Te Reo Putake10.1
“A completely random, wicked act of insanity.”Seems like a fair summary to me, Moz. And how brave were the women who confronted the nutters? What an amazing show of solidarity with the victim despite the risk to themselves. That’s real heroism in the face of a cowardly, brutal attack.Private Baldrick10.1.1
News of what the ladies did brought a tear to my eye.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10074881/Mum-talked-down-Woolwich-terrorists-who-told-her-We-want-to-start-a-war-in-London-tonight.html- Yep, London 1, terrorists nil.btw, Moz, it’s Matthew Parris, not Paris. He used to be a Tory MP, but didn’t like the lifestyle so went back to journalism. Quite well respected by all sides, as far as I know.
Colonial Viper10.1.1.1.1
Buying into the T word for every minor incident is very dangerous.Remember, the moment that is used in official circles, you can forget due process, habeus corpus, having access to legal counsel, treatment as a civilian etc.- “I asked him if he did it and he said yes and I said why? And he said because he has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries, he said he was a British soldier and I said really and he said ‘I killed him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan they have nothing to do there.”From the Telegraph report.
ratesarerevolting10.1.1.1.2.1
Yes ?Draco T Bastard…
Context. The act wasn’t random.- Indeed. This wasn’t “terrorism”. It was the targetted killing of a British soldier. Happens all the time in Afghanistan as part of the “war against terrorism”.This was the war against terror being fought on British soil.
Populuxe1…
Generally speaking if it happens to be one of your own citizens it’s not war, it’s terrorism.Pascal's bookie…
I assume you are tired, because that makes no sense at all.Terrorism is a tactic. Very often it is intra-national, (but there are many striking counter-examples to that), but that’s not what makes it terrorism.It’s terrorism if the act is primarily designed to create effects in the target’s population. Blowing up a building because it contains a research program you want halted? Not terrorism. Blowing up a building because you want to create a sense that people are in danger because other buildings may be blown up? Terrorism.
Morrissey10.1.1.1.3
Yep, London 1, terrorists nil.Now you’re channeling Boris Johnson. That’s not good. And it’s certainly not smart.btw, Moz, it’s Matthew Parris, not Paris.Goldarn it! I knew that! I was in such a hurry to get out this morning, I didn’t double-check. Thank you, my sharp and knowledgeable friend.He used to be a Tory MP, but didn’t like the lifestyle so went back to journalism. Quite well respected by all sides, as far as I know.Here’s a good intro. to Parris by someone a little more thoughtful than those politicians and corporate stenographers whose “respect” you seem to prize so highly….
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1366153822.html
- Seems like a fair summary to me, Moz.It’s wicked, I’ll grant you that. Only Garth McVicar and his S.S. folk would condone a brutal killing like that. But it was not random: you know that perfectly well. And it was anything but insane.And how brave were the women who confronted the nutters?There you go with the Parrisian gobbledegook again. They were brutal, vicious POLITICAL killers; they were not “nutters”. Several people in the street simply walked past the blood-drenched killer; one woman carrying a shopping-bag actually bumped into him. They knew that he was NOT a “nutter”, and so do you. The killing was a selective targeting of a SOLDIER.….real heroism in the face of a cowardly, brutal attack.They knew they were in no danger. You are quite correct to call the killings brutal; I share your sense of horror and outrage. But you are more intelligent than to simply accept the spin already being placed on this by the British government. I hope, by the way, that you condemn the British soldiers who deal out far greater carnage overseas as cowardly and brutal. Otherwise you might as well just sign up with an outfit like the S.S. Trust—or those brave skinheaded fellows that rioted against the “darkies” following this brutal murder.
- Brutal, vicious killers of any description are nutters – sane people don’t really do brutal and vicious murder. And unless the women had telepathic powers, they had no idea whether they were in danger or not – they were fucking brave and heroic.
