The savage murder and mutilation in London by two Muslim men yelling “Allah Akbar” was meant to send a blood-soaked message to England and the world about the treatment of Muslims. The victim was not important to Michael Adebolajo as he paraded before cameras. Yet we owe it to the victim and ourselves not to allow the victim to be an abstraction laying the street. He was a person and his name was Drummer Lee Ridgy, or ‘Riggers” to friends. He was not just a brave soldier but the father of Jack, his two year old son.
Riggers was a member of the proud The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion (also known as “Second Fusiliers” or “2 RRF”). He joined the Army in 2006 at the age of 19 and served in Cyprus and later stood guard outside the Royal Palaces. He later served in the prestigious Household Division’s Beating the Retreat – a real honour for a line infantry Corps of Drums. It has been a tradition since it was ordered by James II of England in 1690.
Riggers was deployed in Helmand Province, Afghanistan and later in Germany. He had returned to London, where his posting would allow him to be closer to his son and his beloved Manchester United.
Ironically, while selected at random, Riggers was a true representation of the very best of England’s history and culture. He has left a young boy who will not understand why his father was made such a grotesque symbol by these men in the name of religion. He will eventually learn, I hope, that there was more meaning in his father’s life and his love for his son than the senseless act that took him away from his family.
David,
You don’t say…. Oh my… Proving the point you’re locked into rigidity….. Just like Bush staunch supporters or Obama supporters…. Or support of known pedophile priests in the 50/60s….. Keep it up…. Next you’ll be convinced Oswald acted alone because the Warren Commission said so….
Here is a piece from a London-based British journalist.
She writes about what terrifies her – and it’s not militant Islam.
She mentions the EDL – English Defence League – who took to the streets to harrass and assault Muslims before and after the event.
“In the past few days, there have been at least 162 Islamophobic hate attacks in the UK, and nine mosques have been targeted with knives, petrol bombs and graffiti.”
What the EDL are doing is terrorising civililians. Their aims are political. For some reason, there are no headlines about “EDL Terrorists”. Could this be because they are not Muslim (or some years ago – not Irish) and so don’t fit a profile?
She writes:
——————–
“What does terrify me – what frightens and appalls me – is the way this country is sliding into prejudice and violence, the way that ordinary people are turning on each other whilst the state quietly blows on the coals of race hate. I am terrified of what I see Britain becoming.
I am terrified of the propaganda and the lies and the sheer momentum of the ideological shift to the right. And I am terrified of the number of angry, frightened young men whose rage is being channelled into extremism of all kinds. As actor and rapper Riz Ahmed says in his pertinent track Sour Times, which is worth watching in full:
There ain’t no super villain planning these attacks from some base. The truth is so much scarier and harder to face. You see, there’s thousands of angry young men that are lost – sidelined in the economy, at a marginal cost. ”
——————–
Read the full piece:
http://www.penny-red.com/post/51296503263/in-these-sour-times-islamophobia-and-the-woolwich
Sling wrote: “In the past few days, there have been at least 162 Islamophobic hate attacks in the UK, and nine mosques have been targeted with knives, petrol bombs and graffiti.”
Has anybody verified this statement?
It sounds appalling and stretches credulity. The English Defence League’s website has their motto as: “Not Racist * Not Violent * No Longer Silent.” They seem to advocate peaceful protests. They are against extremism, especially Muslim extremism, but nothing indicates that in two days they committed 162 attacks against 9 mosques with knives, petrol bombs and graffiti. Is this person confusing peaceful demonstrations with violence? Does she think a peaceful demonstration is the same as mutilating a body in the street?
David,
Have you thought about what you wrote? Read what you wrote? It appears one stuck in ridgid ideology is not Mike Appleton…. Just sayin…
Anon, you will have to articulate your point better, because I do not see anything I said that would indicate that I am stuck in rigid ideology, especially not one that stereotypes groups of people like Mike did by casting the term “religious fundamentalism” to refer to rigid ideology (as if only the religious are guilty of such). Mussolini is one good example we discussed recently of an atheist who had very rigid ideology.
I will say that nobody should assume that something is wrong with forming opinions and making judgments. Hopefully those judgments will be tentative. I think you conflate the concept of “rigid ideology” with “opinions and judgments based upon rational analysis of facts.” Many people initially object to me voicing my opinion or judgment on an issue, but that does not mean that I am a rigid ideologue. They might have that stereotype of me in their minds because of comments like those that Mike just made, but the truth is that all my judgments and opinions are tentative, based upon the facts and knowledge I have at the moment. I have studied well enough to know that just one fact or one piece of missing information can completely change my opinion and judgment. It has happened many times. Nevertheless, we must form opinions and judgments as best we can, all the while realizing that nobody is perfect in knowledge and therefore our opinions and judgments are necessarily tentative in nature.
