this "they" you refer to?
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yep, and there is no love lost between those countries as a result. Nor is the playing off of both sides by the US missed either.

Your point is?
Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Who is this "they" you refer to?

In the last line? Fairly clear I think, this is what muslims believe, assuming they follow their religion.

Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Yep, and there is no love lost between those countries as a result. Nor is the playing off of both sides by the US missed either.
>
> Your point is?

Dying in the area in recent times is not just down to Western intervention. These 2 million died because of Saddam Hussein, getting rid of him had some advantages. It would have been better if arms hadn't been sold to both sides before this war got under way but there is still some responsibility with Iraq for invading Iran.
Ridge - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>

> But I don't think any of the events we've called terrorism in the UK would be happening if it weren't for the UK's involvement in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan. In that sense, I believe it is 100% our fault.

I think that's a simplistic view. Following Sept 11 2001, I can clearly remember Messers Hamza, Choudary and their mates chanting 'Bomb, bomb USA, bomb, bomb UK' and various other f*ckwits threatening jihad. This was before the UN moved into Afg, and Iraq wasn't even a gleam in Bush and Blairs eyes.

It cerrtainly has a radicalising effect, but Islamic terrorism in the UK has been approaching for many years.
IainRUK - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Ridge: Totally agree.. It may not have helped but there was alreadya very credible threat and numerous bombings at overseas embassy's.. 9/11 was just a stage further in that US soil and huge casualties but the threat was very very real before.
dek - on 30 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Jihadists don't need foreign policy as an excuse and jihad has been around for a bit longer than the last 10 years:
>
> Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world. Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn't look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn't care about land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfil that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad.
>
> Abul A'la Maududi
> Founder, Jamaat-e-Islami Party (Pakistan)
> Jihad in Islam, Speech, Lahore 1939

That should be taught in every Non Islamic school. And used as a masthead on the Guardian, each time it prints sanctimonious shit, about the 'religion of peace'
Gudrun - on 30 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to David Martin)
> The reaction to the attack from some on the left has been to deny the motivation of the attackers, to suggest that it is in fact a direct responsibility of the West's actions and to suggest that it is received wisdom that the West are terrorists too.

Do you think they would have done it if we had not been casually murdering
Muslims the world over?

> An argument that is less an echo, more a copy, of radicalising hate preachers like Choudary.

Or perhaps it's neither of those and just the truth.

> The actions of the West appear to be summarised in nice black and white simplicity, whilst the actions of the terrorists appear to be ascribed to a myriad of complex motives, excuses, justifications and explanations.

Only on UkC i'd say since the motivation is quite clear.

The clue is that they murdered a British Soldier,who incidentally could have been a Muslim for all they knew so how can all of you say it was due to religion,when they didn't know what religion the soldier was?
off-duty - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Do you think they would have done it if we had not been casually murdering
> Muslims the world over?
>
> [...]
>
> Or perhaps it's neither of those and just the truth.
>

Over simplification leading to the chest-beating self flaggellation that paves the way for radicalisation.
QED.

Thanks.
>
> Only on UkC i'd say since the motivation is quite clear.
>
> The clue is that they murdered a British Soldier,who incidentally could have been a Muslim for all they knew so how can all of you say it was due to religion,when they didn't know what religion the soldier was?

Absolutely. Why bother using the obvious clues like what they said when we can invent a hypothesis around their selection of victim.
Gordon Stainforth - on 30 May 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>

> Perhaps a mixture of racist ideology and psychosis?
>

I'm not suggesting that Islamism isn't close to the heart of the problem, but that there's almost certainly a deeper problem here ... and your suggestion seems to me to be a more 'scientific' way of approaching the riddle. '-isms' don't explain much. I think always of Nietzsche's method, of looking for the reason that underlies a reason, and when you've found that, to look for the reason that underlies that reason ... Long before Freud, he discovered the notion of the Unconscious.
David Martin - on 30 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There are lots of different readings on a religion. Christians, if they follow the bible, would allow slavery, including selling their daughters as sex slaves (Exodus 21:1-11), permit child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and revel in bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Muslims, likewise secular or not, will not necessarily follow a literal reading of the Koran, no less the preachings of some individual.

Therefore, referring to "they" as all Muslims following a certain edict is far from accurate.
Gordon Stainforth - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

Since when was the Old Testament anything to do with Christianity?
Gudrun - on 30 May 2013
In reply to off-duty:

You really can be a bit strange and bewildering at times ...OFF !
One minute your saying-

> the actions of the terrorists appear to be ascribed to a myriad of complex motives, excuses, justifications and explanations.

