THM – wouldn’t George salute him for his courage, his strength, and his indefatigability?

Love him or hate him I enjoyed him taking the US Senate committee to task.

Anjem Choudary refuses to ‘abhor’ Woolwich attack

In the interview he says that ‘he hasn’t been arrested yet’- i think he’d better go hide then because he will be soon if he carries on with his vile preachings.

Rip Lee Rigby. Not that they’ll read this but sincere condolences to his family, especially his little-boy. So sad.

Agreed PP.

I can understand those who say the reaction is a symptom of our action, their wrong. Were the uk and us and all the other countries to have a sustained period of turning the other cheek Muslims such as this chap would continue to preach their vile hate.

There motive is not revenge for harm done to them, but to enforce the medieval rules of one of these clap trap books.

Nice Ian.. did you read that off the back of a cornflakes packet or did a bloke in the pub tell you..?

Mike Livesley

Since the terrible events that unfolded in Woolwich on Wednesday, I have felt compelled to avoid this place. In the immediate aftermath I watched, with despair and hope in equal measure, as I witnessed the various posts made in relation to the event. After a few days of sober consideration, and research into this sickening incident, I have come to my own conclusions. Firstly this was not, as Whitehall suggested, within 15 short minutes of the event, an ‘Islamist Act of Terror’ but rather a very tragic and horrific murder carried out by two young men, motivated by a foreign policy that is, to put it mildly, draconian and barbaric. I am not for one moment excusing their disgusting actions of open and bloody murder, but I am aware of the butchery and wholesale slaughter carried out by my own Government, on innocent men, women and children, every day in their never-ending ‘War on Terror’.

So, why are the Government, via their controlled media, constantly escalating the fear porn by describing this murder as an ‘Islamist Act of Terror’? After all, this is the language of the far right, and guaranteed to enflame. Once again one finds oneself pondering the age old point of law which is ‘cui bono’ which, translated, means ‘who benefits?’ Well, think about it. Who would benefit from such a statement? Remember the first rule of politics? ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’? Well, this *extremely* unpopular Government have certainly followed that rule to the letter. Cameron has posed for the world’s media, looking suitably distressed and anguished. and has missed no opportunity to grandstand from this poor soldier’s death. However, the question still remains. Why? Cui bono. In considering this it is critical to consider just how many fronts, from Syria to Iran to North Korea, that this Government, and their Military-Industrial handlers and US Allies, would like to expand their ‘War on Terror’ into. In Politics this phenomenon is referred to as the ‘Hegelian dialectic’ or, in layman’s terms ‘Problem. Reaction. Solution.’

This initial statement by the Government, and the countless polemics and editorials based upon it, ensures that they have given the British Nation their ‘Problem’ – the threat of ‘Islamist Terror’. The same public, understandably, then demand the Government do something about it – this is the ‘Reaction’. The Government then give in to pubilc demand and offer them their ‘Solution’ and, as always, this means something they have been trying to find an excuse for for some time. We are yet to hear what chilling shape this will take. It could mean yet ANOTHER expansion of the War on Terror, in which, I guarantee, more than one British soldier will die. It could also be the re-introduction of the so-called ‘Snooper’s Charter’, meaning the end of the last few shreds of privacy you have, purely to protect you from Terrorists you understand. Or it may see the rolling out of the ‘Stop and Search’ law. for so long desired by the Government, which would mean that you can be stopped at any time, in any place and, without due cause, searched from top to bottom (pun intended). In other words accused of pre-crime. It will probably be all three. The thirst for power amongst this sociopathic elite is seemingly unquenchable. In considering such ‘Solutions’ the words of Benjamin Franklin always pop into me noggin; ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

So, before you post, before you follow the herd, before you accuse, before you make your mind up, and before you repeat the fear porn, I would urge you to read the following passage, spoken at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, by the right-hand man of Adolf Hitler – Herman Goering. Read it, consider how it applies to recent events, and think. Think!

