Mentor of A Murderer: Cleric Praises London Killer and Former Student

article-2329089-19F1FAAA000005DC-790_634x4762013-05-24T142550Z_2_CBRE94N0VTD00_RTROPTP_2_BRITAIN-KILLINGIf you want to know what kind of man could commit the grotesque act this week in butchering a man on a London street while posing for cameras, you might want to meet his teacher. In Tripoli, Lebanon, Syrian-born cleric, Omar Bakri, founder of banned British Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, saw the same video that we saw. While we recoiled at the savagery, Bakri rejoiced in what he called the “courage” and faith of Michael Adebolajo in murdering Lee Ridgy. Our disgust was matched by the cleric’s delight in seeing a former student murder in the name of Islam. He gave the interview as his son, Osama, played at his feet . . . yes, named after that Osama.

Bakri said that “When I saw the footage I recognized the face immediately . . . A quiet man, very shy, asking lots of questions about Islam.” He describes the killer as “standing firm, courageous, brave. Not running away. Rather, he said why he carried (it out) and he wanted the whole world to hear it.”

He assured everyone Adebolajo is now in paradise since “The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That’s a beautiful saying. May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions.”

He added the question “was he a man or not?”

No, he hit an innocent man with his car and then butchered his body. He is a murderer, and you, Mr. Bakri, you are the mentor of a murderer.

46 thoughts on “Mentor of A Murderer: Cleric Praises London Killer and Former Student

  1. Disgusting! The sad part is that people like this cleric actually have kids and are teaching them in the same radical nonsense. Sad.

  2. This is the problem with not being allowed to make judgments about cultures and religions that teach that people who disagree with you are not human. As long as these beliefs remain nothing more that ideas there is nothing that should or can be done but when they are acted upon their religious underpinnings should not provide any cover and neither should the claims of grievance.

  3. The hate each side feels unites them.

    Hate works that way.

    They hate you, you hate them.

    That is how hate has sex and reproduces itself.

    Hate tells you how good you are and how demonic they are.

    You strut all your good stuff and all their bad stuff.

    They strut all their good stuff and all your bad stuff.

    The reality matters not because of brain lock.

    Reproduction by brain lock.

    Strange stuff.

  4. I’ve seen this demagogue interviewed @ length..60 Minutes maybe? He is despicable and drone worthy. Lord please forgive me.

  5. “This is a cultural and belief system I think none of us can even begin to understand.” – leejcaroll

    I’m sorry, can you clarify? I can’t discern which cultural belief system you are speaking about.

    In the U.S., those who don a uniform are praised and idolized for their ‘heroism’ and ‘service’, irrespective of what their ‘heroism’ and ‘service’ actually entail.

    Like, for instance, killing people in foreign lands who they don’t know, and with whom they have no personal quarrels.

    They are celebrated before football games. In commercials. At ceremonies and schools. Even at (Christian!) church services.

    Indeed, western culture praises its officially sanctioned murderers as much as any other. The difference is that western murderers have the benefit of fancy home-team costumes and powerful corporate propaganda offering a veil of legitimacy, whereas the ‘other’ culture’s murderers have the misfortune of being represented by a mere cleric with a scruffy beard and a ‘scary’ last name.

    All of this, of course, is not to justify the acts of the London butcher or his cleric. It is to call attention to the hypocrisy at play, and condemn all actors who undertake aggressive acts of violence, irrespective of the cultural myths in which they attempt to insulate their savage insanity.

  6. Dredd, I hope you understand that not all hatred is bad. We should hate evil. That is the good kind of hatred. Not only is it good, it is our civic duty to hate evil. To be indifferent to evil or to love evil, that in itself is evil. To hate evil is a good thing.

  7. Jay, violence against evil is a good thing. For example, this terrorist has done an evil thing. He should be put to death. The violence against him, to put him to death in a legitimate way after a trial, is good. Murder is defined as illegitimate killing. Not all violence and killing is wrong, but murder is always wrong by definition.

