Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 23, 2013

The Difference?

A 75-year-old man stabbed to death yards from his home may have been targeted in a racially motivated attack, according to police.

Mohammed Saleem, who used a walking stick, was stabbed three times in the back as he returned home from prayers at his local mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham, on Monday night.

The blows were struck with such violence they penetrated to the front of his body.

The father of seven also had no defensive wounds in what has been described as a swift, vicious and cowardly attack by the man leading the murder investigation, Detective Superintendent Mark Payne of West Midlands police.
Birmingham murder may have been racially motivated, say police - 2 May 2013

Dramatic footage has emerged of the suspected terrorist attack near the London barracks that left one man dead, showing a suspect with blood-covered hands using jihadist rhetoric to justify the violence.

On Wednesday night the prime minister, David Cameron, vowed that Britain will "never buckle" in the face of terrorist incidents, and condemned the "absolutely sickening" killing in Woolwich.
Man killed in deadly terror attack in London street - 22 May 2013

Posted by b on May 23, 2013 at 14:53 UTC | Permalink


I'm still waiting, but not wishing for it. For the day some maniac walks into a mall and guns as many people down as he can before he either takes his own life or someone takes him out. Then hearing the Alahu Akbars.

Posted by: Fernando | May 23 2013 15:02 utc | 1

Fernando, may the youths were just made about the zionist occupation, or it could have been a false flag operation.

Posted by: David | May 23 2013 15:27 utc | 2

re 2. or it could have been a false flag operation.

The event certainly suits Cameron's policy - spook Islamophobia, while wrapping himself in the Union Jack.

But it could split either way. He's not that bright. Brits have nearly had enough of him and his buddies. Things could go the other way, and people decide to dump him.

Posted by: alexno | May 23 2013 15:50 utc | 3

I can't find the Comments below the Guardian's 'official' version of the 'terror' attack. Is it because I'm not paying attention - or is it because the Grauniad took a quick straw poll and found that people are fed up with the crimes committed by Western leaders in the name of the bullshit WOT?

In Oz, on talkback radio this morning, the host introduced the story with a lot of hand-wringing. Unfortunately for him and the ABC most of the talkbackers and texters were pointing to the insular stupidity of 'our' leaders if ANY of them were surprised that their crimes and lies might come back to haunt them/us - one day. I was going to phone in myself but the first 3 or 4 callers said what I would have said - and and quite calmly and competently. The host changed the subject soon after the 4th or 5th call and only read out 3 or 4 text messages which were saying the same things as the phone-ins.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 23 2013 16:08 utc | 4

I can't find the Comments below the Guardian's 'official' version of the 'terror' attack.

It may be that you are looking at the US version of the Home Page. You can add to the 1795 comments on the UK version if you wish.

Posted by: alexno | May 23 2013 16:32 utc | 5

Thanks, alexno. Much appreciated.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 23 2013 17:05 utc | 6

Great comment by this old soldier:

Posted by: bevin | May 23 2013 17:14 utc | 7

The video with the attacker that British media showed was not complete.

Here is the complete one. The guy says:

"There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran [referring to religious
verses] that says we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this
today but in our land women have to see the same. You people will never
be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you."

"You think David Cameron will get stuck in the street, when we start busting our guns?
you think your politicians are gonna die? not it's gonna be the average like you, and your children.
so get rid of them. tell them to bring our troops back, so you can all live in peace.."

Posted by: b | May 23 2013 17:29 utc | 8

Having though a bit more on this I believe that the first incident above is actual terrorism while the second one is an attack on a combatant just in the same way that the U.S. and UK define their attacks in Afghanistan and elsewhere as "attacks on combatant" no matter how many, if any, of the killed were really actively fighting.

Posted by: b | May 23 2013 17:32 utc | 9

Why even bother writing about this? Of absolutely no importance or impact. The British government sticks its nose in other countries affairs, soldiers killed as a result, same story as the last 700 years of British history. You'd think they'd learn.

A while ago I read that there are only 22 countries in the world the British hasn't invaded at some point. The fuckers make the USA look like a peace loving nation by comparison.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | May 23 2013 18:06 utc | 10

UK killing people all over the World but get upset when the same barbarism is used against themselves as a blowback.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23 2013 18:16 utc | 11

Why even bother writing about this? (Colm at 9)

By any yard-stick there are more ppl being brutally killed in GB in any month or week, including bloody and sadistic domestic violence, violent rapes leading to death, burglar/robbery violence, vehicle accidents, suicide, prison deaths, police caused deaths (see the middle aged lady who talked to the killer with the cleaver to keep him busy and calm before the police came who then shot him), work accidents (not reported at all), drunks expiring on the streets, and so on.

