The Victim: Drummer Lee Rigby

DrummerLeeRigby.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-largeThe 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.

117 thoughts on “The Victim: Drummer Lee Rigby”

  1. “If people do not wish or do not have the time to read then ‘watch and listen’ to the 100′s of scholars that give very informative insights to ‘Islam’ ….. you may not like what I have said regarding this religion but what I have said is 100% accurate! It is apparent that ‘Po’ falls in to the category of consciously choosing to ignore many of its core teachings. Let me give an example of what I mean by asking Po about marriage. What are the teachings regarding this?”
    Red, how about you enlighten us all by naming some of these 100’s of scholars who taught you so much about Islam? You, obviously, know more about Islam than the rest of us, so why not tell us about marriage in Islam?

    The basic tenets are that “men are to women as garments and women are to men as garments…that both have rights upon each other…treat each other nicely and fairly….that you may not like your spouse but you should be patient with her, if you only knew…that there is a system of resolving marital conflicts that may culminate into divorce, and that then, men have to treat women fairly, if not nicely, and provide them with a place to stay along with sustenance for some period of time….that if they were to reconciliate, that is better in the sight of the Lord. What did I miss?

    davidm, I appreciate the comments. I sincerely do hope that followers of all religions can be friendly and caring towards one another. Sequentially in my prayers, I pray for my parents and siblings, my own family, our family at large, my friends (who include Christians, Jews, others and atheists), Muslims everywhere, humanity in its entirety. Before religion, and ethnicity and location, we are cousins from the same original man, and my religion is “the younger brother” of previous religions.

    In islam, the consensus is that there were 124000 prophets, among whom, some scholars count Buddha, and that the prophet Muhamad A.S is the last of the line.
    The quran demands that one not distinguish between the prophets because they were all messengers of God. One therefore isn’t Muslim unless one believes in Noah, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus… and their messages.
    While each prophet was sent to a specific group, Moses to Israelites, Jesus to the Jews…Muhamad was sent to all of humanity for the rest of times. His message is therefore a repetition and an enhancement of the messages that came before.
    Yet Jesus is mentionned more often in the Quran than Muhammad. His mother Mary’s name is the title of one whole chapter of the book.

    Every religion’s main tenets can be summed up thusly: care for yours, his, and His. The more one knows his religion, without distortion, the more true and peaceful their practice of it. Unfortunately, any book that seek to address the whole of humanity till the end of times is bound to be misinterpreted, not unlike the US constitution.

  2. Arthur Randolph Erb 1, May 26, 2013 at 10:16 am

    You will notice that you and they are using Muslims as though they are one homogenous group and like to overlook the fact that the US has quite a few Muslims in our forces. So it seems YOU buy into the idea that ALL Muslims are one, So you should not be surprised when the right wing nuts join YOU in viewing ALL Muslims as one and attack them for simply being Muslim.
    Good point.

    Especially the way we have treated Saudi Arabia differently from other Muslim countries since and during 911.

    Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi Arabian, supported by agents of the Saudi government:

    At least that is the case if one gives credence to multi-district litigation taking place in the federal district court in Manhattan, concerning the 9/11 attacks, accusing Saudi Arabia of bankrolling that terrorism.

    Saudi Arabia is being sued for taking part in 9/11 by various insurance companies, the estate of a high ranking FBI agent, and family members who say Saudi Arabia conspired to kill their relatives on 9/11/01.

    The MSNBC videos at the bottom of this post contain, first, discussions of the case between Chris Matthews of Hardball, ex-CIA agent Baer, and NY Times investigative reporter Lichtblau.

    They discuss the sworn testimony of two U.S. Senators, one of whom was a commissioner on the 9/11 Commission, the other was the chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee overseeing the 9/11 issues.

    Chris Matthews asks CIA agent Baer why the U.S. government did not go after Saudi Arabia back then, and why they still are not doing so now.

    Agent Baer replied that it is because we needed Saudi Arabia to be on our side in the Iraq war then, they had big oil then, and still have big oil now.

    The U.S. government allows its citizens to be killed en masse by foreigners, without repercussions so long as the country doing it has more oil than any other terrorist country involved?

    (Fighting Terrorism For 200 Years – 2). There is no sense in it in terms of what makes sense to the public.

    The shot callers do things that make sense to them and them alone.