  8. “The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That’s a beautiful saying. May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions.”

    *********************
    For my wish, I hope the British legal system or a precision Hellfire missile does it first. I can wait for divine retribution.

  9. Jay wrote: “What led you to label this man a terrorist?”

    His bloody message was meant to strike terror into the hearts of the innocent citizens in London, urging them to overthrow their government. The man he ran over with his car was a fellow citizen who was not attacking him or posing any kind of threat to him. It is similar to the actions of Major Hasan who likewise shot fellow citizens and comrades in arms with him.

    When combatants go to war, as far as I know, they do not run over people with their car who are no threat to them, and then hack them up and start urging the citizens with their bloody hands to overthrow their government. If one of our soldiers did act this way, I would hope that he would be charged under war crime laws and executed. If you cannot see the barbaric nature of this, even by standards of war, I am somewhat speechless to know what to say. Perhaps you are one of the sociopaths about which others in this forum have been teaching me.

  10. SIgh.

    davidm2575, you clearly didn’t read the material I offered to help you consider the matter more substantively, otherwise you might have sharpened your axe a little more before responding. As it stands, it is as though you are attempting to chop down a tree with a hammer.

    You served up precisely the argument that is being severely undermined by the evidence GG (among others) presents, of which there is an overwhelming amount, which would ensnare the U.S. and its soldiers into the definition of terrorism you are proffering.

    Now, since you are clearly too lazy to click the link, or too stubborn to read sources from ‘adversaries’ in a comment thread, I’ve done you the favor of importing the applicable section.

    Please consider the following, and then try again to define what it is that makes this London man a ‘terrorist’ that would exclude the U.S. and its soldiers from being labeled likewise; or otherwise offer your rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence presented herein (from the same article I linked above):

    “It’s true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined “militant” to mean “any military-aged male in a strike zone”). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are “asleep”, that you don’t “have to wake them up before you shoot them” and “make it a fair fight”. Once you declare that the “entire globe is a battlefield” (which includes London) and that any “combatant” (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed – as the US has done – then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be “terrorism”?

    When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it “terrorism” given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that “terrorism” means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that “the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily” and warned that “you people will never be safe. Remove your government”, the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it “terrorism”.

    That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn’t that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam’s regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

    The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments’ policies and even the government itself.”

    (Jay) Given all of this, Greenwald goes on, then, to restate the question I posed to you, davidm2575:

    “How can one create a definition of “terrorism” that includes Wednesday’s London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?”

    ————— end of quote ————–

    It should be noted that Greenwald forgets to mention in his article the despicable “douple-tap” tactic the US has employed as well, where the U.S. drone-bombs a site, and then drone-bombs again once rescuers show up (as a matter of fact, just call to mind the Wikileaks “Collateral Murder” video, where they did essentially the same thing with an AC-130, shooting up a van with children in it after it showed up merely to help victims of the first attack). These ‘double-tap’ drone strikes have also been used to kill attendees who show up for the funeral of victims of a first drone attack. Let’s also recall the U.S. use of clusterbombs. Or how about ‘signature strikes’, whereby the U.S. doles out death sentences – often in bulk – without even identifying who it is that they are killing. And in all of this, bear in mind the policy of the Obama administration to label as a militant any “military aged male” killed in an attack, even where there identity is unknown, unless posthumously proven innocent.

    Any problems with any of this, davem2575? Lots of international law violating going on here, innocent people being killed all over the place. Are you calling for trials and death sentences in these instances as well? Or does the home-team uniform of the perpetrators make it a bit cloudy for you?

    For add’l sources for these claims, please click through the link to the full article above. I’ll gladly post more links if you require them, since it sounds like you are quite uninformed.

    In any case, take your time. When you have considered all of this, and are ready to offer a definition of ‘terrorism’ that can distinguish this man’s act from U.S. foreign policy as articulated herein, I’d be very interested in reading it.