The point is the media hype, the flamboyance and emblematic nature of isolated acts, the manipulation of public opinion. Colm you know this, b writes about it because of that.

Posted by: Noirette | May 23 2013 18:33 utc | 12

The difference between the 2 murders is pretty simple (unless other facts arise):

The murder in London was a terrorist attack. A) it has a political goal C) it had a specific target C) the attack has been claimed and motivated to the camera what and why and then they even waited for the police to arrive to attack them. They got shot but survived though I think they intended to die by "death by cop" thus gaining martyrdom.

The murder in Birmingham was "racially" motivated (since when are muslims a race?!). A) they chose someone purely by his beliefs B) so far it hasn't been claimed by any person/group C) most likely it was a revenge attack as we have witnessed just after 9/11 (remember the Sikh who got shot by some stupid wayward redneck who thought he was a muslim)

Unless the murder is claimed and some demand or political goal is placed then it will become a terrorist attack.

Posted by: Gehenna | May 23 2013 18:35 utc | 13

Gehenna at 12, I don’t agree.

Killing a homosexual in a park, a British soldier on the street, an old Muslim, a prostitute in a van, etc. just because they belong to xyz category (i.e. without other motive, no personal acquaintance), is pretty much the same.

What varies is the justification, rationale, explicit or not, and how that rationale is perceived by others, taken up by the media that frames what murder is labelled ‘terrorist’, ‘hate killing’, ‘racist attack’ or even ‘political murder.’

I see what you are saying. I get it. But making claims towards some supra-ordinal ideology or goal is not in itself a mark or terrorism, if anyone could define what that was...

Anarchists, supposedly politically motivated, used to rob banks and shoot tellers. They were called criminals, not terrorists. (As an example.)

Posted by: Noirette | May 23 2013 19:03 utc | 14


Killing civilians for political purposes is terrorism, thus no "hatecrime".

Posted by: Anynomous | May 23 2013 19:31 utc | 15

The difference. The 2nd guy was not Muslim. Only Muslims are terrorists. Don't you know that?

Seriously thanks for all your work 'b'

Posted by: Khalid Shah | May 23 2013 19:41 utc | 16

@Anonymous #13
What do you mean? In London the attack on the soldier was terrorism (as stated above) and the attack on the elderly man (civilian) in Birmingham
was "racially" (theologically) motivated. No claim or political aim has been posted so far so in my book this constitutes as a normal crime.
I see no political purpose yet and it has only been this one attack. How do you see it then?

Terrorism wikipedia

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Posted by: Gehenna | May 23 2013 20:13 utc | 17

Forget about the whole revenge attack thing. The Birmingham killing was on the 2nd of may. These 2 barbaric murders are unrelated.

Posted by: Gehenna | May 23 2013 20:44 utc | 18

I think b's point wasn't about subtle details of the definition of terrorism.

Instead of the Birmingham victim one might as well point out some of the terrorizingly many victims in Syria, Iraq and other places where innocent humans are killed as a consequence of fukus/zion machinations and policies of terror.

b simply - and correctly - puts two murders in perspective.

In both cases someone was killed and with similar instruments.

One of them, however, is treated as hardly noteworthy and it stands to assume that the activity of the police won't go that much further than declaring the attack swift, brutal, blah blah.

The other one, the murder that happens to seem very concenient for cameron and his crime gang, however is pushed into everyones minds with the full force of the presstitutes and in turbo mode.

How convenient that the London attackers spoke the magic words of "muslim terrorists", the words every european knows to be an important part of the ritual for "muslims terrorists". We don't know much about the "arab world"; we don't know the truth, width, and depth of the cruel and cynical barbaric acts "our" governments comitt there; but we know the magic words and their powerful significance of being basically a confession of terrorism (in our ears).
We know that the "muslims terrorists" connect religion, in particular their God Allah, and presumably politically motivated actions.
We could and should know as well that not that long ago another man called for a war costing more than a million peoples lifes. He did it in Gods name. His name was gw bush.

May their God be merciful with all victims, those in "arabia" and those in ziuk.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 24 2013 0:26 utc | 19

B's point was precisely about the definition of "terrorism." It's just that Gehenna's too dim to understand it.

A "racially" motivated attack *is* a political statement. A hatecrime *is* a political statement. It's terrorism by the dominant political majority against the ethnic or political minority.