    1. I have to agree with you and unfortunately the fact is that as W Bush and cronies proved, our leaders are often times dumber than a rock. The irony is that if Bush had listened to the military, specifically Gen. Shinseki, he might have actually been successful in Iraq. By being so stupid, he doomed that illegal war to failure and the Iraqis to a living hell.

      My position at the time of the Soviet assistance to the Communist Afghan government of the time, was that at the most the US should have let the Soviets do the dirty work of killing off the feudal warlords and Muslim fanatics. Instead Carter was so stupid as to have a Polish nobleman as his security advisor whose first instinct was to kill Russians for all solutions to any problem in foreign affairs. Then Reagan went one better and gave them the modern equivalent of artillery, the Stinger missiles which changed the war in favor of the Muslim nuts. It would have been better for the Afgans and our own security if the communist regime had stayed in power, At least that regime observed diplomatic norms and acted as a civilized government towards other countries while the US did not. Too bad the communists in Afghanistan did not blow up some US embassies in Africa as the Taliban allowed Bin Laden to do. At least then we would have been able to say that there was no difference in regimes.

  3. …… “the issues really are too complicated and numerous to spend any time attempting to highlight on here”

    So I wrote the above and ‘Sling’ makes an inane comment regarding ‘stupid people’ ….. so I will break it down in to simple terms …. I (that is me!) do not have either the skills or knowledge to communicate the multiple issues of this subject and it would be a fair assessment to say there is no one authoritive expert as there are just too many different elements and even if there were it is obviously something that cannot be covered in a few paragraphs ……. I have come away from here realising that the debate itself is pointless …. and ‘Sling’ your time would be better spent equipping yourself with a little more self-esteem my friend.

  4. All Christian believe that the world/universe was created in less than a week.
    It’s in the book.
    Also..the Sun orbits the Earth.
    There’s other stuff.
    Christians are strange. Some of the stuff they believe is crazy.

    All religions are crazy if you parse their books and highlight selected passages.
    God would have put a bunch of stuff about the Internet into the books, as the Net was going to have a profound effect on societies. He probably left it out as it would have wrecked his credibility with people who were barely out of caves.

  5. “the issues really are too complicated and numerous to spend any time attempting to highlight on here”

    Oh go on! Give it a try, even if it’s terribly complicated.
    The stupid people will twy vewy vewy hard to keep up.
    Be warned that this would really, really annoy some people who think the issue is really simple. i.e. “Because Muslims”.

    Here is an article that I commend to all.

    In many ways it’s a sort of cliff notes for the positions of “all sides” in this thread.

    My cliffnotes for those cliffnotes:

    One Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece that had as a sub-headline “”horrific act of violence”
    A little bit down he also wrote “That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying.”
    He went on to talk about background and motivations/causations.
    He also wrote “As I’ve endlessly pointed out, highlighting this causation doesn’t remotely justify the acts.”

    One Andrew Sullivan chose to interpret and write about the article as a attempt at justifiction for the act and for violence – which it quite plainly and very explicitly was not.
    The article linked above was one of Greenwalds’ responses.

  6. ….. actually ‘Sling’ is an example of someone who is ‘ill read’ ….. what you have just written is an example of ‘2+2=5’ …. the issues really are too complicated and numerous to spend any time attempting to highlight on here but the salient point is your complete lack of understanding of the different types of ‘warfare’ ….. but hey! lets not let that stand in the way of you writing stuff to justify your ‘perspective’.

  7. Arthur Randolph Erb: “The only ones we KNOW do not want us there are the Taliban, who are Islamic fascists of the worst kind of political stripe. I recall when the Taliban fell and there was real joy all over the country.”

    Yup. Taliban – a very nasty crowd.
    They have been ruling Afghanistan for centuries.

    eh…. no sorry….I misspoke.
    They had only been ruling since they kicked out the Russians.
    Hey! That’s impressive. How did a bunch of tribesmen manage to beat down a modern Russian army?

    Oh look!
    About five billion dollars kindly donated by the US taxpayer via the CIA.
    Plus training. “Now listen up Taliban guys. Here’s how you make a really deadly IED”.

    So the US poured loadza dollars and trainers into helping “fascists of the worst kind of political stripe.”
    But that was OK ……. as the enemy was the commies.
    Just like in South America and other parts.