  11. @Jay,

    Thanks for the link to Glenn Greenwald’s excellent piece on this subject. I had thought about posting it myself, but you beat me to the reference. Unfortunately, it does not appear that davidm2575 either read or understood what he should have, so I’ll post only three of Mr Greenwald’s pertinent paragraphs (with added emphasis where appropriate).

    First:

    “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.”

    Key word and concept here: “soldier,” as opposed to “civilian” and all that the difference implies.

    Then we have the whole, glaring hypocrisy thing:

    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.

    As stated by the killers of this British soldier, they killed this military professional because British soldiers had invaded Muslim countries and murdered, maimed, and incarcerated the civilian inhabitants in numbers so great that America and the United Kingdom don’t even bother to count them all.

    Then we have the “off duty” thing:

    It’s true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined “militant” to mean “any military-aged male in a strike zone”). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are “asleep”, that you don’t “have to wake them up before you shoot them” and “make it a fair fight”. Once you declare that the “entire globe is a battlefield” (which includes London) and that any “combatant” (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed – as the US has done – then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be “terrorism”?

    @davidm2575,

    Now you have no excuse for not understanding what our friend Jay tried to point out to you. Calling him a “sociopath” does not in any way lessen his (and Mr Greenwald’s) valid points, but such ad hominem invective does expose the poverty of your own response. But just to leave things on a positive note, please understand that when a nation’s leaders declare “war,” they make targets out of every single man and woman who wears either a uniform or civilian clothes in the performance of their 24/7/365 duty. You really need to understand this.

  12. Michael Murry:

    There you go again Mike. Make sweeping statements without one scintilla of knowing what you’re talking about. A declaration of war by a state is war against the military targets of the adversary state. It is not a war on unarmed combatants as you suggest. To wage war intentionally on unarmed combatants is a war crime and prohibited by most every international convention on the topic. Mush heads like Greenwald, in their zeal to accept all blame on our behalf, fail to take this into account. To state it expressly, the obvious difference between our country and its enemies is that we do not intend to end the lives of innocents. Our enemies expressly do. And of course, folks who intend the deaths of innocent people are sociopaths.

  13. In a just world Mr. Bakri’s children would be removed and his parental rights terminated to prevent the spread of his disease.

  14. “To state it expressly, the obvious difference between our country and its enemies is that we do not intend to end the lives of innocents. Our enemies expressly do. And of course, folks who intend the deaths of innocent people are sociopaths.” – mespo727272

    Translation: “We” only ‘unintentionally’ kill their innocents, over and over and over again, for decades. Therefore, we are morally superior to those mongrels who respond on occasion with ‘intentional’ violence of their own – always minuscule by comparison in terms of human cost – to the innocent deaths and horrifying destruction we ‘accidentally’ inflict perpetually on their innocents.”

    Moreover, upon whose unchallenged determination of innocence and guilt are you relying in the first place? The U.S. government’s?

    That’s hilarious.

    I bet you’re also upset that anyone would question the benevolent aims of U.S. spying on journalists. They have good intentions!

    Nothing to see here folks! U.S. government = good; targets of U.S. government = bad!

    Good intentions… Really? That’s the crux of your argument? That’s what you’re going to hang your hat on? In defense of the U.S. government’s violent campaigns of aggression?

    There are few arguments in defense of our foreign policy that I can imagine that would be more vapid, silly, and apart from reality than good intentions.

    But I do appreciate the Saturday night entertainment.

  15. they are not terrorists, they are murderers. let them be tried for murder and if convicted be sentenced to a penitentiary with other murders.

    their rhetoric will no doubt keep their new friends amused.

    perhaps the “mentors” child will escape his overbearing father and find happiness as a transvestite prostitute in tel aviv.

    and make his daddy proud

  16. pete9999:

    I agree! Though I must ask for clarification: Which murderers do you speak of? There are so many.