Gehenna can't see that because he seems to believe that only terrorism by the minority counts as terrorism. That's what allows people like him to get away with saying Israel doesn't practice terrorism against the Palestinians.

Terrorism is a tactic. Brutally slaughtering an old man on his front doorstep because he happens to be a Muslim "A) ... has a political goal," "B) ...[has] a specific target", and "C) the motivations for the attack are perfectly clear, and only left unstated and implied among the public-at-large; among the friends of those responsible there will be a lot of bragging and taunting."

Just like those Israeli soldiers, who wear sniper t-shirts bragging about how they murder pregnant women and children, so too the cowards responsible for *terrorizing* the British Muslim community have gone back to some of their buddies and are bragging and taunting about what they've done.

And, finally, Gehenna's point about these clowns "taking responsibility" for something completely neglects the fact that they weren't part of any organized group, and no Arab political or military organization has taken responsibility for the actions of these two.

Basically, it was two black British men who decided to carry out a "hate crime" on a British soldier.

But of course, Gehenna will protest that their actions are somehow "different," because then he can prop up his fantasy that the Israeli government isn't a bunch of thieving terrorist scum out murdering civilians for their own heinous, vile ends.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 24 2013 1:32 utc | 20

We like simple, absooute and nuance-free definitions. I had a similar problem with "hate crime" legislation. If a black gang member kills a whilte gang member (or vice-versa) over a drug deal gone bad, is it racial violence, drug violence or gang violence? If the perpetrator has had a history of mental illness, what is it then?

But nuance is dead in our twitter-fed, media talking points-dominated culture of discourse.

Posted by: ralphieboy | May 24 2013 7:34 utc | 21

@Mr Pragma #17
If it isn't about the fine details of terrorism then I missed it or wrongly assumed that it is obvious that both murders are barbaric and reprehensible. Instead of debating semantics it's about the waste of human life. Sorry I missed it.

@china_hand2 #18
I'm not even going to respond to the (on topic) points you're making. You obviously didn't read my comments and if you did, you stopped using medication because you're putting words in my mouth I never used. Hallucinate much?

"Gehenna can't see that because he seems to believe that only terrorism by the minority counts as terrorism. That's what allows people like him to get away with saying Israel doesn't practice terrorism against the Palestinians."

People like me never ever defend Israel and it's crimes. In this topic I never even used the word Israel let alone defend their acts. Stick with the program.

"But of course, Gehenna will protest that their actions are somehow "different," because then he can prop up his fantasy that the Israeli government isn't a bunch of thieving terrorist scum out murdering civilians for their own heinous, vile ends."

Project much? in that case put on your tinfoil hat which protects you from all the bad people and mind control rays...

Posted by: Gehenna | May 24 2013 7:53 utc | 22

A major difference would be how the Woolwich attack is being used to manipulate public opinion. The manipulation started almost straight away with the live BBC news feed. Instant disinformation and spurious details that, once out there, stay stuck in peoples minds.

Could it be that the reporting of the "racially" motivated crime serves to maintain tension at local community level. The Woolwich attack was/is elevated to a national and international issue by the perpetrators,government.

I hope (against hope) that more people in the UK may ask why Hague wants to help the Islamists in Syria who we know are also carrying out similar atrocities. Doubtful though.

Posted by: Billy boy | May 24 2013 8:40 utc | 23

A major difference would be how the Woolwich attack is being used to manipulate public opinion. The manipulation started almost straight away with the live BBC news feed. Instant disinformation and spurious details that, once out there, stay stuck in peoples minds.

Thanks for that correct and very much helpful remark.

While terrorism can't be easily defined, some major factors and elements can be seen. The closest one can come is along the line "terrorism is the performance of an act or a series of acts that aims to create high levels of fear in a civilian (non-fighting) target group as a means to achieve a certain, typically political goal".

So, it is *not* the act per se but rather the concept and the intention.

Looking cold-bloodedly rational at things terrorism can be recognized as strikingly similar to the standard toolbox of politicians. One might quite well say that terrorism is a somewhat extreme version of what politicians do every day; they preferably (?) try to lure civilians but usually they rather frequently turn toward instilling fear: "Not 'lending' absurdly large amounts to banks will crash the system and leave almost everyone without income, food and TV programs". So, we hate it but grudgingly nod to the net packet of hundred of billions for the banks ...