    What we need is an alen invasion of the Middle East.
    Then the US and the Muslims/Taliban/AQAP could work in harmony (again).
    As it is, the only country really helpng the (whisper) terrorists (whisper) is Saudi Arabia — incidentally the source of the money and grunts for 9/11.

  8. Yes ‘Sling’ you keep quoting the words vomited from this vile creature’s mouth ….. the reason this happened is no more and no less than because he is a sociopath and he has in ‘Islam’ found a convenient vehicle with which to justify (in his own mind) his actions. There also seems to be confusion with regard to my previous posts …. it has been suggested that a lot of what is happening and has been written is a matter of perspective but ‘perspective’ is not truth/fact ….. ‘The horse raced past the barn fell’ …. ‘The boat sailed down the river sank’ ….. people reading those two sentences will come to completely different conclusions as to what they mean.

  9. Randyjet: “Another point that NOBODY has answered is why this poor soldier was killed to get Brits out of Muslim lands when they are OUT of Iraq totally now.”

    I would sggest to you that a reason for NOBODY answering such a point is that that they could not be arsed to wade into your swamp of confusion.
    You might ask why ..(yadda yadda)…. when they are OUT of India now.
    You give the impression that you think “Muslim lands” is Iraq.

    Up above, more than once, I quoted
    “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.”

    1. I guess you forget the FACT that the US and Britain DID leave Afghanistan alone after the Soviets left and there were NO soldiers there. So please tell us what justified or provoked 9/11 when the west was leaving Muslim Afghanistan alone. We tried that once and got 3000+ DEAD for our trouble. So you can with more justification tell those murderers that we will get US and NATO troops out when MUSLIMS stop killing westerners in our countries. You will notice that you and they are using Muslims as though they are one homogenous group and like to overlook the fact that the US has quite a few Muslims in our forces. So it seems YOU buy into the idea that ALL Muslims are one, So you should not be surprised when the right wing nuts join YOU in viewing ALL Muslims as one and attack them for simply being Muslim.

      Indeed the US was SUPPORTING governments in most of the area. In FACT a number of US troops DIED protecting Muslims in other countries from Iraq So I guess that any Western countries should not come to the aid of any Muslim country if it is invaded and swallowed up by another member nation of the UN.. Also Muslims were a large part of the troops in the first Gulf War with Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries being a large part of the military forces with a couple of divisions. The US was only 60% of the force back then.

      Then the drones are being used with the tacit consent of Muslim governments. So it is hardly a violation of any kind since if those countries objected they could easily get rid of them with a Cessna 182 and a good rifle.

  10. If people do not wish or do not have the time to read then ‘watch and listen’ to the 100’s of scholars that give very informative insights to ‘Islam’ ….. you may not like what I have said regarding this religion but what I have said is 100% accurate! It is apparent that ‘Po’ falls in to the category of consciously choosing to ignore many of its core teachings. Let me give an example of what I mean by asking Po about marriage. What are the teachings regarding this?

  11. Another point that NOBODY has answered is why this poor soldier was killed to get Brits out of Muslim lands when they are OUT of Iraq totally now. They are still in Afghanistan with the sanction and backing of the UN. Too bad all of those who think the Brits provoked this attack, SPIT on the UN and any international action to redress problems.

  12. Randy, Randy, Randy, (and this is for Arthur Randolph as well). Defending the principle of “I’ll save you even if I must kill you in the process” is not rational. It is not only infantile but also hypocritical. You make it seem as if we went into those countries for the express purpose of saving them from the Taliban! Really, you really do believe that?
    if that’s the case there is no point in my putting forth any argument because you are neither willing nor equipped to handle it.

    1. NO We were authorized by the United Nations to go in and get Al Qeda and its supporters the Taliban after they had refused to deliver Bin Laden per UN resolution. The US went after them AFTER 9/11 by the way which killed over three thousand people. You might have forgotten about this, and might consider it insufficient reason to go after them, but most of the entire world DOES think it was enough reason. Now if you think 9/11 was done by BUSH and the US, then you are right, there is nothing to talk about since you lack any sense whatsoever and are totally irrational and facts and proof mean nothing to you.