- Brutal, vicious killers of any description are nutters – sane people don’t really do brutal and vicious murder.New Zealand and Australian soldiers rounded up more than one hundred boys and men in the Palestinian village of Surafend in late 1918, then methodically clubbed them to death. None of those ANZAC heroes was a “nutter”. The soldiers who committed brutal, vicious murders at My Lai and hundreds of other villages all over South Vietnam were not “nutters”. Neither are the American soldiers who are committing similar atrocities these days….
http://morallowground.com/2012/04/18/us-82nd-airborne-soldiers-posed-for-photos-with-body-parts-of-dead-afghan-resistance-fighters/There are “nutters” involved of course: they are the wicked ideologues who send young men to commit these crimes.And unless the women had telepathic powers, they had no idea whether they were in danger or not – they were fucking brave and heroic.Wow! That was a whole street full of “fucking brave and heroic” civilians choosing to not run away. But let’s be perfectly serious here: I think that you know, just like those Londoners knew, that those two men were neither insane nor dangerous to anyone except British soldiers.I have no doubt that you will be pushing the British government’s outlandish take on this over the next week or so. That is what Matthew Parris was up to this morning. You need to be aware that you will be forcefully refuted every time you attempt to do so.- Oh. My. God. You are actually completely derranged. You make the chemtrail conspiracy theorists look vaguely lucid.
- Oh. My. God. You are actually completely derranged. You make the chemtrail conspiracy theorists look vaguely lucid.Feigning hysterical outrage is not any kind of response.Well, it is for you, I guess.(Believe it or not, folks, that hilariously inadequate spray represents animprovement in quality by our friend.)
Murray Olsen…
I believe it.Professor Longhair…
“Feigning hysterical outrage is not any kind of response.”Sadly, that seems to be all this “Populuxe1” specimen is capable of.
- Spot on, Pop. These cowards were no more political than Charles Manson (and mysogynist to boot, all that chauvinist crap about ‘our women’).
- You would think the fact that most normal Muslims find this sort of thing horrific might actually register with Morrissey along the line. Perhaps he doesn’t realise how patronising and Islamophobic it is to imply that within Islam these kinds of behaviours can find justification.
- You would think the fact that most normal Muslims find this sort of thing horrific might actually register with Morrissey along the line. Perhaps he doesn’t realise how patronising and Islamophobic it is to imply that within Islam these kinds of behaviours can find justification.I have never suggested these kinds of behaviours can find justification. You’re making it up. Again.You are ethically null and void. You have no standards. You are a flagrant and repetitive liar.Are you Steve Hoadley?
- By claiming that these kinds of behaviours are not “insane”, ergo “sane” you are doing exactly that – your justification is normalising extreme behaviour, that they are somehow naturalised, indeed moral, and therefore you are a slimy, repellent reptile, and quite possibly a sociopath as you seem to lack any human empathy.
- By claiming that these kinds of behaviours are not “insane”, ergo “sane” you are doing exactly that – your justification is normalising extreme behaviour, that they are somehow naturalised, indeed moral,I reject your simplistic and politically motivated mis-labelling; that does not mean I endorse this political killing or any political killing. If you want to see someone normalising extreme behaviour, I suggest you scroll down to our good friend Te Reo Putake’s comments exonerating the heroic royal killer Prince Harry.and therefore you are a slimy, repellent reptile, and quite possibly a sociopath as you seem to lack any human empathy.Nope. Lamely hurling epithets won’t bolster a non-existent case, my man. It will only make you seem desperate.You got nuthin’.Once again: ARE YOU STEVE HOADLEY?
- One “Populuxe1” dished out some more substandard abuse, when he called a fellow Standardista, sans evidence, “a slimy, repellent reptile, and quite possibly a sociopath”.For someone who likes to dish out the ad homs, it has to be noted that Populuxe1 is not very good at it. He is no Joe Pesci.
Private Baldric…
Good one Corporal Morrissey.
- These cowards were no more political than Charles Manson…Errr, yes they were.
- ” And unless the women had telepathic powers, they had no idea whether they were in danger or not – they were fucking brave and heroic.”No argument there, it was incredible behaviour.“Brutal, vicious killers of any description are nutters – sane people don’t really do brutal and vicious murder.”But this is just tautology. It just defines brutal murder as insanity, which means insanity isn’t a useful explanation for it.Political violence has a long history though, it is always awful, please don’t think I’m justifying it, but just because it is awful doesn’t mean it is irrational given certain presuppositions. There are loads of things that happen in wars that are brutal and horrific and done for chillingly rational reasons.It seems to me that if these people see themselves as being at war, then that accounts for their behaviour.Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me (because you haven’t explained what you mean) that your description of it as insane simply cuts the discussion off. It denies the possibility of understanding what it is that is happening because it’s beyond comprehension, it’s just some irrationality. Is that what you are saying?
