If 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.
Mike A.,
That would be justice not only for the world, but it would be better for his children.
In a just world Mr. Bakri’s children would be removed and his parental rights terminated to prevent the spread of his disease.
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.
@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:
Key word and concept here: “soldier,” as opposed to “civilian” and all that the difference implies.
Then we have the whole, glaring hypocrisy thing:
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:
@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.
Barabaric yes.
An act of terrorism, no.
Here’s why:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
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.
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.
It is because they are nomads.
“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.
davidm2575, leaving aside the rest of your inanity, pray tell: What led you to label this man a terrorist? Be specific.
Here’s a helpful article expounding on the question: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
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.
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.
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.
Such a shame…
Just another person in a position of leadership in the religion of peace.
“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.
I’ve seen this demagogue interviewed @ length..60 Minutes maybe? He is despicable and drone worthy. Lord please forgive me.
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.
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.
Disgusting! The sad part is that people like this cleric actually have kids and are teaching them in the same radical nonsense. Sad.
Violence begets violence which begets more violence…………….
This is a cultural and belief system I think none of us can even begin to understand.