Which presumes you disagree and think that it is not complex blah de blah.
Then you say-

> Over simplification leading to the chest-beating self flaggellation that paves the way for radicalisation.
QED.

So i'll trump your QED using a QED of your QED.
:)

> Absolutely. Why bother using the obvious clues like what they said when we can invent a hypothesis around their selection of victim.

Where is this invention?And there are "obvious clues" in what they said that point to our murder of Muslims in the middle East as the motive.

But more importantly why can't or won't you answer my two original questions?

Ps.The gun attack on your police comerades does not escape me BTW and i understand how angry you must feel about that.So if you can't answer because of that then i totally understand.
Bruce Hooker - on 30 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> There are lots of different readings on a religion. Christians, if they follow the bible, would allow slavery, including selling their daughters as sex slaves (Exodus 21:1-11), permit child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and revel in bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

This is nonsense, no main stream Christians propose such things which are from the Old Testament, this has been over-ridden by the Gospels which are Jesus's teachings. Jesus Christ - Christians, geddit?

> Muslims, likewise secular or not, will not necessarily follow a literal reading of the Koran, no less the preachings of some individual.

Islam doesn't have any structure equivalent to the Pope, the Catholicus or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, the main stream Sunnites fall back on the Koran and the Sunna and are tending more and more to a traditional interpretation of these - the very meaning of the word "Islam" is submission, submission to Allah and his teachings through the texts, any modernising tendency is very much on the down slide at present. Not all people who consider themselves muslims follow the rules strictly but few if any openly contest them - there has been no muslim reformation, and no structure which could consolidate a modernisation movement, which is why the religion is so dangerous and also such a powerful tool of combat - just as Christianity was back in the "good old days". In some ways the Alawite "heresy" could be seen as revision of islam but that's a different question, all of the recent attacks, Merah, Woolwich, Paris have been by people in a Sunni tendency AFAIK.

> Therefore, referring to "they" as all Muslims following a certain edict is far from accurate.

On this our opinions differ.

In reply to dek: Oh FFS, Maududi was a journalist not a cleric. He started a revolutionary party and made his name as a radical pamphleteer writing exactly that sort of stuff. So why would you want to teach the history and ideals of JI in schools unless you're trying to find them new members?
dissonance - on 31 May 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to David Martin)
>
> Since when was the Old Testament anything to do with Christianity?

when it suits.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> there has been no muslim reformation, and no structure which could consolidate a modernisation movement,

Seriously? I thought everyone got the memo about claiming this rubbish at least 10 years ago. What exactly is Islamism and the Salafi movement then?
Gordon Stainforth - on 31 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Nice answer.
off-duty - on 31 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> You really can be a bit strange and bewildering at times ...OFF !
> One minute your saying-
>
> the actions of the terrorists appear to be ascribed to a myriad of complex motives, excuses, justifications and explanations.

>
> Which presumes you disagree and think that it is not complex blah de blah.
> Then you say-
> Over simplification leading to the chest-beating self flaggellation that paves the way for radicalisation.
> QED.

>
> So i'll trump your QED using a QED of your QED.
> :)
>

First, I don't think you understand the meaning of QED.
Second I'll reproduce my first quote in full :-
The actions of the West appear to be summarised in nice black and white simplicity, whilst the actions of the terrorists appear to be ascribed to a myriad of complex motives, excuses, justifications and explanations.

I've highlighted the key word. I am suggesting that there is a contrast between the level of scrutiny that is being given to the actions of one "side" relative to the other.

>
> Where is this invention?And there are "obvious clues" in what they said that point to our murder of Muslims in the middle East as the motive.
>

If your suggestion is that UK foreign policy (or at least a radicalised view of it) is one of the motivating factors of this incidents then I tend to agree with you.
However my argument was more with those who suggest that this is the sole motivating feature and religion is not a factor.

> But more importantly why can't or won't you answer my two original questions?
>

Q1 :Do you think they would have done it if we had not been casually murdering
Muslims the world over?

We have not been "casually murdering Muslims". We have certainly not been doing it "the world over". Do I think that crass oversimplifications of a number of conflicts coupled with a facile link to the religion of the victims being a factor has contributed to this incident?
Yes - that's how radicalisation works.

