Incident In Woolwich & The Bigger Questions

[ChocolateStarfish]

No, no. I still mean the men are white and British, just not soldiers. That was the conversation we were having at work. Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough.

There we go I've found it for you, it really doesn't matter anyway because you can call this attack what you like the only thing I care for is the little two year old who's lost his daddy because of some scum who think they are fighting some kind of religious war.
Black white or pink spots makes no difference to me.

 

[Plastic Person]

Fair enough. I've misunderstood? It seemed rather a lot like you equated donating money to the cause with 'destroying vermin' 'together' (as you put it). I assumed you meant that your money was for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers, and not actually for any of the other beneficial/more important things. Anyway, I derailed the topic a bit here.

Just to throw this out there, playing devils advocate, how would everybody feel/react if two British soldiers had run down an off duty Iraqi soldier and then brutally killed him in a street full of civilians, stating the same motivation (but from their side of the war obviously)?

I'm not asking to be like 'ha see double standards' or anything, I'm asking out of genuine interest. Some people I work with were having this conversation and the answers were so varied it was ridiculous, considering they all agreed that they disapproved of what has happened in Woolwich. Whereas others said they'd still be as shocked and disgusted, they wouldn't support the same actions in an opposite circumstance and they'd still call it terrorism. And want our soldiers trialed as terrorists just the same.

They were lucky they did it in London and not a northern town or right now their heads would be on a stake over the town hall, we don't just stand there up north, we back our armed services.

Not being funny, but what mad version of the North do you live in? You presumably mean a small, traditionally right leaning town or village with a sentimental attachment to the Armed Forces? They exist in the South too.

 

[ChocolateStarfish]

No I live in Derby, hardly right leaning but everyone I speak with says the same as me if they had done it here they would of been ripped to shreds.
And for the record that goes for the ethnic people I know as well.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

With all due respect, it's all well and good to say if it happened in front of you they'd be 'ripped to shreds', but how do you know you'd react that way? The killing was brutal, and the people of Britain generally aren't used to such violence. No doubt some have been traumatized by what they saw.

 

[gosling]

No, no. I still mean the men are white and British, just not soldiers. That was the conversation we were having at work. Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough.

There we go I've found it for you, it really doesn't matter anyway because you can call this attack what you like the only thing I care for is the little two year old who's lost his daddy because of some scum who think they are fighting some kind of religious war.
Black white or pink spots makes no difference to me.

Errrm yep, I already addressed where I said it. And AGAIN I've not said it isn't a terrorist attack either.

 

[Meat Pie]

I've just read through this topic, and I have to say that yes, the act that took place in Woolwich was a terrorist act, however... Something I think Blaze might have been trying to get across (and he can correct me if I'm misinterpreting him) is that the media is hypocritical in it's definition of terrorism. I think that is not only an important point but a point that is very true. When the US and UK deploy drone planes to bomb political 'enemies' in the middle east, that by dictionary definition should be considered terrorism, and yet because it was carried out by rich white western countries, our media refuses to use the word. However the have no such problem calling the flying of a plane into the world trade centre, an act of terrorism. Just a few days ago a 75 year old Muslim man in this country was stabbed in an attack that was considered by police to be a racially motivated attack. That is as much an act of terrorism as what happened in Woolwich, and yet that word is no-where in sight when you read the media.

Anyway, as for the initial questions that Ash rose in the original post, I do think religion is a dangerous force in society, as is any belief in any form of illusion. Because illusions have no basis in reality or evidence, they can be twisted and manipulated into making good people accept or support terrible acts. This applies to theological religions, patriotism (a strand of faith that believes in an innate greatness in your own country), racism, many anti-establishment conspiracy theories, and even media driven ideologies.

However, it is always more complicated than just blaming faith systems, as they are merely the tools used to circumvent critical thinking of the masses. Whilst I genuinely think the world would be a better place if we replaced beliefs with critical thinking, there is a greater problem that needs to be addressed, and that is inequality and oppression. It is those factors in the world that pushes the masses into accepting extremist views that bare no resemblance to the real world. You just need to look throughout history to see it, whether it be the Allies economically oppressing the Weimar Republic and condemning them to poverty that gave rise to Nazism, or the western support of brutal dictators in the middle-east for financial reasons which has allowed for Islamic extremism to become popularized.

So that's my views on the bigger questions. Oh, and one more thing, I really hate when people call soldiers 'Heroes'. There are no heroes in war, only victims.

 

[Sam]

To imply that people in the North are barbaric, vigilante lunatics is insulting and vaguely classist.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[Martin]

MP's first paragraph is the point I was initially making. While this does fit the definition of terrorism, terrorism is a loaded term that has come to suggest killing a great number of civilians, and is only every used when it's against us.

Last night a mosque was petrol bombed, but no one is calling that terrorism. The slaughter of children in Afghanistan by Western forces isn't called terrorism. We justify that by saying the targets were militants and that we're at war. We now don't have a problem with killing 'militants' (which now means any adult male in a combat area, whether they're actually a fighter or not) in their sleep, instead of making it a fair fight, which probably violates some rules of warfare, because we're at war. We don't call things like that terrorism, but when one of our soldiers are killed, that is terrorism. Is it still terrorism if it's a war? In that case carpet bombing Dresden was terrorism, the shock-and-awe attack on Iraq was terrorism (and they're quite open about describing it in the same way they call anything done in retaliation terrorism).