    Do you mean the ones who don western costumes and push buttons to kill shadows on a computer screen, which often turn out to be perfectly wonderful, innocent and harmless women, children, and other human beings? Or the ones who have ‘scary’ names, long beards and say things you don’t like about your country’s ‘representatives’ invading their country?

    As for escaping the overbearing father; I’m not sure prostitution is a better alternative, but certainly I understand your point about Sasha and Malia seeking a better role model than one who shows no compunction in taking innocent lives and prosecuting vigorously those who merely seek to expose government corruption.

  17. @miscellany101,

    Thank your for your interesting observation about Professor Turley’s lurid, scathing language, fairly dripping with pious invective and which, of course, does not even once identify the victim in this particular killing as a British soldier who may or may not have done reprehensible things during a past deployment to Iraq and/or Afghanistan; or who, as a soldier, would gladly do such things if ordered to do so by a “superior” officer during a future deployment abroad. According to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s notorious “1% doctrine,” if even a one percent chance exists that someone might to a bad thing in the future then that person deserves to die now so that he can’t possibly consummate his potential for harm. This doctrine, fully embraced by President Obama, explains his preference for just killing suspects as less expensive and troublesome than capturing, indicting, trying, and convicting them according to the quaint old notion of “due process.”

    At any rate, your comments reminded me of something George Orwell wrote in “Notes on Nationalism” (1945):

    “All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral color when it is committed by ‘our’ side….

    The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.”

    If Professor Turley had chosen to phrase his thoughts in less inflammatory nationalist rhetoric,with an eye towards the legal ramifications of “the global battlefield,” “military age Muslm males in a free-fire zone as ‘militants’ by definition,” “preemptive war,” et cetera, then perhaps a more enlightened discussion of real issues might have ensued.

  18. MIke Murry:

    “a British soldier who may or may not have done reprehensible things during a past deployment to Iraq and/or Afghanistan; or who, as a soldier, would gladly do such things if ordered to do so by a “superior” officer during a future deployment abroad.”

    ***************************

    My, how predictable. Soldier “bad” because of what he might have done something or might have been ordered to do. Terrorist Good no matter what he does because he assuages my sense of guilt for things real or imagined that happened over thirty years ago.

    Could you donate your brain to science? It’s hard to find such organs from such complete haters.

  19. Jay:

    “Translation: “We” only ‘unintentionally’ kill their innocents, over and over and over again, for decades. Therefore, we are morally superior to those mongrels …”

    ********************

    That’s about right, Jay. It’s called a war and the sad fact is that innocents get maimed and killed. You are judged by your actions fueled by your intentions. You can’t judge one without the other and the examples are so myriad and simple that a sixth grader gets it. One wonders why you can’t.

  20. Mike Murry:

    “does not even once identify the victim in this particular killing as a British soldier who may or may not have done reprehensible things during a past deployment to Iraq and/or Afghanistan; or who, as a soldier, would gladly do such things if ordered to do so by a “superior” officer during a future deployment abroad.”

    *****************

    I love a good laugh. Soldier “bad” because of what he MIGHT have done. Terrorist “good” despite what he has obviously done.

    Could you donate your brain to science? It’s hard to find anatomical parts from such complete haters of the West.

  21. pete9999:

    “they are not terrorists, they are murderers.”

    **********************

    They are both.

  22. Agree with mespo. They were both terrorists and murderers. Anyone who tries to excuse this kind of act is beneath contempt. There is no excuse. As for a reason they did it? They are murderers and terrorists.

  23. While I don’t agree that Greenwald is a “mushhead”, I do think he is wrong on this issue, as is anyone else who doesn’t think this was an act of terrorism. It matters little what the motivation may have been (religion, personal revenge, military tactic, etc), it has more to do with intent, which was to incite fear among the British public in the hope that they would put pressure on their government to change its behavior.

    Terrorism is defined as acts intended to create fear, or terror, among a populace. These acts can range from the murder of a single individual to the crashing of a power grid or computer network. Or a drone attack. You want to accuse the US of engaging in terrorism, I’ll go along with that; any reason a military can’t strategically engage in terrorism? Isn’t that what Sherman did on his march through Georgia?