Q2: how can all of you say it was due to religion,when they didn't know what religion the soldier was?

Because the rant of the alleged murderer included : -

"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers."
"By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone."
"So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands"
"Through many passages in the (Arabic) Koran we must fight them as they fight us."

The alleged murderer was clearly self identifying as a Muslim, as well as suggesting that British foreign policy was targetting "his" religion and hence this was his retaliation.
I daresay that their selection of a white soldier was likely to be to avoid targetting a Muslim, a similar lazy stereotyping as that practiced by the EDL.


> Ps.The gun attack on your police comerades does not escape me BTW and i understand how angry you must feel about that.So if you can't answer because of that then i totally understand.

I think the firearms cops at the scene dealt with that fairly well, despite the obvious pressures they would have been under at the thought of the repurcussions of pulling the trigger, leaving aside any threats to their own lives.
I'm more concerned that I must have missed your post expressing shock/sympathy/outrage at the murder of Lee Rigby, a sentiment that appears to have been expressed by everyone including those who disagree with Western foreign policy.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 31 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> Seriously? I thought everyone got the memo about claiming this rubbish at least 10 years ago. What exactly is Islamism and the Salafi movement then?

It's a conservative movement, a return to basics muslim style. But you know that, shirley?

"The Salafi movement, also known as the Salafist movement, is a movement among Sunni Muslims named by its proponents in reference to the Salaf ("predecessors" or "ancestors"), the earliest Muslims considered to be examples of Islamic practice."
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> It's a conservative movement, a return to basics muslim style. But you know that, shirley?

No, you misunderstand it rather fundamentally. It was revolutionary not conservative, because it rejected the structures of Sunni Islamic practice as they existed a century and a half or so ago, that the leading figures saw as weighed down with cultural and political baggage of those who ruled over Muslim countries. The early Islamist thinkers were actually 'liberal' in some ways but felt purity in religion would be the way to lead Muslims out of western domination and into modernity within their own terms. In some ways the revolutionary questioning of the structures of power and the religious puritanism remained as the 'liberal' aspects dropped away, but I'm sure Gudrun will be happy to hear you can probably blame western imperialism for that.

Al-Afghani didn't actually nail any theses to the doors of al-Azhar, but short of that I would imagine the parallels are pretty bloody clear.
Bruce Hooker - on 31 May 2013
In reply to TobyA:

It's still basically a backward looking movement, a return to mythical purer times, in no way can it be seen as a progressive trend towards a more liberal interpretation of islam, considering the founding texts to be just a basis shaped by the values of the time and moving forward towards more liberal, modern values... so not a reformation, a reactionary movement.

I've seen reforming muslims and they have written numerous books but at present just staying alive for them is tricky in their own countries and in exile they have few followers. I can't give any names, they just come on TV from time to time, usually when they've written a new book, but however well intentioned they may be I don't, myself, see the point, islam is so rotten in it's basic texts that reforming it seems a waste of time, better drop it altogether.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> so not a reformation, a reactionary movement.

How can a reformation not be reactionary? Just as Luther was reacting against complacency and corruption within the Catholic church, so were thinkers like al-Afghani, Rida and Abduh reacting against and wanting to reform the mainstream Sunni Islam of their time. If you don't understand this you can't understand how it mutated through people like Qutb into the revolutionary idea it has become for some like al Qaeda.
Bruce Hooker - on 01 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> If you don't understand this you can't understand...

See, you're up to it again, trying to blind us with your science, but missing by a mile. Obviously you can put any meaning you want on a word if that's what turns you on but it's a dishonest method of arguing. "Reactionary" means reacting back against something but is normally used to describe backward, conservative movements to forward progressive changes. Again what is backward of forward depends on your point of view but there are majority views on this.

The French Revolution is usually seen as progressive in historical terms, as is the progression to republicanism and democracy, in such a context the "reaction" refers to conservative attempts to restore the old regime, the power of the church etc. In Britain the fall of the monarchy and the Civil War which saw the victory of Parliamentary forces is usually seen as progressive - it led to the world's first major democratic country, the establishment of a parliamentary system. What some call the "Glorious Revolution" was a reactionary, conservative move to restore the monarchy, which didn't stop people calling it a revolution even though it was not historically progressive. History being history the overall result was outside these clichés and although the form was reactionary, backward the underlying movement to democracy was not lost and most would say the overall result was progress.

