News Is the Woolwich Attack a Reflection of Broader Terrorist Ideologies?

[Ryan_m_b]

This is barbaric. Two men attacked a third in broad daylight with knives before demanding witnesses film them so they could shout political messages. They were later shot by police (though apparently they are both alive in hospital) and the government is treating this as a terrorist incident.

A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot by police in Woolwich, south-east London.

Prime Minister David Cameron said there were "strong indications that it is a terrorist incident" and the UK would "never buckle" in the face of such attacks.

Footage has emerged showing a man wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements.

There are unconfirmed reports that the dead man was a soldier.

Both French President Francois Hollande and MP Nick Raynsford said the dead man had been a soldier at Woolwich barracks.

The footage shown on the ITV website shows a man, dressed in a grey hooded jacket, saying: "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

He added: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303

The above link contains a shocking video of one of the men

 

[cristo]

This is absolutely horrifying. ITV has an even more disturbing video. I really hope it isn't the start of something bigger, though since COBRA has been convened, the government presumably think it is.

My thoughts go out to the family of that man, and anyone who had to witness that disgusting act.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Surreal to watch the video of the man with knives and bloody hands. Doesn't really look sketch. Troubling.

 

[Monique]

I find it bizarre that people were filming it and standing in a crowd doing nothing, there was even a lady with a grocery stroller walking into the scene. Unfortunately people get murdered every day, all of those acts are senseless. This act is particularly gruesome, since it took place during the day in a public area. Similar to Theo van Gogh who was also slain on the street:

Van Gogh as he was cycling to work [..] The killer shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. The killer also tried to decapitate van Gogh with a knife, and stabbed him in the chest with another. The two knives were left implanted; one attached a five-page note to his body. The note threatened Western countries, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director )

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I thought that as well but I guess after the murder is done people thought it would be best to wait for the police and capture evidence.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The world is such a scary place, beyond my comprehension. I don't even know what to expect anymore but it's hard to have any faith left in society when things like this are so commonplace. My condolences to the family of the poor man who was killed.

 

[JesseC]

The perpetrators don't flee the scene, they want attention! The media will give it to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if such explicit, round the clock reporting of events like these doesn't increase the likelihood of them occurring again.

 

[lisab]

The perpetrators don't flee the scene, they want attention! The media will give it to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if such explicit, round the clock reporting of events like these doesn't increase the likelihood of them occurring again.

I heard from several sources they asked people to record them, and some people did. Gotta be honest, if I just witnessed some crazed wackos doing what they did, I'd probably comply with what they asked, too.

I like Cameron's response:

People across Britain, people in every community, I believe, will utterly condemn this attack. We have had these sorts of attacks before in our country and we never buckle in the face of them. In a free country, the best way to defeat terrorism is to live your life, to show that terrorists can never win.

Hear, hear.

 

[reenmachine]

I'm scared of the world.I wish I could just relax and enjoy it's beauty.There's always some assholes to remind me of how scary this place is.What the hell is this?

 

[256bits]

I'm scared of the world.I wish I could just relax and enjoy it's beauty.There's always some assholes to remind me of how scary this place is.What the hell is this?

If you feel that way then the terrorists have succeeded in their goal with you. That is their objective - immobilize the "enemy" through fear.( as they themselves perceive an enemy in their minds that are twisted all to hell, and if they do not have an enemy they will make one up ).

Be wise and temper your fear and go out and enjoy the wonder of the world.

 

[Monique]

I'm scared of the world.I wish I could just relax and enjoy it's beauty.There's always some assholes to remind me of how scary this place is.What the hell is this?

The attention that the event receives, gives a false impression of the danger. How many people are harmed by traffic accidents each day in London? Statistics of 2011: 80 casualties a day of which 7 with serious injuries and every other day a fatality. I'm happy that I live somewhere that's relatively safe, compared to countries that face these actions on a regular basis.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You've hit the nail on the head Monique. Newspapers also rely on this phenomenon of poor risk evaluation. The UK is pretty peaceful, last year there were 550 murders which sounds a lot but in a nation of 65 million that's one murder every ~120,000 people. The chance of death by motor accident is 6 times higher but we still get in cars every day.