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

This event in Woolwich was a sickening and wanton act of murder, but it was not terrorism. As Gandhi said ‘no matter how often you repeat a lie, it does not make it the truth’. So please, do not listen to fear and warmongers, and do not let them twist this incident, as terrible as it is, to suit their own ends. This was a hideous event, and my heart goes out to the family of the murdered soldier, as it does to the families of those innocents killed by our drones in the ‘War on Terror’ every day. So, what should you do? Well, in my opinion, don’t give in to the manufactured climate of hate and fear, enjoy your bank holiday weekend, and give off nothing but love and positivity where e’er you may roam. If that means avoiding this gaff for a few days then so be it! It’ll all be ‘ere when you come back. My final thought is this, and it came from the mouth of the late, great Bill Hicks, who said – ‘It’s a simple choice, right now, between fear and love’ – make sure you pick the right side!

There is an irony in you accusing me of repeating someone else’s view, then copy pasting some rambling text.

So to be clear I don’t like Islam, I don’t much like any of the other lot either. They incite the weak minded to violence and oppression and just like you they get really pissed off with people who disagree with them.

If you don’t like that , tough.

I can understand those who say the reaction is a symptom of our action, their wrong

Can you just remind me how many of these attacks we were having before we started invading their countries and their lands?

The fella even said why he did it but hey you know best about his motives.

There motive is not revenge for harm done to them, but to enforce the medieval rules of one of these clap trap books.

Again they would disagree but they you keep telling them why they are doing it.
You will be saying our foreign policy is a beacon of light and consistency in a troubled region what with support for Saudi doing nothing about Syria and then invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

What are we trying to impose on them via war – is it peace in their hearts – do you really think this will work ?

IanW – Member

If you don’t like that , tough.

It’s not a question of not liking it, it’s more a question of you appearing to be wrong in your analysis of the motives when you state :

“There motive is not revenge for harm done to them, but to enforce the medieval rules of one of these clap trap books.”

According to Adebolajo’s radical muslim friend, who has now been arrested, and who undoubtedly would wish the real motives to be understood (after all what would be the point of misrepresenting those motives when publicity is such an important aim of terrorists ?)

Adebolajo did not want to see sharia law imposed in Britain, but thought it more sensible for someone like him to go and live in a Muslim country, according to the interviewee. “He wanted to be qualified to teach and to do fitness training. He could use that to go abroad and live in a Muslim country.”

So “revenge for harm done”, at least as perceived by the terrorists, appears to be very much behind the motive. I’m assuming that you personally did not know the alleged killers and are not in a better position to understand what motivated them or their thinking than their own friends.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-suspect-kenya-torture

Disappointed that after nine whole pages this hasn’t been sorted yet.

Firstly this was not, as Whitehall suggested, within 15 short minutes of the event, an ‘Islamist Act of Terror’ but rather a very tragic and horrific murder carried out by two young men, motivated by a foreign policy that is, to put it mildly, draconian and barbaric.

Why the dichotomy?

You are viewing things too complicatedly, it is rather simple really …

1. Foreign policy (I am equating this to everything the developed nations/West do …) – to prevent more death with the concept of democracy to curb wars etc, then whatever is left is the bonus such as trade, business, oil and whatever you wish to think etc. The underline tone is to dominate.

On the opposing end … they want a piece of the cake too …

2. Expansion of religious belief – insistence on their way of life like it or not they want to assert that by various means even if it means force. The rest is just various arguments to justify their views/actions … the underline tone is to dominate.

… So the former try to impose and while the latter wants to assert on everyone in around the world bits by bits to a “new” way of life.

Nobody gives way so the only way out is to fight to the death. To the death!

One cannot live without the other … they are counter balance to each other.

🙄

🙄

The question that i really don’t have an answer too, and in fact i can’t even make up my own mind is:

“In the year 2013, do the so called “civilized” 1st world nations have a “duty” to interfere in other countries when they know that the basic human rights of the populations of those countries is being abused by the powers that run them”??

There is enough evidence in these days of social media/internet etc that many countries ARE treating their subjects very poorly, and that those subject do not have any method of protection (they do not have a democracy). For example, being shot in the head because you had the audacity to go to school is just one example.

So, do we “turn a blind eye” so as to not cause ourselves problems or do we intervene in the best way we see how ?(which of cause will always cause friction)

That is not a question i can answer.

^ the trouble is the inconsistent way that we (western governments) apply our rules, Saudi – turn a blind eye, they play ball. Libya – use military force to intervene, Gaddafi didn’t play ball.

