British Soldier Murdered in Machete attack 23/05/2013

[1a2bcio8]

This is the thing that people often don't identify. We call people extremists as though that in itself is a cause for extremism. However, as I previously mentioned, it is well established that western foreign policy promotes extremism which is channelled through religion. This is not to say that some people aren't extremist because of religion, per se, but it is to say that, substantially, this is the cause in contemporary affairs. They are responding to oppression which contains incidents like the one I posted. I am not in anyway justifying these actions but I want them to be viewed in the broader of context of causality of which we are responsible and responsible in atrocious ways. Just saying something is terrorism or extremism is to stop very short of understanding these situations as though these people are randomly crazed simply by religion.

I haven't watched the following video but it just appeared on my news feed and I generally know Chomsky's arguments and the broader arguments of blow back so I'm assuming it will support what I'm arguing. I'll probably watch it now though. It does refer to the consequences of drone attacks which are more specifically American but our actions aren't removed from that country. We are at best complicit and, at worst, involved in equally appalling crimes.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[1a2bcio8]

"Any rational balance sheet of the last decade would show that the 'war on terror' has been a failure in its own terms: it has not prevented terrorism but caused it to spread."

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/united-kingdom/2475-the-lessons-to-learn-from-the-woolwich-killing-are-obvious-but-not-to-david-cameron

[Skoze]

The whole situation's f**ked, but with both sides at each other's throats there's no possible way either could back down - seems a bit catch 22 to me.

[manuel]

Sorry going back a bit... Ben the two things are completely different in the most important ways - motive and situation. I don't see how you can compare a drunk soldier stabbing someone with a planned politically motivated murder? Both are appalling yes, and I'm not naive enough to believe the uk doesn't do anything bad ever, but it's pretty plain that this is a shocker. The pm came back because it is an attack on the uk that resulted in the loss of uk residents lives - it's his job to be here.

[1a2bcio8]

We need to stop invading countries, particularly Muslim ones, under the false pretence of humanitarian intervention or fighting terrorism which is patently false. It's false because we routinely support terrorist groups and dictators ignoring their crimes when it serves us and highlighting (Iraq) or even fabricating the crimes of others (Iran, Syria), again, when it serves us in some other sense. These people know it is false and some of them respond in extreme ways but they really aren't any more extreme than we are - perhaps even less so - and, in terms of quantity, they dwarf our own achievements.

I'm not saying that we will be completely free of terrorism if we change our foreign policy but, probably, substantially so. You only have to look at the reasons given around acts of terrorism, such as the Boston bombings and this one, to appreciate the fact. The reason given is not usually to do with a way of life but the atrocity involved in a more modern form of western imperialism. We dominate countries, murdering their populace with high tech weaponry and promoting terrible living conditions for gains in power and profit.

It's only catch-22 if you think the war on terrorism is a real war and that our interference around the world isn't the primary cause.

[1a2bcio8]

Sorry going back a bit... Ben the two things are completely different in the most important ways - motive and situation. I don't see how you can compare a drunk soldier stabbing someone with a planned politically motivated murder? Both are appalling yes, and I'm not naive enough to believe the uk doesn't do anything bad ever, but it's pretty plain that this is a shocker. The pm came back because it is an attack on the uk that resulted in the loss of uk residents lives - it's his job to be here.

Their similarity, according to my value system at least, lies in the fact that they are both heinous. They are both murders and whether they were spontaneous or premeditated is not entirely relevant - at least to the point I want to make. I don't dispute the differences you state. What I want to move on from regarding the similarity I'm emphasising is the relative difference of response we find them given by the media and people in general. If people were really considered equal in their differences, such as race or ethnicity, we would be equally appalled by the stabbing of a foreign boy by our military forces. The intentions of that soldier can hardly have been innocent even if drunk. The British military is, after all, a extension of us through our political system which we ultimately shape through our action or apathy.

I've never, ever, seen a thread on this forum regarding atrocities abroad that were done by our military representatives. It should really exact the same degree of outrage irrespective of motive unless accidental in a benign way. It certainly would if the soldier had killed a 10 year old, white British boy under the same circumstances in the UK - take a moment to consider this. What happens in occupied countries falls under the banner of premeditated murder, torture, rape, etc. The media generally but not entirely promotes this sort of attitude by highlighting this atrocity and mostly or entirely ignoring that one depending on the type of people that are being considered. The BBC has recently been heavily criticised over its reporting of the Boston bombings amongst other terrible, probably worse, events occurring in China and India at the same time that were given minimal news time. Unfortunately I think the reason for this is an ingrained sense of differing value we place on different groups of people or a type of racism; something which is conditioned into us by this kind of emphasis we find in the media.