So although a revolution is usually progressive it can also be used to mean any major social change, a form of spin - another example is the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran, a major change but to impose what many of us would see as a conservative move, on the other hand the complexity of history also allows others to see behind the apparent, and real, backward nature of the regime that followed there is also the progressive movement that Iran breaking with it's neo-colonial domination - as personified by the Shah.

Words can be used in various ways but it's not the word that counts it's the sense of the events being considered, and failure to "understand" is not the same as having a different opinion. Your opinions are clear, you should have listened more to your Mother, nowadays you support forces which are not progressive whereas she, and you apparently back then, did the opposite in the days of the anti-apartheid movement... It's not that you don't "understand", it's that you have changed your political opinions.

As Syria is in the news at present I wonder if you will have your road to Damascus one day, for your Mother's sake, "Toby, why art thou kicking against the pricks?"

In reply to Bruce Hooker: that was a jolly long post just to throw out some personal insults. But it is notable that you don't engage on the actual issue. Seriously, just read a good book on the history of Islamism and you'll see what I mean.
dale1968 - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
>islam is so rotten in it's basic texts that reforming it seems a waste of time, better drop it altogether.
You might have a bit of support here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10094007/Tony-Blair-Woolwich-attack-shows...

Bimble on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to dale1968:


I'm sure his illegal armed forays into Muslim countries really helped reduce radicalisation. Oh...
dale1968 - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to TryfAndy: He did send in the troops to save Muslims from Christians, all conveniently forgotten...
David Martin - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Its pretty easy to forget, if not ignore, in light of Iraq.
Coel Hellier - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Blair: "there is a problem within Islam - from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it ... at the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists ... by and large we don't admit it".

It would have been helpful if Blair had said such things while in power, instead of parroting the "nothing to do with Islam" line at every terrorist attack. It would also have been better if he had not pursued an open-door policy to any Islamic radicals who could claim "persecution" elsewhere, plus a visa policy that gave preference to anyone (e.g., from Pakistan) coming here to preach Islam (leading to many radical preachers coming here), plus a policy of giving government funding to quite extreme Islamic groups (on the grounds that engagement with them was the best policy).

Then of course there was his promotion of "faith" schools, the idea that it's good to segregate British children according to the religion of their parents. And that's without mentioning the effects of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bruce Hooker - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) that was a jolly long post just to throw out some personal insults. But it is notable that you don't engage on the actual issue. Seriously, just read a good book on the history of Islamism and you'll see what I mean.

No insults there, although I realise that disagreeing with you already counts in your book... as for reading books about the history of islam, I've read several, and I'm reading one now.... I notice that you don't "engage the actual issue" either, just take Donald's line that if one disagrees with you it's down to ignorance.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: you said I was "dishonest", and accused me of trying to "blind you with science" for actually talking about the issues under discussion. And I suggested a book about Islamism, not Islam, there's a difference you know. Going back, you said Islamism is a conservative philosophy, I was trying to explain that it actually began as a revolutionary reaction to the mainstream so the opposite to conservative. You don't seem to believe this though, more it would seem because you don't like to admit you don't know everything than anything else. And please feel free to take that as insult if you wish.
Coel Hellier - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> Going back, you said Islamism is a conservative philosophy, I was trying to explain that it actually began
> as a revolutionary reaction to the mainstream so the opposite to conservative.

I think you're reading too much into loosely defined words in arguing that. The words "Islamism", "conservative", "revolutionary", "reactionary" and "mainstream" are all somewhat vague, and I don't agree that anything that is a "reaction" to a "mainstream" cannot also be "conservative". I think I'll agree with Bruce that you're using a word smokescreen to avoid the main issues.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> and I don't agree that anything that is a "reaction" to a "mainstream" cannot also be "conservative".

I think you are mixing the politics of European/N. American "conservative parties" with the rather self explanatory meaning of the adjective "conservative". Of course a reaction to the mainstream, even something revolutionary, can be right-wing, but what is being conserved or alternatively challenged by an ideology is obviously context specific. Early protestants might have been fundamentalist Christians in some ways, but they obviously weren't conservative in any way for Catholicism.

