Attack on democracy: Sir David Amess MP

Simply saddened and angry that it's happened again.

Sir David Amess MP murdered at a constituency surgery

Fuck.
«1

Comments

  • Horrified and saddened by this. As yet, it seems no detail beyond the basics has been released about the who or why. His family must be devastated. I can't imagine what they're feeling.

    This wiki link tells us a bit more about him.
  • Yes. Jo Cox was already one too many.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    Fucking hell, that’s appalling.
  • Nigel Jones was attacked with a sword: his aide and local councillor Andrew Pennington was killed in the attack.
    Stephen Timms was stabbed, but survived.
    Jo Cox was shot and stabbed.
    Now David Amess has been stabbed to death.

    One lethal (or potentially lethal) attack on an MP doing their job every five years.
  • He was doing his blooming job. :anguished: His poor family ... Christ have mercy.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Just horrific :cry:
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Awful just awful
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ohhhh God
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Wow. Canada has only had one MP killed at that was soon after Confederation. My condolences to his family and friends. This is terrible.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I'm sorry, but this is more blowback for UK imperialist foreign policy on the coattails of US.
  • Is that because the murder of Sir David seems now to be being treated as a terrorist incident?

    https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/15/counter-terrorism-police-take-over-inquiry-into-david-amess-killing
  • DiomedesDiomedes Shipmate
    We live in his constituency and the shock is palpable. I disagreed with him about politics and have never voted for him but he was a decent, caring and conscientious man who genuinely tried to help whoever asked.
  • LaudableLaudable Shipmate
    @Martin54

    You are sorry?

    The advice given by Dr Samuel Johnson to James Boswell in 1775 still holds good: “Don’t cant in defence of savages”.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    @Martin54

    You are sorry?

    The advice given by Dr Samuel Johnson to James Boswell in 1775 still holds good: “Don’t cant in defence of savages”.

    I'm sorry? Who are the savages? Are you familiar with the thinking of Ayn Rand?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Is that because the murder of Sir David seems now to be being treated as a terrorist incident?

    https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/15/counter-terrorism-police-take-over-inquiry-into-david-amess-killing

    Absolutely.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    @Martin54

    You are sorry?

    The advice given by Dr Samuel Johnson to James Boswell in 1775 still holds good: “Don’t cant in defence of savages”.

    Who is the savage? - the person who perpetrated the savage attack.

    I take the saying to mean don’t try for a pious, wordy explanation?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited October 16
    Boogie wrote: »
    Laudable wrote: »
    @Martin54

    You are sorry?

    The advice given by Dr Samuel Johnson to James Boswell in 1775 still holds good: “Don’t cant in defence of savages”.

    Who is the savage? - the person who perpetrated the savage attack.

    I take the saying to mean don’t try for a pious, wordy explanation?

    Try for a rational, geo-political, historically contextual one. Why didn't it happen in Switzerland? Greece? Japan?
  • Surely it's a little early to be speculating on a possible explanation for this appalling attack?

    I take your point, but...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Surely it isn't. It's an SCIS groomed attack. I'm shaking my head over the BBC framing the attack as Islamist extremist.
  • Sorry, I'm lost now...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Sorry, I'm lost now...

    As am I. For starters, what is SCIS? Shanghai Community International School?
  • stetson wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm lost now...

    As am I. For starters, what is SCIS? Shanghai Community International School?

    So-Called Islamic State would be my guess.

    Oh, and @Martin54 ? Fuck off for a couple of days before you start justifying cold blooded, pre-meditated murder, there's a good chap.
  • Leaving aside the Martinese for a moment (!), I still think it's a bit early to quite know what's going on.

    No doubt fresh information will emerge in the next few days, although whether we'll ever get to know the full truth is perhaps problematical - national security, and all that.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm lost now...

    As am I. For starters, what is SCIS? Shanghai Community International School?

    So-Called Islamic State would be my guess.

    Oh, and @Martin54 ? Fuck off for a couple of days before you start justifying cold blooded, pre-meditated murder, there's a good chap.

    After you. Who's justifying anything? Apart from SCIS. It's ALL blowback. 9 11, 7 7, Bataclan, Manchester Arena etc, etc.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    It was an unprovoked murder. 'Blowback' is irrelevant. The anti-terrorist investigation would be (in my judgement) to establish whether it was incited, if so by whom, and how.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    He'll have been groomed. So the historical geopolitical context, the why, is irrelevant. Fine. Just get used to it I suppose. Stop face to face constituent meetings. And don't change our American foreign policy.
  • He may well have been groomed, but that remains to be seen.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    It was an unprovoked murder. 'Blowback' is irrelevant. The anti-terrorist investigation would be (in my judgement) to establish whether it was incited, if so by whom, and how.

    We use drones - the UK uses drones - to kill people we're told are terrorists or insurgents or militants or Islamists, but more often than not turn out to be farmers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, and most recently and publicly, interpreters.

