Was the killing in Woolwich murder or part of the war?
- Thread starter Brainaddict
- Start date
1%er
Well-Known Member
Time will tell, I hope you are correct
I'd be surprised if it doesn't inspire others.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
That was about 911 though, wasn't it? Unless he's been using it more recently about this.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Prof scolari said so in 1984. My book is upstairs. I'll find it later. Promise.I'll need to see your footnotes for that, professor
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Guess they will be a bit upset when the public call for a crusade and ethnic cleansing
. People tend to meet violence with violence.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Was that the case with the IRA when they brought the war to the mainland?Guess they will be a bit upset when the public call for a crusade and ethnic cleansing
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
And who fights a war on terror!!!!
Hollis
bloody furious
People in nice green khaki jackets on one side, people wearing jeans and other funny clothes on the other.
1%er
Well-Known Member
There is a war, the USA and others declared "a global war on terrorism", I'm not sure that is a war against Islam.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
]
Don't remember any public opinion calling for surrender. Lots of people spouting off about letting the SAS off the leash though.
Getting out of Afghanistan would be popular ,but, that's happening anyway.
The tube bombs changed nothing neither will this.
1%er
Well-Known Member
I know there was a lot of anti-Irish shit going on, but i can't remember ever hearing about someone being killed for being Irish.]
Don't remember any public opinion calling for surrender. Lots of people spouting off about letting the SAS off the leash though.
Getting out of Afghanistan would be popular ,but, that's happening anyway.
The tube bombs changed nothing neither will this.
I'm not sure one attack will change much, but if it become a sustained attack it will.
This is the least sophisticated attack I have ever hear of, it shows how easy it is. No need to build bombs, just go to the kitchen and take what you need. Not attacking "civilians" was a clever move.
My view is this could be a real game changer, but I hope I am wrong.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
these guys have the potential to capture the imagination of their young fellow inclined, particularly after the long series of almost comical blunders . In an atmosphere of media enforced reverence for the armed forces plainly killing one or more will guarantee headlines way over and above the time and effort it took to carry out the plot . A few lightbulbs could well go off in heads here, and their public call for the use of firearms and the like reinforces the at war message . I doubt weve heard the last of this .
I'm afraıd you're rıght.
The obvıous tactıc for those we have made our enemıes ıs to ''brıng the war home'' ... to US.
It worked for the IRA after all.
The ever-prescıent Slavoj Zızek addressed thıs ıssue effectıvely more than 10 years ago, usıng Agamben's concept of Homo Sacer to tellıng effect:
''This paradox is inscribed into the very notion of a ‘war on terror’ – a strange war in which the enemy is criminalised if he defends himself and returns fire with fire. Which brings me back to the ‘unlawful combatant’, who is neither enemy soldier nor common criminal. The al-Qaida terrorists are not enemy soldiers, nor are they simple criminals – the US rejected out of hand any notion that the WTC attacks should be treated as apolitical criminal acts. In short, what is emerging in the guise of the Terrorist on whom war is declared is the unlawful combatant, the political Enemy excluded from the political arena.
This is another aspect of the new global order: we no longer have wars in the old sense of a conflict between sovereign states in which certain rules apply (to do with the treatment of prisoners, the prohibition of certain weapons etc). Two types of conflict remain: struggles between groups of homo sacer – ‘ethnic-religious conflicts’ which violate the rules of universal human rights, do not count as wars proper, and call for a ‘humanitarian pacifist’ intervention on the part of the Western powers – and direct attacks on the US or other representatives of the new global order, in which case, again, we do not have wars proper, but merely ‘unlawful combatants’ resisting the forces of universal order. In this second case, one cannot even imagine a neutral humanitarian organisation like the Red Cross mediating between the warring parties, organising an exchange of prisoners and so on, because one side in the conflict – the US-dominated global force – has already assumed the role of the Red Cross, in that it does not perceive itself as one of the warring sides, but as a mediating agent of peace and global order, crushing rebellion and, simultaneously, providing humanitarian aid to the ‘local population’.''
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n10/slavoj-zizek/are-we-in-a-war-do-we-have-an-enemy
''This paradox is inscribed into the very notion of a ‘war on terror’ – a strange war in which the enemy is criminalised if he defends himself and returns fire with fire. Which brings me back to the ‘unlawful combatant’, who is neither enemy soldier nor common criminal. The al-Qaida terrorists are not enemy soldiers, nor are they simple criminals – the US rejected out of hand any notion that the WTC attacks should be treated as apolitical criminal acts. In short, what is emerging in the guise of the Terrorist on whom war is declared is the unlawful combatant, the political Enemy excluded from the political arena.
This is another aspect of the new global order: we no longer have wars in the old sense of a conflict between sovereign states in which certain rules apply (to do with the treatment of prisoners, the prohibition of certain weapons etc). Two types of conflict remain: struggles between groups of homo sacer – ‘ethnic-religious conflicts’ which violate the rules of universal human rights, do not count as wars proper, and call for a ‘humanitarian pacifist’ intervention on the part of the Western powers – and direct attacks on the US or other representatives of the new global order, in which case, again, we do not have wars proper, but merely ‘unlawful combatants’ resisting the forces of universal order. In this second case, one cannot even imagine a neutral humanitarian organisation like the Red Cross mediating between the warring parties, organising an exchange of prisoners and so on, because one side in the conflict – the US-dominated global force – has already assumed the role of the Red Cross, in that it does not perceive itself as one of the warring sides, but as a mediating agent of peace and global order, crushing rebellion and, simultaneously, providing humanitarian aid to the ‘local population’.''