    The claim is that they knew the man and knew he was a soldier – prove it! This time it was a soldier, next time it might be a civilian food service employee for the base. Again, I don’t see that it matters that they targeted a soldier. The terrorist intent can be seen in the brutally spectacular way they committed this crime, and the moment one of the attackers issued his warning for the camera, this became an act of terrorism.

  24. @ Jay who oh-so-plaintively asks: “Which murderers do you speak of? Do you mean the ones who don western costumes and push buttons to kill shadows on a computer screen, which often turn out to be perfectly wonderful, innocent and harmless women, children, and other human beings? Or the ones who have ‘scary’ names, long beards and say things you don’t like about your country’s ‘representatives’ invading their country?”


    Nice try, Mr. Modern-Day Moralizer. 1) as if those “shadows on a computer screen” were merely randomly-selected like on a BINGO card and 2) just a few decades ago, Belgian, French, Dutch, Czechs, Poles, Ethiopians and Chinese populace suffered far, far more death and destruction from invaders not hesitant in the least to employ brute force.

  25. A cleric is like a preacher and somewhat like a teacher. The old adage applies:
    Those who can, do.
    Those who can’t, preach.
    Those who cant preach, teacher preachers.

    Never trust a cleric named Eric. Which gets us back to the more recent topic on the blog.

  26. It is HOLY WAR. There are a lot of bright people on this blog, but many seem to be just a delusional as the murderer topic of this thread. Abolish (begin treating) ALL insanity related to the belief in invisible monsters in the sky and the rest of us will breathe a giant sigh of relief. Please, all you god people, just GET IT ON , kill each other, and get it over with so rational people can go about rebuilding a world based on reality. There are 530 (supposed) Christians in Congress, and people are still going around asking what is wrong with Congress. Could it possible be more %&*$#! clear?

  27. Jay, for what is is worth, I did click on your link and I did read the article and browsed through many of the comments BEFORE I responded to you. I found the article to be a shallow piece of sophistry. Rather than enlighten us through a reductionist approach to the subject, it did everything possible to confuse people to think that widely disparate issues have no distinction at all.

    You asked me why I used the term terrorist and I told you. He committed a brutal savage act not representative of any civilized society. He committed the act against a fellow citizen. The fact that he was also a soldier does not mean that they did not also share citizenship in the same country. He appeared on video to present a bloody message to his fellow citizens, to invoke terror into the hearts of these citizens of which he was a part, to try to move them to overthrow his own government. Mutilating a dead body like he did is actually against Islamic law for many Muslims, but apparently not all. He even referred to the British troops as “our troops” indicating that he was well aware that he was attacking a soldier who was fighting for him and defending his freedom and liberty. This is far different than a soldier being sent by the government to defend their national interests in fighting against soldiers on the battlefield in another country. The savagery alone is contemptible. As I said before, if any British or American soldier did what he did, either in the homeland or on foreign soil in war against soldiers of another nation, they have committed terrorism and should be prosecuted for war crimes. There is such a thing as being civilized in war, as ridiculous as that might sound to you. Although both end in death, how that happens and the messages conveyed are very different. One is done under the rule of law to maintain order and secure liberty, whereas the other is done to grandstand a bloody message of “look how strong I am and what I am going to do to you if you don’t do what I think should be done.” We do not parade each death in the battlefield as a message of terror to others. I still am baffled why you and the ignorant fools on that website you referenced cannot see this distinction. It is quite self evident to me, which is perhaps I am not articulate enough to help you see it.

  28. I can see why a lot of the clerics wear the tent head thing when photographed. Bald guy here looks like a perp who would counsel the less bright to go kill for some guy named Akbar.

