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

[phildwyer]

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?

They have as much rıght to declare themselves at war wıth the Brıtısh state as, for example, Che Guevara had to declare hımself at war wıth the Cuban state.

Indeed you could argue that they had far more rıght, sınce they are Brıtısh whıle Guevara was not Cuban (or Congolese, Algerıan or Bolıvıan come to that).

So would you call the landıng of the Granma a crımınal act?

 

[likesfish]

That will be the terrorism that has allowed women into an afghan parliment and girls to go to school?
The terrorism that replaced a tryant with a democraticly elected iraqi goverment and then left?
Its intresting isnt it if radical isam is such a force for good how come nobody wants to immigrate to an isamic state the flow of humanity is always one way away from the backward horror of any islamic state.

Political islam offers nothing anybody sane would want.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That will be the terrorism that has allowed women into an afghan parliment and girls to go to school?

Who are you talking about here? The Soviets?

 

[phildwyer]

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?

Agaın, all Communıst and Anarchıst revolutıonarıes belıeve that they are at war wıth all capıtalıst states.

I seem to recall you expressıng a great deal of sympathy for the lıkes of Durruttı and Uturbıa.

One wonders why your sympathy stops at the Turkısh border. Or rather, one doesn't.

 

[Brainaddict]

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?

The UK government granted them their war, not me. I wish they hadn't but they did. We have thousands of troops in a combat zone and people coming home in body bags. The war in their heads may have been a fantasy once but the UK military helped make it real. These killers attacked a real combatant not an imagined one. Is the war only real in Afghanistan and not here?

 

[butchersapron]

The UK government granted them their war, not me. I wish they hadn't but they did. We have thousands of troops in a combat zone and people coming home in body bags. The war in their heads may have been a fantasy once but the UK military helped make it real. These killers attacked a real combatant not an imagined one. Is the war only real in Afghanistan and not here?

You are not quite getting it - the war in their heads is islam/west - if you grant them the right to declare this war and to insist that it is happening - and further, to insist that this killing was part of that war and should be technically recognised as such you also take and exercise that right yourself. You declare that there is a war between islam/west. Do you think that?

And why don't we just drop the hand-wringing, you think their justification stands up - just say it. You don't have to couch it in these murder/war terms - i don't think that's helpful at all.

 

[Brainaddict]

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

Well, just to be clear, and for any police and intel reading, I think all killing is murder and is wrong except in immediate self-defence. In that sense I don't think it was 'legitimate'. But from the point of view of the silly rules of war our rulers play by, I'm struggling to see why it shouldn't be considered part of the war. And I do see it as partly a consequence (that's not a justification) of British troops being in a war zone.

 

[Brainaddict]

And why don't we just drop the hand-wringing, you think their justification stands up - just say it. You don't have to couch it in these murder/war terms - i don't think that's helpful at all.

No. See above.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, just to be clear, and for any police and intel reading, I think all killing is murder and is wrong except in immediate self-defence. In that sense I don't think it was 'legitimate'. But from the point of view of the silly rules of war our rulers play by, I'm struggling to see why it shouldn't be considered part of the war. And I do see it as partly a consequence (that's not a justification) of British troops being in a war zone.

So the war is islam/west given that these guys had no role whatsoever in the war in Afghanistan.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So the war is islam/west .

I think a lot of people in power in the West see it more or less like that. See Tony Blair using 9/11 to justify invading Iraq.

 

[butchersapron]

They might do - i'm asking brainaddict why he thinks like that too and why he thinks these people - the fundies who did this killing and the people you mention - have the right to declare this war for us and why he recognises it.

 

[Brainaddict]

So the war is islam/west given that these guys had no role whatsoever in the war in Afghanistan.

They attacked a combatant, not 'the west'. The other side of the war in Afghanistan is composed of a mixture of Afghans and foreigners who want to be on that side. These guys picked that side too.

 

[butchersapron]

They attacked a combatant, not 'the west'. The other side of the war in Afghanistan is composed of a mixture of Afghans and foreigners who want to be on that side. These guys picked that side too.