- Well I’m not meaning “insane” in a strictly pathological sense, no – I mean withing the realms of the consensual ethical and relational behaviours of communities and their subsets. By that definition any extreme act totally contrary to that consensus cannot be deemed totally sane – which is not the same thing as rational because as Morrissey demonstrates on a regular basis, human beings can rationalise the most horrific acts.
- These perps (enemy combatants) decided to take out a soldier of a nation whose military they oppose.Yes, their actions are extreme, but war is action in the extreme.
- You keep saying war. To quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
One unorganised British citizen acting alone, attacking an unsuspecting member of Her Majesty’s armed forces doesn’t constitute a war.- You should do some reading on 4th generation warfare. Loads of military analysts disagree with you.
- No, if he’d stabbed or shot the soldier then possibly I might let you away with that reasoning, but what he did was chopped the guy’s fucking head off in public and then loudly announced his reason for doing so in a speech that could serve no possible purpose than to inspire terror among the civilian population. He wasn’t efficiently assassinating a politician and making a clean getaway, he wasn’t part of a foreign military attacking a strategic target, and it wasn’t even an act of personal revenge. It. Was. Terrorism.
- P1. Atrocities occur in war. Look at Libya, look at Syria, look at Iraq. In Afghanistan, Allied munitions have killed babies, children, entire wedding parties.The British and the Americans frequently describe the war on terror as global, with no limits on where and when action can occur. Today that war took the life of a British soldier on UK soil.
Clockie…
So now it IS terrorism and therefore can be acknowledged to have a political motivation and therefore could also be conceivably sane and brutal at the same time?- “It. Was. Terrorism.”Quite. You seem to think that terrorism isn’t a military tactic. That’s where we disagree. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘let me get away with’ things, but ‘4th generation warfare’ is a term used to describe a style of warfare that has shifted its strategic targetting to include such things as the headspace of civilian populations.Creating terror in a civilian population is a strategic goal, designed to trigger ceratin reactions from various people. Those people are the real targets, the shaock and horror of the attacks are the weapons. A ‘clean’ assasination would be a different type of attack, with a different strategic purpose. The brutality does not stem from ‘insanity’ but from the desire to create an effect. That desire to get the effect is why they waited around and fairly calmly asked people to photograph them, and talk to them, and share their images on social media. And look at the front pages. Direct hit I’d say.
- Why don’t you just use the word radical, or something similar. It would seem to fit better with what you are saying, and avoid the both stigma against people with mental health issues and confusion.But saying that sanity is acting within the realms of consensus does mean that acting outside that realm, whatever it is, would be insane. But there are assumptions there about the nature of communities and subsets there that go against how things actually work. there are in fact, radical communities within Islam. Just as there have been within the western leaft at times and within pretty much all groups at various times.I’m not sure what’s gained in terms of understanding by using ‘insanity’ as a descriptor. Are we left to call it irrational and just, what exactly?
ghostrider88810.1.2.1.3.2
This Pb.
- Oh Morrisey you are such an example to the rest of us
- Oh Morrisey you are such an example to the rest of us.Thank you Baldric! Diiiiiis-missed!
- My pleasure.Captain Adder said there hasn’t been a better example of a know-it-all self-important unctuous cunt since good old general Haig.Captain Adder asked which of your disguises will you be using today , prof longhair, jac a napes, joe orton or empedocoles so he can make sure to direct the mortars in the right direction.Turnip also sends her regards.[lprent: Speculation about the identity is not allowed. Read the privacy section of our policy because we are literally the only ones who . To show why, the prof hasn’t been using any other handles from his IP. He also isn’t Morrissey, unless he has an instantaneous transportation device or is really paranoid about using residental portals.Which means that you appear to be a bit of a turnip – after a rectal insertion. ]
- “Captain Adder said there hasn’t been a better example of a know-it-all self-important unctuous cunt since good old general Haig.”It’s a difficult one to call, but I think most observers would agree with these rankings for self-important unctuous cuntishness….1.) Populuxe12.) Te Reo Putake3.) General Haig** At least he had a sense of humour.