That's the reason I wanted to highlight one similarity in order to also show a radical difference in response that follows from two things that are both equally terrible in consequence. At least they are to me. We are doing things that are equally as bad yet we ignore that fact and obsess over what's been done to us, scratching our heads innocently at these crazed loons who want to kill us for arbitrary religious reasons. But there was no real response to the link I offered certainly nowhere near the responses found initially in the thread in response to the Woolwhich event. The only interest was to downplay its importance relative to it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-british-military-in-iraq-a-legacy-of-war-crimes-and-atrocities/20878

Edited May 23, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[manuel]

How can someone be equally appauled by a spur of the moment stabbing by a drunk trained killer in an active zone and a premeditated planned murder in a not at war residential area?

I don't think for a moment anyone would read that story and not feel pretty bad and ashamed that there are people like this acting on our behalf abroad.

However,

We don't really invade places Ben - that seems to imply we actually want to keep them, and to say we shouldn't intervene in extreme cases is pretty low too. In the case of Iraq (bad case as I don't actually think we should have gone), the people were being led by a pretty savage military dictator who did some pretty darn inhumane things to his own people. Violence, murders etc. Should we not try and stop this sort of thing? If we can ? Is it better that we let people like that do whatever they want as long as its not happening here?

[Skoze]

It's only catch-22 if you think the war on terrorism is a real war and that our interference around the world isn't the primary cause.

I disagree completely - i don't for a minute believe we're not a cause, and i completely disagree with the 'war' itself, but it's at a level where neither side is likely to back down without some form of offensive from the other. It'd be great if everyone was a decent person and could just say "hey man, sorry about all this shit - my bad. Let's be friends, k?" but it isn't. If for example the Taliban held their hands up, they'd be hunted down by the allied forces, and if we just gave up, dropped all defences and went back to a pre-9/11 state of security, someone would inevitably breach that, still having the same problems now so ingrained in their mind.

[1a2bcio8]

How can someone be equally appauled by a spur of the moment stabbing by a drunk trained killer in an active zone and a premeditated planned murder in a not at war residential area?

I don't think for a moment anyone would read that story and not feel pretty bad and ashamed that there are people like this acting on our behalf abroad.

However,

We don't really invade places Ben - that seems to imply we actually want to keep them, and to say we shouldn't intervene in extreme cases is pretty low too. In the case of Iraq (bad case as I don't actually think we should have gone), the people were being led by a pretty savage military dictator who did some pretty darn inhumane things to his own people. Violence, murders etc. Should we not try and stop this sort of thing? If we can ? Is it better that we let people like that do whatever they want as long as its not happening here?

I guess we'll have to accept a difference in opinion about what we consider bad then. I will say that I don't mean they are the exact same level of atrocity or anything so abstract but I do want to say that they are both bad enough that I think they deserve similar attention.

I think, at the very least, people feel less ashamed or interested to what happens to other groups of people particularly if they happened to have been demonised or negatively characterised in varying ways by popular culture. I also think we do this very sub-consciously but a systematic analysis of the media, at least, suggests this type of bias.

We did invade Iraq and not with intention to help it. To the extent that Sadam was our man in the Middle East we ignored his atrocities. Only after he became unreliable did we take an interest in them to justify our so called 'humanitarian intervention.' Again, consider the hugely contradictory state of both current and historical affairs where we have repeatedly supported dictators, lauding them even, that served our interests and even ruined democracies whilst calling them otherwise. Modern Imperialism doesn't require our continued presence in a region. It requires our installing a friendly dictatorship - Iraq is not a working democracy as it stands - to fulfil our needs. We have done this in Iran, Indonesia and so on.

It is a myth that our governments have noble intentions that just go awry. The intentions are self-serving. History has always been constituted by elites in one form or another ruthlessly gaining over the suffering of others. Do you imagine we are in some greater period where that is absent?

[1a2bcio8]

I disagree completely - i don't for a minute believe we're not a cause, and i completely disagree with the 'war' itself, but it's at a level where neither side is likely to back down without some form of offensive from the other. It'd be great if everyone was a decent person and could just say "hey man, sorry about all this shit - my bad. Let's be friends, k?" but it isn't. If for example the Taliban held their hands up, they'd be hunted down by the allied forces, and if we just gave up, dropped all defences and went back to a pre-9/11 state of security, someone would inevitably breach that, still having the same problems now so ingrained in their mind.