Even though crime rates have been dropping for years the perception of crime seems to rise. As a counter terrorism strategy I don't know why this risk perception phenomenon isn't tackled more by the government.

 

[DiracPool]

Even though crime rates have been dropping for years the perception of crime seems to rise. As a counter terrorism strategy I don't know why this risk perception phenomenon isn't tackled more by the government.

It isn't tackled because we need the government, lots of it, to keep us safe from all the danger that surrounds us. Be afraid...be VERY afraid...

 

[Office_Shredder]

but we still get in cars every As a counter terrorism strategy I don't know why this risk perception phenomenon isn't tackled more by the government.

This reminds me of a quote that I can only paraphrase... It's funny that when a company tweaks their formula to make your clothes 10% cleaner they spend a billion dollars making sure everyone knows, but when government policy helps crime rates drop for twenty years there is essentially no advertising of this fact.

I think a lot of it is a failure of our political system.. In theory if your policies are beneficial you should be pushing that, but we rarely see commercials from political parties espousing basic improvements to life... They're mostly limited to attack ads and hot button issues. And I guess that's really the public's fault for responding to that kind of advertising

 

[boomtrain]

The attention that the event receives, gives a false impression of the danger. How many people are harmed by traffic accidents each day in London? Statistics of 2011: 80 casualties a day of which 7 with serious injuries and every other day a fatality. I'm happy that I live somewhere that's relatively safe, compared to countries that face these actions on a regular basis.

The attention that events like this receive still makes sense. We accept some risk when we drive, and can minimize that by driving carefully. We don't accept the risk of being brutally murdered in the street by traitors in the clash of civilizations, and people are rightly horrified.

 

[Monique]

I agree, but I find other events horrifying as well (a father committing suicide, but before that killing and hiding his two young sons from their mother, a speeding driver hitting and instantly killing an elderly couple and their grandchild). The event of yesterday is very unusual so receives a lot of attention, it's not my attention to belittle it, but sometimes the perspective is lost. In response to the Boston bombing my mom said "See, that's why I don't participate in running events", but that's 3500 miles away and how often does that happen?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This reminds me of a quote that I can only paraphrase... It's funny that when a company tweaks their formula to make your clothes 10% cleaner they spend a billion dollars making sure everyone knows, but when government policy helps crime rates drop for twenty years there is essentially no advertising of this fact.

I think a lot of it is a failure of our political system.. In theory if your policies are beneficial you should be pushing that, but we rarely see commercials from political parties espousing basic improvements to life... They're mostly limited to attack ads and hot button issues. And I guess that's really the public's fault for responding to that kind of advertising

To be fair politicians constantly point out the successes and failures of policies. The problem is that politicians disagree greatly on these matters because partisan democracy requires them to compete. Because of that we get spin with every issue and fairly agreement across parties.

Also I don't think it's fair to blame the public for responding to advertisement. That entire industry is devoted to learning new and intelligent ways of convincing people of something. Even the most astute and wary of us still fall for it in areas without realising.

The attention that events like this receive still makes sense. We accept some risk when we drive, and can minimize that by driving carefully. We don't accept the risk of being brutally murdered in the street by traitors in the clash of civilizations, and people are rightly horrified.

Emphasis mine, either you are misusing this term or you have fallen victim to racist justifying nonsense.

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately, being in the US, I'm a bit numb to a single murder. But I understand that this kind of violence is perhaps not as common there. I was watching a news clip about this yesterday where a witness kept saying over and over "he had a handgun, a handgun, he pulled out a handgun". I wish I lived in a country where someone having a handgun was shocking.

Let's hope this was just two lone lunatics and an isolated event.

 

[Kholdstare]

I wish I lived in a country where someone having a handgun was shocking.

Get out of US, then.

 

[Evo]

Get out of US, then.

I'd rather the US became less violent.

 

[Kholdstare]

I'd rather the US became less violent.