It is absolutely no wonder therefore to find governments behind or even involved in diverse terror acts.
Even worse, there is some kind of evil "logic" at work.
When a certain issue can't be pushed within the "normal" limits of legality and the politically acceptable, usually because the citizens have finally learned that their politicians lie through their teeth or when an issue is so absurdly far fetched or plain wrong ("Let's bomb someone 10.000 km far away from here") that all the standard tool of politicians are bound to fail, they go that little extra-step, cross the frontier between somewhat acceptable politicians and plain criminals and try to blackmail the populace with terrorism.

The man in Birmingham was stabbed to death, yes. And yes, probably there was a racial background.
The man in Birmingham, however, wasn't used (and useful) for "terrorism".
Maybe because Birmingham is comparatively smaller and unknown than London. Maybe because in the ever important (to uk politicians) zusa, Birmingham might be mixed up with a city in alabama. Maybe because a victim in uniform was more desirable.

After many false flags and quite twilighty actions, however, the politicians walk a thin line and enjoy very little credibility when arranging another "terror attack". It is essential therefore to very quickly and powerfully push an overwhelming "message wave" through the country so as to not even let anyone have a chance for their own reflection. And that's what was done.
In London. Not In Birmingham.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 24 2013 10:21 utc | 24

And here's a snippet from a Conservative MP in the UK. Illustrates the usefullness of the attack.

"I think it's probably too soon to assess the powers we need but, once the investigation is through, both aspects of the security services and aspects of the policing of these two individuals will be thoroughly investigated and no doubt recommendations will come out of that."

Taken from the Independent online - No comments allowed on any story related to the attack BTW.

So we are being primed. We know that something must be done. All the plebs can do is wait to find out how draconian the response will be.

Posted by: Billy boy | May 24 2013 11:41 utc | 25

The thing is Mr Pragma. The UK,US, the zios and so on find it easy to define terrorism. What the populace need to know is how their governments define it. My government, by it's own definition, has been commiting terrorist acts for decades. We need serious public debates about western state sponsored terror.

Instead we see ordinary people rallying behind the flag with no thought. Someone being interveiwed about it was in complete disbelief that a UK serviceman was killed on his own soil. So there you go, our servicemen should be dying in far off places, not at home, Ireland, yes, Afghanistan, ok.

This is a concept I have never been able to get my head round. But it's been sold to the UK populace

Posted by: Billy boy | May 24 2013 11:55 utc | 26

Speaking as an American, given our corporately driven foreign policy, I'm surprised there isn't more blow back. The empire and it's minions kill thousands yearly pursuing ever increasing access to the globes' resources.

Posted by: ben | May 24 2013 14:19 utc | 27

There have been questions raised here in the US about the mass killings by usually young, usually white, always men so far, using high powered guns of one sort or another, usually with large numbers of bullets easily spewed toward the victims, to kill as many people as they possibly can before being killed themselves (often by their own hand).

The questions have been: Why aren't these considered terrorism? They surely are terrifying to the populace. But, of course, they're not "systematic" nor, usually, accompanied by political statements or goals.

The deaths are the same -- people killed are just as dead from hackings or bombings for political reasons as they are from automatic gun fire for psychological reasons.

And the US Supreme Court conveniently ignores the phrase about "a well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment when making the right to bear arms sacrosanct.

Terrorist enablers??

Posted by: jawbone | May 24 2013 14:22 utc | 28

In today's Washington Post there is an account of two suspects in a mass shooting a couple of months ago being arrested. In the middle of the night some people in a car drove by an apartment building near a nightclub that was just closing and shot dozens of bullets indiscriminately into a group of people who were outside the apartment building. It was roughly one mile from the U.S. Capitol building where the United States Congress meets. No one has ever brought up terrorism in regard to this event, but the eyewitness accounts from the victims that night indicated that they felt terrorized by such apparently random mass shootings in their neighborhood. It wasn't the only event of this or a similar type in that area. It was apparently not connected to a larger political or social agenda, but it still terrorizes and creates fear, helplessness and tensions among the community. But sadly this kind of terror just doesn't fit with our political leaders' agenda so it is never labeled as such. If it were it might create even greater pressure to tighten regulations on guns - oh, the horror!

Posted by: Maxcrat | May 24 2013 15:06 utc | 29


Agreed an active soldier is a legitimate target.

I always thought that "terrorism" required a civilian target?
Anything else is conventional military action.

