When I heard the news, I immediately thought about a recent statement in another recent thread: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.
I found it quite disturbing that it this speculation turned real so quickly (in a similar way).BobG said:The fact that we use drones (or any weapons) to attack legitimate military targets is what differentiates military attacks from terrorist attacks.
(Although I have to admit that if the facility that drones were operated from were attacked by a suicide car bomb, the public would still probably cry that it was a terrorist attack. Terminology seems to be rather sloppy when it comes to terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, for that matter.)
Er, no - maybe people forgot already, but a similar incident happened in Ft. Hood a couple of years ago:I found it quite disturbing that it this speculation turned real so quickly (in a similar way).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shootingThe Fort Hood shooting was a mass murder that took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and over 30 people were injured. It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2] Several individuals, including Senator Lieberman,[3] General McCaffrey,[4] and others have called the event a terrorist attack.[5][6] The Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies have classified the shootings as an act of workplace violence. They have declined requests from survivors and family members of the slain to categorize it as act of terrorism, or motivated by militant Islamic religious convictions.[7] In November 2011 a group of survivors and family members filed a lawsuit against the government for negligence in preventing the attack, and to force the government to classify the shootings as terrorism.
Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism wrote that the case sits at the crossroads of crime, terrorism and mental distress.
I suspect, if nothing else happens, then it will be prosecuted as a simple murder. From what I gather, the reason that this was described as a terrorist attack was that the security services have long been warning that intelligence points to terrorist cells' plans to target military personnel. This hinted that (and it might still hint that) it is part of a bigger attack. Let's hope that's not the case.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.
1. I didn't claim we are good and whether we are are aren't isn't relevant here. I only pointed out that we are better.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.
One practical reason to treat it as a simple murder for legal purposes is that it is just simpler to deal with it that way and since it happened on British soil, all of the law enforcement resources and procedures are readily available - unlike some of the people the US captured abroad, but is now trying in criminal court.I suspect, if nothing else happens, then it will be prosecuted as a simple murder. From what I gather, the reason that this was described as a terrorist attack was that the security services have long been warning that intelligence points to terrorist cells' plans to target military personnel.
Every now an then people murder other persons because they claim that god did command it.Black rights? Cameron has called this a terror attack, with good reason:
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.
Perhaps, but Hitchens was clearly not "just" those things. As usual in that video he displays an encyclopedic command of the facts: the published demands of Bin Laden, reasons given for jihadist attacks in Asia, islamic treatment of women, violent threats and attacks against free speech in Europe. Which is why, when you make a call for more data like this ...I cannot tolerate listening to people like Hitchens - he is just an arrogant, hate filled, and rhetoric spewing individual.
it is hard to take your request seriously.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 haven't failed to define) to gain imperial control of Europe.
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!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?
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).The murders clearly state their qualms in the video. Why do you want to deny their reasons when they clearly state it themselves?
Ehm....no. Exchanging the years will make more 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 9/11/11
[...]
(the last US troops left in Dec., 2001, not sure about UK troops).
Fixed, thanks.Ehm....no. Exchanging the years will make more sense.
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: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.
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....Polls show something like 2/3 of UK Muslims (that's about 1 million people)
25%? Think you got something mixed up there or I've misunderstood what you've written. England and Wales is def. not 25% Muslim.Muslims makeup 2.7 million (5%) of the total UK population, with England and Wales about 25% Muslim.
You're right - fixed. The group was "No religion" at 25%.25%? Think you got something mixed up there or I've misunderstood what you've written. England and Wales is def. not 25% Muslim.
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-arrest-10th-suspect-soldiers-slaying-153409017.htmlUK 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.
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 eachother, 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.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?
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.mheslep said:Others in the UK beside Muslims have supported sharia law in the UK, including this prince of the church of England.
I have to question that notion that it heightens racial tensions. Islam is a religion, not a race.Evo said: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 [Broken]
So antisemitism isn't racism, then?I have to question that notion that it heightens racial tensions. Islam is a religion, not a race.
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.Here are some real eye-openers/jaw-droppers:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpyco...ink-of-the-uk/