It wont.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Yes, because anytime you wish your surroundings could be improved in some way, the solution is to go somewhere where your surroundings are perfect. And as you slowly circle the earth, skipping between blemished towns and flawed cities, your march across the globe slowly turns into a death spiral as your life flits away in a series of bitter disappointments.

This is the only just punishment for those who desire change

 

[lisab]

It wont.

Actually, it is. The crime rate has been dropping for years:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0306.pdf

Lots of theories about why, but it's definitely decreasing.

 

[lisab]

...as you slowly circle the earth, skipping between blemished towns and flawed cities, your march across the globe slowly turns into a death spiral as your life flits away in a series of bitter disappointments...

OK, Eeyore .

 

[trollcast]

On BBC Radio 2 this afternoon there was an interesting parallel between the publicity events like this get and pitch invaders in football (OK the analogue isn't great but bear with it)

Once one or two people invaded the pitch and got their 10 second slot on tv everyone started doing it and started protesting about this and that. Then the tv stopped showing pitch invaders and the numbers fell dramatically as the people simply didn't get their publicity they want.

Now scale that up to the scale of fanatical religious extremists who see highly public attacks like this as a soapbox for spreading their message. Perhaps is it not slightly logical to conclude that if events like this didn't get as much coverage then some of these events may not occur? (I'm not saying for total media censorship but the coverage should only deal in facts eg. "A soldier was killed yesterday by islamist terrorists in Woolwich" and remove the sensationalist hype eg. the photos of the blood soaked attacker)

Also reduced media coverage would probably reduce the number of "copy cat" attempts or plots that will now most likely be being assembled by other individuals like these 2.

 

[boomtrain]

Emphasis mine, either you are misusing this term or you have fallen victim to racist justifying nonsense.

Maybe I'm misusing the term. The War On Terror is often used interchangeably in the press with "a clash of civilizations".

I'm curious to know why you think this is racist or justifies nonsense. How would you describe homegrown terrorists other than as traitors? Have you heard the terrorists own words in this case? Even if you don't think of this in terms of "us vs them", the terrorists clearly do.

 

[Office_Shredder]

On BBC Radio 2 this afternoon there was an interesting parallel between the publicity events like this get and pitch invaders in football (OK the analogue isn't great but bear with it)

Once one or two people invaded the pitch and got their 10 second slot on tv everyone started doing it and started protesting about this and that. Then the tv stopped showing pitch invaders and the numbers fell dramatically as the people simply didn't get their publicity they want.

Do the numbers for this actually exist, or were the commentators simply noticing that once the press stopped reporting on something, they stopped hearing about that thing?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Maybe I'm misusing the term. The War On Terror is often used interchangeably in the press with "a clash of civilizations".

Yes you (and the news readers) are misusing the term. "Clash of civilisations" comes from a theory published in the 90s that proposed that the world could be divided into six or so civilisations (Western, African, Arab etc) that would inevitably come to blows and have to be kept somewhat separate. It is more nuanced than that but utterly unfounded in reality and often critisised for being racist and used to justify racist jolly.

 

[DrDu]

This deed corresponds perfectly to the fears of europeans of mad african savages and will be exploited by all kind of right wing groups.
I fear this event is devastating for black rights movement.

 

[mheslep]

...The UK is pretty peaceful, last year there were 550 murders which sounds a lot but in a nation of 65 million that's one murder every ~120,000 people. ...

The UK violent crime rate is 2K per 100K people (2009), per the Daily Mail the highest in the EU.

 

[Monique]

The UK violent crime rate is 2K per 100K people (2009), per the Daily Mail the highest in the EU.

The world is a reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[trollcast]

Do the numbers for this actually exist, or were the commentators simply noticing that once the press stopped reporting on something, they stopped hearing about that thing?

It's related to the copycat effect, which I can't find any papers specific to murders / terrorist attacks on but google might provide some more results I've missed (Most of the papers are about suicide rates)

 

[mheslep]

The world is a reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

A homicide reference, not violent crime (i.e. homicide, assault, sexual assault, ...)

 

[mheslep]

This deed corresponds perfectly to the fears of europeans of mad african savages and will be exploited by all kind of right wing groups.
I fear this event is devastating for black rights movement.

