What's new

Woolwich attack: If the whole world's a battlefield, that holds in Woolwich as well as Waziristan

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Woolwich attack: If the whole world's a battlefield, that holds in Woolwich as well as Waziristan | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian
Michael-Adebolajo-008.jpg

'The impact of the Woolwich murder was violently counter-productive for the Muslims that Rigby’s killers claimed to be defending.' Photograph: Handout/Reuters
The videoed butchery of Fusilier Lee Rigby outside Woolwich barracks last May was a horrific act and his killers' murder conviction a foregone conclusion. Rigby was a British soldier who had taken part in multiple combat operations in Afghanistan. So the attack wasn't terrorism in the normal sense of an indiscriminate attack on civilians.

The killing of an unarmed man far from the conflict, by self-appointed individuals with non-violent political alternatives, isn't condoned by any significant political or religious tradition. Quite apart from morality, the impact was violently counter-productive for the Muslims that Rigby's killers claimed to be defending, as Islamophobic attacks spiked across Britain.

But the determined refusal of the political establishment to recognise the link with the wars they have been waging in the Muslim world is toxic and dangerous. Echoing the recycled nonsense of his predecessors, David Cameron claims Woolwich was "an attack on the British way of life".

The answer, he insists, is to "confront the poisonous narrative of extremism", ban the "hate clerics" - anything but mention the war. More than a decade after the launch of a campaign that has delivered mass slaughter, torture, kidnapping and destruction across the Muslim world, such deceitful inanities are simply designed to hide the political elite's role in the violence.

There can't, after all, be the slightest doubt about what Rigby's killers thought they were doing. Michael Adebolajo spelled it out on the streets and in court. This was a "military attack", he claimed, in retaliation for Britain's occupation and violence in "Muslim lands", from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond.

"Leave our lands and you can live in peace," the London-born Muslim convert told bystanders. The message couldn't be clearer. It was the same delivered by the 2005 London bomber, Mohammed Siddique Khan, and the Iraqi 2007 Glasgow attacker, Bilal Abdullah, who declared: "I wanted the public to have a taste" of what its government of "murderers did to my people".

To say these attacks are about "foreign policy" prettifies the reality. They are the predicted consequence of an avalanche of violence unleashed by the US, Britain and others in eight direct military interventions in Arab and Muslim countries that have left hundreds of thousands of dead. Only the wilfully blind or ignorant can be shocked when there is blowback from that onslaught at home. The surprise should be that there haven't been more such atrocities.

Mainstream Islamic teaching supports the right to resist foreign occupation, while rejecting violence against non-combatants or outside the battlefield. But it is the US and its closest allies in the war on terror who have declared the whole world to be a battlefield, in which they claim the right to kill whoever they deem to be a threat.

British and US special forces have been doing that in Somalia. The US routinely kills large numbers of civilians in drone strikes across the Muslim world – 12 were reported incinerated last week in Yemen. By waging a war without borders, often against unarmed or unidentified victims, they have fatally blurred the boundaries and invited their enemies to do the same. That was Adebolajo's view of the Woolwich attack, his brother Jeremiah told al-Jazeera TV: "The geographical location of the battlefield, since this war on terror, has basically disappeared."

What is clear is that denying the role of US-British wars and killing in fuelling domestic terror attacks can only inflame Islamophobia – and absolve politicians from their responsibility for years of bloodshed and backlash. Unless the pressure grows to halt the terror war abroad, Woolwich certainly won't be the end of it at home.
@Aeronaut @Oscar @RazPaK @Areesh @Arabian Legend @Yzd Khalifa @al-Hasani @balixd @Slav Defence @Rafi @Talon @A.Rafay @WebMaster @jaibi @Spring Onion @mafiya @tarrar and others

@Alpha 1 every one its must read
 
It is interesting...And also a little sad...Frustration can really do a lot to the people!!

I am not sure why this is even highlighted...American soldiers also suffered traumatically when they returned from Vietnam and heard similar stuff from those returned from Afghanistan and Iraq...I remember there were 2 who went bizzurk! THAT never ATTACKED anyones "way of life" or religion....that was just PSYCHOLOGY or something...

But this guy who is traumatized with seeing blood shed and well he is literally in the same case as a traumatized soldier...but nooo public wont think that way...Coz soldiers are looked upon with pride so what if they go insane and shoot around....But GOD FORBID a person who has seen more killings than an AVERAGE BRITISH soldier who hasnt been posted anywhere, go mad...or lets out frustration....

Why cant all people be given the same treatment why the double standards and def why the hell is this 1 any different from any other "lunatic" case? I mean the guy I dont support what he did but I def can understand the expression he is trying to show! Too bad many go down that line end up maligning RELIGION instead of SHOWING what their children are watching on the streets of their home town thanks to "FOREIGN HELP"
 
Even though armies kill, people see them differently. Nobody will say muslim turkish army killed xyz or muslim pakistani army personnel did what they are supposed to.
Religion only comes into picture when it is used to justify a cause or used as an identity that triggered certain action.
And we treat act of a solider (of any religion) differently from that of a civilian.
 
Even though armies kill, people see them differently. Nobody will say muslim turkish army killed xyz or muslim pakistani army personnel did what they are supposed to.
Religion only comes into picture when it is used to justify a cause or used as an identity that triggered certain action.
And we treat act of a solider (of any religion) differently from that of a civilian.
The guy didnt use his religion here he was saying I want them to feel how our hometown feels...Religion was dragged in by the media AS USUAL!!

