'Major incident' in Woolwich

[DJKillaQueen]

That's pretty much how I see it too El Pibe. This wasn't the act of an ideological movement for maximum effect. It was the act of two lone individuals on another innocent individual. I would say it has all the signs of something planned without much thought, rather than the other way round.

My point is that being able to carry out such a barbaric murder requires more than just the subscription to a particular view. For me, blaming jihadist ideology just seeks to place understanding and motive on something I think has no rationale to it. The only place blame ban be laid is with the killers themselves.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's a good point TE44 but it's also a reflection of how desensitised to violence we've become. People don't always make the disconnect between movies and reality for example.

Personally I am not squeamish to blood and gore, except that is, when it's my own family, or friends, or pets. So that also might explain why people don't react in the ways we'd perhaps expect.

[Louisa]

It's also a reflection on big cities in general. People become almost accustomed to violence and other odd acts of behaviour and either switch off to it or choose to bypass it and not get involved.

Louisa.

[DJKillaQueen]

Good article from the Independent...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/woolwich-murder-they-killed-then-they-performed--these-men-should-be-starved-of-our-attention-8628664.html

Raises some poignant questions about our reaction as a society.........

[TE44]

I think it does raise question DJK, I'm not sqeamish to blood or gore either, but meat cleaver in the hand of a guy who's just butchered someone. I can understand somone wanting to help but to film and post without a thought for he victims family, who might not have even been informed yet.Its interesring what the article says about random fanatics

and political terrorists, the definition of terror in this casis is not obvious by reactions.

If as the article suggest that peoples reality is intermingled with desire for fame or a loss of connection to the horror, what a sorry state.

[DaveR]

It is an interesting article but I think some of his analysis is weak. In particular, this:

"One problem with the construction of the random fanatic, is that virtually any form of incomphrehensible act of violence ? a school shooting, a crazed knife attack ? can be redefined as an act of political terrorism. That is why far too many people cannot resist the temptation of defining the tragedy in Woolwich as an act of political terrorism."

I don't think it is too difficult to distinguish between the personal grudge against society that appears to drive some acts of multiple murder and other broadly politically driven acts. Furedi also says this:

"It is unlikely that the two men who perpetrated this despicable act of violence have been busy reading al-Qaeda?s terror manual. However there is little doubt that they are thoroughly immersed in the cultural values of reality entertainment."

On that point I just think he is wrong; I would be amazed if the two individuals responsible for the Woolwich murders do not have a history of radicalisation based on exposure to materials emanating from extremist Muslim individuals and organisations, and that is what is likley to have ultimately driven the act, rather than watching too much TOWIE.

[stacey-lyn]

DaveR, at last!

Further, it's fascinating and bewildering why there's such reluctance and resistance in using the "t" word. Perhaps it may be seen as somehow empowering the perpetrators and even glorifying their heinous acts; or is it generally misunderstood or perplexing or ?

Avoiding the word, as Obama did post Boston (though he succumbed after 24 hours), makes no sense. If this was without any social or political objectives, I'd agree, but this was not the case.

Like it or not, and you may call it the rantings of a madman or fanatic but "under which actions and threats designed to influence a government may be terrorism" (Terrorism Act 2006).

If it walks like a duck etc. It is what it is.

El Pibe, your example of the crazed, lone, nutter Breivak had right-wing political motives and was convicted of terrorism.

Agreed that the cub scout leader will probably get her medal of bravery, possibly have post traumatic stress for many years to come as may the other witnesses and those who assisted; the family and friends of the deceased will undoubtedly be distressed beyond comprehension and will be forever haunted and life will go on. . .

[Voyageur]

stacey-lyn Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed that the cub scout leader will probably get

> her medal of bravery, possibly have post traumatic

> stress for many years to come as may the other

> witnesses and those who assisted; the family and

> friends of the deceased will undoubtedly be

> distressed beyond comprehension and will be

> forever haunted and life will go on. . .

Was with you until that last paragraph She was astonishingly brave and I hope she goes on to have a good life despite her shitty experience. I am afraid your cynical ennui goes a step too far and does you no credit - although I am sure that will bother you not one jot.

[stacey-lyn]

It's unfortunate that you perceived it as cynical.