Bruce said there "there has been no muslim reformation", I said that this is to completely misunderstand Islamism and Salafism. It's just the facts of what happened - who wrote what, when. It doesn't make current Islamist practice and parties any less anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minorities etc. The fact remains that al-Afghani, Rida and the other writers who founded modern Islamism were reacting against mainstream Sunni Islam at the time. They wanted revolutionary reform in their societies. In Shia Islam the nearest intellectual comparison is of course Khomenei, and he was arguably more successful as a revolutionary!

Bruce Hooker - on 02 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) you said I was "dishonest",

That's not an insult, it's a statement of fact concerning some of your posts - hoodwinking, confusing and bamboozling is dishonest.

> And I suggested a book about Islamism, not Islam, there's a difference you know.

And the history of islam doesn't include the history of Islamism, and Islamism is a word that is clearly defined and used in the same way by all?

> Going back, you said Islamism is a conservative philosophy,

It is, it's a return to the original spirit of islam, in the minds of it's fans anyway.

> I was trying to explain that it actually began as a revolutionary reaction to the mainstream so the opposite to conservative.

Which is inexact for the reasons I've given twice now (at least).

> You don't seem to believe this though,

I don't because it's an erroneous political interpretation.

> more it would seem because you don't like to admit you don't know everything than anything else.

I don't know everything, I just give opinions, I don't claim to bring enlightenment from anywhere.

> And please feel free to take that as insult if you wish.

I don't take it as an insult, and wouldn't even if it were true, you are welcome to your opinions but it's a pity you don't realise that they are opinions, and often rather dubious ones too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> hoodwinking, confusing and bamboozling is dishonest.

It's called the facts. I've given you the names of some well respected academic authors who have written about this. This is just something I happen to know about having studied it a lot in the past. I'm sorry if you find it bamboozling - here's a good brief intro to the characters involved and their ideas http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/02/modern-islamic-muhammad-steps
Tim Chappell - on 03 Jun 2013
I'm only going to comment on this thread once.

I have to say I find it a bit distasteful that this unpleasant murder has been seized on by the usual UKC zealots as evidence for their pet theories.

Lunatics have always abounded. Once upon a time they justified their atrocious behaviour by reference to socialist ideology; nowadays they do it by reference to Islamist ideology.

This doesn't show that religion itself is either true or false, good or bad, beneficial or pernicious. (How could it? "Religion itself" is none of those things; different versions of religion are all of them.)

The really sad thing about Lee Rigby's murder, if you ask me, is not how much it proves, but how little.
Gudrun - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Q1 :Do you think they would have done it if we had not been casually murdering
Muslims the world over?

> We have not been "casually murdering Muslims".
A million dead in recent years,we invade,bomb,use drones,terrorize,massacre,gang rape,blockade medicine if that is not significant then i dont know WT_ is!

> We have certainly not been doing it "the world over".

Oh right yeah just in Libya,Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Yemen,Somalia as well as all the other indirect cases.
> Do I think that crass oversimplifications of a number of conflicts coupled with a facile link to the religion of the victims being a factor has contributed to this incident?
> Yes - that's how radicalisation works.

Unbelievable rubbish!

> The alleged murderer was clearly self identifying as a Muslim, as well as suggesting that British foreign policy was targetting "his" religion and hence this was his retaliation.

He said nothing of the sort he said they were killing Muslims not attacking their religion.

> I daresay that their selection of a white soldier was likely to be to avoid targetting a Muslim, a similar lazy stereotyping as that practiced by the EDL.

Bullocks!
They attacked a British soldier because of our murder of Muslims in their own contries by the hundred thousands.

Look can't you get it into your head that when a certain axis of countries goes anywhere and commits all sorts of horrific crimes continuously, doing what it wants because it *is* the law,accountable to no one.Then victim nations and peoples will look to alternative ways to do something to stop this mob from doing what they want.If extremist Islamism is all there is left to fight the invaders and murderers then what on gods earth do you expect them to do?it's simple...
We drive people to extremist Islamism and horrific acts like the tragic death of this young man.
When a crime is committed and the criminals are free to keep doing it,over and over and over again without being held to account then no justice is done.When no justice is done by so called international law then it becomes a sham,of no use to the victims.Where can they then find justice?
Who will stand up against the axis that continually bombs and attacks Muslim countries for oil and geopolitical shenanigans that are nothing to do with them.
How terrified would you be if your village or nieghbours were bombed by a drone?That is terrorism,in fact as Chomsky said at least Bush tortured and imprisoned people,Obama doesn't waste time with that he just has them murdered with no trial or anything.What sort of radical extremism is that called?
Oh and i acknowledged the tradgedy of the soldiers death further up although what that has to do with you i don't know,or is this in your On-Duty mode now,policing UKC are we?
MJ - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Question to you and maybe others: -

If Osama Bin Laden was still alive today, would he in retrospect think the 911 attacks were a good thing or not?
dissonance - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

> A million dead in recent years,we invade,bomb,use drones,terrorize,massacre,gang rape,blockade medicine if that is not significant then i dont know WT_ is!

