A soldier is attacked in Woolwich and brutally murdered. The men who did it seem determined to be caught. Seeing the footage, they look familiar – speaking with the same deluded dysfunctionality that is not uncommon in some inner-urban areas. Criminal.
But, why is this being deemed a terrorist attack? If someone did something similar whilst shouting about being Jesus, would it be seen as criminal or terrorist? And would the EDL response – to attack mosques – be paralleled by attacks on churches by angry atheists? And would anyone try to legitimise or explain it, rather than simply condemn it outright?
The labels we attach, the language we use and the framework within which we understand such phenomena are shaped by the unarticulated assumptions we bring. Does anyone seriously think these guys are motivated by Islam any more than the Provisional IRA or the UDA were motivated by a rational reading of the Gospels?
In a week framed by Muslims taking responsibility for crimes such as child sexual exploitation in their own communities and the appalling murder of this soldier in Woolwich, it might be worth pausing to examine the assumptions behind the language and the judgements of those politicians and reporters who are doing their best to articulate what this attack represents – and to question whether another narrative might be more appropriate. At a time such as this we need wisdom.
In the meantime, behind the horror, we pray for the family of the murdered soldier, the people who witnessed this dreadful, violent crime, and those now dealing with it both socially and politically.
Nick Baines's Blog 
May 23, 2013 at 8:30 am
If people commit crimes for overtly political motives they are terrorists. These men hoped for a war in London. Al Queda means the network and they promote their version of islamofascism by violence.
If the crime was hanging a black skinned man committed by white skinned people and they shouted out KKK slogans I don’t think we’d get the Grand Wizzard to let us see his membership lists …
May 23, 2013 at 9:09 am
Thank you, Nick, for this piece.
I also wondered at why they were labelling this act as terrorism. I would call it premeditated murder. These young men didn’t attack the other folk round and about, so it was targetted at someone who they could identify as a soldier.
I also think that labeling them as terorrists you play into their mindset because they want to be labelled “martyrs” when they are just deluded young men who have committed a terrible crime.
They have destroyed the life of another, caused terrible distress to those who witnessed it, and brought devastation to the family of the man killed and to their own families.
Lord have mercy.
May 23, 2013 at 9:12 am
Thanks, Nick, for a sane frame within which to respond to this appalling crime
May 23, 2013 at 9:46 am
I agree frameworks of terminology are important.
Within this, there are two terms, “terrorist” and “Islamist”, which can easily get elided together.
First, on ‘terrorism’, does the word ‘terrorist’ come into it, because it does so whenever the motivation for an attack on someone is because they are in the military of a particular government? i.e. it’s not just any person they picked to murder, but they picked someone specifically because they represent a government’s military wing. This makes it more than a ‘ordinary’ crime, but a ‘terrorist’ crime. Not sure on that one, but that’s possible.
But I’m also struggling with the religious angle: we don’t know for certain what they said, but I was struck from the reports by the seeming similarity with a theoretical case in George Lindbeck’s “The Nature of Religion” about Christians.
Yesterday, there was someone allegedly shouting “God is great” in Arabic, whilst attacking someone with a blade of some kind. In Lindbeck’s book, he postulates whether a Crusader knight, who shouts “God is love”, whilst putting an axe through a Muslim’s head, can be called a Christian. If memory serves, he then pushes into the difference between ‘performing’ a religion and just a credal self-description. To Lindbeck, this Crusader knight is not a Christian.
He is right about that (I think), but at the same time, few would say that the Crusades were not in some, possibly twisted, sense motivated by Christianity.
To bring it back to today’s situation, this murderer may not have been motivated by a right sense of Islam, but surely his actions are connected to Islam, his take on it, in the same way that the Crusaders were motivated by Christianity?
Or to pick up on your example, you write, “Does anyone seriously think these guys are motivated by Islam any more than the Provisional IRA or the UDA were motivated by a rational reading of the Gospels?”
That’s true, but your sentence structure shifts halfway through: the more natural completion of your question would have been, “Does anyone seriously think these guys are motivated by Islam any more than the Provisional IRA or the UDA were motivated by Christianity?”