Black rights? Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:

"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone," said a meat-cleaver-wielding man with bloody hands, speaking in what seems to be a London accent.

"The only reasons we killed this man ... is because Muslims are dying daily," he added, in video aired by CNN affiliate ITN. "This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The UK violent crime rate is 2K per 100K people (2009), per the Daily Mail the highest in the EU.

I don't have time to find the relevant link at the moment but note that UK law classes many things as violent crimes that other countries do not. Verbal abuse, carrying a concealed weapon and threatening behaviour for example are all classed as violent crimes. So that 2k per 100k figure certainly doesn't just mean murder and assault, it means a lot of things that people would scratch their heads at and wonder why it was considered violent.

 

[cristo]

Unfortunately, being in the US, I'm a bit numb to a single murder. But I understand that this kind of violence is perhaps not as common there. I was watching a news clip about this yesterday where a witness kept saying over and over "he had a handgun, a handgun, he pulled out a handgun". I wish I lived in a country where someone having a handgun was shocking.

Let's hope this was just two lone lunatics and an isolated event.

This wasn't just a murder, it was a brutal decapitation in the middle of a street in broad daylight.

You're right about the handgun thing though, it is shocking to see handguns, because we rarely do. There are the odd armed police around, but really they are few and far between. I've never seen a handgun carried by anyone other than a police officer.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

And yet the radicals don't mind that they blow up innocent Muslims on a daily basis in Afganistan and Iraq. Seriously just about every day there is a bomb in some market or at some funeral or wedding and a Westerner isn't around for miles. The hypocrisy is out of this world.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

btw, withdrawing all western presence will not stop the radicals. You think these radicals will just say "ok" and become farmers? No, it is now in their nature. They will spread propaganda. They need a boogy man to survive and gain support. Just like North Korea. Even if there is no current reason to seek payback, they can forever seek vengeance for what we did in the past.

 

[WannabeNewton]

And yet the radicals don't mind that they blow up innocent Muslims on a daily basis in Afganistan and Iraq. Seriously just about every day there is a bomb in some market or at some funeral or wedding and a Westerner isn't around for miles. The hypocrisy is out of this world.

Well no one is in the right here, is what I'm saying. A number of people from all groups involved are doing bad things to each other. It's not the good vs. evil that respective parties make it out to be in the eyes of their fellow citizens.

 

[reenmachine]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

Imagine if we went to Iran and started a cult and we would discuss how we could conquer the islamic world by force.They would kill us right away.But hey , "we're better than that" , we are accepting.There is no logical basis on which I should accept and respect Islam more than your average local cult.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Imagine if we went to Iran and started a cult and we would discuss how we could conquer the islamic world by force.They would kill us right away.But hey , "we're better than that" , we are accepting.There is no logical basis on which I should accept and respect Islam more than your average local cult.

As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides. Everyone involved in the big picture is wrong in my eyes. A human death is a human death, I don't care if it is a British person or a Middle-Easterner or what have you because it is wrong to kill people either way for such superficial causes.

 

[Evo]

I read that one of the murderers was born and raised in London, being of Nigerian descent, and the others involved (two more people were arrested) were also Nigerian. I am not aware of a current western occupation of Nigeria.

http://news.yahoo.com/british-soldier-hacked-death-suspected-islamist-attack-060253278.html

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get why certain Western countries keep killing so many innocent lives in the Middle East when they know they are angering the radicals who then come to said Western Countries and retaliate.

What's hard to understand? It happens accidentally sometimes when killing non-innocent lives.

As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides.

I've never heard a good justification for not differentiating between purposeful and accidental killing. You're drawing a false equivalence and doing it in the name of "not taking sides" doesn't justify the negative implications of what you are saying:

I suppose it is possible that if we become hermits, the radicals will be a little less angry and will do a little less killing of our innocents, but if we were in that situation, it would be tough to watch innocent lives being taken for no reason and not try to do something about it. You're asking us to accept such a situation where they can kill us and we do nothing about it.

 

[russ_watters]

Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:

I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.

As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.

