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

[russ_watters]

You are taking the example of a single violent Islamic group (and a couple of events tied to them - not even major attempts) and saying anyone who commits a murder in the name of their "God" is doing so for Imperial control. How does that make any sense?

Huh? The youtube link was discussing Bin Laden, who started the War on Terror when he committed the largest single act of terrorism on 9/11/01, after failing to ignite the war several times prior, including the first WTC bombing in 1993, when western anti-Islam sentiment was at perhaps its lowest level in the past 50 years!

Bin Laden, who was angry with the US for being in the Holy Land of his birth, which we were in because his government begged us to protect them from the secular dictator next-door. Bin Laden, who we helped try to fight the Soviets.

Bin Laden's manifesto said basically "convert to Islam or die". "Imperialism" is a cumbersome label for that, but it is nevertheless accurate to say he desired a world where everyone was an Islamic extremist.

The murders clearly state their qualms in the video. Why do you want to deny their reasons when they clearly state it themselves?

Because their reasons are at best misrepresentations? Why do you support their misrepresentations? (resisting the urge to just call it an insane rant...) For example, beyond how the wars started, do you think the killers understand that the US and the UK withdrew from Iraq and are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan? The UK hasn't killed anyone in Iraq in more than a year (the last US troops left in Dec., 2011, not sure about UK troops).

Since the war in Afghanistan is being drawn-down, do you think it is rational for them to be provoking people who are trying to withdraw from a fight with them?

 

[Cthugha]

Huh? The youtube link was discussing Bin Laden, who started the War on Terror when he committed the largest single act of terrorism on 9/11/11
[...]
(the last US troops left in Dec., 2001, not sure about UK troops).

Ehm...no. Exchanging the years will make more sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Ehm...no. Exchanging the years will make more sense.

Fixed, thanks.

 

[CherryTrooper]

So horrifyingly disturbing. The key to defeating this, aside from military means to smite the leadership, is education. We can't have these absurd liberal terrorist sympathizing views being popular. If I see another internet post about the Boston Marathon Bomber being "cute" and should be "freed" I will scream. Something is wrong with the youth pop culture, where it's acceptable to post "eviction notices" on Jewish students doors, but God forbid you identify a terrorist as Islamic. People NEED real education. Yes, free speech, free ideas, form your own opinions - but when this sort of thing becomes a social norm (Jihad sympathy, etc), then these terrorists get free roam without any stopping power what so ever. The youth needs to be educated and stop being left to try with silly, left wing media biased information shortcuts.

 

[Lavabug]

I cannot tolerate listening to people like Hitchens - he is just an arrogant, hate filled, and rhetoric spewing individual. Since you are so quick to dismiss the emotions of family members whose loved ones are killed by reckless military action, why don't you give me a list of accumulated events that justify your claims that there is an active campaign by some supposed major group (that you have failed to define) to gain imperial control of Europe. As long as you don't bring nationalistic dogma into the fray, I'm more than willing to hear you out :)

P.S. for those of who haven't already read the story about Ingrid: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

She's pretty badass.

I can't point to any groups other than the big name terror cells and the Islamic equivalents of televangelists within the UK, or the groups that peddle for blasphemy laws in all of Europe (which should be sufficient), but this is a good place to start:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion
I just spent a year in London and that article is putting things very mildly. Islam in the UK (and Denmark and the Netherlands, with their long history of Islamic harassment and violence towards journalists, cartoonists and artists) is about as overtly theocratic and imperialist as any ideology gets. Polls show something like 2/3 of UK Muslims (that's about 1 million people) think Western culture is degenerate and should be corrected by imposing Shariah.

Hitchens is right on the money with practically everything he says. It's a tough cookie to swallow when you've been around people condemning the Iraq war or general military intervention your whole life (it was for me), but if you read some of his background and justifications it gets very hard to argue against his positions. They'll never make their way to the mainstream anytime soon though.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/religion.world

...Polls show something like 2/3 of UK Muslims (that's about 1 million people)

Those figures date to around 2001. Per the 2011 UK census, Muslims makeup 2.7 million (5%) of the England and Wales population. The Tower Hamlets borrow of London has the highest concentration at ~35% Muslim.

Others in the UK beside Muslims have supported sharia law in the UK, including this prince of the church of England.

 

[JesseC]

Muslims makeup 2.7 million (5%) of the total UK population, with England and Wales about 25% Muslim.

25%? Think you got something mixed up there or I've misunderstood what you've written. England and Wales is def. not 25% Muslim.

 

[mheslep]

25%? Think you got something mixed up there or I've misunderstood what you've written. England and Wales is def. not 25% Muslim.

You're right - fixed. The group was "No religion" at 25%.

 

[Evo]

Seems the murderers were part of an Islamic terrorist group.

UK police arrest 10th suspect in soldier's slaying

LONDON (AP) — British police arrested a 10th suspect Monday in connection with the vicious street killing of a soldier in London, an apparent Islamic extremist attack that has horrified the country and heightened racial tensions.