I ask again, why are you insisting on it being an extension only of the war in Afghanistan - the killers did not and in fact, made it clear that their war was Islam/west (as well as making threats to other ordinary 'westerners' targeted simply because they are 'westerners'). By saying this was an extension of war you are saying it was an extension of the islam/west war - not the war in afghanistan. I don't think that you've quite realised where your logic leads here.

 

[frogwoman]

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.

well said.

 

[Brainaddict]

I ask again, why are you insisting on it being an extension only of the war in Afghanistan - the killers did not and in fact, made it clear that their war was Islam/west (as well as making threats to other ordinary 'westerners' targeted simply because they are 'westerners'). By saying this was an extension of war you are saying it was an extension of the islam/west war - not the war in afghanistan. I don't think that you've quite realised where your logic leads here.

I suppose I'm saying they made it part of the 'actual war' rather than an imagined war by deliberately targetting a soldier who is engaged in the actual war.

 

[butchersapron]

I suppose I'm saying they made it part of the 'actual war' rather than an imagined war by deliberately targetting a soldier who is engaged in the actual war.

What's the 'actual war' then?

 

[frogwoman]

there is no "religious war" of any type and that argument needs to be forcefully rejected, to put it politely.

 

[Pickman's model]

there is no "religious war" of any type and that argument needs to be forcefully rejected, to put it politely.

but if there was would us atheists be neutral or take on all comers?

 

[Brainaddict]

What's the 'actual war' then?

It's where combat troops and armed militias regularly kill each other I guess. Mostly in Afghanistan. Conceivably you could add the parts of the world where drones are regularly used on bombing missions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

there is no "religious war" of any type and that argument needs to be forcefully rejected, to put it politely.

There is to those who think they're part of it. Just as Breivik thought he was part of a war against Islam, or whatever the fuck he thought. Doesn't mean you have to accept it, or even think it a coherent position.

 

[frogwoman]

There is to those who think they're part of it. Just as Breivik thought he was part of a war against Islam, or whatever the fuck he thought. Doesn't mean you have to accept it, or even think it a coherent position.

\
But there is no war against Islam except in these people's heads.

 

[Teaboy]

there is no "religious war" of any type and that argument needs to be forcefully rejected, to put it politely.

This needs to be said over and over again. Anyone who thinks 'the west' is at war against Islam is very mistaken.

 

[Teaboy]

There is to those who think they're part of it. Just as Breivik thought he was part of a war against Islam, or whatever the fuck he thought. Doesn't mean you have to accept it, or even think it a coherent position.

So by that extension all it takes for a war to exist is for one person to believe it does?

 

[Firky]

Fuck me, there's people on U75 who will unnecessarily pontificate anything. Weird thread.

/canucking.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This needs to be said over and over again. Anyone who thinks 'the west' is at war against Islam is very mistaken.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. 'The West' in general, and the US in particular, has been actively seeking enemies in the last 20 years since the Soviet Union collapsed. It has concentrated its efforts in the Islamic world.

 

[butchersapron]

It's where combat troops and armed militias regularly kill each other I guess. Mostly in Afghanistan. Conceivably you could add the parts of the world where drones are regularly used on bombing missions.

No, you've missed the point. These people are not combatants in these wars on any basis other than being Muslim. This makes the 3 million Muslims in this country combatants in this war. Why have you given the killers the right to declare war for them and on others?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure I entirely agree. 'The West' in general, and the US in particular, has been actively seeking enemies in the last 20 years since the Soviet Union collapsed. It has concentrated its efforts in the Islamic world.

doubtless why nato's expanded eastwards and made russia rather concerned

 

[Brainaddict]

No, you've missed the point. These people are not combatants in these wars on any basis other than being Muslim. This makes the 3 million Muslims in this country combatants in this war. Why have you given the killers the right to declare war for them and on others?

No, as I said earlier, they are not combatants because they are muslim but because they chose to be combatants. Most muslims don't choose to be and so they cannot be considered part of the war.

 

[Pickman's model]

This needs to be said over and over again. Anyone who thinks 'the west' is at war against Islam is very mistaken.

so all the muslims who disagree with you are very much mistaken.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, as I said earlier, they are not combatants because they are muslim but because they chose to be combatants. Most muslims don't choose to be and so they cannot be considered part of the war.

by you. but do you speak for eg the edl?