Woolwich attack: of course British foreign policy had a role

[Luminous Animal]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-british-foreign-policy-role


While nothing can justify the killing of a British soldier, the link to Britain's vicious occupations abroad cannot be ignored

These awful events cannot be explained in the almost Texan terms of Colonel Richard Kemp, who served as commander of British forces in Afghanistan in 2001. He tweeted on last night that they were "not about Iraq or Afghanistan", but were an attack on "our way of life". Plenty of others are saying the same.

But let's start by examining what emerged from the mouths of the assailants themselves. In an accent that was pure London, according to one of the courageous women who intervened at the scene, one alleged killer claimed he was "… fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan …". It is unclear whether it was the same man, or his alleged co-assailant, who said "… bring our (Note: our) troops home so we can all live in peace".

It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between.

It is equally important to point out, however, that rejection of and opposition to the toxic wars that informed yesterday's attacks is by no means a "Muslim" trait. Vast swaths of the British population also stand in opposition to these wars, including many veterans of the wars like myself and Ross, as well as serving soldiers I speak to who cannot be named here for fear of persecution.

[CBGLuthier]

1. fucking apologist bullshit. Those men were murderers not fucking freedom fighters.

blech.

[HiPointDem]

3. fucking straw men. no one claimed they were 'freedom fighters'.

[Luminous Animal]

6. That was pretty funny. Thanks!

[msongs]

2. doesn't say much for England's immigration policies either nt

[Luminous Animal]

5. Michael Adebolajo, the attacker... British born and raised in a Christian household.

Adebolajo was an ordinary British schoolboy; born in Lambeth in December 1984, he grew up in Romford, travelled to school on the bus, played football and appeared to have a lot of friends.

His family – who are of Nigerian origin — were practising Christians, attending the local church. He has two siblings; a sister and a brother. Both boys went to Marshalls Park school in Romford. At 16, Adebolajo moved to Havering sixth form college, and then at 18 attended Greenwich University, where he lived in student accommodation in 2004 and 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-suspect-michael-adebolajo

[Luminous Animal]

4. Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

[geek tragedy]

8. They butchered another human being in the street to terrorize

the civilian population for an explicitly political purpose.

So, yes, terrorism.

[geek tragedy]

7. The unstated assumption of this claim is that Muslims are more likely

to kill their fellow citizens over geopolitical disputes.

"We have to be careful of our foreign policy decisions, otherwise our Muslim community will start murdering the non-Muslims."

Per the article:

It is equally important to point out, however, that rejection of and opposition to the toxic wars that informed yesterday's attacks is by no means a "Muslim" trait. Vast swaths of the British population also stand in opposition to these wars, including many veterans of the wars like myself and Ross, as well as serving soldiers I speak to who cannot be named here for fear of persecution.

But the article does flag Muslims as the only people who will kill fellow citizens over their anger at the UK's foreign policy.

This is a dangerous argument to make--the idea that all Muslims are 'them' who are aligned against 'us'