Posted by: david | May 24 2013 16:20 utc | 30

It is what it is, and it is not what the media are saying. End of the day - a 'hate' crime, and a vial one at that; the trigger look sporadic, more than likely a conversation that made the trigger. The guy in the video gauging by his mannerisms and actions was clearly on either cocaine, crack, speed or that class of drug, the mouth licking (Dry mouth), talkative, hyper, detached from reality yet in the belief he was doing something normal and for good reason, seemingly in control (Euphoria and power. I am very surprised that no drug related facts were mentioned. Even the fact that they car rammed the victim and went through a high energy assault, they were still edgy, hyped and euphoric, only speed, coke,crack/meth does this. The point here is for someone to do this and stay in some form of rational thinking (Discussion) and be hyper without thinking of consequences must either be buzzing/influenced or has done this so many times it is routine, the latter looks very unlikely.

Posted by: kev | May 24 2013 23:31 utc | 31


Define an active Soldier? One walking home in civilian attire, off duty, is not active/armed or under orders, he or she is by no means a 'Legitimate target'! Rights and wrongs are not fixed by killing a pawn, or is it justifiable; it is cowardly. If this is a new dawn of civil society, roll on post humanism and let's grow up as a species as we are regressing.

The detachment here is the irony of the attackers, they more than likely have no connection or have been at the hurting end of any Nations activities, they are carrying a sword/flag that has been triggered by peers or lifestyle; and as I stated in my post 31, drug induced. They are essentially of African origins’, and have a stigma or grudge, more than likely 'Racist' (We don’t have a African American equivalent by definition).

If you go back 1000's of years and tackle slavery, it was Arabs and Africans that kicked-off the slave trade; the 'root cause', in the connect of taking part, GB's involvement was a fraction, likewise; it abolished the trade! If you get the chance to visit Africa, or even places like Haiti, even in Asia; you can still see slavery, very much alive, likewise in the Arab states.

Posted by: kev | May 25 2013 0:14 utc | 32

Woolwich suspect's friend arrested after appearing on Newsnight

Man detained after claiming on television that Michael Adebolajo was tortured in Kenya and harassed by MI5 agents

Reportedly the BBC was shocked.

In other news people around the Tsarnaev case have a high death rate ...

Posted by: somebody | May 25 2013 6:03 utc | 33

this here by the independent on British involvement in Kenya

Kenya is the centre for security operations by the UK and the West against the Islamist Al-Shabab group in neighbouring Somalia, a country which Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, has described as second only to Pakistan as a destination for extremist British Muslims. UK military teams sent to train Somali forces, part of a strategy to build up security in countries facing insurgencies, will have its logistical support base in the country. One of the British army’s main exercise areas overseas is also in Kenya and is used by brigades in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan.

Torture by sexual assault destroys the personality and integrity of the victim.

Posted by: somebody | May 25 2013 6:29 utc | 34

re 32
If you go back 1000's of years and tackle slavery, it was Arabs and Africans that kicked-off the slave trade;

Absolutely not. That's racist bigotry. The model of slavery used by Europeans in the Americas was based on Roman (i.e. European) practice. Spartacus and all that. Arab practice in slavery, with only one exception, was only for personal servants, and military units of slaves (Mamluks/Janissaries), the latter of whom were not slaves in the normal sense of the term, but rather the ruling elite, who made enormous profits.

It is true that the backward and primitive ruling elite of the Gulf still do have quasi-slaves (as personal servants).

The use of mass slaves on agricultural estates is an entirely European thing. That is why "kev" wants to attribute it to someone else.

Posted by: alexno | May 25 2013 7:56 utc | 35

35) Serfdom existed in Germany till around 1800, in Russia till 1860. Only difference to slavery in agricultural production is the way ownership was regulated - serfs had to give their owner what he demanded from them, whilst slaves got from their owners what they needed to live. The power of the owner however in both cases was absolute.
Hesse Kassel soldiers were sold to Britain to fight in the US - from Wikipedia "German armies could not quickly replace men lost on the other side of the Atlantic, so the Hessians recruited African-Americans as servants and soldiers. There were 115 black soldiers serving with Hessian units, most of them as drummers or fifers"
you are right, alexno, it is a very European system ...

Posted by: somebody | May 25 2013 8:46 utc | 36

the US gov't owns the definition of "terrorism", but it doesn't add up easily in their use of the term. Someone in Iraq who shoots at a US soldier that breaks into an Iraqi home at night is termed a "terrorist" and disposed of. Nobody asks what the political goals of the homeowner were.
On 9/11, we were told that the political goals of the terrorists were nothing like the UK meat cleaver attack. We were told that the "terrorists" hated our freedoms. They want to take away our freedoms.
Meanwhile, I agree with Noirette @14. If you ignore the broken gov't use of the term and focus on the supposed definition, our male-dominated society terrorizes women who are not safe alone on the street. Our children are not free to play alone outside because they might end up chained in a basement and raped for ten years. Abuse and domination is the common root in US wars, domestic abuse, and police brutality.
Anyone who responds violently is a criminal, and sometimes a "terrorist".