I’m pretty **** disgusted that theres a suggestion that there’s even a hint of justification for this.
Have a word with yourselves.

Hmmm. I hesitate to post this; I really don’t wish to be seen as disrespectful, or attempting to argue petty points. But. I am curious to understand, how the HELL can this tragic episode be seen as anything other than terrorism? It was a vicious murder, certainly, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the motives appear to be both to gain political attention and to attempt to strike fear and stir up hatred within British society. Whilst I can see the sense in people calling for the oxygen of publicity to be withdrawn (fat chance), I don’t understand this common theme of denying that it was a terrorist act. It’s not like the label of terrorism adds any legitimacy after all; it’s still a heinous crime that the perpetrators should receive the maximum permissible punishment for. And whether it is a result of an organised ‘cell’ (doubtful) or just some random fruitcakes with too much aggression pent up in their drug addled brains, getting a little inspiration from Inspire, that pleasant how and why to kill infidels magazine (much more likely), it’s still fairly plainly a terrorist atrocity, as well as a disgusting murder.

Sorry, I just don’t understand the motives for anyone to deny the terrorism label.

EDIT;
Wrecker, of course there is a justification for it. It’s fairly clear that it was very far from a random attack. I don’t think ANYONE is suggesting that they agreed with the justification though, or that it was correct, proportionate or anything other than down right evil.

Wrecker v8 your spot on we can argue all the reasons behind it but it is so wrong in every way how that lad died

Wrecker, of course there is a justification for it.

No. Justification requires reason. If these people want to join the struggle; Afghanistan is a plane ride away. I’d chip in for their air fare.

No. Justification requires reason.

Semantics. The perpetrators obviously had their reasons, and their justification, however warped that they may be. To simply dismiss their justifications as insane, barbaric, perverted or whatever, would seem at best somewhat shortsighted, and at worst be woefully negligent, for to understand what has happened is to be able to work to decrease the chances of this sort of thing happening again.

**** that. The enablers/encouragers/brainwashers need to be identified and made an example of. That’s all.

I think spending a lot of time and effort trying to rationalise the behaviour of these two individuals is almost certainly a waste of time. The crime they committed suggests the culprits had serious psychological problems and that their minds were further poisoned by a hate based ideology.

UK foreign policy might be the excuse but it was not the reason for this crime.

There are a couple of million Muslims living in the UK many of whom, like much of the rest of the population, will be strongly opposed to UK foreign policy (which is ironic as the helping Muslim people overseas is the reason our government gives for much of it) they don’t however cold-bloodedly murder people in the streets. It is therefore clearly much more than just UK foreign policy.

Mindless acts of violence are often the ultimate expression of bigotry and hatred. To minimise their occurrence bigotry and hatred should be challenged and not tolerated, wherever it originates from. I do not recognise that expressing hatred is a democratic right.

I do agree with you v8ninety that what occurred in Woolwich was very much an act of terrorism, as the term is widely understood to mean. And I too find it bizarre that anyone should argue that it wasn’t.

Bloody well said Ernie. And for the record, I’m no fan of following the us into whatever shitstorm they choose to create.
I shall be glad when we’re out of afghan and Iraq completely and I’m happy that we haven’t waded into Syria (we should keep our noses well out).

wrecker – Member

If these people want to join the struggle; Afghanistan is a plane ride away.

I’m not going to defend this murder, but this is pretty cockeyed thinking- we can go off to afghanistan to kill people but if someone else wants to fight us, they can’t do it here?

Can the army fight it here? Want a bit of martial law?
Good for one is good for the other.

Absolutely agree Ernie.

In certain part of the world the assertion of this religious ideology has changed the way of life for many … but for the worst.

They will Not negotiate nor back down until they dominate absolutely. Those who do not belong to their ideology will systematically be marginalised until they submit. Those who can afford to leave the country will but those who are poor will have no choice but to “slave” their way through life with no prospect of a peaceful life.

Force convergence to their religion is rather common amongst the uneducated natives. Some have no choice others simply could not bear it any longer so succumb …

That is one reason why negotiation is futile in that part of the world and always end in bloodshed.

Those two should meet the punishment imposed by Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia.

