8:34 am - May 24th 2013
What do we bicker about, when we bicker about terrorism? More or less everything except terrorism, is my suspicion.
Here are a few of my observations about the responses I’ve seen to the bloodcurdling horror in Woolwich, starting with
1) When a guy who has just beheaded a man while shouting about Allah is shown explaining that he did it because of violence perpetrated by British soldiers in “Our lands”, it’s probably okay to call him a Jihadist or an Islamist terrorist-wannabe.
You’d think this would be uncontroversial, given that beheading-while-shouting-about-God is one of the Jihadi’s favourite pastimes, and that publicly justifying yourself with standard Jihadi boo-hoo can reasonably be described as “Jihadist behaviour”.
I expect it’s possible that these arseholes were crazy* wannabe-Glorious Warriors of God, but we all know that the sole requirement for being a Jihadi is saying that you are one. That is, after all, the whole point of Al-Qaeda and its offshoots – anyone can join in, by declaring that you want to do so.
There are times when a man bloodily decapitates another in the street while shouting Jihadist slogans. At moments like this, a rush to judgement is probably justifiable. If anything, it’s reasons to doubt Jihadomentalist reasoning that may need backing up in this scenario.
2) While it’s certainly true that 99.99% of Muslims are not bloodthirsty Jihadi arseholes, it is also necessary to point out that a sufficiently worrying number are.
It’s great to see how many people are at pains to note that most Muslims are no happier with psycho-murderers than any section of the the UK’s populace.
Nonetheless, I do have to point out that Jihadi arseholes are a conspicuous and alarming problem whose ability to sow hatred and discord is wildly disproportionate to their meagre numbers, and that this has to be discussed with clear eyes and no illusions.
Going apeshit every time anybody mentions the supremacist Islamist theories popular among most who commit these very specific murderous acts isn’t helping the situation, and is probably helping those who want to inflame it.
Yes, there are “media narratives” and people looking to exploit this or that, but neither I nor the public at large are much worried that “the media” are going to set off nailbombs in our cities.
3) When lots of criminals keep telling you their crimes were motivated by (x), then their crimes are more likely to have been motivated by (x) than by whatever theory you have just pulled out of your arse.
We’ve seen this one before – some twatty little gimp stands up in court and says that yes, he committed acts of terrorism because yes, he’s a Soldier of God in a war that encompasses Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
I’m aware that Islamism didn’t spring into being fully-formed from nowhere; I’m also aware that it barely needs grievances to justify whatever destruction it wants to commit. I’m also aware that it won’t go away if we would only tickle its ears and give it a saucer of milk.
But when folk insist on continuing to kill themselves and other people and then justifying it by calling it revenge for this or that disastrous foreign policy catastrofuck, they probably mean that they’re angry enough about our foreign policy to kill and die over it.
This is one of the great unsayables, for much of this country’s pundit class. To note it is to attract accusations that you’re saying that you deserve to be killed, and so on. Sadly for fannies of this ilk, this issue is totally impervious to our feelings about it.
Or, in shorter form – just because a man’s statements are highly inconvenient for your personal foreign policy preferences, doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
A longer version of this piece is here.
Flying Rodent is a regular contributor and blogs more often at: Between the Hammer and the Anvil. He is also on Twitter.
· Other posts by Flying Rodent
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media ,Terrorism
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy: What do we bicker about, when bickering about ‘terrorism’? | moonblogsfromsyb
[…] via Flying Rodent Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/05/24/what-do-we-bicker-about-when-bickering-about-terrorism/ […]
- Health Services Policy Systems 2nd 09
[…] What do we bicker about, when bickering about 'terrorism'? | Liberal … But when folk insist on continuing to kill themselves and other people and then justifying it by calling it revenge for this or that disastrous foreign policy catastrofuck, they probably mean that they're angry enough about our foreign policy to kill and die over it. This is one of the great . But if the subtext of this is intended to be that we have a problem only with Islamism and Jihadism (not to mention a mental health crisis) then it is only one part of the story. 9:36 am, May 24, […]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.