An "act of terror"

[squealpiggy]

For some reason in Britain's left wing media there appears to be a lot of hand-wringing going on with regards to the recent murder of an off-duty soldier in the streets of London. For some reason papers like the Guardian and their more wacky far-left cousins are very upset that there was a "rush" to label the attack as "terrorism" and that the label is somehow over-used.

The thing is that in Britain the legal definition of terrorism is "the use or threat of action where, the action involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public" with the aim of "influenc[ing] the government or... intimidat[ing] the public."

Below is a video of one of the attackers. A full transcript of what he said is below the link:

http://youtu.be/AkQHArjRlV0

"We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

Could you really define it in any other way?

[ßringer]

The British media's reluctance to correctly refer to this as an act of terrorism is rather disappointing. I'm not sure whether it's a case of the media simply not wanting to stir up hostilities within the community or if this is just another example of the press cowering to the fear tactics of Islamic Extremists. Whatever the case may be, it's bull****.

By definition alone this was an act of terrorism, refering to it as anything other than an act of terrorism is just avoiding the issue.

It kind of reminds me of how the Clinton administration kept referring to the "acts of genocide" taking place in Rwanda back in 1994 as a means of downplaying the severity of the situation.

[D-MiZe]

Is this real?

[squealpiggy]

Is this real?

That was real. The irony of a guy saying "in our lands" referring I assume to the Middle East, while sounding like he'd never been as far as outside the M25 was not lost on me.

[D-MiZe]

That was real. The irony of a guy saying "in our lands" referring I assume to the Middle East, while sounding like he'd never been as far as outside the M25 was not lost on me.

Not just that but the lack of fucks given by those on the show debating.

One woman suggests obliterating the neighbourhood just to show 'em who's boss. Then the guy saying he doesn't like watching videos of 'em and would rather they were killed.

I think it's great you can make such ignorant statements and get paid, at least it's better than trying to bullshit the public with apologists or some other agenda, say it how it is.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Is this real?

That Tantaros chick is sexy as fuk, I want to simultaneously punch her in the face and make sweet love to her. When she says "They have immigration problems and this happens, it makes you think about it here, just saying"

Yea the only difference is immigrants into America (the majority of them Latin American) aren't Muslim or want to destroy this country. They just want fair working conditions and to be treated like human beings not cattle.

She looks like she has a great ass and nice bush, yes I'm a bush man you youngsters.

[ßringer]

Not just that but the lack of fucks given by those on the show debating.

One woman suggests obliterating the neighbourhood just to show 'em who's boss. Then the guy saying he doesn't like watching videos of 'em and would rather they were killed.

I think it's great you can make such ignorant statements and get paid, at least it's better than trying to bullshit the public with apologists or some other agenda, say it how it is.

It's 'Fox News', what do you expect?

The chicks on there are just there to show a little leg to increase ratings, and the guy who commented about not liking watching videos of them is Greg Gutfeld - A guy who rose to his position of prominence on the network off of the back of his hard work inking columns for this high-class publication.

[ßringer]

That Tantaros chick is sexy as fuk, I want to simultaneously punch her in the face and make sweet love to her. When she says "They have immigration problems and this happens, it makes you think about it here, just saying"

Yea the only difference is immigrants into America (the majority of them Latin American) aren't Muslim or want to destroy this country. They just want fair working conditions and to be treated like human beings not cattle.

She looks like she has a great ass and nice bush, yes I'm a bush man you youngsters.

I didn't know her name, but I pretty much agree.

Never thought I'd be sexually attracted to a ******, but I'm not complaining.

[squealpiggy]

Not just that but the lack of fucks given by those on the show debating.

One woman suggests obliterating the neighbourhood just to show 'em who's boss. Then the guy saying he doesn't like watching videos of 'em and would rather they were killed.

I think it's great you can make such ignorant statements and get paid, at least it's better than trying to bullshit the public with apologists or some other agenda, say it how it is.

It's been rather disappointing and predictable to see the calls for "deporting" muslims. Yes, "Send the Buggers Back". The English far right hasn't evolved a bit in 40 years. The members of far right groups in the UK haven't evolved in half a million!

The London Muslim community has actually made a good stand in the aftermath of this event. This could be a turning point.

[Dr Rumack]

Terror, Terrorist, and Terrorism have become Orwellian phrases over the past 10-15 years. They typically tell you little about the act itself, rather they tell you what the person who uses the phrase thinks about the perpetrator.

The best way to understand it is to think of 'their' acts of violence as terrorism, and 'our' acts of violence as legitimate (in terms of who's using the words).

For example, the Russian military in Chechyna perpetrated acts of violence against civilians as a matter of course. One such tactic was to herd people into basements, and to take turns bowling grenades down the stairs.

Of course this can't be 'terror', because the soldiers were acting on the behalf of the state. Yet when Chechnyan military units ambushed the Russian military, well this of course was as act of terror, and Putin admonished the world for not recognising Russia's 'terrorist problem'.

The same applies to every and any state. Challengers to the state's supremacy in a given domain are labelled as terrorists. The phrase was even used to describe the amorphous internet movement 'Anonymous'. It simply becomes a useful phrase with which to legitimize your own acts and to de-legitimize the people you are acting against.

It's quite worrying that in the US that the NDAA now carries an indefinite detention clause (locking people up without any need to ever bring charges) that can be used against anyone the government wants to lock up, including Americans. It's justified on the basis that it will only be used against 'terrorists', but of course it is the government that decides who is a terrorist and who isn't.

So in truth, 'terror', 'terrorist', or 'terrorism' are loaded political words these days, and I don't think any honest analyst should ever use them. All they tell you about the individual or the act is what a government thinks of them or it. They are a barrier to understanding, not an aid to it.