The problem with this argument is the vast majority have been killed by other Muslims from competing sects.
Bruce Hooker - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I've given you the names of some well respected academic authors who have written about this.

But why don't you try giving your own arguments in your own words? Quoting, linking, copying and pasting has it's uses but also it's limits.
Bruce Hooker - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Lunatics have always abounded. Once upon a time they justified their atrocious behaviour by reference to Christianity, socialist ideology; nowadays they do it by reference to Islamist ideology.

Funny how you always forget the most obvious one :-)

Secondly, just calling them lunatics is not particularly useful if we want to deal with the situation. For normal people all criminals, especially violent ones, seem like lunatics but most legal systems make a difference between them.

Bruce Hooker - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> Question to you and maybe others: -
>
> If Osama Bin Laden was still alive today, would he in retrospect think the 911 attacks were a good thing or not?

I think he would consider them to have been a success beyond his wildest dreams.... Ever since the "war between civilisations" has been thriving and there's hardly a country in the Middle East or the N Africa which is just quietly beavering away to create a happy and prosperous way of life for it's inhabitants, everywhere is war, conflict and polarisation around radical islam. What better could he have expected from a single act?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> But why don't you try giving your own arguments in your own words?

I don't have an "argument" just like I don't have an "argument" on who holds the world record in the high jump, or which planet is closest to the earth.

I tried explaining the well known historical facts to you, but you accused me of trying to 'blind you with science' and 'bamboozle' you. Hence I suggested you read a good book which can hopefully explain it better than I can.
Coel Hellier - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I think you are mixing the politics of European/N. American "conservative parties" with the rather
> self explanatory meaning of the adjective "conservative".

And words can mean quite a bit more than their literal meaning, and I think you're taking way too narrow an interpretation of that one. "Opposed to any and all change" might fit the literal word, but is not what "conservative" actually means.

And reactionary responses to mainstream liberalisation can quite properly be called "conservative".
Coel Hellier - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Lunatics have always abounded. Once upon a time they justified their atrocious behaviour by
> reference to socialist ideology; nowadays they do it by reference to Islamist ideology.

Yet another person trying to downplay the role of religion. You are entirely right that other ideologies -- any ideology that places itself above all other considerations -- can be just as bad. Some religious sects are good examples, so are totalitarian communist ideologies (or totalitarian anything ideologies).

None of that avoids the fact that currently radical Islamism is one of those totalitarian ideologies that need opposing.

> This doesn't show that religion itself is either true or false, good or bad, beneficial or pernicious.
> (How could it? "Religion itself" is none of those things; different versions of religion are all of them.)

Good, you accept that some versions of religion can be bad and pernicious. That has been my main point on this thread, countering the widespread notion that religion is always good, and thus anything bad is "not religion" or "nor true religion".

One symptom of the "religion is always good" meme is that religions get "charitable" tax exemption, even the bad and pernicious ones.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And reactionary responses to mainstream liberalisation can quite properly be called "conservative".

Yes, I completely agree - but again that's contextual. We were discussing a very particular intellectual movement here; and what Islamism and Salafism are today is a result of how they began - as a completely new attempt at changing and reforming Islam.

Coel Hellier - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> We were discussing a very particular intellectual movement here; and what Islamism and Salafism are
> today is a result of how they began - as a completely new attempt at changing and reforming Islam.

On Salafism yes, but not so sure on Islamism. It seems to me that "Islamism" is a Western-created word that applies to several different strands within Islam, and is not associated only with one specific strand of Islam. For example there are both Shia and Sunni factions that can be called "Islamist".
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> For example there are both Shia and Sunni factions that can be called "Islamist".

Yes, although if I remember correctly Khomeini was close to Maududi (checking in Wikipedia, it actually says the former translated the latter's works into Persian!). I don't know a lot about political developments within modern Shi'ism, but it seems that the political dimension of the Islamic (as opposed to the Marxist) side of the Iranian revolution must have been significantly influenced by the anti-colonialism of (Sunni) Islamism, particularly if Khomeini and Maududi were close.
Bruce Hooker - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> I tried explaining the well known historical facts to you..