It's hypocritical. It's been said that "Terrorists is how the big army describe the little army" and that's what's going on here. I'll accept that this is an act of terrorism, but we all have to also admit our side also commits acts of terrorism.

 

[GaryH]

So, was the Allies bombing Germany in WW2 terrorism then?

I agree - our "sides" also commit acts where innocent people are killed, such as drone strikes, though it also has to be remembered that the Taliban are spineless cowards who will happily use civilians as human shields. Like I said, I just wish everyone could live together, but as long as there is religion in the world, this will never happen.

 

[Martin]

not ALL the bombing was, obviously. Targeted attacks on military targets are fine in warfare. But bombing civilians is terrorism (so obviously the Blitz was also terrorism). America's nuclear attacks on Japan were terrorist. But of course, the Nazis were the biggest terrorists of all, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse any side's actions.

 

[Meat Pie]

British targeting of innocent civilians and major towns/cities in WW2 was undoubtedly terrorism, likewise was the equivalent German attacks.

 

[gosling]

So, was the Allies bombing Germany in WW2 terrorism then?

I agree - our "sides" also commit acts where innocent people are killed, such as drone strikes, though it also has to be remembered that the Taliban are spineless cowards who will happily use civilians as human shields. Like I said, I just wish everyone could live together, but as long as there is religion in the world, this will never happen.

You're right about the Taliban, probably. But our guys are no angels either remember? The unfortunate video leak of "our side" taking aim at civilians in the town centre and firing at them while having a good old chuckle about it? The photos of torture and humiliation of prisoners? I think when you train up young people with the sole desire to send them to war, you're going to get these horrible, horrible results. From the Taliban using people as human shields to our guys firing at civilians out of boredom, to enraged civilians killing a man in cold blood in the street fueled by political/religious beliefs as a retaliation. It's a messy game on both sides tbh.

 

[GaryH]

not ALL the bombing was, obviously. Targeted attacks on military targets are fine in warfare. But bombing civilians is terrorism (so obviously the Blitz was also terrorism). America's nuclear attacks on Japan were terrorist. But of course, the Nazis were the biggest terrorists of all, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse any side's actions.

Unfortunately, the Taliban mingle in amongst civilians so unfortunately some innocent people will be killed as their positions will become military targets. Thats unfortunate and if we look at the war on Yugoslavia, there were much fewer civilians killed.

As for the nuclear attacks - hmmm, while you are correct, we should also consider that these two atomic bombs stopped the war immediately. How many more innocent people would have died if it had continued for x number of years. Im not saying what the US was right as I for one hate nuclear weapons - but at the same time we could also look at it from the point that maybe these two bombs saved more lives than they killed.....maybe...

Not a great argument I totally agree but something to think about...

 

[ChocolateStarfish]

To imply that people in the North are barbaric, vigilante lunatics is insulting and vaguely classist.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

I was more implying that southerners were a bunch of softies actually but hey I don't mind been labeled barbaric if it means those scum would of been killed.

 

[Plastic Person]

To imply that people in the North are barbaric, vigilante lunatics is insulting and vaguely classist.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

I was more implying that southerners were a bunch of softies

Yes, there's famously very little violence or reaction in London.

 

[Martin]

I'm not an expert on the Japan part of the war, but weren't they already facing defeat anyway, and the attacks made them realise they had no hope left of winning? (If I'm wrong about them losing, fair enough.) I don't think poisoning the water supply and causing kids years later to be born deformed is really fair game. Especially as the attack was deliberately on civilians, unlike the 'collateral damage' when killing the Taliban.

As for this about the crowd not doing nothing, I think that's probably the worst thing about it, the fact that a crowd of people, rather than try to stop a an be executed in cold blood, stood around filming it. Fair enough, it's not something people are used to and it would have been scary, but surely the crowd would have been able to stop it happening? I'm just not sure what geographical location has to do with it? 'Southern softies' is fine as a joke but to seriously say if this happened 200 miles further north it would have been stopped is a bit odd.

 

[Sam]

I was more implying that southerners were a bunch of softies actually but hey I don't mind been labeled barbaric if it means those scum would of been killed.

Yeah! Bloody respect for the rule of law, trial by jury, and human life. How soft of them. Bunch of gays. :

I actually think that the vast majority of people in the north, like myself, would be appalled by comments such as yours. The vast majority of British people, northern or southern, would not want the perpetrators of this crime killed in an act of street justice - they would want them to face trial and be sentenced appropriately if found guilty.

 

[Poisson]

As another Northerner, can I just say we aren't that barbaric up here. Of course there is the minority which like to think they are...

 

[GaryH]

I dont think its a case of people standing around doing nothing Blaze, I think its more a fact of shock - the guys first of all run the guy over before getting out and cutting his head off - I cant think what i would have done in the same situation when faced with two maniacs armed with a meat cleaver and cutting off someones head infront of me.

I wouldnt film it, nor them, but I dont think I would have wandered over and asked them to stop either - well, not on my own anyway, maybe in a group of a few guys yes. But it happened so quickly I dont think people even realised what was going on until it was too late.

 

[gosling]

It's worth mentioning again that they approached members of the public and told them to film. Granted some people probably were anyway, that's the nature of our social media beast. But the footage of these guys ranting to camera etc was filmed at their demand. And, again, if someone wielding a meat cleaver, having just done something so horrific without a second thought, came up to me and said 'film!!', I probably would. The shock and fear would be my main driving force at that stage, I think.