    Yes, it was incited. I don't know what else to say.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Surely it's a little early to be speculating on a possible explanation for this appalling attack?

    I take your point, but...

    I agree. The only thing I am sure about is that the offender wanted to be caught,
  • If he did indeed want to be caught, then he might tell the police why he did it, and by whom he was incited (if that is the case).
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited October 16
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    It was an unprovoked murder. 'Blowback' is irrelevant. The anti-terrorist investigation would be (in my judgement) to establish whether it was incited, if so by whom, and how.

    We use drones - the UK uses drones - to kill people we're told are terrorists or insurgents or militants or Islamists, but more often than not turn out to be farmers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, and most recently and publicly, interpreters.

    Signature strikes also kill people who seem to exhibit behaviour that may be correlated with any of those adjectives - such as people who may be squatting1 because 'Arabs pee while squatting'.

    [1] It's kind of hard to interpret potato resolution images that's been bounced over multiple satellite links, but someone has to do it.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited October 16
    He may well have been groomed, but that remains to be seen.

    I don't believe such a person, a lone wolf, can be self-groomed just by passive reading and/or texting/emailing with peers, They could be. They're far more likely to have been filtered, screened, picked up, detected by SCIS groomers on Twitter. I'm not aware of any utterly isolated lone wolf, apart from the Unabomber. I have only one terrorist personal acquaintance, a lovely bloke, he kept moving in to darker and darker decreasing circles, but they never shrank to just him apart from in the final attack run. There was always control. He was going to kill Blair. It would have worked, no question. Constituency. The weak underbelly.
  • It's still murder. A vicious, criminal act, however rationalised by context (should there prove to be one), still inexcusable in execution.
  • It's awful. No one is denying that.

    But there's always a context. We shouldn't deny that either.
  • Was it racist murder, aimed at those seen to be representative of ‘The West’?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    What the Hell is racist about it?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited October 16
    Anselmina wrote: »
    It's still murder. A vicious, criminal act, however rationalised by context (should there prove to be one), still inexcusable in execution.

    @Anselmina. Of course it's murder, in any context. A vicious murder. Criminal in that that's illegal in most vaguely civilized jurisdictions. It is inexcusable by our hypocritical, amnesic, selective, 'civilized', democratic, parliamentary standards. The context is a hundred and fifty years of murderous, vicious, criminal, inexcusable British foreign policy all around the part of the world the assassin comes from, followed by 50 years of American with keen 'quality' British support. I know a British 'military contractor', i.e. mercenary, most effectively active against Al Shabab. This is blow back and it is going to get worse and worse until we stop supporting imperialism and regional and local injustice against Muslims. As currently and most recently, democratically, parliamentarily of course, in Mali and Nigeria and Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. What astounds me is how little we suffer compared with the three and a half centuries of suffering we have inflicted on two thirds of the world. Britain, Parliament is responsible for millions and millions and millions of deaths in that period. And we don't remember any of it.
  • No. Murder is inexcusable because it's murder. Not because it's happening to people who are hypocritical amnesiacs. I've listened all my life to why murder wasn't murder in Northern Ireland because of what the British did or what the Irish did or what the man in the moon did. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the politics, criminally taking someone else's life was still murder, by any rationale, because it still came down to one person deciding s/he had the right to take another person's life.

    The context was of course centuries of exploitative political mish-mash and often violent mal-administration mainly on the most powerful side of the relationship. And yes, there is a level of responsibility for the consequences of participating in that, which may be laid at the door of the centuries dead originators of these injustices, or even sought, in justice, to be rectified by their current incumbents, where possible. Reparation and acknowledgement of historical and more contemporary injustices are much needed. You know that I would certainly be the first to acknowledge how important it is to remember history's lessons and why we reap what we sow. So if one is saying Amess's murder didn't occur out of nowhere, I guess that's true.

    But when one person murders another, whatever the context, they are basically liberating their desire to channel a violent hatred they no longer wish to control, or be responsible for, by utilising a 'cause' that characterises the permission they seek, to behave inhumanely.

    If Amess's murderer hadn't been radicalized (as is being suggested at the moment, and which of course is a crime in itself) he may never have found the key to finding his excuse for murder. Or he may have persisted in his misanthropy until he discovered another key; misogyny, incel angst, climate change frustration, not enough petrol in the pumps, pro-choice. We can't know. There may be other complex circumstances which have collectively contributed to his decision, and doubtless are. But ultimately it was his decision. (So far as we know at this stage.)
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Anselmina, superbly put, I completely agree; at this point our trajectories coincide.

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    We cannot alter history, however much we might wish to do so. Perhaps there is scope for a separate thread for thos who wish to beat themselves up about this, leaving the rest of us to get on with life as we find it? Just an idea. I am now going on holiday for a few days.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    We cannot alter history, however much we might wish to do so. Perhaps there is scope for a separate thread for thos who wish to beat themselves up about this, leaving the rest of us to get on with life as we find it? Just an idea. I am now going on holiday for a few days.

