Michael Moore sardonically summarising the Western reaction to the London killing (via lifeisliterallylimited)

zactlyyy

androphilia:

Any rational balance sheet of the last decade would show that the ‘war on terror’ has been a failure in its own terms: it has not prevented terrorism but caused it to spread.

By Lindsey German

May 23, 2013

The attack in Woolwich yesterday was horrific. There can be no justification for a murderous attack on an individual soldier in the streets of London. It must have been awful too for the local people who witnessed it.

Unlike with most terrorist attacks or indeed other crimes, we have been able to see film footage of the perpetrators, hear testimony from the witnesses who saw or talked to them. So we know what these men say motivated them. They claimed that the killing of the soldier was in response to the killing of Muslims by British soldiers in other countries. One said that the government did not care for people and should get the troops out.

The Boston bombers last month were supposedly similarly motivated. The Woolwich attack, carried out by two men now shot and wounded and under arrest in hospital, appears to represent a phenomenon that was pointed out nearly a decade ago by the security services in Britain: that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would lead to a growing threat of terrorism in Britain. Those of us in Stop the War have long predicted that these sorts of attacks would happen because of the war on terror.

Unfortunately there is little sign that the government, media and military will draw any of the conclusions that they should from the attack. The instant response was to brand it as a serious terrorist attack, although already many commentators are saying they believe it more likely that this was a one off and isolated incident, and unlikely to be part of a wider conspiracy. David Cameron cut short a visit to Paris in order to fly home.

This reaction is one which manifestly fails to deal with the political causes underlying such attacks. The simple truth is that there were no such cases in Britain before the start of the ‘war on terror’ in 2001, which led to the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The consequences of those wars have been devastating for the people of those countries and further afield. Up to a million died in Iraq and 4 million were made refugees. Tens of thousands have died in Afghanistan. Fighting still continues and in Iraq looks like descending into civil war in some parts of the country.

The US and its allies have been involved in bombing attacks on these countries which have been responsible for many thousands of deaths.
A media comment that this was the day Baghdad came to the streets of Britain shows a grotesque ignorance of the country the invasion was meant to rescue for democracy, where daily sectarian bombings and killings are escalating on a scale not dreamt of in this country.

The interventions have spread in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’: drone attacks are taking place in a number of countries including Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The bombing of Libya by the west in 2011 led to at least 30,000 dead. British troops are aiding the French in Mali. The British are intervening in the war in Syria for their own ends, and want to lift the EU arms embargo there in order to escalate the war and achieve regime change. The US and EU continues to back Israel despite its treatment of the Palestinians, even sending the architect of the Iraq war, Tony Blair, as envoy for peace in the Middle East.

Any rational balance sheet of the last decade and more would demonstrate that the war on terror has been a failure in its own terms. It has not prevented terrorism but caused it to spread.

The failure of politicians and military to face up to this has further damaging consequences: if the government refuses to change its own policy it has one simple solution — ‘blame the Muslims’. Muslims are expected to condemn any such attack whereas no such demand is put upon people of other faiths when a killing is carried out by Christians. Muslim is also equated with black or Asian, as when one television reporter described the men as of ‘Muslim appearance’.

Again, atrocities by white gun men, in Norway and the US for example, which are often highly politically motivated, are not regarded as needing to be defined by race. They are also rarely described as terrorism, but as the acts of fanatics or madmen.

It is an integral part of the war on terror that the invasion and occupation of mainly Muslim countries abroad has to lead to the dehumanising of the victims of the wars: so Muslim comes to equal extremist and terrorist. Racists like the EDL turned up in Woolwich to try to further foster Islamophobia. But this treatment of Muslims goes to the top of government and is spewed out daily in the press.

Similar views of the Irish were much more common in the 1970s and 80s when the IRA had a major bombing campaign in Britain. In the end there had to be a political solution which recognised genuine grievance.

In the end there has to be a political solution to terrorism. But it can only start with recognition of the disastrous effect of western foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia for decades now, exacerbated by the consequences of 12 years of wars. That means acknowledging that those of us who said these wars were not the answer and would make things worse were absolutely right.

Copyright © 2013 Stop the War Coalition.

publicshaming:

What do you do when a man is killed in the streets where you live? According to some wonderful humans, you call for the mass slaughter of all those who practice the same religion that the killers may practice!

There was a horrific attack today in Woolwich in southeast London. Two men attacked another man, who is believed to be a soldier, and then beheaded him with a machete. Literally, what the fuck.

It is being called a terrorist attack and it is said that they are Islamic extremists because someone told some guy who told his brother’s uncle who works for the BBC that they heard them shout “Allahu Akbar.” Well, ok. If you insist. Saying these things certainly won’t fan the flames in jolly old England…

Now, if you can take your attention away from the very alarming #BeliebersWantToBeYourSmileJustin hashtag trend, you will see “Allahu Akbar,” “EDL,” “Muslims,” etc. trending. Shit. This can’t be good…

Ah, the English Defense League! I knew they’d show up here. They’d like you all to take to the streets (and take to the streets to look for whom I wonder?). But I mean, who listens to those crazy EDL folks anyway?

Make a stand? Make a stand against WHO?

Hint: They would like you all to take to the streets and attack random people who you think are Muslim.

Hint #2: If you don’t know who is a Muslim, they would like you to assume it’s anyone with skin darker than your own.

Now, usually, I do a good job of picking out the majority of the absolute worst crap I find. But there was just SO MUCH, I had to be a little more picky this time…

I would like to pause for a second here and note that there seems to be a strong hatred for people from Pakistan, whom they call “pakis.” I can’t tell if they are just making the assumption this man is from Pakistan or they seem to think “paki” is a religion or if they think “paki” automatically equals “Muslim” or…wait….WHY AM I EVEN TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THEIR LOGIC.

These are some pretty terrible tweets, but if you want to see the REALLY HORRIBLE shit, you’re not going to find it on Twitter. Nope. Because you see, these heroic race crusaders who want to take to the streets and fuck shit up…were frightened of the blowback they were receiving from their racists words and deleted their tweets. But, sadly for them, you can’t run from something once it’s been posted on the internet…

No mass genocide of an entire population because of the actions of few men? WHAT’S WRONG WITH US!

“See I’m not racist! I just want to kick out the terrorists! How do we tell who is a terrorist? Why, that’s easy! We just kick out anyone who doesn’t look like me!”

And, hands down, my absolute favorite tweet of the bunch:

EMOJI RACISM!

fuck this country

(via androphilia)

firebirdy:

 

ohputitdowngrantaire:

dancingcabinet:

I thought it was time to give some thought to what the Doctor-assistant relationship is, what function the assistant has on the show, how Doctor Who distributes personal qualities by gender, and why I now hate this lovely show that I used to love.

Damn, this rings true and it breaks my (1) heart.

“[in Moffat’s Who] the woman is not of interest for her character or her abilities, but for some fundamental mystery in her being. The mystery isn’t even a secret she’s keeping, something over which she has control- it’s something she does not know about, that the Doctor must puzzle out in his own mind. It’s not about her- it’s about what’s wrong with her. When Steven Moffat took over Doctor Who, women became a problem.”

I love this article.

(via heirofmedusa)