Woolwich soldier killed (was "Did cops just shoot 2 dead in woolwich?")

[cesare]

manny-p the *actual* situation is *far* more complicated than you set out in your summary

 

[butchersapron]

First one named was from a Christian family I think it's reported.

Both were - one 'went away' and came back muslim, the other one became muslim early 2000s.

 

[manny-p]

manny-p the *actual* situation is *far* more complicated than you set out in your summary

Expand on it then mate. It was not meant to be an in depth essay of the situation but a basic summary.

 

[JimW]

Both were - one 'went away' and came back muslim, the other one became muslim early 2000s.

Ah, I've not read much about the second lad yet.

 

[cesare]

Expand on it then mate. It was not meant to be an in depth essay of the situation but a basic summary.

I can only expand on what it's actually like, as opposed to views/questions/opinions expressed on thread

 

[butchersapron]

Ah, I've not read much about the second lad yet.

Nice use of lad

 

[frogwoman]

Both were - one 'went away' and came back muslim, the other one became muslim early 2000s.

yeah, so why are people converting to violent and fanatical religious beliefs which support the use of terroristic violence? why is this attractive and what can we do about it politically etc? (not just islam - some of the nastiest zionist settlers are people who are either converts or came from a very secular background, wouldn't surprise me if abortion-clinic bombers had similar things in their backgrounds)

why would you start thinking your family were infidels who should be killed because they were from another religion (or a less fanatical form of the same religion)? what sort of processes in society and in these guys heads are going on so this takes place?

 

[JimW]

Nice use of lad

 

[butchersapron]

yeah, so why are people converting to violent and fanatical relgious beliefs which support the use of terroristic violence? why is this attractive and what can we do about it politically etc? (not just islam - some of the nastiest zionist settlers are people who are either converts or came from a very secular background, wouldn't surprise me if abortion-clinic bombers had similar things in their backgrounds)

why would you start thinking your family were infidels who should be killed because they were from another religion (or a less fanatical form of the same religion)? what sort of processes in society and in these guys heads are going on so this takes place?

Whatever it is, it isn't one that easily describe or brought down to a few details - whatever it/they are can only work in a situation of massive alienation from society, from what you think others can offer you, from everyone around you. That's the start point i think.

 

[agricola]

yeah, so why are people converting to violent and fanatical religious beliefs which support the use of terroristic violence? why is this attractive and what can we do about it politically etc? (not just islam - some of the nastiest zionist settlers are people who are either converts or came from a very secular background, wouldn't surprise me if abortion-clinic bombers had similar things in their backgrounds)

why would you start thinking your family were infidels who should be killed because they were from another religion (or a less fanatical form of the same religion)? what sort of processes in society and in these guys heads are going on so this takes place?

One would imagine its the old cliche of the person who doesnt fit / doesnt think they fit in to society A, switching to society B and trying desperately hard to be accepted by their new society that they end up doing things that they never would have considered otherwise.

Though there is also the argument that some people are basically twats, irrespective of their religion / politics.

 

[ddraig]

and the acceptance and camaraderie of fellow nutters who are sometimes part of uni islamic societies

 

[JHE]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Beg the question some more, why don't you. The two lads tried to commit "suicide by cop" because they had already murdered the poor sod - and murdered him in yes, a cowardly fashion. The bravery of their charge at armed police was only the result of the path they had already set themselves on.

You acknowledge that it was brave. Now maybe we are getting somewhere. Yes, it was a result of the path they had taken: the path of murder and probable death. This included the decision not to flee the scene of their gruesome murder, but to stay, give statements and wait for Plod. They had already decided to sacrifice themselves for their cause. You hate to acknowledge that they have courage, but it is obvious that they did and even you partially acknowledge it.

It's like one of those metaphorical yokes. When Lenin described his ultra-leftist critics as "infantile" he wasn't alleging that they were keen fans of the Teletubbies, or the 1917 equivalent thereof. He was using an ad hominem attack to highlight what he saw as an unrealistic, ill-informed, ill-thought out political position.

Identifying the childishness of ultra-leftists, in Little Father Lenin's assessment, contributes nothing to your attempt to portray these murderers as cowardly.

I think it is childish to pretend that courageous evil is cowardice. Calling these jihadis cowardly is about on the level of saying they smell of poo.

 

[butchersapron]

They do, and so do you. Why aren't you gloating anyway? Oh you are, but in a civilized fashion.

 

[Idris2002]

They had already decided to sacrifice themselves for their cause. You hate to acknowledge that they have courage, but it is obvious that they did and even you partially acknowledge it.

Whereas you love to acknowledge their "bravery" (note to self: don't leave out the inverted commas), because - just like the jihadis you love to hate - you enjoy the feeling of living in a horror comic. Therefore, for your purposes, the "courage" and "bravery" of the jihadis can only serve to boost the perceived courage and bravery of the great JHE.

It's something like how they needed the myth of Rommel to build up the myth of Monty.

 

[manny-p]

Though there is also the argument that some people are basically twats

 

[malatesta32]

two questions,. one is when will the left protest against the Islamic fundamentalists? and two, all over the web the EDL are being described in terms of dress, education, or in the words of one btl commentator, 'council' can't think of any other political formation that is described in this manner.

hey trees! islamic fundamentalists are nothing compared to cuts, benefits attacks etc. and how do the left protest em? by getting pissed in a car park like the edl? the point is if there are any we dont know where they are even if they did represent something more than wankers like those 2 guys and anjem choudry. as for classist criticism of EDL see this and the EDL for our criticisms on that 1. for many of us, antifascists look just like em, went to the same schools, tedious football matches and leisure wear vendors!!!