- I demand a recunt!
- That was good
- “I demand a recunt!”Sorry to burst your bubble, old fellow, but in spite of your rather offbeam rhetoric over the last day or so, you are a model of classical restraint and good taste when compared to that vat of scum that calls itself “Populuxe1”.
- Did Captain Blackadder have any suitably sardonic words to say about company clerk populuxicle?
- And yet the repeated utterences of “ARE YOU STEVE HOADLEY?” apparently doesn’t qualify.[lprent: I deal with such things when I see them. I saw that last night as I remember it. I also fixed the search last night so it should be easy to find…3rd down at 9:10pm last night. I didn’t pick up on the most of the earlier ones because they weren’t direct accusations. Looks like I warned on the second one as I work backwards in the comments. M must have done later one while I was moderating. ]
- Wrong yet again. Look below 10.3.3.2.2
- btw, some background reading;
The New Imperialist Order : Indigenous Responses to Globalization. Makere Stewart- Harawira.
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-4658-9781842775295.aspx
David H10.2
And as soon as they mentioned the T word, all the TV news readers were all a quiver when saying it.karol10.3
I don’t like the judgement of the actions as “random wicked insanity”. however, Parris also was critical of the rush to label the attacks as ones of “terrorisim”.- What would you like this act of murder called then ?
- How about “murder”?
- I don’t like the judgement of the actions as “random wicked insanity”. however, Parris also was critical of the rush to label the attacks as ones of “terrorisim”.Of course he was: to admit that this murder was a terrorist act means that it was apolitical act.
- Agreed. Though calling something a “political act” has different connotations from calling something a “terrorist act”.
- Bullshit, nothing political about it all. They weren’t chanting ‘who’s got the power?’.
- Its an extension of the war on terror carried out by the UK in Afghanistan brought back to British soil. The men captured today are ‘enemy combatants’ who today targetted and killed an enemy soldier today.BTW all war is political.
- Bullshit, nothing political about it all.That’s right. It just came out of the blue. The words of the killers weren’t political. They made no sense. What has Britain ever done that would cause anyone to take such violent actions in its capital city?Nothing political. Nothing to report. Move along now, or we’ll pin a false rape charge on you.
- The language attributed to one of the men filmed at the scene, and brandishing a bloodied knife, was stark: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We must fight them.“I apologise that women 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.”Nothing political about this eh TRP?(from The Guardian online)
- Nope. Chopping someones head off in the main street is madness, whatever the nutters claim as justification. Be it Islam, or politics, this was not a sane or moral act.
- Think you need to go away and do some calm reflection there TRP. You’re on a hiding to nothing with that logic.
- Yeah, feel free to show me where the sanity and morality of this act of brutality is.
- You’re thinking with your gut not your head. You’re usually better than that.And I don’t believe anyone has gone in to bat for this as being a moral act so please don’t head for the high horse. All anyone has said is it’s no more insane than many other brutal acts carried out in the name of ….whatever…
- Nope. Chopping someones head off in the main street is madness, whatever the nutters claim as justification. Be it Islam, or politics, this was not a sane or moral act.If you read the eyewitness accounts the perps were quite lucid and intelligible. They weren’t high, they weren’t drunk, they didn’t run away, they waited for the authorities. They attacked the British soldier and left all the nearby civilians alone. They clearly stated a political motive for their actions.Just because you do not approve of their methods or understand their motives doesn’t make them “nutters”.
- “Just because you do not approve of their methods or understand their motives doesn’t make them “nutters”.”
It does if it defies the ability of a sane person to understand it. - I reckon several tens of millions of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan have no problems understanding what happened in South East London today.
- “I reckon several tens of millions of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan have no problems understanding what happened in South East London today.”Take your hand off it CV. By that token there are tens of millions of people in the US, Europe, the UK, Australia and elsewhere who have no problems understanding why the west is hunting down and exterminating Al-Qaeda and the people who protect them. You actually make me nauseous you sick nasty fuck.
