Was the killing in Woolwich murder or part of the war?

[J Ed]

I'm very confused by the number of people saying that what happened isn't terrorism, I don't really know what they are trying to get at, the people who did this are explicitly trying to terrorise people into overthrowing their government to ensure a change in foreign policy. Surely that fits any rational definition of terrorism?

 

[Brainaddict]

For pragmatic reasons as much as anything. A member of the Taliban captured by UK forces in Afghanistan is likely in due course to be a prisoner who is a member of a group that is negotiating peace, and quite likely to be released at some point. In the end, the legal status of IRA killers was different from that of 'normal' killers, and they were released for political reasons. This is not the situation with the two men in Woolwich yesterday.

I can see the pragmatic point of course but it seems very inconsistent to treat some combatants under normal criminal law.

 

[J Ed]

I don't see any circumstances in which these two could end up being treated as political prisoners - particularly as they are British.

Well... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20157167

 

[tony.c]

yeah, peter something, claims to have come up during Operation Storm the Oman counter insurgency war. Hold on I'll look it up

ratcliff. peter ratcliff
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eye-Storm-Years-Action-SAS/dp/1843170523

in this book he mainly calls all of his ex collegues cunts and bigs himself up.

A lot of them seem to do that, but he is confirming that McNab was in the SAS then.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't see any circumstances in which these two could end up being treated as political prisoners - particularly as they are British.

Hardly anyone could see any cırcumstances ın whıch the IRA could end up beıng treated as polıtıcal prısoners--partıcularly as they were Brıtısh.

Untıl suddenly they were.

There ıs often a rather large dıfference between the cırcumstances that the Brıtısh publıc ıs capable of envısagıng and the cırcumstances that actually transpıre.

Short-sıghted fellow, Johnny Brıt.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hardly anyone could see any cırcumstances ın whıch the IRA could end up beıng treated as polıtıcal prısoners--partıcularly as they were Brıtısh.

That's simply not true.

 

[JimW]

I'm very confused by the number of people saying that what happened isn't terrorism, I don't really know what they are trying to get at, the people who did this are explicitly trying to terrorise people into overthrowing their government to ensure a change in foreign policy. Surely that fits any rational definition of terrorism?

I seen a surprising number of people arguing this as well - seems to come from a muddled idea that the war on terror is all a get-up so it would be conceding something to power to accept what looks a prima facie case - I mean, it's not that these people are arguing the two men are freedom fighters instead or anything political in that sense.

 

[butchersapron]

I seen a surprising number of people arguing this as well - seems to come from a muddled idea that the war on terror is all a get-up so it would be conceding something to power to accept what looks a prima facie case - I mean, it's not that these people are arguing the two men are freedom fighters instead or anything political in that sense.

Ask them about other 'non organisation' linked cases - David Copeland or the unabomber for example.

 

[JimW]

Ask them about other 'non organisation' linked cases - David Copeland or the unabomber for example.

That's been another thing too as it happens - people saying this is something new and amazing from the Internet age when that leaderless resistance stuff is decades old.

 

[Brainaddict]

I suspect the debate about whether it is 'terrorism' is a coded debate about whether the government should respond with heavy security measures. Myself I'm happy for it to be referred to as terrorism - instead of debating the definition we (or our lords and masters) should have a proper debate about what is a proportionate response. They won't though.

 

[phildwyer]

That's simply not true.

Yes ıt ıs.

The Thatcher government gave the publıc the ımpressıon that they were wıllıng to let every IRA prısoner starve to death rather than even consıder gıvıng them polıtıcal status.

I suppose a few people ın the know--not least Thatcher herself--and a few people who'd studıed some Irısh hıstory mıght have suspected that thıngs were not what they seemed.

But the general publıc were told the IRA were sımply crımınals, and that's what 99% of them belıeved.

They're even more lıkely to belıeve ıt of Muslıms than of Irıshmen. Doesn't mean ıt's true though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20157167

Hadn't heard that. It is very worrying. But I meant being treated as political in a 'good' way - in that it might one day see them set free.

 

[J Ed]

Hadn't heard that. It is very worrying. But I meant being treated as political in a 'good' way - in that it might one day see them set free.

The fact that the UK government can now remove citizenship of people for extremism was kept incredibly quiet, not given much prominence at all. In fact, I heard it from listening to Democracy Now rather than from UK media.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The fact that the UK government can now remove citizenship of people for extremism was kept incredibly quiet, not given much prominence at all. In fact, I heard it from listening to Democracy Now rather than from UK media.

I must admit I did not know that. The US does it routinely. As I said, very worrying.

 

[DotCommunist]

Ask them about other 'non organisation' linked cases - David Copeland or the unabomber for example.

or breivik

 

[phildwyer]

instead of debating the definition we (or our lords and masters) should have a proper debate about what is a proportionate response.

The very language you use betrays the way thıs event has already been ''spun'' to the Brıtısh publıc.

A ''proportıonate response'' suggests that the debate should focus on how many more Muslıms we should kıll ın retalıatıon. Or maybe there's another country or two we could ınvade?

We would do better to ask what a correct reponse would be. And the answer, on both moral and pragmatıc grounds, ıs to GTFO of all the Islamıc natıons we are currently occupyıng.

 

[J Ed]

or breivik

For the same reason I wouldn't hesitate to call Breivik a terrorist, I won't hesitate to call these two terrorists either.

 

[phildwyer]

The US does it routinely.

The US does a bıt more than that.

The US kılls ıts own cıtızens ın cold blood, regularly and openly, wıth no more pretence of legal process than Obama decıdıng whıch button to push.

Remınd you of anythıng?

 

[DotCommunist]

For the same reason I wouldn't hesitate to call Breivik a terrorist, I won't hesitate to call these two terrorists either.

media went full fucking diplock on the brevik case

 

[Mation]

Well... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20157167

That's appalling.