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n10/slavoj-zizek/are-we-in-a-war-do-we-have-an-enemy
The scary thıng ıs, ıt only takes a few more attacks lıke thıs one--say 4 or 5 over the next year--to provıde the perfect excuse for endıng cıvıl lıbertıes as we have hıtherto understood them.
How unlıkely ıs ıt that 4 or 5 other such attacks wıll take place, ıf we contınue slaughterıng people throughout the Muslım World?
Who's the Deputy Fırst Mınıster of Northern Ireland?
Phew. That's alrıght then.
I was worrıed for a second, but I feel much better now.
Serıously... do you really not see how you have been forced ınto takıng thıs posıtıon? A posıtıon whıch you must know ıs manıfestly absurd.
No.
The West's support for Israel ıs not ın the ratıonal self-ınterest of the West.
The ratıonal thıng for the West to do would be to support the Arabs ın theır dıspute wıth Israel, because ıt ıs the Arabs who have the oıl.
The West's support for Israel has cost ıt dearly for decades, and now threatens to unleash war on the streets of Western cıtıes.
So why does the West support Israel?
The power of the Israelı lobby ıs obvıously one reason. The Israelı lobby ıs by far the most powerful ın DC. But even that power ıs ınsuffıcıent to explaın the West's support for Israel.
In my vıew the true reason must be sought ın theology. The sudden, rapıd rıse of Chrıstıan Zıonısm ın the southern states of the USA ıs an especıally sıgnıfıcant straw ın the wınd.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I think it probably was at least seen as an act of war by the assailants involved.
They certainly only targeted the uniformed soldier, and apparently made no attempt at all to attack the large crowd of civilians that gathered around them prior to the police arriving.
The article in the Guardian today stating that one of the attackers had been rounded up and tortured/abused while in Kenya, then repeatedly harassed by MI5 to try to force him into becoming an MI5 snout certainly puts a bit of a different perspective on things for me compared to the previous impression that they'd been entirely home grown, with no personal grievances etc.
I'd have a lot more respect for them if they'd targeted the decision makers in parliament rather than the people who're left to implement their policies on the ground mind, but they definitely acted in a very different way to the 7/7 bombers or other terrorists who've deliberately targeted the public.
1%er
Well-Known Member
It is a case of easy target.
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
Its war if you want it to be. 9/11 was regarded by the US as an act of war when it could be viewed as a terrorist incident that achieved its objective(to kill as many people as possible with max. publicity) as did the Woolwich murder who's objective appears to have been to kill a single soldier with max publicity. In the 70s the UK government(iirc))tended to treat IRA terrorists as common criminals in order not to elevate them to the status of 'combatants'. So I guess its up to governments as to whether they regard terrorists as enemy combatants or common criminals as they wish. The general public can view it how they wish. Imho its just murder & the perpetrators are criminals but others wil hold different views.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I'm sure it is.
TBH one thing that's really struck me about this generation of supposed terrorists is their general ineptitude, and the shite tactics and methods they use.
One IRA cell could result in a months long bombing campaign, and in their time the IRA hit the hotel that most of the cabinet were staying in, downing street, and the MI6 building.
This lot are one shot wonders, as the cell almost always kill themselves / hang around to be killed or arrested afterwards like the incompetent muppets they are, rather than realising how much more effective they could be as a cell if they did hit and run attacks and lived to fight another day.... and/or if they actually had half a clue about what they needed to target to bring the country to a halt, and the government to its knees.
It really pisses me off that our chicken shit politicians haven't actually stood up to these guys, called their bluff and just let us as a country continue to enjoy all the freedoms we've traditionally had and fought for, rather than making out the threat is so grave that we need to turn the UK into a police state in order to combat it.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
And when was that any part of PIRAs plan.
We will kill and maim to get our leadeship postions in a power sharing argreement?
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
it only worked in so far as it put the issue at centre stage for a while, nothing more . Apart from that your completely correct, Britain won hands down when it came to the negotiating table, indeed the preconditions it and the US set meant theyd effectively won by the time anyone sat at the table .
If anything the extent of the IRAs attacks in england were used to give their people the wholly false belief that they must have forced some sort of victory and reinforced the fallacy of some hard bargaining going on behind closed doors . In reality Tony Blairs cheif of staff Johnathon Powell admitted in his autobiography that what was often going on was he and Tony Blair were literally sitting writing Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinnesses statements for them, which they would then emerge from number ten and repeat verbatim . He was able to prove this too. He also said there was almost an embarassing moment when Adams and McGuinness had wandered off when they were writing their scripts and the security services hurriedly informed them they were out the back yard of number ten playing on Leo Blairs skateboard . Terrified the papparazi might get a snap of it from the houses accross the street both of them were hurriedly shooshed inside and the myth maintained .
Alaisdair Campbell also remarked in his autobiography the unionists were too stupid to realise theyd won, and the provos too clever to admit theyd lost .
Worth noting too that some years back it emerged one of the senior provos involved in selecting and vetting all the supposed clean skins for the sleeper cells was an agent the entire time . At the very end after the first ceasefire broke and an agreement for a second was decided behind closed doors between Blair and Adams the British security services basically made swoop after swoop on entre units both sides of the Irish sea and wound most of it up . So it appears to be the case that an awful lot of stuff was let happen and people who thought themselves unobserved actually werent, and the British could turn off the tap when it came to the crunch . But that raises an entirely different debate altogether so ill leave it at that .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
the former leader of an organisation whos entire reason for existing was on the basis the state called northern Ireland had absolutely no right to exist . Thats who .
him
Similar threads
- Poll