And, just as I would say that the IRA and UDA were in part, admittedly small part, motivated by Christianity, so to the same degree I would say that these guys may have been motivated, in small part, by Islam: not necessarily a right interpretation of it, but their interpretation of it.
Of course, in the case of the Provisional IRA and UDA, I would say that their interpretation of the Gospels was wrong, just as the Crusader knight’s interpretation was wrong, and that other elements were more significant: politics, history, nationalism, tribalism, etc. but that doesn’t mean the Gospels were not in the mix or motivations. I don’t know what was preached from the pulpits of Belfast in the 1970s but surely the issue of acting with violence or non-violence must have been an issue to deal with. And I’m pretty certain that at the time, the Martin McGuinesses of this world felt religiously justified in what they did in the 1970s.
What I am getting to is that while I don’t want to see raised conflict or religiously motivated ‘revenge’ attacks, and while we must recognise the wrongness of the connection in the murderers’ minds between Islam and their actions, I don’t think we should deny that there is a connection at all: they themselves seem to be saying that there is.
Yes, we need to be cautious and respectful, but, in my opinion, if we do completely deny it, then we shut a conversation down, which potentially allows extremist voices to get in, and the problem may get worse.
May 23, 2013 at 10:23 am
I absolutely agree. My sadness is obviously for the soldiers family who must be quite horror struck and grieving, however, I fear too for the Muslim families – or those who the unthinking seeking revenge perceive as Muslim- for their wellbeing and safety. Muslim’s I know and have known want to live their lives in peace, safety and security as they go about their work and daily living. They will be/are as horrified as we are about this criminal atrocity. I also think the media should not incessantly repeat and repeat the same pictures and sound bites as they did over 9/11 and asking the same inane questions of those who witnessed it to prolong the interviews and embed the horror.
May 23, 2013 at 10:39 am
Thanks for the comments, it’s always helpful to have another perspective and respond with caution but my own opinion is that this is being termed a terrorist attack because it wasn’t an attack on an individual as such but an attack on a soldier as a representative of the state – a state doing something they are not happy about, therefore making the attack political? Dictionary.com defines terrorism as: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”
May 23, 2013 at 11:28 am
Nick, thanks for this. See my own reflection on a timely meeting with a man you know from your time in Croydon: http://mickhough.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/interpreting-events-in-woolwich.html
May 23, 2013 at 11:44 am
I think the accepted government definition of a terrorist is someone who uses violence in pursuit of *political* ends. From the jumbled torrent spewed out by one of the perpetrators, their aims were indeed political. They were certainly not religious. They were certainly not Islamic.
May 23, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Is there such a thing as blood lust..these killers were predatory monsters.
Has evil overtaken goodness?
May 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm
agreed, and well said
May 23, 2013 at 6:05 pm
….This subject…..well, almost still too raw to contemplate, let alone discuss!
However, why ‘Terrorist’….In simple terms, it is a straight interpretation of what ‘they’ claimed was the reason for the action…namely, ‘a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims..’….Not quite civilian, as he was targeted as a soldier, despite civilian dress! Not entirely sure of their aims, but ‘they’ claim that this member of the armed forces was taking the lives of fellow Muslims in Afganistan…..The Term ‘Terrorist’ does seem somewhat out of context in this dreadful business, and should not in any way legitimise the actions taken by these men…perhaps, chicken-livered, gutless, lily-livered, spineless, pusillanimous criminal cowards would be more appropriate…hopefully that slightly improves the narrative……….
May 24, 2013 at 1:22 am
Just one question to understand: Are the IRA and UDA not labeled “terrorist” in the UK? I ask, because at least the IRA has that label here in Germany (hardly anybody would know about the UDA I guess, but that’s another problem).
May 24, 2013 at 1:59 pm
The ideology these murderers subscribed to seems to flow from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabi movement. The extent of such views within the worldwide Muslim community is hard to estimate. As try to understand Islam, I am concerned that Mohammed might have approved such actions as he did the murder of the Jews of Medina considering his bloodthirsty action in the Battle of Badr