Well no, you didn't, you gave your opinion, which I countered with arguments and examples, then you just fell back on giving names of people you say said the same thing as you... it's true these are not really arguments, as I could give you the name of a book I'm reading at present which doesn't see things as you do, it's by Albert Hourani, which isn't an argument either.

You are simply insisting that a movement which is essentially backward looking is revolutionary, and that's it - it's more about abusing words then discussing the subject seriously.

> which can hopefully explain it better than I can.

They certainly couldn't do worse, you don't even try to explain and justify your point of view, you take the somewhat arrogant position that your views are "facts" so need no defending. It might do in front of a group of young students you lectured (maybe) but it won't do on a discussion forum.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> of a book I'm reading at present which doesn't see things as you do, it's by Albert Hourani, which isn't an argument either.

Which one? "A History of the Arab Peoples"?

> You are simply insisting that a movement which is essentially backward looking is revolutionary, and that's it - it's more about abusing words then discussing the subject seriously.

If so, go to pages 304 to 308 (faber and faber 2005 edition) and read the section "The culture of reform" in Chp 18, about Afghani, Abduh and Rida. Hourani makes exactly the point I was trying to recount above.
Bruce Hooker - on 03 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> If so, go to pages 304 to 308 (faber and faber 2005 edition) and read the section "The culture of reform" in Chp 18, about Afghani, Abduh and Rida. Hourani makes exactly the point I was trying to recount above.

Yes it's that book, and a recommendable cheap one from Amazon too, but the only similarity in Chapter 18 to this discussion is the word "reform"! It is about the way Islamic scholars and politicians tried to come to terms with the decline of the Islamic world, in particular the Ottoman empire, compared to the West... in other places in the book he refers to the efforts of some to return to earlier Islamic values, Wahhabism and salifism, although he doesn't actually use the word, he explains it's origins - the term "salafiyya", the "pious ancestors" who are said to have transmitted the essential doctrines of Islam (P308).

Any movement, even one which at that time hadn't perhaps become such a reality as they have now, which makes references to such a return to old values is hardly the same as a reformation which enabled the emergence of the enlightenment, humanism and modern secularism as the Christian reformation did. It was an attempt at changing the ways in Muslim society of the times but in a conservative way, it didn't in any way challenge the basic tenants and often called for a return to sharia law. Not exactly progress. These movements were against those who proposed adopting Western methods and values, democracy, industrialisation, nationalism in an attempt to reverse the decline of the Ottoman empire.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Any movement, even one which at that time hadn't perhaps become such a reality as they have now, which makes references to such a return to old values is hardly the same as a reformation which enabled the emergence of the enlightenment, humanism and modern secularism as the Christian reformation did.

The European reformation also led to over 100 years of religious wars, massacre and persecution.

> These movements were against those who proposed adopting Western methods and values, democracy, industrialisation, nationalism in an attempt to reverse the decline of the Ottoman empire.

They were against Western colonialism; but not necessarily against all other western ideals - Afghani got called a "liberal" when he was studying in Britain after all.

Just like Luther saw the Catholic church as corrupted and straying from the 'pure' religion of Christianity, so did the early Islamists with Islam. They believed that by looking to the salaf - those first generations of followers, they could strip away all the superstition and custom that had accumulated around the religion. And from that 'pure' vision they could then rebuild it in order for muslims to be part of the modern world. The revolutionary idea was (like Luther) that they, and all Muslims, could interpret their religion for themselves (ijtihad) - that attacked the authority of the established clergy, not so dissimilar from the translation of the bible into English or other local languages. But it also sowed the seeds for modern revolutionary or jihadi salafism, because the ultimate outcome is that bin Laden could argue that his world view was valid, and people would follow him.


winhill - on 04 Jun 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
> Blair: "there is a problem within Islam - from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it ... at the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists ... by and large we don't admit it".

This has been his line for quite a long time, perhaps more explict, not that different to Cameron saying it's a 'betrayal of Islam'.

The problems go way further back than Blair though, the first wave of large scale jihadi immigration goes back to 1971 after the Bangladesh war of Independence - the same guys who are in the news now for war crimes in that conflict. Coincidentally, followers of Maududi and Jamaat e Islami and now running the Islamic Forum of Europe and Tower Hamlets.