I am troubled by the false moral equivalence of the UN and NATO and our opponents throughtout the world. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is like saying that since the US and the UN used bombing during WWII they were the same as Germany, Japan, and Italy. Does any serious person believe that?
The same is true today with respect to the war against the Muslim fundamentalists. While our forces in the main avoid civilian casualties, the others TARGET civilians.BIG difference folks. It is the difference between a mass murderer killing people and the cop killing him. The Brits have been at war with Muslims for centuries, so what is going on now is not that diferent,except that the Brits are no longer trying to keep or expand an empire. Just because the Brits were wrong on many fronts during that time does NOT mean that they were ALWAYS wrong or bad in everything. They did an outstanding job is surpressing the slave trade which is still going on today by mainly Muslims. Does any person think that the use of force to kill off the slavers was a BAD thing? Should they and us simply turn a blind eye and let them keep their slaves and expand the trade?
The Muslim fanatics are todays moral equivalent and similar to the fascists of the past. Given their propensity for violence against ALL who do not share their religious views, we have every right to use force against them. In fact, more innocent Muslims have been murdered by other Muslims than the US and UN have ever killed. I always was astounded at some fools who would blame the UN sanctions for the deaths in Iraq because of UN sanctions. It was HUSSEIN who was killing his own people off, NOT the UN measures. You do not give in to crooks who are holding hostages and give them all that they want. You do no good for anybody by that kind of action.
This murder was done by a person who had not been oppressed as a Muslim by anybody. He was perfectly free to come and go and live freely as a Muslim in Britain. Unlike in most other Muslim countries the government was not going to jail or kill him because his brand was different from the official one. It is too bad that he did not choose to live in his Muslim paradise, and instead thought he had the right to kill others who disagreed with him. He would have fit right into Muslim society in most other Muslim countries where such violence is the norm.
Motivation and triggers:
A friend of Michael Adebolajo came forward to say that the British secret service MI5 had tried to recruit Adebolajo as an informant.
In the past year – or around 6 months – he travelled to Kenya. He was in a group rounded up by the Kenyans.
Apparently he was physically and sexually abused during interrogation.
On his return to the UK, he was approached by MI5 and claims to have been harassed by them.
The friend says that Adebolajo appeared to have undergone a marked change of attitude after all of this.
A question arises…
DId his experience at the hands of “authority” move him to respond in a violent way?
Check this out:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-suspect-michael-adebolajo-1909837
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/25/woolwich-attack-did-mi5-offer-job-to-suspect-michael-adebolajo-3808272/
Has a BBC video of the friend being interviewed.
The friend seems to present a kinder picture of Adebolajo pre-Kenya, but reh first story above indicated that he would have come to the attention of MI5 much earlier.
Nevertheless, what triggered the attack?
Jay:
It is my view that Christian fundamentalism infected George Bush’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. I also believe that it dominates our relationship with Israel.
Unfortunately, Mike, that is all we have when we are being fingered as the worst culprits of the lot. Natural defense it is is to say, ok, we have done ill, but if we are evil because of it, then you too are just as evil for having done the same thing. Basically, a thief refusing to be morally chided by a thief. And at this point it is all a bunch of thieves, none is unsullied, either by action , cooperation or silence.
“Retaliatory murder is largely self-defeating and has no vindicative value except on the most primitive level. But that is precisely what religious fundamentalism is, regardless of the denomination: rigid ideology rooted in ignorance, fed on fear and violent in defense of dogma.”
I’m sorry, were you talking about religion, or U.S. foreign policy since 9/11?
what Mike A said
The game of comparative evils is neither enlightening nor honest. Was the murder of Mr. Rigby motivated by religious attitudes? Of course it was. Is that fact an indictment of Islam? Of course not. Was the murder justified to call attention to the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? No, but that will be the explanation. Retaliatory murder is largely self-defeating and has no vindicative value except on the most primitive level. But that is precisely what religious fundamentalism is, regardless of the denomination: rigid ideology rooted in ignorance, fed on fear and violent in defense of dogma.
Mike Appleton wrote: “But that is precisely what religious fundamentalism is, regardless of the denomination: rigid ideology rooted in ignorance, fed on fear and violent in defense of dogma.”