    So no change in the UK's foreign policy then. We get on with being the USS UK.
  • @Martin54
    The context is a hundred and fifty years of murderous, vicious, criminal, inexcusable British foreign policy all around the part of the world the assassin comes from, followed by 50 years of American with keen 'quality' British support. I know a British 'military contractor', i.e. mercenary, most effectively active against Al Shabab. This is blow back and it is going to get worse and worse until we stop supporting imperialism and regional and local injustice against Muslims.

    Do you think the horrors of the world will stop if there is a change in British foreign policy?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited October 17
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Martin54
    The context is a hundred and fifty years of murderous, vicious, criminal, inexcusable British foreign policy all around the part of the world the assassin comes from, followed by 50 years of American with keen 'quality' British support. I know a British 'military contractor', i.e. mercenary, most effectively active against Al Shabab. This is blow back and it is going to get worse and worse until we stop supporting imperialism and regional and local injustice against Muslims.

    Do you think the horrors of the world will stop if there is a change in British foreign policy?

    They will start to stop in our back yard if we keep our noses out of others. We have more than enough of our own to deal with in child poverty.

    I'm astounded at the question actually. We might as well carry on because the horrors do? Again, if we realised why we mustn't be second rate imperialists abroad, we might bring that change of heart home.
  • It goes without saying (or should) that no amount of crimes committed by the British Empire and the UK in support of others against humanity justifies the murder of a single person, a British MP or otherwise.

    Just as no number of murders of Brits, Americans etc justifies waging war against other nations, using drones to murder those deemed responsible without either a trial or consideration of the innocent people who may be collateral damage in such actions.

    And, the UK (because this is where I am) should have a foreign policy that both stops further crimes against others in our name and tries to make amends for past crimes. Because, that's the right thing to do regardless of any criminal acts against the UK and our people and interests.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Alan Cresswell the best homily I could have heard this Sunday.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Martin54
    The context is a hundred and fifty years of murderous, vicious, criminal, inexcusable British foreign policy all around the part of the world the assassin comes from, followed by 50 years of American with keen 'quality' British support. I know a British 'military contractor', i.e. mercenary, most effectively active against Al Shabab. This is blow back and it is going to get worse and worse until we stop supporting imperialism and regional and local injustice against Muslims.

    Do you think the horrors of the world will stop if there is a change in British foreign policy?

    They will start to stop in our back yard if we keep our noses out of others. We have more than enough of our own to deal with in child poverty.

    I'm astounded at the question actually. We might as well carry on because the horrors do? Again, if we realised why we mustn't be second rate imperialists abroad, we might bring that change of heart home.

    I tend to agree with you, but also I remember the old arguments against terrorism on the left, that it replaces political action by the individual, or if you like, glamorizes individualism. There is also another blowback, for Muslims in the UK, who no doubt will suffer another wave of bigotry.

    But I must admit the politics and morality of killing is a morass of confusion, for me, at any rate. Thus, to use Ireland as an example, the war of independence seems different from post-1969 terror.

    But blowback, yes, what else could it be? Go poking a hornets nest, and there are consequences.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    @Alan Cresswell the best homily I could have heard this Sunday.

    But you know the old argument, it doesn't justify killing, but it explains it.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Aye @quetzalcoatl. All very privileged. Including by the bourgeois left. For SCIS and the dispossessed like, blowback on their co-religionists is apocalyptically desired. It's also standard revolutionary warfare. Ireland is one continuous, thousand year epic of English sin. I see no disconnects at all. Like poor Amess and the First Crusade. It's still all discord and musical chairs.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited October 18
    Lest it be unclear, the heinous evil terrorist murder of Sir David is a counter-attack on parliamentary democracy which is the superficial front ideology of the unprovoked attack inherent in anti-democratic capitalist primarily American Western imperialist expansion.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited October 18
    Martin54 wrote: »
    He may well have been groomed, but that remains to be seen.

    I don't believe such a person, a lone wolf, can be self-groomed just by passive reading and/or texting/emailing with peers, They could be. They're far more likely to have been filtered, screened, picked up, detected by SCIS groomers on Twitter. I'm not aware of any utterly isolated lone wolf, apart from the Unabomber. I have only one terrorist personal acquaintance, a lovely bloke, he kept moving in to darker and darker decreasing circles, but they never shrank to just him apart from in the final attack run. There was always control. He was going to kill Blair. It would have worked, no question. Constituency. The weak underbelly.

    Given the amount of time people have spent indoors with only themselves and their devices for company during the last year, there are likely to be more people - lone wolves - who've self radicalised by watching / reading stuff they've found online then decided they must act.

    They may have come into contact with like-minded people along the way, but a constant exposure to material designed to frighten / anger / believe in certain things you isn't likely to end well. And once people have invested, it's a long journey back.

    That said, can't we just be sad that someone was murdered for just doing their job and feel sorrow for their family without it turning into a discussion of @Martin54's latest hobby horse.
Sign In or Register to comment.