The Islamic revolution in Iran inspired a new generation who went off to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Rushdie affair further consolidated them (unopposed under Thatcher's watch) and the nascent Islamic identity politics, then other hotspots around europe in the 1990s.

Iraq and Afghanistan only moved the UK up the jihadists target play list but they'd been operating in the UK for over 30 years by then.

Most of the players of the Rushdie affair who moved onto the IFE and MCB distance themselves from the actual events now but not the rise in islamist identity politcs, when the most marked change after Rushdie was a huge rise in islamist attacks on Jewish targets in the UK.

In fact the islamists moved onto the attack, after years of attacks the jews formed the Community Security Trust in 1994 to protect themselves from the violence, the islamists replied by introducing the notion of Islamophobia via the Runnymede Commission in 1997. Thus ignoring the violence they were causing and claiming victimhood, just as the narrative now is that UK muslims are somehow victims of foreign policy and therefore justified in attacking the UK.
In reply to winhill:
> the islamists replied by introducing the notion of Islamophobia via the Runnymede Commission in 1997.

How exactly? It's some time since I read the report and I don't have my own copy - but that's a strong claim.
Rob Exile Ward on 04 Jun 2013
In reply to winhill: This is entirely anecdotal and I'm frustrated that I can't remember more details, but I remember a friend of my Dad's - a child pyschologist associated with the Midlands education service - saying that his fear for the future was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, though he may not have called it that at the time. Being a good lefty/hippy I dismissed his concerns as vaguely racist.

That would have been in 1971 - 72, something like that.
Bruce Hooker - on 04 Jun 2013
In reply to TobyA:

> The European reformation also led to over 100 years of religious wars, massacre and persecution.

No one said that history was a smooth road to progress, and in the case of the religious wars wasn't it the Catholic church using violence to supress change rather than the other way around? Certainly concerning Britain it was the Pope who called on "all Christian countries" to invade "heretic England", both during the reign of Henry VIII and Elisabeth I, then even under James I and the gunpowder plot... an aggressivity that was returned later on admittedly.

Maybe the ideas in the head of the founders of Salifism and Wahhabism didn't have this in mind - who knows what's in someone's head? - but the resulting movements can hardly be seen as progressive, can they? They may have challenged the existing dominant order in the Muslim world, this was already in a state of crisis and decline anyway, but they did this in a way which returned to the much older ways, not in proposing a form of Islam that would fit in to the progress that humanity outside Islam has achieved. All change is not for the better.

Concerning the "Reformation", I'm not a defender of Protestantism or the C of E as such but it's hard to deny that the result of the changes that have taken place has taken the Western world from the Inquisition and burning heretics at the stake and also divine right monarchy and centralised feudal sates to the industrial revolution and the scientific progress that gave us the world we have today. In the Islamic world no such progress has taken place (overall before you cite Singapore or similar) and despite the billions of petro-dollars available the Middle East and the Muslim world in general is hardly a haven of prosperity, peace and scientific and cultural innovation for most of it's peoples.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> No one said that history was a smooth road to progress, and in the case of the religious wars wasn't it the Catholic church using violence to supress change rather than the other way around?

Not in the case of the German Peasant War, they went beyond what Luther believed if I remember correctly - but anyway of course it was about politics, power and class as well as religion.


> Maybe the ideas in the head of the founders of Salifism and Wahhabism

Wahhabism is a very different issue to the early Salafists and Islamists. Wahhab was a cleric who just hitched his wagon very successfully to the rising house of Saud and basically had his ultra-conservative and repressive view of Islam made into the state religion of Saudi Arabia.

Coel Hellier - on 04 Jun 2013
In reply to the thread:

More evidence that this crime had nothing at all to do with religion:

"Michael Adebolajo appeared in court ... held the Koran throughout ... held his hands aloft and closed his eyes before kissing the Koran."

"... instructed the court to address him as Mujahid Abu Hamza." ("mujahid" = "one who struggles for the sake of Allah and Islam")

Anjem Choudary:

"I knew him [Adebolajo] for a number of years. Mujahid was a very nice man in fact. He attended lectures, went to demonstrations. "

"As far as they are concerned, I believe they were doing what they believed to be Islamically correct. ..."

"“Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’

“So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he [Lee Rigby] dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire. That’s what I believe so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.”

ads.ukclimbing.com

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.