Current affairs Serious incident in Woolwich

[leviramsey]

Anybody who the Koch fund can't be that bad...

[snowychap]

Anybody who the Koch fund can't be that bad...

You are Peter Tatchell.

Edited May 24, 2013 by snowychap

[Chindie]

The idea it's somehow sinisterly been acquisitioned to be solely associated with Islam is tantamount to swivel eyed lunacy.

I take it you didn't read the article before posting this, then. Shame. It's actually quite thoughtful.

You take wrong, I read it.

The article is thoughtful (though not earth shattering by any means) until it reaches its conclusion that terrorism now means Islamic terrorism alone. He had drawn that conclusion because that is the point he wished to make fun the start, which is incorrect. This is all the more obvious when he actually stumbles on what terrorism really is about in the article and passes over it (that is that the term means any act of violence intent to bring about political goals via fear-state and non state). What conclusions he does reach briefly in that regard are the welcome but not revolatory to anyone who has a passing interest in the subject (as are his connects regarding the antagonistic role of the West in this whole charade, though again nothing groundbreaking).

His hard not to reach conclusion is only hard not to reach if you're inclined to reach it regardless. If he had any merit in his argument, that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically a discourse on Islamic terror, the next non 'Islamic' attack would have everyone shuffling their feet and trying not to user the word. Which wouldn't be the case, as Norway showed sadly all too recently.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Chindie

[bickster]

How will a Greek pudding save you from being attacked?

 

 

Pedant  /  Turkish   / end of Pedant

Oh no no no Mr H - def Greek - I often eat it after a hearty Greek meal. Many countries lay claim to it's origin TBF

 

 

it's def Turkish  ...don't make me come after you with wiki

[uberpedant]Ottoman which is more Asian / Persian than modern Turkish, even has a different alphabet [/uberpedant]

[mjmooney]

Ottoman, then. Sofa, so good.

[drat01]

Ottoman, then. Sofa, so good.

So are DFS a right wing organisation?

 

I am getting so confused now

[Anthony]

"The only land they sound like they come from is Peckham"

 

 

[omariqy]

Real talk.

[Keyblade]

And that's how you break it down.

[Wainy316]

He said Small Heath *titter*

[jonno_2004]

Most sense I've heard - real talk.

[Brumerican]

First off, clearly these guys are psychotic; they would be doing this shit even if they didn't have the whole Islam schtick as an excuse. But it does provide them with an easy handle to get their fifteen I minutes of fame. As it does for the psychos in the EDL.

Ironically, there is a serious point behind it all: their glib comment about how this sort of thing is happening every day in "their" countries is probably true. I'd rather live in London than in Baghdad, or Damascus, or Mogadishu, or Ramala, or [insert lawless city here]. And I don't doubt that atrocities have been carried out by British, European and American troops - they have their share of psychos in the ranks, and are tooled up to indulge their own fantasies.

The question is: do you want to make things better, or make things worse?

Nelson Mandela had the nous to see that vigilante revenge - even on the actual perpetrators - doesn't work; it just perpetuates the cycle of violence to the point where everybody loses. There can be no winners.

And "revenge" on people who aren't even directly involved, but merely taken to be guilty by association, is even more damaging.

But of course, they aren't trying to make things better at all. The Muslim fundies have the same millennial mindset as the Christian fundies who just can't wait for Armageddon, and will actively do crazy things in an attempt to bring it about as soon as possible.

It's a philosophy that has the perfect appeal to the psychotic.

There is no easy solution - stringing them up by the balls may be tempting, but all it does is ratchet up the stakes.

In the face of all this shit, be good, be kind - and put your faith in education. It's going to be a long haul.

Superb post sir .

[Dr_Pangloss]

Most sense I've heard - real talk.

Definitely came with the rilla, one time

[peterms]

 

 

The idea it's somehow sinisterly been acquisitioned to be solely associated with Islam is tantamount to swivel eyed lunacy.

I take it you didn't read the article before posting this, then. Shame. It's actually quite thoughtful.

You take wrong, I read it.