  13. I agree with Blue Redblue that there people posting here who are poorly read, and he/she is surely one of them, for anyone adamant in framing Islam as a religion of violence, or war, is either poorly read or has an ax to grind and is biased against Islam
    So far, the debate while somewhat vehement, has been informative, and both sides have provided arguments that prove that ,right or wrong, they at least are thoughtful and somewhat rational (other than Arthur Randoph Erb entries that is.)

    How can one read Sling Treb’s entries, and davidm’s entries and Michael Murray’s, and claim with a straight face that these people are ill read?

    Ultimately, everything is a matter of perspective, good, bad, right, wrong, peace and violence, all mean different things to different people according to their personal state of mind and exposure, positive or negative, to that which is being judged. Some people, Muslims and non-Muslims, obviously see Islam as inherently violent, and the former see in it permission to target others, and the latter feel targeted by it. To most of the 2B Muslims out there though, including me, when we read the Quran and see a call for jihad, we know that it does not apply to us. When we see “fight the disbelievers wherever you find them” we understand that before that permission to fight, there was a condition laid out saying “if the disbelievers do not leave you alone and stop harassing you…”; and after that permission to fight, we know to look for the warning that says “…but if they leave you alone and seek peace then you have no right against them…” and the other that says :…you have the right to fight back against your enemies, but forgiving them would be better for you, for Allah loves those who forgive and do not render evil for evil.”

    Did you know that Muslims in a foreign land are subject to the laws of that land?
    Did you know that preemptively fighting or using violence as a deterrent is not allowed in Islam? If I knew you were trying to kill me, Islam gives me no authority to kill you first.
    If you succeeded in killing me not in self-defense, Islam would call for your execution, unless my relatives choose to forgive you, which Allah says is the preferred stance.
    Did you know that in Islam, your neighbor has rights upon you, just below those of your blood relatives?
    Did you know that in Islam one should not slaughter an animal in front of the herd?
    Did you know that in Islamic lore as taught by the Prophet a prostitute went to heaven for giving water to a severely thirsty dog? That he himself detoured his whole army because a pregnant dog was giving birth along the path? That he ordered his army not to cut trees or harm cattle while warring against an enemy tribe?
    That the orphan is to be cared for by the whole community? That taxes should paid to the public coffers so that money be used to care for the poor and destitute?
    That when harassed by the Pagan Arabs, the Prophet sent part of his followers to seek the protection of the Christian king of Ehtiopia? And when the king died, the Prophet and his companions conducted the Islamic prayer for him?
    That he forgave everyone who ever harmed him when they asked for his forgiveness?

    Ultimately, it matters little whether you think that Islam is a religion of war or violence for as I live it, and breathe it, and practice it, its ideals call for my being a more peaceful person, and I make sure that everyday I am closer to that ideal even when the West in their imperialist processes are striving to make it harder and harder.

    1. Po, thanks for taking time to remind us of the good ideology in Islam. I really enjoyed reading it, and I think it is helpful for us to remember this message of peace in the face of the brutal murder of this soldier in the name of Islam. Your perspective is refreshing and gives me hope that followers of Islam can be peaceful and friendly with Christians and Jews.

  14. It has taken me quite a while to read through all of the above postings ….. my conclusion is that (majoritively) people posting on here are poorly ‘read’ and have little or no actual experience of ‘conflicts’. There is an attempt by Muslims and non-Muslims to portray Islam as a religion of peace. Anybody who continues to peddle this notion has either never read the Qur’an or has consciously chosen to ignore many of its core teachings. Please don’t even bother to comment on this post if you have not read the book (ignorance has no place in any debate).

  15. Michael Murry,
    I agree. When I heard Bush the Lesser say that out loud on international television, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I can’t believe he went there, said I. But he did, and now look what we have.

    Incurious, anti-intellectual, know-it-all but at the same time a know-nothing. There are some days I wish I knew more Yiddish. I am sure there is a word or phase for somebody like him in Yiddish, because I find English inadequate for the job.

  16. “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” — William Faulkner

    “Challenging the conventional western narrative on terrorism produces unique amounts of rage and bile. It’s worth examining why.” — Glenn Greenwald

    Discounting in advance the predictable rage and bile that accrues to those seeking explanations for why things happen — whether we approve of them or not — I submit that the killing of this particular British soldier on the U.S. declared “Global Battlefield” does not occur in a historic vacuum. The event has deep roots that connect to a history still both raw and vital after more than eight centuries. James Carroll tried to point this out shortly after the events of 9/11/2001:

    “Speaking spontaneously, without the aid of advisers or speechwriters, [President George W. Bush] put a word on the new American purpose that both shaped it and gave it meaning. “This crusade,” he said, “this war on terrorism.”