- By that token there are tens of millions of people in the US, Europe, the UK, Australia and elsewhere who have no problems understanding why the west is hunting down and exterminating Al-Qaeda and the people who protect them.The fact that you made that statement (which I cannot disagree with) yet choose to deny that the “other side” can also have a similar rationale and perspective, is what is both fucking sick and closed minded of you.And please feel free to puke, I don’t give a damn how you feel on this issue.BTW no intelligence service can define what Al Qaeda is, so how the fuck they are going to exterminate them I have no idea. I guess that’s why the CIA head (?) admitted to Congress this week that the war on terror could last the next 20 years.
- The hacking off of the head of their victim is what makes them nutters, CV. It’s an act of lunacy.
- “It’s an act of lunacy.”Deliberate lunacy even; all the better to scare you with my dear.Do you think it was unintended that the image of the guy with blood soaked hands still holding his blades is on so many front pages today? Visceral, innit?That is the image people will have when they think about yesterday’s events. OMG they cray cray, can’t be reasoned with, implacable muthafuckas.
muzza…
P’s B – Upstairs for thinking!- Whereas making innocent people experience “simulated drowning” for hours during water boarding in friendly countries known for torture and summary executions is not “lunacy” but merely “enhanced interrogation”? You see, IMO the UK and the USA deliberately decided to give up the Geneva Convention and the moral high ground in this war quite some time ago.
- “Chopping someones head off in the main street is madness, whatever the nutters claim as justification.”Tell it to the Saudis..Or the revolutionary tribunal of 1793-94..
- Or the German Generals that the Allies hanged after the Nuremberg Trials, whom they let choke to death for 20 long minutes on a rope instead of hanging them properly.
- Riiiiight – there’s obviously some sort of comparison between beheading someone you don’t know on the street and hanging a bunch of monsters responsible for the systematic extermination of six million people after a full trial. Very good CV.
You know the Nazis actually reintroduced beheading specifically for German citizens who wouldn’t knuckle under – they called it Fallbiel – that gives you an idea of th ewort of people who chop heads off and why they choose that particular method. Here’s a little video for you- Tip for the wise: you don’t get to pick and choose the weapons and the methods that your enemy uses against you.
- “You know the Nazis actually reintroduced beheading specifically for German citizens who wouldn’t knuckle under – they called it Fallbiel.”No danger of that happening to an obedient peddler of state lies like yourself then. Sleep easy, amigo.
- Oh dear. You really aren’t the brightest crayon in the box. The Saudis? An absolutist Wahabi monarchy so oppressive of women that even the Iranians think they’re nuts? You betcha they cray cray. Have you ever met a Saudi away from home? First thing they do is drop the traditional clobber and head to the nearest bar to get drunk and pick up members of their preferred gender with a cathartic enthusiasm that borders on the suicidal.
As for the revolutionary tribunal of 1793-94, let’s just call it by it’s popular name of The Terror. A reign of sadists and psycopaths that murdered half a million people. Are you actually insane?- Yes well, as you get pushed further into the corner you carefully built for yourself, your definition of insanity becomes broader and deeper. Can you see that? Can you see where this debate is going to finish? Because I think I can see you rapidly heading in the direction where you define insanity as all those people who use extreme violence and brutality to further their political and / or religious ends and that is exactly how I defined it at 10.3.3.3 below. It is also a mighty large sampling of the human race over a long swathe of human history.Oh and try to keep your waspish little lemon flavoured asides to yourself. They simply put me in mind of John Key doing his gay impersonation.
- But war should be like pressing buttons on a video game screen…
- Not even close. Despite the awful and regrettable casualties of the war in Afgahnistan, the west isn’t actually strategically going out of their way to kill civilians – it doesn’t need the martyrs. Unfortunately these terrorists do love to hide in civilian communities. It’s a paradox of two evils. Like most people I hate it, but I cannot resolve it. Terrorists, on the other hand, go out of their way to target civilians for maximum impact. That’s why they’re terrorists.
By the way, I am gay you nasty little homophobe. If you have a problem with the way I express myself, you can suck it. - I don’t have a problem with gays at all you Twat. What I have a problem with is abusive little acid tongued idiots who can dish it out but don’t like it when it comes flying back at them. By the way you’ll notice that I said your feeble taunts put me in mind of a STRAIGHT but WANKERISH guy doing a poor imitation of the stereotypical gay. If that particular cap fits you then feel free to wear it. Boy are you off form tonight. Pack it in while you’re behind..