Therefore, try not to criticize countries that are in conflict with this ideology … they know how to deal with them effectively their ways so let them be.

Spot on Ernie. Imho etc. One of the best analogies i’ve seen is that kkk is to christians what radical islamic fundamentlism is to muslims. Tiny horrible minorty, which are mostly a joke, till they kill someone they hate for no real reason.. It’s a very sad state of affairs the whole thing. It just makes me sad. Nice one humans

Can the army fight it here? Want a bit of martial law?
Good for one is good for the other.

That worked out really well in Northern Ireland. Total victory over terrorists. Principles upheld. Job was a good un.

Exactly. But if its seen by the radicals that the uk is a legitimate theatre, then that’s how the forces will need to treat it.

Why?

They will Not negotiate nor back down until they dominate absolutely. Those who do not belong to their ideology will systematically be marginalised until they submit.

which ideology are you talking about here…? ‘Them’ or ‘Us’?

yunki – Member

They will Not negotiate nor back down until they dominate absolutely. Those who do not belong to their ideology will systematically be marginalised until they submit.

which ideology are you talking about here…? ‘Them’ or ‘Us’?

Them. Try and see if you get anyway …

As for “US” (as in the West) we know that the more we try to shape them in our thinking the more we lost ourselves …

ernie– it wasn’t a mindless act though was it– however deluded, it was not mindless– and as both were brought up in ‘strong’ christian beleifs– yet they were swayed by the nihilistic venom of some rich saudis– but for me these are consequences of imperial warmongering– so blair/brown/cameron/clegg have some responsibility here– its never straightforward, but if the uk was not hanging off US coatails this and other terrorist attacks here would not have occured.

ernie– it wasn’t a mindless act though was it

Well I haven’t claimed that it was. It was clearly perceived as an act of revenge by the perpetrators, they made that very clear in their comments after they had carried out the cold-blooded murder.

I don’t however see it as an inevitable ‘consequence of imperial warmongering’. Millions of people in the UK, in fact the majority according to opinion polls, are now opposed to UK military involvement in Afghanistan, they don’t however, as I previously suggested, go around murdering members of the armed forces.

What happened in Woolwich might of been the inevitable consequence of imperial warmongering and sick minds, poisoned by a hate fueled ideology, but that’s as much as I’m prepared to give you.

Having said all that Al-Qaeda inspired terrorism is indisputably the monster created by the West, ie Western foreign policy. When Al-Qaeda, or the mujahideen as we liked to call them back then, were beheading, skinning alive, castrating, and disemboweling, Russian soldiers and civilians, we were cheering them on claiming that they were “defending their ancient way of life”, when they targeted schools and teachers because girls were being taught we supplied them with weapons, vast quantities of highly sophisticated weapons, and money, and training, in fact everything they could have wanted.

And still the lesson hasn’t been learnt. Today in Libya, Benghazi, birthplace of an Al-Qaeda backed and Western supported rebellion, is a complete no go area for westerners, as is most of the rest of the country, in a few places such as Tripoli the situation is very slightly better and the F.O. advices against all but essential travel. Al-Qaeda backed terrorists from Libya are now carrying out terrorist atrocities in neighbouring countries such Niger.

In Syria of course we are doing what we can to help an Al-Qaeda backed opposition overthrow the government, whilst causally brushing aside embarrassing reports such as the one last week when an Al-Qaeda opposition commander had himself videoed as he disemboweled a Syrian soldier, cut out his organs, and bit into them.

In fact apparently one of Lee Rigby’s killers was recently publicly urging committed Muslims to help in the fight in Syria. So a position rather similar to that of the British Prime Minister David Cameron then.

agree ernie– its all so flicking hypocritical of our ‘rulers’ –but i is an optimist, and that the greater good shall prevail– eventually– maybe not in my lifetime, but you can’t fool all the people all the time !!

Ludicrous to think this began with Tony’s crusade, sure didnt help but the muslims, christians and jews have been slaughtering each other since the day some goon dream’t up their tosh.

Back to the here and now I quite like Boris’s summary.