    Crusade. I remember a momentary feeling of vertigo at the president’s use of that word, the outrageous ineptitude of it. The vertigo lifted, and what I felt then was fear, sensing not ineptitude but exactitude. My thoughts went to the elusive Osama bin Laden, how pleased he must have been, Bush already reading from his script. I am a Roman Catholic with a feeling for history, and strong regrets, therefore, over what went wrong in my own tradition once the Crusades were launched. Contrary to schoolboy romances, Hollywood fantasies, and the nostalgia of royalty, the Crusades were a set of world-historic crimes. I hear the word with a third ear, alert to its dangers. Bush’s use of crusade, as it were, conscripted my complete attention, and from that instant on I found myself an unwilling witness to the slow-motion train wreck of American values that has occurred over the past three [now twelve] years.” — James Carroll, Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War

    Twelve years ago, one of history’s monumental dimwits, U.S. President George “Deputy Dubya” Bush, openly and stupidly declared a “crusade” and a “war” — meaning “a Holy War” — against a nebulous Islamic demon he called “Terrorism” in precisely that part of the world guaranteed to react with overwhelming fear and loathing to any impending invasion by rabid Christian armies seeking to establish the “kingdom” of “Israel” so that Jesus could then return, blow up the world, roast the unconverted, and take the true-believing Christian followers “away” in his magic spaceship.

    Anyone wishing to know why this British soldier died on the “Global Battlefield” of President Bush’s nearly-exhausted Crusade — despite the soldier’s colorful dress uniform and charming children — now has their answer.

    1. I see you haven’t been following the news much. There are NO BRITS IN IRAQ KILLING MUSLIMS. So please tell us all how killing that soldier is geting them out of Iraq. As a matter of FACT, Muslims in Iraq are killing each other at a greater rate than ever before, so HOW does that stop those killings.

      Then I wonder HOW you or anybody else KNOWS the majority of Afghans want the US and NATO out of there since they were quite happy the Taliban was gone. In FACT, Afghans until recently had NO say whatsoever in their affairs. Thanks to NATO and the US, now they DO! I DO know that the Taliban do NOT want us there, so unless you think the Taliban are the legitimate voice of the Afghan people, you have NO grounds at all for being upset at the troops fighting against them. Then there is the not so little problem that the Taliban are basically fascist, so I can care less how many of them get killed. The more the better as far as I am concerned.

  17. Well, what do you know? The vanished essay has suddenly reappeared. I guess some things just take time.

    In any event, I look forward to your next comments, Sling. Good food for thought.

  18. Nice work, SlingTrebuchet. But since I just wasted hours composing an essay commending your efforts, only to see it vanish with no explanation the minute I tried to post it, I’ll refrain from further efforts and leave matters in your capable hands.

  19. @SlingTrebuchet,

    Thank you for your comments. I think they add a lot to the discussion. People do things for a reason; and I appreciate the manner in which you try to introduce explanatory causes and effects into the conversation. Many people do not like or approve of such explanatory reasons for killing — unless their own side perpetrates the “justifiable” atrocities — yet failure to consider causes and consequences often results in predictable, avoidable tragedy. But we can locate the reasons for things if we try. Consider:

    From Dying to Win: the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, by Robert A Pape (2005)

    “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas.”

    Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.”

    The person who killed the British soldier did not run away and attempt to hide from the consequences of his actions. He calmly waited for the British police to arrive — it took them over twenty minutes — while explaining to onlookers (whom he did not threaten) his secular and strategic logic: namely, that he wanted the people of Great Britain to force their government to withdraw British military forces from those Muslim countries that they have invaded and currently occupy against the wishes of the native inhabitants. Very clear. Very succinct. The British military will either leave those Muslim countries that it currently occupies or the British military will stay in those countries and continue occupying them, reaping the predictable consequences. Someone in political authority in Great Britain has some decisions to make.