- OK, the Allies don’t mean to kill Afghan civilians…which they have by the multiple thousands…and which is unavoidable given the tactics and munitions which are chosen by the Allies; those people are simply unintentional and unfortunate collateral damage in this global war.
- How do you justify any act of murder, let alone something as savage and brutal as this, as SANE?
- Courts manage to do it often enough.Perhaps you could explain what you mean by ‘sane’?If you just saying that things you don’t understand aren’t sane, or that all political violence is insane, then fair enough, but it does render the whole thing kind of useless in terms of what we should do, or how we might understand it.Often, when things are explained through the ‘insanity’ gambit, we are left with that as the explanation, it is simply inexplicable insanity. It’s about as much use as saying ‘It is evil what caused it’.Like I say, fair enough, but not very useful.
- Like I say, fair enough, but not very useful.Actually, to write off this political murder as “insane” is not fair at all, but it is certainly very useful—to the British government.That killer was sane, and coherent, and reasonable. Every person who watches that horrific video can understand his political point, and the British government is in a very difficult position because of it. I have no doubt that Cameron and his ministers will studiously continue to call this an insane act, and the media will obediently amplify that message.Welcome to the Soviet Union, circa 1936.
- How do you justify any act of murder, let alone something as savage and brutal as this, as SANE?I condemn that brutal killing. But to label it as “insane” is a strategy that the British government wants you to follow.That horrific Woolwich murder was as sane, and as moral, as THIS….
- You appear to be saying that this killing was moral. Pretty sure that makes you a grade one arsehole.
- You appear to be saying that this killing was moral.No, I don’t appear to be saying that, because I am not saying that. You seem to be slow catching on, so I’ll state unequivocally: I condemn the brutal political killing of an off-duty soldier in London.Pretty sure that makes you a grade one arsehole.It certainly would, if that was what I said.By the way, have you condemned the far more numerous, far bloodier acts perpetrated by British and American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? And if not, why not?
- Bollocks. You equate this killing with Prince Harry’s day job. You see it as if it has a comparitive moral dimension, therefore you think, at some neanderthal level, that it’s moral.
- Bollocks. You equate this killing with Prince Harry’s day job.I certainly do. And so does anyone who is honest.You see it as if it has a comparitive moral dimension, therefore you think, at some neanderthal level, that it’s moral.No, I don’t think killing people is moral. Unlike you.
- It’s just a “day job” for Prince Harry, he’s just following orders and doing what he is paid to do. Quite acceptable. Unlike these nutters.
- If Prince Harry ever runs up to a British citizen of Argentinian descent, on a London street, in public, and chops his head off while ranting about it being revenge for the Falklands War, I’ll let you know.
- What do you say about a British cop rushing up to an innocent Brazilian and blowing his head off in a crowded commuter train?
- That’s quite acceptable collateral damage clockie, as the officer was on “our side” and his actions were perfectly understandable (and sane).If Prince Harry ever runs up to a British citizen of Argentinian descent, on a London street, in publicYes, pressing a button to fire a cruise missile into the middle of a village is so much cleaner, humane, and acceptable.
- Let’s see how you respond when people are blowing up busses and trains in your city and no one knows what’s going on, dick.
- Are you saying that is what the war in Afghanistan is somehow preventing?
- Pop, terrorism produces repsonses from the target population you say? Gosh! Who would have thought? (Hint: Every terrorist ever. It’s why they do it.)
- “By the way, have you condemned the far more numerous, far bloodier acts perpetrated by British and American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? And if not, why not?”It might be of interest to others that this “Te Reo Putake” tick has studiously avoided answering that question.His silence speaks louder than his confused and contradictory words, in this case.
- Why? Are you suggesting that Muslims are normally out to commit bloodthirsty atrocities in the name of revenge? Most British Muslims would label it as “insane” as well. Muslims for all of their diverse sects and nationalities are, by and large, normal, dignified, compassionate people who do not go around stabbing, or as in another recent case, beheading strangers. Can you not see how patronising that actually is?