The problem here Mike is that you promote bigotry against religion by framing your argument this way. The problem here is rooted in ideological thinking, not hearing the other side of an argument, and creating stereotypes which lead to prejudicial thinking. This happens among atheists and secularists just as much as it does with religious fundamentalism. When you single out religious fundamentalism instead of ideological thinking, stereotyping, bias, bigotry, etc., you yourself are doing the same thing as those religious fundamentalists that you are criticizing. The only difference is the label applied to either side. You are clearly not one of those nasty religious fundamentalists, so that makes you feel safe, justified, and on the correct side. The religious fundamentalist feels the same way about not being one of those nasty atheists or apathetic, cowardly, nominal believers.
Correction: I thought I had read that Michael Adebolajo died in hospital, I just saw an article that indicates that is not correct, my error.
Well said Jonathan.
In our civilized society we cannot bestow on this cold blooded murderer the same treatment that he perpetrated on his victim.
No one should die the way Mr. Ridgy did. I hope it was quick and his murderer could have been left alive to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Wounded Knee taught no lessons to those that will not pay attention. No right, just wrong.
davidm, I ‘ll try to address these following quotes from your reply, specifically.
1-“They basically attempt to live the same way that Mohammed did, as brave soldiers”, hint hint… You see, this is one of those moments where people say one thing just to then say its opposite. The underlining fallacy about Islam, as Bill Maher would say, is that it is inherently violent, and that it spread by the sword…etc etc. You are hinting at it right here by calling Mohamed a warrior first and foremost. He was not. For most of the 23 years of his spreading his message, he bore through the abuse of the Pagans Arabs as they relentlessly worked to break him and his followers. When he finally received the message to fight back, he did so while urging his followers, according to the divine message, to ONLY fight those who fought him first, and to make peace with those who seek peace. There were 3 major battles during the life of the Prophet, 3. now that hardly makes one a warrior. 3 battles in 23 years!
Think about it, he was born in a society where warring and fighting was such a core aspect of the society, that people would bury their infant girls because they saw them as liabilities when attacked by their enemies, to be targeted, taken prisoners and enslaved. He came in and within a few years, reconciled mortal enemy clans and tribes and created a culture of law and rules that put fighting at the bottom of a pool of means and methods for solving disagreements. That hardly defines a warrior!
“Some sects believe in literally following the way of Mohammed, who was a warrior and fought many bloody battles. They take the writing of the Koran literally and blame those who do not take up the sword for being cowards. They basically attempt to live the same way that Mohammed did, as brave soldiers..” This is partially true, as some sects view warring jihad as an acceptable means and methods to their faith, while most Muslims go by the Prophet’s saying that “today, the lesser jihad is over, the greater jihad is ongoing…” to mean that the fighting is over, and one’s battle is now with his nafs, his soul and its desires.
What would we call the action of a Christian who murders an abortionist, an Arab or anyone whom he deems a threat to his faith? A jihadist! Across any religion and any land, the motivation for the action is the same. So in my book, a person who in the name of his religion, commits an act of aggression purposed to serve/ benefit his religion, is a jihadist, albeit by the use of guns and bombs and no the sword. Would you agree with me that there are jihadists in any religion?
“The point is that religions are not all the same, and it is wrong to try and make them equivalent to each other or to give the same value judgment just because they are labeled religion. What people believe is important because it motivates how they think and act. We should judge what people believe as good or bad. We should judge religious teachings as good or bad. I think the Islamic teaching of Jihad being literally killing the infidel with the sword wherever you find him is a very bad and dangerous teaching and should be denounced.”
This is where I expected you, and you don’t disappoint. You start saying that you don’t believe that Islam as a whole is violent and a problem, then conclude with the idea that on the ladder of moral value, some religions rank higher than others. Why don’t you enlighten us and give us that ranking, which is better, which is worse?
“Since we should judge what people believe (religious teachings) as good or bad”, who gets to do the judging, by which standard?
I agree with you that the idea of jihad meaning to kill the infidel wherever you find him is indeed bad, but is it an “Islamic teaching” (which implies it being inherent to Islam) or one taught by some sects within Islam? So if you agree with me that it only affect a subgroup of Muslims, why downgrade a whole religion based on something you agree does not characterize the whole group? It is as if I agreed with you that murdering abortionists affects only a small group/ sect within Christianity, then claim that Christianity is morally lower than Islam because advocating the murder of abortionists is a bad thing that should denounced.
Po wrote: “3 battles in 23 years!” … “That hardly defines a warrior!”
Muhammad fought many more than 3 battles. He regularly led all kinds of raids, and identifying 3 major battles and then leading readers to think he only had 3 battles in 23 years is disingenuous. Muhammad was basically a military commander for the last 10 years of his life, and after he died, his followers continued fighting so that within 100 years, one of the largest empires formed that stretched from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, many within the conquered nations soon converted to Islam causing Islam to become one of the three most influential religions in world history.