The misconception here is that what we're doing is in some sense a response to terrorism when it's not. Our occupation of and interference with other nations relates to private interests rather than serving the public in a war against terror - which is just a marketing tool to fool us. We need to stop illegally interfering with countries right to self-determination, supporting dictators, murdering millions directly or through the destruction of essential infrastructure, etc. and then we will stop creating more terrorists. I'm not saying all will be forgive but the current course can only make thing worse. The current course will only spiral more and more out of control.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Vandart]

I'll just leave this here.......

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Rob.]

tie the scum up to a lamp post and stone them i say,i would of shot the bastards in the face

[Matt Vandart]

I'm pretty sure that's what happened and also concur.

[Rob.]

I'm pretty sure that's what happened and also concur.

they got shot in the torso and are currently in hospital guarded by armed gaurds

[dngr2self]

I'll just leave this here.......

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Are you assuming that none us realise crimes are commited against Muslims?

[manuel]

I guess we'll have to accept a difference in opinion about what we consider bad then. I will say that I don't mean they are the exact same level of atrocity or anything so abstract but I do want to say that they are both bad enough that I think they deserve similar attention.

I agree - both appalling - but slightly agree to disagree that they should be similarly portrayed

I think, at the very least, people feel less ashamed or interested to what happens to other groups of people particularly if they happened to have been demonised or negatively characterised in varying ways by popular culture. I also think we do this very sub-consciously but a systematic analysis of the media, at least, suggests this type of bias.

I think that's slightly unfair to assume that most people feel like that. But it's obviously going to affect people more is there is a threat potentially their own way of life, as in this case - and yes I agree this 'fear' can be used in a less than moral way by the media and government.

We did invade Iraq and not with intention to help it. To the extent that Sadam was our man in the Middle East we ignored his atrocities. Only after he became unreliable did we take an interest in them to justify our so called 'humanitarian intervention.' Again, consider the hugely contradictory state of both current and historical affairs where we have repeatedly supported dictators, lauding them even, that served our interests and even ruined democracies whilst calling them otherwise. Modern Imperialism doesn't require our continued presence in a region. It requires our installing a friendly dictatorship - Iraq is not a working democracy as it stands - to fulfil our needs. We have done this in Iran, Indonesia and so on.

It is a myth that our governments have noble intentions that just go awry. The intentions are self-serving. History has always been constituted by elites in one form or another ruthlessly gaining over the suffering of others. Do you imagine we are in some greater period where that is absent?

I think it's a sad thing to believe that our government couldn't possibly do anything for the good of another country, and for that matter the UN.

What needs is it suiting to have Iraq in the situation it is in now?

And forget the past, if you started at zero tomorrow is it better to have a nutter torturing murdering and killing people and threatening other countries with nuclear war a la North Korea or for people who can do something to actually step in?

(I'm not suggesting war with North Korea!!)

[1a2bcio8]

The point is that we never know that it's happened or if we do it never gains the same press that the type of story this thread is about gets. There's an ingrained attitude in us and the way we value different types of people. It being that way supports, for instance, foreign policy. In 'Culture and Imperialism' Edward Said shows how not just news reporting but general story telling in fiction, film, etc. promotes an attitude of devaluing other types of people in order to justify what we do to them. This is a long running theme that existed in our colonial days although it manifested a bit differently then. Previously, people were savages that needed to be saved from themselves and the general literature and news worked to constantly shape people's views toward that. It allowed them to miss the horrors that they were supporting or involved in.

[1a2bcio8]

I agree - both appalling - but slightly agree to disagree that they should be similarly portrayed

I think that's slightly unfair to assume that most people feel like that. But it's obviously going to affect people more is there is a threat potentially their own way of life, as in this case - and yes I agree this 'fear' can be used in a less than moral way by the media and government.

I think it's a sad thing to believe that our government couldn't possibly do anything for the good of another country, and for that matter the UN.

What needs is it suiting to have Iraq in the situation it is in now?

And forget the past, if you started at zero tomorrow is it better to have a nutter torturing murdering and killing people and threatening other countries with nuclear war a la North Korea or for people who can do something to actually step in?

(I'm not suggesting war with North Korea!!)

I'd argue that people feel that way because despite having some awareness of what happens - the mainstream news does convey something of the atrocity - we still rarely show much horror. My Facebook offers strong anecdotal evidence of that fact. The response about yesterday has absolutely dwarfed any other kinds of similar news regarding minority groups, abroad, etc. that I've experienced even when worse things have happened. You should understand though, there's no blame or judgement. It's simply the way things have come to be for most although there are definitely people who steer this sort of course. Politicians are masters of manipulation.