- Why? Are you suggesting that Muslims are normally out to commit bloodthirsty atrocities in the name of revenge? Most British Muslims would label it as “insane” as well. Muslims for all of their diverse sects and nationalities are, by and large, normal, dignified, compassionate people who do not go around stabbing, or as in another recent case, beheading strangers. Can you not see how patronising that actually is?I have said none of those things. You are making everything up. Yet again.I repeat: ARE YOU STEVE HOADLEY?[lprent: Guessing people’s real life identities or even speculating on them is something that you cannot do. If they offer it willingly that is one thing. But for everything else along that line there is only me and I’m a bit of a bastard about protecting identities (read our privacy policy or even try to find out where our databases are located). Desist. ]
- You are actually. You are justifying acts by an extremist, a jihadist, whatever you want to call him, when most Muslims and Islam as a whole, would not. You are doing this by the Chomsky-patented causistral method of not totally condemning an action because the other side does things you consider equally bad. Your grasp of where the loyalties of most British Mulims lie is also quite bizarre if you think they would regard this barbaric act as in any way, shape or form reflecting their position. If it had been anyone else, we would probably have to assume he was on meth.
- You are actually. You are justifying acts by an extremist, a jihadist, whatever you want to call him, when most Muslims and Islam as a whole, would not. You are doing this by the Chomsky-patented causistral method of not totally condemning an action because the other side does things you consider equally bad. Your grasp of where the loyalties of most British Mulims lie is also quite bizarre if you think they would regard this barbaric act as in any way, shape or form reflecting their position. If it had been anyone else, we would probably have to assume he was on meth.You’re still making things up. I have not justified any of these acts. Perhaps in your (drink-fuelled?) delirium, you have mistaken me for Te Reo Putake, who DOES justify such acts, as long as they’re done by OUR guys, and as long as they’re in SMARTLY PRESSED UNIFORMS.By the way, before you start trying to dump on Chomsky, it might help if you read him first.
- No doubt if you accidentally blow apart 20 innocent Afghan villagers into wet smithereens using a million dollar cruise missile, that is “sane” and “justifiable”.In comparison decapitating a soldier with an actual knife by hand in person is so, gross, dirty and barbaric, so they must be “nutters”. You know, because no one used bayonets against British soldiers, or sharpened spades and entrenching tools against German soldiers in WWII.
- Preeecisely. I wondered if I should make a list of all the barbaric acts carried out by soldiers in time of warfare, which would normally be described as brutal but SANE because, hey, that’s just the way war is. Then I realised I didn’t have enough time left in this life to complete the task.
- Fuck, how many times. If this nutjob decided to go to Afghanistan and fight along side the Taliban, fine. Instead he, a British citizen, in public, on a London street surrounded by Londoners about their business, went up to a British soldier who he certainly didn’t know for sure had killed any Muslims, and of his own choosing and volition chopped his fucking head off – one of the most graphic ways of killing someone – and then concluded with “You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.” That is terrorism, open and shut: “the use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion”.
- Fuck, how many times. If this nutjob decided to go to Afghanistan and fight along side the Taliban, fine. Instead he, a British citizen, in public, on a London street surrounded by Londoners about their businessI see, it’s OK if the global war on terror happens on the doorsteps of backward villagers far far away, but please don’t do it in front of London doorsteps?PS what does the word “global” in “global war on terror” mean to you? Do you think it means “in dirty raghead countries only, not in civilised countries we like and visit?”
- Fuck, how many times? It doesn’t (in terms of this debate) MATTER that it was brutal. We are arguing about whether, by the thought processes of those who are engaged in a war, conventional or unconventional, symmetric or asymmetric, it is SANE to carry out brutal acts if furtherance of your aims. You have already agreed that they are terrorists, therefore they are political, therefore they have motive and if they consider themselves to be part of a jihad of some sort, I think we can find plenty of examples throughout history of exactly this kind of activity. Not many on London streets in the modern age I grant you, but if you engage in asymmetric warfare with fundamentalist radical Islamists (given their history and religious motivation) who are scattered through migrant populations in every major city in the western world, this is what you’ll get. Actually totally predictable.NB. A soldier was targeted. That is a brutal, clinical, political message being sent as loudly and clearly as possible. A bit like dropping an A bomb on Nagasaki.