[Otta]

"Further, it's fascinating and bewildering why there's such reluctance and resistance in using the "t" word"

Are you having a laugh? The "t" word is everywhere!

[*Bob*]

I think (to echo Pibe earlier) most people identify terrorism with wider organisation.. Plans made, orders given, doers dispatched. Of course this may turn out to be the case in due course, but at present this simply doesn't walk like the terrorist duck.

To me it seems like some sort of grotesque and deluded personal vanity project, carried out by two deeply disaffected men. Terrorists don't stroll around afterwards chatting to passers-by, asking to be filmed, waiting for the police to arrive. The event - and aftermath - is bizarre in the extreme.

[Annasfield]

Why don't they?

I'd say the expected to be shot dead. They clearly wanted their story to be told, hence staying around after

[Otta]

I did wonder if they were hoping to be "martyred" when the police arrived.

That said, even if they had some accomplices (there have been some arrests), I still don't know if I think of it differently to *bob*.

I am not trying to make light of it at all, and I'm not disrespecting the dead, but the amateur nature of it did make me think of the English bloke in 4 Lions.

[*Bob*]

Annasfield Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why don't they?

I don't know, but they don't.

At present it jus doesn't fit what are fairly established patterns. But who knows what else will come out.

[El Pibe]

Clearly we all have different ideas of what constitutes terrorist.

For me it failed in what surely must be the primary definition, to cause terror. It seems to by and large have been met by indifference*, through grotesque bemusement to lip licking islamophobia/racism.

All the rest about political intention, organisation etc is kind of quibbling.

*i think djkq is quite right that this comes from having been desensitised over many years, from Vietnam through Yugoslavia and decades of strife in the Middle East.

The reality tv thing is quite telling, there's a woman walks casually past it all with her shopping, doesn't even bat an eyelid, obviously thinking it was a drama being filmed or something, hardly surprising given the surreal nature of the events.

[El Pibe]

Otta, given some of the trials of late, four lions is increasingly looking like a documentary.

There is something inherently absurd about it all, but as the London bombs show, bumbling amateurs can cause a great deal of harm.

I imagine the arrests are lots of Al-Muhajiroun types who have been 'on the radar'. Probably anyone anime cloudy has spoken to in the last ten years.

Did anyone watch my brother the Islamist, it was fascinating and thorough depressing all at once? It was also very four lions.

Love autocorrect, Anjem Choudry.

[????]

Oooh is that an elephant in the middle of the room?

It's not terrorism out of the 1970s, it's not even that 'political' it's fanatical, deluded (and this case failed) religious martyrdom>

All religons are medieval claptrap, and followers of the one that no-one dares speak of, just this week have blown up scores of fellow countryman in Baghdad as part of some 8th Century schism, hung a handful of 'bandits' and left them there to rot in a public square as a warning to others in their Kalamite, and spurred some deluded idiots in Woolwich to run over and decapitate a young dad.

But, we can crow about Catholic priests as taht doesn't cross the code of the Guardian.

I raise a glass to Hitchens, be he in heaven, or hell or just resting from such absurdity in blissfull nothingness

[Otta]

Nothing you say there is wrong quids, but even so, I'm pretty sure the vast vast majority of Muslim people probably think all those things you mention are as fucked up as you do.

Just like most Catholics not being dirty old kiddie fiddlers.

[????]

So, why is it that most people don't seem to have the intellectual strength to separate the word 'Islam' from 'Muslim'? And I include in that both followers of the EDF and columnists in the Guardian

[*Bob*]

Not sure i get that point.. What is the separation?

[????]

Without the seperation then criticism of the religon Islam makes you anti people who describe themselves as Muslim or are part of the Muslim community or of a Muslim background, and so racist. So Islam doesn't get criticised very much as some liberals horror of being called racist is above any other consideration. Whereas say the Catholic Church is rightly condemned for its multiple sins we have vast waves of silence about other religions intolerance say.

[*Bob*]

Islam is a religion. Followers of Islam are by definition Muslims. That's all there is to it.

There is no separation. Only interpretation.. But that goes for every faith innit?

[*Bob*]

Surely what you mean is that some people see Muslims - wrongly - as a race?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

[????]

Yes, your first point.

[Otta]

Richard Dart was from the ginger race. Now that was weird.