I do not mean the army during battle I mean TRAUMATIZED army PERSONNEL or those who have served their term...but cant come in terms with what they did
 
The guy didnt use his religion here he was saying I want them to feel how our hometown feels...Religion was dragged in by the media AS USUAL!!

I do not mean the army during battle I mean TRAUMATIZED army PERSONNEL or those who have served their term...but cant come in terms with what they did
did he not claim he belongs to army of allah? religion was dragged by media?
 
Very sad reading, thumbs up to the author for being brave enough to write it.
 
Very sad reading, thumbs up to the author for being brave enough to write it.

Mate , the person was a citizen of Britain though , lets not forget that . Enjoying the amenities/services/facilities provided by the same country and going against it in the end , this is what bothers me . The wars fought/policies of Govt may be wrong but I still believe that a citizen should be loyal to his/her state , not start killing soldiers for whatever reasons .
 
Last edited:
still believe that a citizen should be loyal to his/her state .

Not these fucktards... "Covenant of security" my arse! Fundamentalist mindset is a blight on this world and holds no weight or place in these enlightened times, faith is personal and practiced out of love, not fear... Wo mazab he kia, jo khauf sey paye jaye...
 
The only difference being that Waziristan (and all other places which this particular place has been set to represent in the article) is home to organizations which have been labeled as terrorists by the UN, in a state which is either incapable of eradicating them or unwilling to or as the world has found often willing to patronize and support, when these said groups engage in or abet terror attacks on other nations then the situation becomes quite understandable as far as deterrent action is concerned. On the other hand the residents of Woolwich are unlikely to belong to (in any significant number) a group which walks into a mall and kills people based on their lack of knowledge pertaining to Islamic trivia or a group which hunts Hazaaras for sport while sheltering folks who deem it wise to ram aircrafts into buildings. False equivalency will get one no where, unlike Woolwich places like Waziristan are blackholes which their concerned governments refuse to govern and cleanse ergo someone else must step in to do the job. If someone wants to discuss the tools and the methods used, their applicability and legality, then that's another matter altogether and does actually merit an open ended discussion.
 
The only difference being that Waziristan (and all other places which this particular place has been set to represent in the article) is home to organizations which have been labeled as terrorists by the UN, in a state which is either incapable of eradicating them or unwilling to or as the world has found often willing to patronize and support, when these said groups engage in or abet terror attacks on other nations then the situation becomes quite understandable as far as deterrent action is concerned. On the other hand the residents of Woolwich are unlikely to belong to (in any significant number) a group which walks into a mall and kills people based on their lack of knowledge pertaining to Islamic trivia or a group which hunts Hazaaras for sport while sheltering folks who deem it wise to ram aircrafts into buildings. False equivalency will get one no where, unlike Woolwich places like Waziristan are blackholes which their concerned governments refuse to govern and cleanse ergo someone else must step in to do the job. If someone wants to discuss the tools and the methods used, their applicability and legality, then that's another matter altogether and does actually merit an open ended discussion.

For god's sake use breaks to form paragraphs. No one likes to read a "WALLOFTEXT".
 
faith is personal and practiced out of love, not fear... Wo mazab he kia, jo khauf sey paye jaye...

Well put , Monsieur . God has no use for any such faith , let there be not " a shadow " of doubt ! Aray logon tumhara kiya , mein janon mera Khuda jane ( O people what it is to you , let me and my God bother ) . :D

Hey! I resent that. I'm sleep deprived, cut me some slack. @Secur Ask him to cut me some slack.:mad:

Why not ? Only if you get me a copy of "Escape to nowhere" . The world runs on quid pro quos , commandatore . :D
 
a couple of the interesting comment below article

"
OK, I can understand someone from Yemen .whose family has been killed in a drone strike travelling to the country that did for revenge, but this is not what happened. Two guys born in the UK decided they weren't British or Christian any more and were now Muslims and owed allegiance to the Muslim cause instead of the country that brought them up.

This happened because someone radicalised them and it is those evil people that need rooting out. I am sure Authorities know who these people are and it's time they took action against them. Britain is a tolerant society but isn't going to stay one if this doesn't happen."


"
Seumas Milne's idee fixe has two problems
1. That a British convert of Nigerian origin kills a British white soldier for "crimes" commited by "the West" in say, Yemen.... is as logical as a EDL Brit blowing up a mosque as retaliation for Egyptian Muslims killing Egyptian Christians. Seumas and others are spreading Islamophobia by assuming that a Muslim in one end of the world is authomatically bound to react violently for what another totally unrelated Muslim in the other end of the world suffers. What were the "our lands" of the murderers? certainly not Britain itself, neither the Nigeria of their forefathers, where the main hate killers are also Islamists! For them it was "Muslim lands" a notion so logical today as the "Christendom" of centuries past. Milne reinforces what he denounces in other articles: that any Muslim is dangerous just by being Muslim, that his religions will always supersede any national or secular loyalty.

2. The other is that the main murderers in say, Yemen or Afganisthan, are not the soldiers of "the West", but the "brothers in arms" of these Islamist killers. Even in Iraq, the worse violence is Muslim-on-Muslim one, mainly because of sectarian violence much older than the US intervention, even much older than the existence of the US themselves... There is ample proof, in todays Syria, in yesterday's Algeria, that the "muslim world" is perfectly capable of horrendous civil war without the "west"."
 
Back
Top Bottom