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-arrest-10th-suspect-soldiers-slaying-153409017.html

 

[aquitaine]

You are taking the example of a single violent Islamic group (and a couple of events tied to them - not even major attempts) and saying anyone who commits a murder in the name of their "God" is doing so for Imperial control. How does that make any sense? The murders clearly state their qualms in the video. Why do you want to deny their reasons when they clearly state it themselves?

Islam has always been a tool for conquest, going all the way back to the beginning. Is there some kind of central plot for a worldwide caliphate? No, the nature of it is highly decentralized. Within Islam is an undercurrent of imperialism that carries lots of Bin Ladens and lots of terrorists of many stripes. But they have different factions that are opposed to each other, which is why even though they kill us for "killing Muslims" they have no qualms about taking the life of a Muslim from an opposing group. They also will set aside their long term goal of Islamizing the world with their factions' ideology and form temporary alliances with infidels if there is a common enemy, such as the alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire, or Bin Laden and the CIA. They never last though, as soon as the common enemy is vanquished or no longer is a threat they will become your enemy again, as Bin Laden did after the Soviets left Afghanistan. You can't take their word at face value. For further reading I suggest Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh.

This is not an issue of nationalism, it is about the survival of our values in the face of a hostile insurgent ideology, 500 years of progress is on the line here.

Others in the UK beside Muslims have supported sharia law in the UK, including this prince of the church of England.

I think this is an important point that is often overlooked. They are such a small population, yet how do they have such a huge influence? I think it's because they've been able to conscript the multiculturalists and social scientists to do their fighting for them in addition to employing terror attacks to silence opposition.

Seems the murderers were part of an Islamic terrorist group.

UK police arrest 10th suspect in soldier's slaying

LONDON (AP) — British police arrested a 10th suspect Monday in connection with the vicious street killing of a soldier in London, an apparent Islamic extremist attack that has horrified the country and heightened racial tensions.
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-arre...153409017.html

I have to question that notion that it heightens racial tensions. Islam is a religion, not a race.

 

[ImATrackMan]

I have to question that notion that it heightens racial tensions. Islam is a religion, not a race.

So antisemitism isn't racism, then?

 

[Lavabug]

'Jewish' actually does denote an ethnnoreligious group, unlike the word muslim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish

So if by antisemtism you mean the colloquial expression for hatred of jews, it is very much racism by definition, unlike "Islamophobia".

Edit:

Here are some real eye-openers/jaw-droppers:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/

 

[ImATrackMan]

Sorry, I was thinking of racial/religious prejudice. Carry on.

 

[Intrastellar]

I like to show this video when such discussions occur. I recommend that everyone watches it.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Here are some real eye-openers/jaw-droppers:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpyco...ink-of-the-uk/

It's good to know what these people think, so we can work hard to make sure their wishes never come true. Those Muslims basically want a world devoid of happiness.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I was thinking of racial/religious prejudice. Carry on.

Part of the problem is that there is no single-word label for hating someone else for their religion (religism?) or ethnicity (ethnism?), favorite sports team (Yankeesism?) or whatever. So people overuse "racism", broadening it to cover other types of hate. The overuse doesn't actually have any impact on the discussion though so there is no point in hairsplitting it.

 

[russ_watters]

I like to show this video when such discussions occur. I recommend that everyone watches it.

Uh, what? He's suggesting there are American troops in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, Iran, etc. oppressing the people on behalf of their governments?

Bin Laden, a Saudi, hated us in part because we had troops in Saudia Arabia. Were they there to oppress the Saudi people and protect the Saudi government from a popular uprising? Uh, no, they were there because the Saudi government begged us to protect them from the imperialistic dictator next door!

Analogy fail.

It frightens me that he teaches classes in that sort of thing. "As a sociologist, I understand." Well you can't understand much if you have most of the key facts wrong.

 

[lisab]

Part of the problem is that there is no single-word label for hating someone else for their religion (religism?) or ethnicity (ethnism?), favorite sports team (Yankeesism?) or whatever. So people overuse "racism", broadening it to cover other types of hate. The overuse doesn't actually have any impact on the discussion though so there is no point in hairsplitting it.

That's a stunning observation...how many millions of humans have been killed due to hatred of their religion, yet we have no "ism" word for it specifically. I've never noticed that !

"Bigot" is an umbrella term for all those -isms you mentioned. But it's kind of diluted.

It's always bothered me that "racism" is used in reference to Hispanics, but "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race.

 

[Evo]

I think it's just loosely referred to as "religious intolerance". And you're both right, ethnicity is frequently confused with race.

 

[russ_watters]

"Bigot" is an umbrella term for all those -isms you mentioned.

"Bigot" is an appropriate umbrella term, but it is a label for the person (racist/bigot), no the ideology (racism).

[edit] Oh, but there is "bigotry".

 

[Intrastellar]

Uh, what? He's suggesting there are American troops in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, Iran, etc. oppressing the people on behalf of their governments?

Bin Laden, a Saudi, hated us in part because we had troops in Saudia Arabia. Were they there to oppress the Saudi people and protect the Saudi government from a popular uprising? Uh, no, they were there because the Saudi government begged us to protect them from the imperialistic dictator next door!