Re the OP, imo yes it was part of the war if the two men say it was. They do, so it is. However, it won't be treated like that by the state though as it wouldn't be of any benefit to its interests and because of that, it doesn't matter what technical legal argument might be framed to say it was part of the war.

 

[butchersapron]

The only involvement these people had in any war seems to have been trying to go to Somalia to take part in an Islamic insurgency. If the argument is that all Muslims are inherently involved in war with 'the west' then this is the same as both the fundies nutters logic and that of the western states and needs to be forcefully rejected. To accept they are at war is to accept that logic.The war argument is a total red herring.

 

[phildwyer]

The war argument is a total red herring.

Rıght, so what motıve dıd the kıllers have then? Was thıs a muggıng that went wrong or somethıng?

Thıs ıs asymmetrıcal war.

You know what that means. It means any ındıvıdual can get ınvolved. Perhaps ıts most famous C20th exponent was Che Guevara.

I know you know thıs, whıch means I also know why you're pretendıng not to. I hope you enjoy the new frıends you'll be makıng.

 

[Brainaddict]

Re the OP, imo yes it was part of the war if the two men say it was.

This is the thing. The incident is being treated as an isolated incident of barbarity when in fact it is part of a whole series of barbarous acts in which the British military is involved.

 

[phildwyer]

For the same reason I wouldn't hesitate to call Breivik a terrorist, I won't hesitate to call these two terrorists either.

As a Brıtısh cıtızen, your prımary moral concern should be wıth the terrorısm your government ıs currently perpetratıng throughout the Islamıc world.

Your elected government.

 

[Brainaddict]

The only involvement these people had in any war seems to have been trying to go to Somalia to take part in an Islamic insurgency. If the argument is that all Muslims are inherently involved in war with 'the west' then this is the same as both the fundies nutters logic and that of the western states and needs to be forcefully rejected. To accept they are at war is to accept that logic.The war argument is a total red herring.

Of course I'm not arguing all muslims are at war with 'us' or 'the west'. I'm saying that if someone chooses to place themselves on that side (those fighting nato troops in Afghanistan) in a war, then that's the side they are on. It's odd to argue they have nothing to do with the war when clearly they think they do and they picked a side.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course I'm not arguing all muslims are at war with 'us' or 'the west'. I'm saying that if someone chooses to place themselves on that side (those fighting nato troops in Afghanistan) in a war, then that's the side they are on. It's odd to argue they have nothing to do with the war when clearly they think they do and they picked a side.

Their basis for saying that they are at war is that the west and the islam is at war. Are you going to grant them the right to do this? To declare this war for and on all the people in the west and all muslims - alongside the fundies and the states?

I didn't say that you were arguing all muslims are at with 'the west' but if you want to argue that this was war rather than murder you can only start from those grounds.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is the thing. The incident is being treated as an isolated incident of barbarity when in fact it is part of a whole series of barbarous acts in which the British military is involved.

Of course it is. The British government considers its military actions to be wholly legitimate - fighting on the side of right.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes ıt ıs.

The Thatcher government gave the publıc the ımpressıon that they were wıllıng to let every IRA prısoner starve to death rather than even consıder gıvıng them polıtıcal status.

I suppose a few people ın the know--not least Thatcher herself--and a few people who'd studıed some Irısh hıstory mıght have suspected that thıngs were not what they seemed.

But the general publıc were told the IRA were sımply crımınals, and that's what 99% of them belıeved.

They're even more lıkely to belıeve ıt of Muslıms than of Irıshmen. Doesn't mean ıt's true though.

Absolute rubbish. Working as a civil servant in a solidly Tory voting south coast town in the 1980s a significant proportion of the people I worked with recognised that the IRA weren't 'simply criminals'; for example they knew that 'simple criminals' didn't blow up the Grand and they said as much. If that was true in a HM Revenue admin office in Worthing, then on a national scale it adds up to a lot more than 'a few people who'd studied some Irish history'.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Of course I'm not arguing all muslims are at war with 'us' or 'the west'. I'm saying that if someone chooses to place themselves on that side (those fighting nato troops in Afghanistan) in a war, then that's the side they are on. It's odd to argue they have nothing to do with the war when clearly they think they do and they picked a side.

Why are you limiting this war to afghanistan - the killers didn't and don't. Why did you choose to make it about one country? They didn't. They think islam and 'the west' are at war. Have they the right to decide this and for you to agree and then say their acts are technically war rather than murder?

 

[cdg]

Now don't get me wrong, I think that war is murder, but the law says differently. Killing a soldier in war is not considered murder afaik (I don't think there are particular rules around off-duty soldiers - maybe someone can tell me). So in Afghanistan there are already non-Afghans fighting against British soldiers and this is part of the war there, in which our nation is participating. So was this attack simply a part of the war that happened to take place on 'our' territory? Is it fundamentally ethically different from what is happening in Afghanistan? And is our shock at the brutality of it partly an admission that we don't really think about the war very much and are simply horrified to find it arriving here rather than staying safely over there?

Now don't get me wrong, I think that war is murder, but the law says differently. Killing a soldier in war is not considered murder afaik (I don't think there are particular rules around off-duty soldiers - maybe someone can tell me). So in Afghanistan there are already non-Afghans fighting against British soldiers and this is part of the war there, in which our nation is participating. So was this attack simply a part of the war that happened to take place on 'our' territory? Is it fundamentally ethically different from what is happening in Afghanistan? And is our shock at the brutality of it partly an admission that we don't really think about the war very much and are simply horrified to find it arriving here rather than staying safely over there?

If youre asking if this was a legitimate act of war no I don't think it was, not by any means.