Posted by: anon | May 25 2013 15:00 utc | 37

p.s. if you consider that the "hate crime" stabbing murder of the muslim was probably motivated by the stabber's feeling that "the west" is victimized by muslims, then the two stories are truly more similar than we are conditioned to think they are.
Near San Diego a woman was murdered in her home, and the attacker left a threatening note. I don't think they ever caught that terrorist, nor did they ever call it "terrorism".
We will never see a consistent usage of the term because word meanings come from DC.

Posted by: anon | May 25 2013 15:10 utc | 38

@35 RE: “That's racist bigotry”. Hmmm, it swings both ways and is a reality in the situation. This blog leans, everyone takes a side, it's human. Slave trade; The model I was taught as the foundation (Mass) was Ancent Egypt, later Rome/Greek, and they did kick the arse out of it!

Backtrack - In the event (London) the ‘Black man’ with the cleaver and knife clearly on something and made remarks, "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,", he was from Kenya, a former christen, then converted to Islam.

A slave is a slave irrelevant of the role, altering function does not change the definition. Even if almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service. Farming V's Prostitution or War that is not yours?; pass the spade [lease!

The Arab slave trade was mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, East Africa, and certain parts of Europe during their period of domination by Arab leaders. It far exceeded the Atlantic ST in duration and numbers, in fact doubled. Bar African slaves (Many millions) between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries. Even after Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and Europe abolished the slave trade in 1815, Muslim slave traders enslaved a further 2 million Africans.

In contrast to the Atlantic slave trade where the male-female ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, the Arab slave trade usually had a higher female to male ratio instead, suggesting a general preference for female slaves. Concubinage and reproduction served as incentives for importing female slaves (also or more so Caucasian), though many were also imported mainly for performing household tasks with a good beating and frequent rape. Muslims were enslaving black Africans long before any slave ships sailed for the New World. Muslims were taking and making slaves all over the lands they had conquered.

Centaury’s Later, when slave ships were loaded with black slaves, often, a Muslim slave broker had the human cargo all ready to go. American slavers rarely had to go inland into darkest Africa to capture slaves because they were already waiting there, courtesy of many Muslim rulers, and/or slave broker.

And it is still happening today…

As for: That is why "kev" wants to attribute it to someone else. Yes! But on the drugs and gangland, aided by being converted to Islam as a tool, unfair for all! More so for one who is dead by one who has no direct connection but waves a flag for a War he has never been seen, or if you take root cause, fighting for those who enslaved his ancestors. As I said, civil society, be it West or East etc is regressing...

Posted by: kev | May 26 2013 1:05 utc | 39

39) Wikipedia - Islamic views on slavery - so yes it is complex, however, it describes a period where slavery existed everywhere in the world - see serfdom. Islamic societies were the most advanced and most knowledgeable and enlightened societies in the Middle Ages, so they dealt with this issue. Christianity is not concerned about slavery at all: If you are downtrodden in this life you will be rewarded in after-life. Neither freedom nor equality is a Christian concept - solidarity is.

Christianity did not prevent slave traders from committing atrocities nor did Islam - it is not an issue of religion but of human nature.

Remains the role of women - in all societies this is linked to the economic and social status of men. The high end of prostitution has always been a concubine system, and a poor man throughout history was lucky to be able to marry one woman, if at all. The social advantage of the harem was that women are economically secure and their children legitimate. And of course all this is linked to how people make a living. As soon as women are economically independent social rules will change. And as soon as an industrial workforce is needed, slavery will be abolished.

Posted by: somebody | May 26 2013 8:08 utc | 40

39) plus, on the issue of black liberation being compatible with Islam I trust Malcolm X and
Muhammad Ali to be the experts ...

Posted by: somebody | May 26 2013 8:42 utc | 41

@40. Being neither Muslim or an Christian, as I was not raised to be of 'any' religious affinity as my parents (One Catholic the other a protestant, the troubles and all that), decided that I should be old enough to make a choice based on my own thinking and rational (And I thank them for that). In that, both (Mus&Cath) respective afterlife ideologies are somewhat detached and illogical absurd. Although for a man the Islam option seems far more attractive, women don’t get 72 virgins I guess. Those that I know, the mainstream 'Muslims' regard the belief of 72 virgins in the same way that 'mainstream' Christians regard the belief that after death they will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds; all a bit daft! On that note; The slave trade started before Islam and Christianity, religion when it took hold just added its reasoning for the 'Business' as religions do to most anything. One can see clearly that religion segregates, but hope is doable, as faith tends to unite, but even then, the human trait of Us V's then comes into play and the chance to make coin just sidelines 99% of 'religious people'.
Slavery will never be abolished, it us still alive in its original conceptual format and added other 'new world' catches/formats; it has morphed; slave to the GDP/System etc, it has its classes and perks to those up the ladder. No one is born equal, just a fact. Much like anything, Location, Location, Location...