- The active-duty soldier who was the victim today had also served in Afghanistan. Who wasn’t just some UK based desk jockey.P1 is also highly mistaken when he thinks it is “fine” as long as these “nut jobs” do their thing in Afghanistan or Syria and not in the UK. From the Guardian online:Hundreds of Britons are known to have gone to Syria over the last two years to support the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian conflict is now the “jihadist destination of choice”, according to Whitehall officials. Britons are also known to have been involved with the al-Nusra front, which is heavily infused with al-Qaida elements from Iraq and has been designated a terrorist group by the US.Some of those people going abroad from the UK were already known to MI5 and MI6; some have now returned home. Many others will have come and gone without investigators knowing.The same thing has happened in Somalia, where a smaller number of Britons have been in recent years, to support the al-Qaida affiliate al-Shabaab.“What they do when they come back here is more worrying to us than what they do when they are out there,” is how one official put it.
- Hey. CV. he was a drummer. Did he drum too loud or something?
- Sorry Lyn. As they say in parliament, I withdraw and apologize.
- “How do you justify any act of murder, let alone something as savage and brutal as this, as SANE?”How do you justify any of the brutal acts carried out in warfare as sane? It doesn’t matter whether it is organised (armies of nation states) in conventional warfare or the more disorganised formats eg terror cells (red brigade) or irregular rebel armies (shining path) conducting asymmetric warfare. Yes, there is a sense in which all violence is insane, because it rarely solves problems in the way the perpetrators believe it will. But the human animal has been using extreme violence to deal with all sorts of issues throughout our time on the planet. Shrieking “INSANITY” at the top of your voice does not solve the problem or involve any greater degree of higher thought processes than those used by the people you are calling insane.
- Flying planes into buildings and blowing up busses and nightclubs isn’t sane either – you may have forgotten what started this in the first place.
- I haven’t at all; forgotten what “started this in the first place”. I can tell you that in the minds of bin Laden and his merry men it started well before they decided to have a go at the twin towers.I think you’re starting to struggle a bit on the logic front here. Go and have a breather why not?
- I always thought it a bit funny that 9/11 caused the Allies to invade…Iraq.Which was a secular country which suppressed Islamist fundamentalism, Saddam himself did not have the time of day for Al Qaeda, and the Baathists had nothing at all to do with the hijacking plot.While the countries that the 9/11 hijackers were most closely related to (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) were totally ignored.Funny eh.
- Actuall I agree with you there, but George W Bush had a vendetta to pursue and he lied and manipulated to do so, and there are few people who do not now know this and are not disgusted – so not really an excuse any more and a bit beside the point.
- And I think you are symapthising with terrorists and justify horrendous attacks on civilians. Go fuck yourself.
- Someone’s lost it. When abuse is all you’ve got left in your quiver you really are firing blanks.
- The victim today was a serving British soldier with the Royal Artillery, and had performed 2 tours in Afghanistan.
- That’s nice. I’m sure his family will understand.
- He’s a victim of war. The situation is a disaster for both his family, and for the friends and family of the perps today.
- As a drummer.
- And a machine gunner. Do you miss stuff out deliberately?
- Those automatic grenade launchers can sound awfully like drums.
prism…
In memory of a child of our society who must lose innocence to grow up into an adult – designated a drummer but serving as a machine gunner, and later, recruiter for war service.Shall I play for you
Pa rum pum pum pum
On my drum
Mary nodded
Pa rum pum pum pum
The ox and lamb kept time
Pa rum pum pum pum
I played my drum for Him
Pa rum pum pum pum
I played my best for Him
Pa rum pum pum pum,Then He smiled at me
Pa rum pum pum pum
Me and my drum
- “…you may have forgotten what started this in the first place.”Only a damned fool would believe that this started with the reprisal attacks of September 11, 2001.Oh! I’ve just seen who wrote it.Problem solved, carry on.
- My good Professor
- Captain, my captain!
Tuesday 9 January 2018
Matthew Paris on the stabbings in London; How much do they pay this fellow for these witterings? (May 23, 2013)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How much do they pay this fellow for these witterings?
Nine to Noon, Radio NZ National, Thursday 23 May 2013, 9:50 a.m.