Analogy fail.

It frightens me that he teaches classes in that sort of thing. "As a sociologist, I understand." Well you can't understand much if you have most of the key facts wrong.

did you even finish watching the video ? if so then you have missed the point completely.
you can just change Iraq into the invaded Muslim countries, a Muslim in Iran is mad because a Muslim in Palestine has his land taken from him (whether this is the truth is not our topic of discussion), this should be obvious if you have listened to what the murderer said in the video.

If your point is that this is not what people in the middle east think (Iraq in particular, the example given by the video), then clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm an Iraqi, and most of my contacts is with Iraqi people both inside and outside Iraq, and I can say that what the video mentions resembles to a good degree how Iraqi people think. What this video tries to do is to make you understand why would they react in that way.

In that aspect, you are not different from the terrorists you are ranting about, you as well refuse to admit the existence of another point of view, never mind the validity of it.
I hate bin laden as well, and all kinds of terrorism or extremism that this act or any similar one show, but I was trying to offer another point of view, which you not only reject but "frightens you"

 

[aquitaine]

Part of the problem is that there is no single-word label for hating someone else for their religion (religism?) or ethnicity (ethnism?), favorite sports team (Yankeesism?) or whatever. So people overuse "racism", broadening it to cover other types of hate. The overuse doesn't actually have any impact on the discussion though so there is no point in hairsplitting it.

For some people that's probably the case, but for me it's a matter of values. I don't care that their Man in the Sky has a different name, since I'm an atheist it's all nonsense anyway, but I do care that they still practice what amounts to levitical law. Maybe "valueist" would be a better description.

you can just change Iraq into the invaded Muslim countries, a Muslim in Iran is mad because a Muslim in Palestine has his land taken from him (whether this is the truth is not our topic of discussion), this should be obvious if you have listened to what the murderer said in the video.

Egypt was in control of the Gaza strip for a great many years, do you know what they did for the Palestinian people living there? Nothing, because that's not what this is really about. You cannot take these people at their word.

 

[Intrastellar]

Egypt was in control of the Gaza strip for a great many years, do you know what they did for the Palestinian people living there? Nothing, because that's not what this is really about. You cannot take these people at their word.

thank you for the reply. Your point would be valid if we were discussing the stances of the political leaders. My point (and the video) has more to do with discussing the thoughts of the people who are directly involved in terrorism acts, the people who are carrying it out, or the general population. And I assure you that Egyptians I have met do care a lot about that.

 

[boomtrain]

thank you for the reply. Your point would be valid if we were discussing the stances of the political leaders. My point (and the video) has more to do with discussing the thoughts of the people who are directly involved in terrorism acts, the people who are carrying it out, or the general population. And I assure you that Egyptians I have met do care a lot about that.

interesting theory. It's difficult to test the will of the people carrying out terrorist acts or the general populations of their countries of origin. Perhaps by looking at the major sources of aid to the Palestinian people we can get some insight regarding their feelings toward their oppressed co-religionists.

According to the Development Assistance Committee, themain multilateral donors for the 2006–2007 period were UNRWA and the EU (through the European Commission); the main bilateral donors were the US, Japan, Canada and five European countries (Norway, Germany, Sweden, Spain and France).[58] Since 1993 the European Commission and the EU member-states combined have been by far the largest aid contributor to the Palestinians.[59] The Arab League states have also been substantial donors, notably through budgetary support to the PNA during the Second Intifada; they have been however criticized for not sufficiently financing the UNRWA and the PNA, and for balking at their pledges.

 

[Intrastellar]

interesting theory. It's difficult to test the will of the people carrying out terrorist acts or the general populations of their countries of origin. Perhaps by looking at the major sources of aid to the Palestinian people we can get some insight regarding their feelings toward their oppressed co-religionists.

After the 2006 Palestinian elections, the Arab countries tried to contribute to the payment of the Palestinian public servants' wages, bypassing the PNA; at the same time Arab funds were paid directly to Abbas' office for disbursement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians#Major_donors

I did a bit of research and discovered an interesting, yet largely unknown, little fact: Arab states provide less than 3 percent of the annual budget of UNRWA, the UN agency that assists Palestinian refugees throughout the Middle East.

http://freund.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/do_arab_states_.html

During the Paris Conference, 11% of the pledges came from the US and Canada, 53% from Europe and 20% from the Arab countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians#Major_donors

well yea, maybe you are right and I'm wrong after all, I only wanted to offer another point of view.

 

[aquitaine]

thank you for the reply. Your point would be valid if we were discussing the stances of the political leaders. My point (and the video) has more to do with discussing the thoughts of the people who are directly involved in terrorism acts, the people who are carrying it out, or the general population. And I assure you that Egyptians I have met do care a lot about that.

And yet they don't seem to care about muslims killing each other in Iraq or Pakistan? The problem is you're assuming Islamism is some kind of monolithic entity, it isn't. In that imperialist undercurrent carries many Bin Ladens and terrorists of all kinds, some are opposed to each other. With that in mind, I'm not taking what they say seriously.