Classius Clay, a legend! And a brilliant and resilient martial artist in his 'discipline', he did get a whooping a few times, once in Japan and by a Korean Grand Master, but the Korean Art adopted his boxing style as it was very effective, I met the man he fought. He did become a Muslim, the reasons unclear, even to his family, and if you see the conflict of 'Islam' it is divided, it was in part political, and race, this was 'white America'; the religious aspect was a divide decision, but one that added attention, something he craved. He was also confused I guess (Assumption), and the times were complex, he changed his name after joining the Nation of Islam in 1964, even that has racist undertones (often called the Black Muslims at the time by other Muslims, in short a underclass) subsequently converting to Sunni Islam in 1975, and later to Sufism. The irony, African-American descent, with Irish and English ancestry, this also stemmed back to the slave trade and the Arab slave trade taking Europeans. He did go to his African roots, and the fight (I was a kid, and mesmerized). Relevant - The Rumble in the Jungle - Don King on the deal; "By then it was a day late and I knew that, if Elijah Muhammad found out, (The MA decision makers) he would pull out. But he was in Libya visiting Colonel Gaddafi and by a miracle — I always believe I am blessed by God — the electricity was cut that night. By the time it was restored and Elijah checked, the $10m was in the bank."- Money baby! BTW, D.K was not a Muslim and received death threats from Muslims; anyhow he was a shark for a better word.

MA: One quote, just to sum up the 'times' and leaning RE:Vietnam " No, I am not going 10,000 miles to help murder, kill, and burn other people to simply help continue the domination of white slavemasters over dark people the world over. This is the day and age when such evil injustice must come to an end" and now note, and using freakonomics - Today; Whites and blacks make up almost exactly the same percent of the enlisted personnel as they do in the general population.
Mr. X; (Little) became an African-American Muslim minister; in its own right complex, and did have a tough childhood, one common denominator with Ali; Elijah Muhammad. Little began signing his name "Malcolm X",explaining in his autobiography, "The Muslim's 'X' symbolized the true African family name that he never could know. 'X' replaced the white slavemaster name of 'Little' which some blue-eyed devil named Little had imposed upon my paternal forebears." Little did little know the trade was via a Muslim agent/trader, go figure! He went on changing; using Malcolm Shabazz or Malik el-Shabazz, he was a racist, and a bigot, likewise clever, great, and a snappy dresser, he did change, in a speech a couple of days before he was shot (Could be why he was shot):

“Brother, remember the time that white college girl came into the restaurant—the one who wanted to help the [Black] Muslims and the whites get together—and I told her there wasn't a ghost of a chance and she went away crying? Well, I've lived to regret that incident. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then—like all [Black] Muslims—I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years” . He was political; he once described Martin Luther King, Jr. as a "chump".

He was killed by his own; the Nation of Islam members; that is what happens when you get to high and change the ‘Agenda’. His ‘handler’; Elijah Muhammad, told the annual Savior's Day convention on February 26, "Malcolm X got just what he preached", while denying any involvement with the murder.

Lastly: Remains the role of Women; I guess that is in what society; Queens have ruled. A Harem does not make a child legitimate, guards, aids, and others did sneak in, one man cant service 100's even if he has an appetite; women don’t just get impregnated every day, it has a small window, and they were enslaved. Not all noble or rich men have Harems, that is a cultural thing, one based on image of power, much like a older man buying a sports car, the extension of his cock. Where I am, (Not my Country) the same prevails, 50-70 year old men with 19-25 year wife’s, and 99% are on a meager pension, but here that is a fortune, and that is white men; as for the Arab men here , a different story, no commitment just absolute abuse, even insulting the women after their use. Both are wrong, but one at least commits...

Posted by: kev | May 26 2013 14:30 utc | 42

I found it interesting that not one of the comments I have read on this thread considered the possibility that this was yet another false flag. There certainly is room for that opinion when you look at the stylized and choreographed way the so-called execution appeared to go down.