The article is thoughtful (though not earth shattering by any means) until it reaches its conclusion that terrorism now means Islamic terrorism alone. He had drawn that conclusion because that is the point he wished to make fun the start, which is incorrect. This is all the more obvious when he actually stumbles on what terrorism really is about in the article and passes over it (that is that the term means any act of violence intent to bring about political goals via fear-state and non state). What conclusions he does reach briefly in that regard are the welcome but not revolatory to anyone who has a passing interest in the subject (as are his connects regarding the antagonistic role of the West in this whole charade, though again nothing groundbreaking).

His hard not to reach conclusion is only hard not to reach if you're inclined to reach it regardless. If he had any merit in his argument, that the discourse on terrorism is now intrinsically a discourse on Islamic terror, the next non 'Islamic' attack would have everyone shuffling their feet and trying not to user the word. Which wouldn't be the case, as Norway showed sadly all too recently.

 

 

You seem to distort rather than summarise his argument.  It's not that terrorism only means Islamic terrorism - that would be too simple a view, and wrong.  It's more that the term is in the process of being appropriated by western governments (I suppose he's thinking of the US as the leader in this process) in order to render illegitimate any opposition to their actions, in a way which is deeply hypocritical.  He could have cited the "unacceptability" of WMD or chemical weapons, except when used by the US or Israel, to make a similar but different point about moral relativism and double standards.

 

He doesn't as you say pass over what terrorism is about, so much as make the point that although there is no accepted definition, the way it is used increasingly restricts the concept to Muslim resistance to western acts.  Another way of putting it would be to say that the repeated, widespread and loud repetition of this particular application of the word is an attempt to change the way it is used in general; an attempt which is having some success.  And that this is important because

 

...It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

 

 

That's not a trite point.  It's one which I think is worth making.

 

On the Breivik thing, by the way, although the charge against him included "terrorism", the press accounts of the act, at least the ones I've seen, much prefer the words "massacre" or "slaughter".  They did of course use the T word more when reporting the court case, since that was the actual charge.

[Chindie]

Fine Peter.

[Awol]

Thought this was an interesting article, particularly for those who have often stated that Anjem Choudary is just a harmless gobshite...

 

Woolwich attack: Why are young British men like my brother drawn to Islamic extremism?

Film maker Robb Leech explores the reasons why young Britons, like his stepbrother Richard Dart, are drawn to Islamic fundamentalism

What makes young men from loving homes embrace an extreme form of Islam and go on to commit acts of terrorist violence? It is a question many have been asking this week in the wake of the murderous attack by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale on Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Last month, my stepbrother, Richard Dart, was jailed for six years after making plans to go to Pakistan to train with the Taliban and fight Jihad. So Islamism is something I am familiar with.

As a documentary film maker, I had followed Rich from the time of his conversion to Islam in 2009 through to the broadcast of my film, My Brother the Islamist, on BBC 3 in April 2011. During that time, I gained unique access into the world of the London Islamist and the circle of young men around radical Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary, who played such a part in my stepbrother embracing an extreme distortion of Islam.

As youngsters, living at home in Dorset, our lives began to drift apart. Although religion didn’t play a role in our family life, Rich became drawn to several faiths, but settled on Islam. Soon afterwards, I learnt that he had become a protégé of Choudary.

We know now that both of the alleged assailants in Woolwich were also known to Choudary. A former lawyer, Choudary was associated with Omar Bakri Muhammad, another radical preacher and the leader of the now banned organisation al-Muhajiroun. Choudary went on to set up a number of organisations, including Islam4UK, and then as each was banned, he would revive it under another name, with the same membership. He is a very clever man. He knows just how far he can push things without getting arrested, and how to be provocative and antagonistic in a way designed to attract media attention. On one occasion, he had only to talk about wanting to stage a march in Royal Wootton Bassett for the BBC to invite him on to a news programme. In the wake of Woolwich, there he was on BBC Two’s Newsnight on Thursday. He craves such attention.

That is how I see him. The young men around Choudary, of course, regard him differently. They are drawn by his rhetoric. “Prepare your steeds of war,” I have heard him say. “Terrorise the enemies of Allah… you don’t come back from a martyrdom operation.” And worse.