Generally, I'm afraid, the track record of western government speaks for itself. I'm not trying to paint a picture of politicians that are completely evil but they are people who are primarily driven by self-serving needs. This is evidenced both by foreign and domestic policy. Iraq is in a terrible state of affairs. We killed nearly a million between the first gulf war, deliberate destruction of non-military infrastructure and UN sanctions. We've now killed what appears to be over a million since the first world world. Basic infrastructures are still failing, depleted uranium is causing all sorts of health issues, democracy exists only in name, etc. All of this is stuff I've said over and over on this forum and in much more detail. I could go into much more detail now but I'm pretty sure I get dismissed without an attempt to actually properly confirm or disprove what I've said. So just thinking about that I'm going to stop this paragraph. That's not a critique at you in particular, Rowan

Even if these interventions were about good intentions they've been shown not to work or cause even more problems. Regarding Libya this should be read but the consequences of intervention have clearly spilled over into neighbouring countries. And again, Iraq is in a terrible state. Afghanistan hasn't improved in any real sense. Blah blah blah. There's so much evidence if you look beyond mainstream sources. Again, I'm not going to repeat myself again when I've said so much in the past.

I'm not dismissing any room for intervention whatsoever but currently we do it generally with bad intentions and without regard to consequence.

edit: I said we've killed nearly a million since the first world war... haha, schoolboy. I meant second gulf war

The point is that we never know that it's happened or if we do it never gains the same press that the type of story this thread is about gets. There's an ingrained attitude in us and the way we value different types of people. It being that way supports, for instance, foreign policy. In 'Culture and Imperialism' Edward Said shows how not just news reporting but general story telling in fiction, film, etc. promotes an attitude of devaluing other types of people in order to justify what we do to them. This is a long running theme that existed in our colonial days although it manifested a bit differently then. Previously, people were savages that needed to be saved from themselves and the general literature and news worked to constantly shape people's views toward that. It allowed them to miss the horrors that they were supporting or involved in.

To add to this, we also see the same done to the poorest and generally most vulnerable of our country. The way they are portrayed in a lot of outlets justifies the lack or removal social support (welfare) we offer them and turns attention away from the real criminals in this society - the minority who hoard and gain monetary wealth regardless of how detrimental it is to the rest of us and the planet.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Vandart]

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ when are you guys gonna get it's the Iwombinati doing this?

[Skoze]

The misconception here is that what we're doing is in some sense a response to terrorism when it's not. Our occupation of and interference with other nations relates to private interests rather than serving the public in a war against terror - which is just a marketing tool to fool us. We need to stop illegally interfering with countries right to self-determination, supporting dictators, murdering millions directly or through the destruction of essential infrastructure, etc. and then we will stop creating more terrorists. I'm not saying all will be forgive but the current course can only make thing worse. The current course will only spiral more and more out of control.

That's not quite what i was getting at with my post, but the last line is pretty much on the money for me.

[1a2bcio8]

That's not quite what i was getting at with my post, but the last line is pretty much on the money for me.

Fair enough

[bing]

The Middle East invasions are all about oil, bar Afghanistan, which was about heroin. Not religion, not stopping a lunatic. We have nothing that they want, that they couldnt get from china or japan. Yet they have the one of the most valuable commodities on earth in crude oil. And the war monger's we had in charge at the time were after that one thing, despite what evidence there is to the contrary.

Edited May 23, 2013 by bing

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Showing my ignorance (again) but all these 'invasions for oil' theories that knock around, is there actually any truth in it? Is it all now UK and US companies who are exporting the black gold from Iraq? I'm not convinced that's the case... Stealing all their oil certainly hasn't shown up in reducing the cost of bloody petrol/diesel that's for sure...

[bing]

Interestingly, I have just seen this on twitter, seems a bit 'shoot first, ask questions later' to me

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22638533#TWEET766153

Showing my ignorance (again) but all these 'invasions for oil' theories that knock around, is there actually any truth in it? Is it all now UK and US companies who are exporting the black gold from Iraq? I'm not convinced that's the case... Stealing all their oil certainly hasn't shown up in reducing the cost of bloody petrol/diesel that's for sure...

Dunno. Its all my old man keeps banging on about. His words, not mine

[Matt Vandart]

Showing my ignorance (again) but all these 'invasions for oil' theories that knock around, is there actually any truth in it? Is it all now UK and US companies who are exporting the black gold from Iraq? I'm not convinced that's the case... Stealing all their oil certainly hasn't shown up in reducing the cost of bloody petrol/diesel that's for sure...

It's not about oil as such but rather the petrol dollar, the US economy rests on it.