I understand that some Muslims like you see Muhammad as a reluctant warrior. Others see him as a courageous and fearless warrior fighting for the right reasons. The fact remains, Muhammad was a warrior in the same way that the Israeli known as King David was a warrior. No matter how you try to downplay his soldier activities, he was a warrior and that is what made him great.
For what it is worth, I do not fault Muhammad for being a warrior. I can admire that in the same way that I admire King David or other great military leaders. In the Torah it says that God is a man of war. So my identifying him as a man of war is in no way meant to demean him. I am just stating facts and explaining the basis for why some Muslims want to fight, to emulate the actual actions and way of life of their prophet Muhammad.
As a Muslim, you are perfectly free to correct these Muslims, but don’t try to do that by telling them that Muhammed only fought 3 battles in 23 years because they will laugh you to scorn in their heart and believe nothing else that you have to say.
Po wrote: “Would you agree with me that there are jihadists in any religion?”
I would not say “any” religion, but certainly there are jihadists in the three major religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
In regards to ranking religions, I think you need to read my post again. I stated plainly the following:
“Both Islam and Christianity represent very large religious philosophies. I doubt it is possible to either condemn or affirm either Islam or Christianity as a whole because there are so many varied beliefs within them.”
and I concluded with:
“I think the Islamic teaching of Jihad being literally killing the infidel with the sword wherever you find him is a very bad and dangerous teaching and should be denounced. That does not mean that I think all Islamic teaching is bad or that Islam has no value.”
So in the end it appears we agree, but your bias against me and tendency to argue against stereotypes causes you not to read what I plainly state. I have not downgraded an entire religion based upon a subset.
From my perspective, Islam teaching is based upon the philosophies of both Judaism and Christianity. From the perspective of ancestors, I think most Muslims identify with Ishmael and most Jews identify with Isaac, making Muslims and Jews brothers with the same father Abraham. There are prophecies from Jewish prophets that may be interpreted to say that in the last days, God will bring together these divided brothers. Can you imagine the Muslim and Jew being gathered together as fellow children of God. I like that thought.
This is retaliation murder for the West’s ongoing war on people of and in Islamic countries. This will not stop until the West (and particularly the US)can keep its nose out of everyone else’s business. It is a horror that we have created, and just as horribly sad.
Drones, invasion, rendition, torture, demoralization, digital worm viruses anyone?
You could get lost clicking the grid of related videos that appears after the video above plays.
“The End” by The Doors captures something about civilians.
WWI would have been really interesting if the soldiers had smartphones.
Most wars would.
SIR! My phone is smarter than you. SIR!
A little 1960’s lullaby – from before some/many of us were born.
Bron
I am not making excuses for the Muslims. I am merely asking for us to judge Muslims according to the same rules we use to judge anyone else, including the US as an entity akin to a religion ideology. We bend backwards to distinguish any group from their violent fringes, yet are unwilling/ unable to offer Muslims the same courtesy. This guy who murdered the soldier does not speak for me, not apparently, is he claiming to. Although he and I both claim the same faith, we apparently rationalize it differently.
What frustrates me however is that we are quick to view his act as defining of the religion as a whole, yet when that soldier in Afghanistan murdered 16 people, the weight of the horror rests on his shoulders squarely, not on the US army. When Tim Mc Veigh committed his horror, Christianity came out of it still pretty pristine, pretty tolerant, pretty nice as whole, for that horror was put squarely onto McVeigh’s shoulders.
I have held enough of these debates to know that the next step is for some to make the claim that Islam itself is a violent, aggressive religion, intent on conquering the world and converting people at the point of a sword, and it is why we cannot logically, really, compare to it other religions… and the loop rounds again and again…
Bron,
It’s really amazing isn’t it?
You got Buddhists and Muslims living in harmony – enjoying the beauty and bounty of a lovely land.
Then you get a single rape.
As a result you get ethnic cleansing and this sort of stuff:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-22/myanmar-accused-of-ethnic-cleansing-as-eu-meets-on-sanctions.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/04/2013421135240814468.html
You don’t suppose that there was just a teensy-weensy bit of tension before the alleged rape — and that this was just a trigger-point?
No. No way.
This was a simple tit for tat. Reaping what was sowed.
What else about Burma?
The CIA estimates that Myanmar is sitting on some 50 million barrels of oil and some 283.2 billion cubic metres of natural gas.
Oh! And…
The Burmese junta are a US-friendly power in the face of Chinese domination of the Pacific region?
Who gives a f*k about religion here in the big picture?