I wonder if any of those posting here could offer a rational explanation for why these two supposed "terrorists" waited for the police to arrive at the scene for almost 30 minutes after their supposed execution of a soldier.

I can't think of a single reason why they would want to wait around to be executed in their turn. Unless, of course, it was all smoke and mirrors exactly like Boston and Sandy Hook.

Posted by: arthurdecco | May 26 2013 18:17 utc | 43

@43, waiting 30 min because they were on class II stimulants, gangbangers and buzzing...

Posted by: kev | May 26 2013 18:55 utc | 44

re 39

The Arab slave trade was mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, East Africa, and certain parts of Europe during their period of domination by Arab leaders. It far exceeded the Atlantic ST in duration and numbers, in fact doubled. Bar African slaves (Many millions) between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries. Even after Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and Europe abolished the slave trade in 1815, Muslim slave traders enslaved a further 2 million Africans.

Garbage. Just garbage. There are no figures about the Islamic slave trade. You've just been reading a anti-Muslim author, if a book is where you got your information.

Posted by: alexno | May 26 2013 19:56 utc | 45

Why did I even bother to write 45? It was because I hadn't yet read 42, where "kev"'s obsessions are revealed.

Posted by: alexno | May 26 2013 19:59 utc | 46

re 43

I found it interesting that not one of the comments I have read on this thread considered the possibility that this was yet another false flag.

I have to say I don't think so. The affair was too bizarre.

Anyway, we've just had a copycat here in Paris yesterday. Guy in a djellaba stuck a knife in the neck of a soldier on patrol at La Défense, in the station concourse. It is just near where I live. The soldier didn't die, but lost a lot of blood. The attacker got away. The Muslim extremists round here wear a djellaba over their trousers when they're not at work, so it was not difficult to see roughly where the attacker was coming from.

Posted by: alexno | May 26 2013 20:16 utc | 47

There is no difference. It's all bullshit. Stop it.

Posted by: tsisageya | May 26 2013 23:17 utc | 48

# 46, Dude; stop living in denial, it’s not garbage, and there are figures on the Islamic slave trade. I note this is the second time you pushed the 'victim' card; first the classic 'racist' angle, then assuming the source is or must be 'anti-Muslim'. Get a genealogy test, you may find you are part African...

Elikia M’bokolo (African Historian), wrote in Le Monde diplomatique. "The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route -17 million!

In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam - In that, it must exist right; Or was he on crack also? Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Butcher of Sudan, continues to enjoy the support of the Muslim world despite being indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court.

You may argue that Islamic slavery, like Islamic terrorism and has nothing to do with Islam since it’s a peaceful religion by all intents (Huh, read the history, and deeds not one book), and yet the rationale for slavery can be found in the Koran and the Hadiths.

You’re in Paris right? Well pop along to the book shop and pick-up this one by Gallimard, entitled Le Génocide Voilé ("Veiled Genocide"), all about the Arab-Muslim slave trade, and goes so far as to qualify the atrocities committed by Arabs to Africans as "genocide." The author is Tidiane N'Diaye a Senegalese Muslim, anthropologist, economist, and researcher at INSEE (National Institute of Economic Studies) -You might argue he is anti-Muslim as he is a back Muslim, but at least read and not simply wear blinkers.

I could list 100’s of Arab figures/quotes; but you get the point, it is documented, it has facts and figures, and it is epic in proportion.
Arab historian of the 14th century, Ibn-Khaldum, wrote: "The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, because of an inferior degree of humanity, their place being closer to the level of animals." Castration method popular among Arab/Muslim slavers was so brutal 70% of the victims died within a few weeks; Arabs wanted many eunuchs for their harems, and those had to be "totally" castrated.

It is not only Africa; India; When Islam came - slaughter, slavery, rape, violence, pillage; destruction of religious sites, art and architecture; poverty, exploitation, humiliation, famine, forced conversion, decline in intellectual pursuits, social destruction and a worsening of social ills. To Islam, anything that is not Islamic is from a time of ignorance –Jahiliyya- and must be destroyed. The onslaught created the Roma (gypsies), destroyed ‘Hindu’ Afghanistan and formed Pakistan (Kashmir) and Bangladesh . (One more good read for you M.A. Khan. IIslamic Jihad).

The cost of the Muslim invasions is massive in lives, wealth and culture. Estimates suggest that 60-80 MILLION died at the hands of Muslim invaders and rulers between 1000 and 1525 alone.

Posted by: kev | May 26 2013 23:31 utc | 49

You're really obsessed, kev.

Posted by: alexno | May 27 2013 22:13 utc | 50

The comments to this entry are closed.