  29. Jay and Michael Murry are arguing that 2 + 2 = 4. The various rejoinders by Davidm, mespo, and RTC argue that 2 + 2 = 4 only when they say it does. And if they want the answer to be more than 4, or less, then everyone else must simply accept their position. Because they’re good people, after all, and if they’re conclusions owe more to ideology than to facts and logic, well, that’s one of the benefits of being a good person: your goodness will overcome any evidence or reasoning that might get in the way of the esteem in which you hold yourself (and insist that we hold you in as well).

    Like miscellany101 and Michael Murry, I too have been troubled by the numerous postings to this blog in which Turley seems to go out of his way to present and condemn as savagery acts he attributes to religious (often Muslim) extremism. If only he could show the same disgust when considering the U.S.’ willful and wanton destruction of Iraqi lives and society, to cite but one recent example. Violence is violence, regardless of what article of faith has motivated its perpetrators. In the minds of its adherents, American exceptionalism is no less an article of faith, and thus motive, than any interpretation of the Quran.

    Face it folks, we completely destroyed Iraq, and in doing so ruined the lives of many millions. And we didn’t do it because Iraq had WMD, or any connection to Al Qaeda, or to the attacks of 9/11. Nor did we do it to bestow democracy, or because we truly value the inherent human rights to life, safety and security of those victimized by depraved tyrants. If invading countries were the way to advance any of these goals, and we had the courage of our convictions, we would have bombed Riyadh or Tel Aviv a long time ago. And we would have bombed ourselves while we were at it.

    As for the terrorism meme, it’s usefulness as rhetoric and propaganda is self-evident. Numerous posters here labor under the illusion that somehow violence does not terrorize as long as it’s being wielded by state actors, and is aimed in the general direction of one or more combatants. What utter nonsense. Tell it to the survivors, who no doubt will sleep much more easily after being assured that the decapitated, dismembered, eviscerated and burned bodies of their children, siblings, parents, neighbors, co-workers, et al, now decorating the rubble of what used to be their homes and streets, were a gift from the greatest democracy in world history.

  30. rsmatesic wrote: “Tell it to the survivors, who no doubt will sleep much more easily after being assured that the decapitated, dismembered, eviscerated and burned bodies of their children, siblings, parents, neighbors, co-workers, et al, now decorating the rubble of what used to be their homes and streets, were a gift from the greatest democracy in world history.”

    Maybe I am ignorant of something here. Can you show me any evidence, something like the evidence we see with this British born Nigerian with bloody hands, knives, pointing to the corpse he just mutilated, that any Americans or Brits ever decapitated, dismembered, eviscerated and burned bodies of children?

    If you do show me such evidence, then I will agree with you that those Americans or Brits are terrorists. If you can’t, then you are lying.

  31. OK, David, you asked for it. A Hellfire missile or 30mm chain gun does not discriminate. No one is saying collateral casualties are deliberate, but it happens. There is a little glitch in the human eye-brain connection that causes one to see what one wants to see. A camera with a telephoto lens may look like a weapon, if one is looking only for weapons.

    If a some guys in a helicopter kill or injure your family members, then all green helicopters are your enemy. As are the people in them. It is human nature.

  32. The issue I was addressing was whether this murder was an act of terrorism or not, and, again, it goes to intent. When the attacker issued his warning for the camera, it became an an act of terrorism.

    You’ll get no argument from me about the stupidity of the Iraqi war or the numerous ways in which it was botched. And the crew that shot up that group in the video – war criminals; it was pure evil to open fire on the rescuers in the van. But that’s not the thread I was addressing. It was a simple question: was this brutal murder an act of terrorism. I believe it is. Whether the attackers had their justifications is another question.

  33. davidm2575 1, May 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    Dredd, I hope you understand that not all hatred is bad. We should hate evil. That is the good kind of hatred. Not only is it good, it is our civic duty to hate evil. To be indifferent to evil or to love evil, that in itself is evil. To hate evil is a good thing.
    ============================
    You are quite wrong and without any authority for such an assertion.

    The problem with your assertion is that you define “hate” and “evil” as you will, but so does everyone else.

