Why, though?

"When oppression is systematized through coercion, threats of violence, or violence by government agencies or non-government paramilitiaries with a political motive, it is often called political repression. More subtle forms of political oppression/repression can be produced by blacklisting or individualized investigations such as happened during McCarthyism in the United States.

Transnational systems of oppression include colonialism, imperialism, and totalitarianism, and can generate a resistance movement to challenge the oppressive status quo."

That narrative, as you put it, doesn't cause terrorism. Terrorists cause terrorism. Any normal person, whether they agreed or disagreed with the assertion, would acknowledge that. Do you also think that anti-immigration sentiment is the cause of terrorism? We've seen some wing-nuts on the right commit similar and worse acts who had similar beliefs to your own, have we not.



That's just absurd. Are you on a wind up?

Already tried to answer, read on.

Well I did, but the way I read it, you were advancing an argument [iagainst [/ithis being described as terrorism, hence the question.

As a murder this was a horrific one.

As an act of terrorism it was pathetic.

I was under the impression that communism had died in the nineties but it appears to be alive and well on this forum. I can't believe that so many Guardian reading lefties are on here sticking up for the sub human scum and their ilk that commited this atrocity. I am sick of hearing about what the west is doing in the middle east. I have not heard any reports of western troops beheading anyone. This country started to go down hill after the second war and is now in freefall.

Of course, you'll be able to provide examples of where this has happened?

That's odd, since no person remotely has done. So i question why you would make such a claim.


You shouldn't be, because it's being done in your name.


Horrific deaths do not have to be by beheading, though. If a bomb exploded in the place you were holding a wedding reception, killing many of your guests, some gruesomely, and maiming many others, would you feel better about it as long as none of them had been beheaded?

If you are curious as to why I think the answer is important, that would be because of exactly what this and other countries are prepared to do, and indeed able to do, riding on the back of a "terrorism" justification.

I'm for it. Pretty confusing stuff, I know I've confused myself a few times in the was it or wasn't it terrorism part of the debate

It is, I'm pretty tall!

There are many brutal killings happening in the middle east thanks to the west, not just by troops, you may have seen reports of a rebel leader in Syria eating an opposition soldier's heart. Well it's us funding these rebels! Now, this in no way excuses the acts in Woolwich but it's worth noting atrocities happen on both sides.

Ah, so funding rebels against a murderous regime is an evil thing is it? I suppose it was evil to have liaised and assisted resistance movements during WW2 too was it?

I can't believe that people with so little political knowledge even dare to enter debates like this one, let alone swagger into the thread as if they're some kind of authority of all things politics.

Communism is a political system/society in which workers own the means of production, and goods are distributed based on need. Communism doesn't take a specific position on foreign policy, terrorism and Islam.

Your black and white thinking doesn't help anybody. This isn't a dichotomous issue. You can - take a breath and brace yourself - believe that our foreign policy and their actions are wrong. Acknowledging that this is a complicated issue with many contributing factors, including foreign policy, doesn't make you a turrist or a turrist sympathiser. Our foreign policy does not legitimise terrorist attacks against us, whether civilians or soldiers, and nobody is suggesting it did.

It's pretty cheap to put forward this notion that any member here is defending Wednesdays act, the individuals involved, or terrorism in a wider sense.

Well then I suggest that you should make a big effort to spend a lot of time researching exactly what sort of things have indisputably been done in your name. Here's a good as any place to start - it may nominally be the Guardian that you so despise, but it is actually an analysis of the leaked official coalition logs of things that happened which have been analysed. including records of thousands of civilian deaths.
rlhttps://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-eventsrl

Hi there.

Just curious, but perhaps you can let us have the names of those on here who are "sticking up for the sub human scum and their ilk that commited this atrocity" – I believe I've quoted you correctly?

Brief links will suffice.