    Professor Turley, for his part, does not wish to address the secular and strategic goals of asymmetric warfare — i.e., tactics used by the weak against the strong — and so he offers nothing but pictures of a nice man in a nice uniform who reportedly has a favorite soccer team and children — all non sequiturs. The issue boils down to whether the British government wishes to continue to pay the costs, both human and financial, that blow back upon Great Britain as a result of its imperial military foreign policy, which involves little more than tagging along behind the “innocent” Lunatic Leviathan — a.k.a., the United States of America — as it lurches and careens around the “global battlefield” (in Graham Green’s words from decades ago in Southeast Asia) “like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering through the world, meaning no harm.”

    The killer of this British soldier will obviously have to answer for his crime. Nonetheless, since he obviously expected the British police to kill him anyway, the prospect of death and/or condemnation by Professor Turley did not deter him. And if death will not deter killers of British soldiers — anywhere they may serve on the “Global Battlefield” — then either the foreign policy of the British government will have to change or the costs to Great Britain, human and financial, will continue to grow. At what point does the secular political consideration of costs versus benefits enter the picture to displace all the cathartic weeping and gnashing of teeth over the fallen hero in his colorful dress uniform? When does a sober and realistic consideration of causes and effects begin to influence policy rather than further wallowing in self-righteous indignation over what never needed to happen in the first place?

    Thanks again for your efforts. Keep up the good work.

    1. Michael, I wonder what countries you refer to where the people do not want British or US or NATO troops. In Afghanistan the people have until the last elections NEVER had ANY say in what went on. So how do you know that they ALL do not want the US there? The only ones we KNOW do not want us there are the Taliban, who are Islamic fascists of the worst kind of political stripe. I recall when the Taliban fell and there was real joy all over the country. That caused the proponents of the Taliban in Pakistan to withdraw their support for their sending men to fight against the US led coalition. So if you think that the Taliban represent the majority of the people of Afghanistan, THEN you might have a point. I do not and I have seen NOTHING at all in any post that supports such a conclusion. Thus you are an apologist for the worst political elements on the political spectrum.

      In Iraq, the US had no legal or moral reason for invading, but it did and most Iraqs at the time thought is was a good deal for them, until that society came apart at the seams. Mainly because of the stupid US policy of Bush. It may be argued that NO policy would have staved off the civil war or mass murder on all sides, but Bush made it worse if possible. We are OUT of Iraq for the most part now, so I fail to see how killing a British military man served ANY purpose there since there are NO British troops there. Please tell us all how that one works. It is a faith based statement or “reason”. Too bad you forget facts.

      Then you come up with the idea that killing innocent civilians is OK for terrorists purposely, but WRONG if it is done unintentionally for US. That is simply being again an apologist for murder of innocents in the asymetrical justification that may legitimately waged by the less powerful in your eyes. Sorry but I and most rational people don’t buy that. I also have to laugh at those who have your position since many of them decry the mass bombings in WWII by the UN, but think that such mass murder done by terrorists is OK since they do not have bombers.

      Then we have the even bigger problem that more innocent Muslims are being killed by the Taliban than by the US and NATO. The Islamic terrorists are killing thousands of Muslims with terror bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while the US is killing at most dozens with drones. I think that when the US withdraws, those bombing and mass murder will continue still. So I hope that you will be just as vocal and come up with some solutions to defend those new innocent victims. Think that the jihadists will stop killing British troops in Britain once the Brits leave Afghanistan, or do you think that they will find yet another excuse to kill?

      In fact, I have YET to see any person tell me what horrible thing the US did to Afghanistan to provoke the attack of 9/11. Maybe you can accomplish what others have been unable to do.

  20. Anon, this might be hard for you to understand, but I am not locked into rigidity just because I believe that I have enough information to form an opinion. I could change my mind about anything at any time if another piece of knowledge changes the way the facts can be organized. That is not locked into rigidity.

    What you should be more concerned about is people speaking in a way that makes stereotypes, like black people are all … or gay people are all … or democrat liberals are all … or republicans are all … or people with opinions are all dogmatic and inflexible… or religious fundamentalists are all …

    Creating stereotypes promotes bigotry so we need to be careful about not assisting others to become ideologues based upon stereotypes. It is not about racism being bad, or homophobia being bad, or male chauvinism being bad… it is about creating stereotypes and then people hating those who seem to fit into that stereotype. Such happens for many categories, not just race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

Comments are closed.