Mr Johnson also said that politicians had to “make a hard and sharp distinction between that religion – and the virus of ‘Islamism’.”
He said: “This is a sinister political agenda that promotes a sense of grievance and victimhood among a minority of Muslims.
“The Islamists want universal Sharia law, and other mumbo jumbo. Above all, they want power over others: and so they prey on young men who feel in some way rejected by society, and they fill those young men with a horrible and deluded sense of self-importance.
“They tell these people that they are not alone in suffering injustice; that they belong to a much wider group of victims – the Muslims – and that the only way to avenge these injustices is jihad.
“These Islamist evangelists have no allegiance to the western society they live in and whose benefits systems they abuse: far from it – their avowed intent is to create a sexist and homophobic Muslim caliphate.”
Mr Johnson continued: “We must not give the killers the thing they crave above all – the prize of dividing us. They say they want a “war”, or, as others have put it, a “clash of civilisations”. That idea is bunk, and we can show it.
“To prevent any such temptation, we must be clear in our heads that there is no sense whatever in blaming Islam, a religion that gives consolation and enrichment to the lives of hundreds of millions of peaceful people.”

I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.

Quran 8:12, “The Spoils,” Dawood, p. 177

I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.

Quran 8:12, “The Spoils,” Dawood, p. 177

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

Unknown site to me, make of it what you will

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: “And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,” God says through the prophet Samuel. “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

IanW – Member

Ludicrous to think this began with Tony’s crusade

I can’t see where anyone has done that – can you ?

But very few people would deny that arming, training, and financing, Osama bin Laden, for example, was a disastrous foreign policy blunder….. to say the very least.

And still policies which will clearly have long term counterproductive consequences are being pursued. Western foreign policy is, as is much of domestic policy, based on short-termism, and inevitably, greed. Plus of course the need of politicians facing reelection for immediate results.

As an example of domestic policy short-termism fueled by greed and the need for immediate results, look at the disastrous consequences for the West of the “live for the moment” banking attitude, which seemed such a good idea at the time, despite many people knowing that it probably wasn’t.

.

….muslims, christians and jews have been slaughtering each other since the day some goon dream’t up their tosh.

You then immediately provide a quote from Boris Johnson in which he claims it isn’t the fault of religion.

According to Johnson :

… politicians had to “make a hard and sharp distinction between that religion – and the virus of ‘Islamism’.”

and

we must be clear in our heads that there is no sense whatever in blaming Islam, a religion that gives consolation and enrichment to the lives of hundreds of millions of peaceful people.”

How is that backing up your claim that it’s all the fault of religion ?

What saddens me the most, is that we as a society appear to be fundamentally ignoring the real issue behind this, which is the fact that there is growing anger and fear amongst the population. Anger and fear which are manifested in the actions of these two horribly messed up young men, in the minds of followers of the EDL/BNP, and in the minds of people deluded enough to think that UKIP is ‘the way forward’.

Instead of eventrying to understand exactly why people,especially young men from poorer backgrounds, are becoming so angry and hateful, our government merely introduces even more draconian socially restrictive laws (what a wonderful excuse to force through the Snoopers’ Charter), which take away even more of our ‘freedoms’. All in the name of ‘Freedom’.

What worries me, far more than the perceived ‘threat’ of ‘terrorism’, is the steady erosion of liberties that is happening in our society. Whilst I agree that there is a need to impose certain restrictions on total freedom of behaviour, I also recognise the need for opportunity for resistance. Laws rushed through in the name of ‘the war on terror’ are being abused; it’s not just potential ‘terrorists’ who are being surveilled and monitored, it’s potentially all of us, including anyone who might possibly offer any ideological resistance and opposition to the will of the elite.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/31/trade-union-blacklisting-bob-crow_n_2050010.html

Spooks face complaint over links to blacklisting, as union demands full investigation

Instead of focussing concern on things that do actually impinge on our everyday rights and freedoms, the media creates a diversion, so that we don’t see what’s really going on. Tv and newspapers parade ranters like Anjem Choudhary, so that we join in the Two Minutes Hate, and don’t see the real potential effects of the increasingly restrictive and oppressive laws that are quietly being pushed though.

I find it incredibly ironic that Trevor Kavanagh condemns Anjem Choudhary as a ‘despicable’ person; Trevor Kavanagh, editor of the Sun. A vile, frothing hate mongering shit sheet, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch, a foreign national who has far more influence on British Society than any British voter. Democracy, much?