The assailants, after all, didn't make any attempt to go after any civilians, so from that we can conclude there was no danger to civilians from these guys. I suppose in a way that puts them a level above the garden variety terrorist (the Boston bombers are typical) and the typical radical Islamic position on the issue. Please don't construe that to be a defense though; as murders go, this was a pretty heinous one.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What's hard to understand? It happens accidentally sometimes when killing non-innocent lives. I've never heard a good justification for not differentiating between purposeful and accidental killing. You're drawing a false equivalence and doing it in the name of "not taking sides" doesn't justify the negative implications of what you are saying:

I suppose it is possible that if we become hermits, the radicals will be a little less angry and will do a little less killing of our innocents, but if we were in that situation, it would be tough to watch innocent lives being taken for no reason and not try to do something about it. You're asking us to accept such a situation where they can kill us and we do nothing about it.

We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization. I am reminded of Bob Dylan's brilliant song "With God on Our Side".

 

[reenmachine]

As long as we're killing innocent people there, we aren't any more "justified". I don't like taking sides. Everyone involved in the big picture is wrong in my eyes. A human death is a human death, I don't care if it is a British person or a Middle-Easterner or what have you because it is wrong to kill people either way for such superficial causes.

I am in no way justifying anybody's action.In my ideal world , humanity would spend much more energy on trying to get closer and closer to absolute truth.There would be no time for wars or power struggles.We would make smart decisions on a mass level everyday to ensure our survival.There would be no violence in school.Everybody in school would be interested and curious to learn more , which would naturally boost the value of teachers (and particularly scientists and philosophers) around the world.

This isn't the world we live in today.It's not about taking side , it's about being born in a world which have sides , and it's also about being born (or raised) on one of those sides.How far are you willing to take your abstract principles? Suppose a new religion/country/group-of-people-with-an-opposite-ideology "RF" comes around and their goal is to kill everybody that isn't a RFer.RFers are being killed everyday.The RFers try to invade your country and they start entering the city you live in and kill citizens.Clearly , you could feel as much empathy for a RFer being killed in RF land and a western country citizen being killed in a western country.This is the same race , the human race , and a specimen suffering a dramatic event , which can be a hard pill to swallow for another member (you) of that race , if only in reaction of the reminder that this is a faith that could be reserved for you in this world.

Abstractly , I wouldn't feel very differently for both guys from both sides who got killed coldly in a barbaric way.I would feel their fear , try to put my mind as if I was in this situation facing a guy with a knife who's probably going to succeed in stabbing me to death.Or a soldier coming at me with the permission and ambition to kill me as quickly as possible.Imagine the fear.This is outrageous behavior for an intellectually advanced race (relatively).But in the end , if the RFer are coming to town with the goal to kill me or everything I believe in , I have to let go of my abstractions in order to survive.

 

[256bits]

I'd like to hear insight into how the legal definitions and processes work in the UK because I suspect that if this happened in the US, it would be prosecuted as a simple murder.

As an academic matter, it doesn't really qualify as terrorism because the target was a member of the military. It may qualify as a war crime though, as there are a number of wrongs about it in the context of warfighting, but even that would be a stretch/complicated discussion.

Quite well said actually. I guess we will see you the juducial system actually deals with it.
Are the individuals' thought processes so deranged to the point where they thought that the taking the life of an innocent individual ( in our definition innocent, in a terrorists no one of the other side is innocent ) will promote their cause as being just. Can they be considered actually insane? No sane person goes around doing stuff like this.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Can they be considered actually insane? No sane person goes around doing stuff like this.

Revenge can cloud judgement in times of rage / fury so I don't know if they are clinically insane. The insanity plea is so overused in court systems though.

 

[micromass]

We aren't good people just because we are supposedly out there killing the "bad" guys. This is the kind of blind patriotism that results in blind rampaging murders. What those men did is of course not justified and is a terrible thing regardless of who they killed and for what reason but trying to make it seem like we are shining angels in a battle of good vs evil is just as much of a lie now as it ever was throughout civilization. I am reminded of Bob Dylan's brilliant song "With God on Our Side".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnRdsSC3YwM