 

The more extreme it is, the more those who look up to him respond. They like the fact that he has a media presence, that the authorities appear to be afraid of him. Why? Because they are young people who are lost and confused in the Western world, and he gives them an identity, something to fight for, a way of channelling that feeling they share of being outsiders in their own society.

 

Rich agreed to me making my film not because he thought I sympathised with his views, but because he believed that it was an opportunity to get his Islamicist message out. And so I would go with him to meet his group. Many of those there had at some stage in their lives either felt that they didn’t fit in, or been very lonely, and they lacked a purpose. Rich was working as a security guard and living alone in the East End of London when he was radicalised.

 

Simply converting to Islam was not enough. This group was seeking a much more dramatic change in their lives. And what being around Choudary gave them was an instant feeling of camaraderie. They were no longer alone. Every evening they would go to the home of one of the brothers, where their wives would cook for them. They would all look after each other. Most had given up work, but they would share their money. They saw claiming benefits as a way of fighting the Government.

 

That sense of being united in a group apart was heavily reinforced and justified by discussing videos of what were seen as American, British or Western atrocities carried out against their Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Rich began talking then of training overseas as a jihadist.

 

Choudary and other speakers would fire the group up with descriptions of the horrific things being done to Muslims around the world, and call for the blood of the non-believers to run red in the streets. There were occasions where I was the only non-believer in the cramped rooms, and it could be frightening.

 

Did I think they would actually translate that rhetoric into action? I didn’t think so, though at the same time there were people among the group who I felt were capable of going to such extremes. Most, though, appeared to be young men who felt empowered by talking the talk. It was bravado, I judged.

 

They came from all sorts of backgrounds. Some from Christian households, some from immigrant families, some with mainstream Muslim parents. Others, like my stepbrother, were white and came from ordinary middle England towns. There was no single demographic.

 

Some explained that they had been inspired to convert by things that had happened in their lives. One man whose sister had died of a cocaine overdose blamed Western society for “allowing her to die”. There was another who had watched George W Bush, after the 9/11 attacks, saying that “you are either with us or against us”, and had decided that he didn’t like him and was therefore against him.

 

All had taken their search to extremes because they were extremists. It was part of who they were – or had grown up to become. I wouldn’t say they were born that way, but at some stage in their short lives they had come to believe that they couldn’t live in the world they had been brought up in, and had turned against it.

 

So do I understand Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale? The conclusion of my film was that there was no single, easy, straightforward answer, however much we might all want there to be one.

[peterms]

Thought this was an interesting article, particularly for those who have often stated that Anjem Choudary is just a harmless gobshite...

This one's interesting too.  A more academic approach, looking at why some people become radicalised and also are prepared to act violently.  It seems a more useful approach than some of the explanations doing the rounds.  But at the same time as outlining several factors which are probably involved, it notes that there's not a formula which can predict who will become involved in violence.

[snowychap]

particularly for those who have often stated that Anjem Choudary is just a harmless gobshite...

Are there many in that category?

[Awol]

 

Thought this was an interesting article, particularly for those who have often stated that Anjem Choudary is just a harmless gobshite...

This one's interesting too.  A more academic approach, looking at why some people become radicalised and also are prepared to act violently.  It seems a more useful approach than some of the explanations doing the rounds.  But at the same time as outlining several factors which are probably involved, it notes that there's not a formula which can predict who will become involved in violence.

 

Readable but nothing really earth shattering in there to be honest. My point was more that a documentary maker who observed Choudary's group at close range for a period of two years concluded that he was in fact a key driver in radicalising individuals to the point where they are ready to cross the line from bravado to extreme violence. Many on here have stated that he's an idiot, but not a dangerous one. Perhaps that point of view was incorrect after all?

 

Anyway the two particular nutters that caused this thread were not victims of poverty or discrimination, and if they disagreed with the Iraq war then they are part of huge group who shared that view but didn't feel the need to kill randomly to express it. They simply chose to murder an entirely innocent man for political ends.

 

On a separate note if I was Home Secretary I'd also be asking questions about some of the risk assessments on domestic extremists currently being made by the Security Services.

[Awol]

 

particularly for those who have often stated that Anjem Choudary is just a harmless gobshite...

Are there many in that category?

 

From memory (and without the time to trawl back through a load of related threads) I think that there were, yes.