    Thus, the cacophony of self-authentication results in confusion.

    One side defines “evil” one way and the other side does likewise, thus a hate filled person in Afghanistan can say:

    I hope you understand that not all hatred is bad. We should hate evil. That is the good kind of hatred. Not only is it good, it is our civic duty to hate evil. To be indifferent to evil or to love evil, that in itself is evil. To hate evil is a good thing.

    and at the same time a hate filled person in the bible belt can say:

    I hope you understand that not all hatred is bad. We should hate evil. That is the good kind of hatred. Not only is it good, it is our civic duty to hate evil. To be indifferent to evil or to love evil, that in itself is evil. To hate evil is a good thing.

    The only thing remaining for them to add is “god is own our side” and “kill the evil ones.”

    More blood, more ignorance, and more hatred flows.

    Hate solves nothing by having sex with itself in order to produce more hate.

    Thus, in this context, “hate” is the fundamental foundation of evil, love is the fundamental foundation of good.

    Hate distorts the mental processes in a manner that is obvious to all but the one whose mind is impaired by it.

    Hate is and has always been the main fuel of tyranny and propaganda:

    I think the answer lies in the very first sentence Sullivan wrote when responding to my column: “I really have to try restrain my anger here.” It’s an intensely emotional reaction, not a rational one. He, and so many others, are deeply invested on a psychological and personal level in protecting the narrative that Islam is a uniquely violent force in the world, that Muslim extremists pose a threat that nobody else poses, and that the US, the West and its allies (including Israel) are morally superior and more civilized than their adversaries, and their violence is more noble and elevated.

    Labeling the violent acts of those Muslim Others as “terrorism” – but never our own – is a key weapon used to propagate this worldview. The same is true of the tactic that depicts their violence against us as senseless, primitive, savage and without rational cause, while glorifying our own violence against them as noble, high-minded, benevolent and civilized (we slaughter them with shiny, high-tech drones, cluster bombs, jet fighters and cruise missiles, while they use meat cleavers and razor blades). These are the core propagandistic premises used to sustain the central narrative on which the War on Terror has depended from the start (and, by the way, have been the core premises of imperialism for centuries).

    (Guardian, Saturday 25 May 2013). A book written in 1944 confirms that this trance like state has been perpetuated for a long time in western culture:

    The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.

    (On The Origin of The Bully Religion – 2). Furthermore, the law in the U.S. which makes hate part of the dynamic of “hate crimes” further erodes your self-proclaimed honor of hatred.

  34. The folks over in Belfast know somewhat of hatred:

    Islamophobic hate crimes are running at more than 10 times their usual rate, with more than 140 reported to a government-backed hotline in the 48 hours since the Woolwich killing.

    They include nine attacks on mosques, assaults, racial abuse and anti-Muslim graffiti. An improvised petrol bomb was thrown at a mosque in Milton Keynes during Friday prayers, while attacks have also been reported in Gillingham, Braintree, Bolton and Cambridge.

    The British National Party leader, Nick Griffin, who visited Woolwich yesterday, provoked widespread disgust for tweeting that the alleged killers should be wrapped in “pig skin” and shot again.

    (Islamophobic hate crimes running at 10 times usual rate after Woolwich murder of soldier Lee Rigby). Don’t let your mind and tongue become the sex organs of hatred so as to give birth to new populations of hatred.

  35. That Omar Bakri you’re saying is a muslim preacher is just a pawn.. (http is(dot)gd/CVQxgf)
    Anyway, there is a myriad of unanswered question about that murder.. how the cameras turned down just before the incident? how that the guy goes to the already-set camera with his hand full of blood but no blood on his clothes.. how would you explain that he goes to chit-chat with blonde lady and she listens to him like he did nothing just minutes before ??? both having a comfortable normal conversation like nothing happened??? are you f** kidding me??
    Everybody is mindless blink brainwashed sheeple.. there is no more need for Justice Institutions, the MSM tells who is guilty.

Comments are closed.