 

[likesfish]

Its no suprise uni islamic socs can be a bit suspect much like uni christian groups or uni politics full of young people being full on.
Leftie groups were always making a lot of noise and the fcs best left well alone.
Fortunatly christian groups, swp students or the fcs have so far not produced any terrorists. islamic nutters have turned up though.

 

[Casually Red]

That's just not true of Lebanon - easily the most effective fighting force there has been Hezbollah, about as far from wahabi as you can get, in fact probably top of the wahabi to-do list in an ideal world.

youve completely misunderstood my post in that regard, i was talking abourt reports from lebanon about whats happening in syria

 

[Casually Red]

You need to remember that it's not your morals in play here, it's the morals of the insurgents and of their opponents.
Mutilation/desecration of enemy corpses has a long and inglorious history in asymmetric warfare. It's something insurgents do not because they're immoral or animalistic, but because they know that the effect of doing so magnifies the perceived level of threat to their opponents, and "puts the wind up" them. That beheading an opponent's corpse might cause dismay to your opponents is justification enough, outside of normative morality.

i know that, but the post was in response to a series of insinuations and accusations that i somehow supported the mutilation of the soldier

 

[ViolentPanda]

i know that, but the post was in response to a series of insinuations and accusations that i somehow supported the mutilation of the soldier

That's no excuse to do something as vapid as arguing from a moral standpoint. That's the purview of vicars, politicians and other dubiously-inclined fuckwits!

 

[Casually Red]

That's no excuse to do something as vapid as arguing from a moral standpoint. That's the purview of vicars, politicians and other dubiously-inclined fuckwits!

purview ?...puurrvviieww ? where do you think you are..some sort of regency fucking costume drama ?

 

[Stigmata]

Not something you can know, though. His main role was as a machine-gunner, which effectively means he'd be providing suppressive fire to enable his oppos to manouvre, plus laying down aggressive fire against opposition and against their redoubts, so "probably" is pure speculation and wishful thinking (insofar as we like to believe that our soldiers don't kill children, even accidentally).

I'll grant that it's speculation. But given the nature of the UK role in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the likely number of times any given soldier is likely to have been in a firefight, and assuming a decent level of training and professionalism, it's more likely that he hasn't killed a child than that he has. I'm not an expert of course but the majority of military and ex-military I know have never killed anyone (most of them were AGC, mind)

 

[Casually Red]

The nature of warfare, whether it's perceived or actual warfare, is that you do what is necessary to get the job done. If they'd had assault rifles or an smg, I've no doubt they'd have shot him, rather than running him over. The beheading, as post-mortem beheadings usually are, was symbolic. Value-judgements like "cowardly" and "savage" are meaningless in assessing what was done and why, they're just emotion-fueled flatulence for the outraged. Analyse what has occurred, then give rein to your emotions, otherwise you're little better than the wankers on your TV screen who're currently playing this for their own advantage, because you're allowing them to play you.

best post of the thread so far imho, very similar to what i was trying and failing miserably to get accross

 

[laptop]

I'll grant that it's speculation. But given the nature of the UK role in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the likely number of times any given soldier is likely to have been in a firefight, and assuming a decent level of training and professionalism, it's more likely that he hasn't killed a child than that he has. I'm not an expert of course but the majority of military and ex-military I know have never killed anyone (most of them were AGC, mind)

Now we're expecting people who hack heads off - and people outraged by hacked-off head - to follow statistics?

'S'true, though. Most soldiers never kill anyone - though IIRC the proportion who do is going up war by war.

 

[1%er]

Was having a conversation with a mate a while back about this sort of stuff and she said something along the lines of "with all the discrimination against jews around the world it's a wonder no jewish people have done something like 9/11."

They have, King David hotel and Deir Yassin among others by just one group, Irgun. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes Irgun as "an underground organization" the British and many others called them terrorists.

 

[co-op]

youve completely misunderstood my post in that regard, i was talking abourt reports from lebanon about whats happening in syria

Fair enough I should have guessed you knew this, it didn't seem clear to me.

 

[Casually Red]

happy to clarify

 

[smokedout]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Beg the question some more, why don't you. The two lads tried to commit "suicide by cop" because they had already murdered the poor sod - and murdered him in yes, a cowardly fashion. The bravery of their charge at armed police was only the result of the path they had already set themselves on.

see this is the problem of using bravery as a morally loaded term, some people will say they were brave to charge at police, some to kill a squaddie, some that they were cowards to do both - no-one can win, because no-one agrees what the word means and everyone is just dancing around the real issue, which is actually about whether it was wrong/justifiable or not.

so although it irritates the fuck out of me when people go on about cowardly terrorists and brave coppers, id suggest its a semantic distraction probably not worth bothering with on this thread (even though i just did)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Did they actually cut off his head btw? The woman who talked to the blokes and was interviewed says she didn't see any sign of that, and the paper reports I've seen that mention it - which is not all of them, many say "hacked/stabbed to death" etc - say things like "apparently".

 

[frogwoman]

They have, King David hotel and Deir Yassin among others by just one group, Irgun. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes Irgun as "an underground organization" the British and many others called them terrorists.

But that was to do with zionism, not religion (as such)

I think they thought they were fighting a nationalist war but not a religious/holy one if you see what I mean. whereas Islamist terrorism is much more aiming to promote religious views where as they were "just" nationalists (still cunts though).

Baruch Goldstein was more of a religious terrorist though, and some of the Kahanist stuff, and some of the more recent plots to try and attack the dome of the rock etc