Saif al Islam

Glenn Greenwald: What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

http://www.voltairenet.org The recycling of Bin Laden’s men by Webster G. Tarpley* Drawing on the West Point Military Academy’s analysis of records seized in the Islamic Emirate of Iraq, U.S. histo...

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

The brutal killing has shaken the UK sparking fears of terrorism returning to the capital. RT's Polly Boiko looks at what could lie behind the attack and its...

LIBYA has a more dangerous transition phase that is easily overlooked. Muammar Gaddafi’s death 18 months ago has left a country in more turmoil than most opponents of Gaddafi expected.

In the military, following orders isn't a choice, it's an obligation. So what happens when a soldier says no? Joe Glenton was that soldier. When ordered to r...

The tone of truth and moderation

Libya's Counter-Revolution: 'Africa's Wealth & Resources For The African People, Managed By The African People' With Gerald Perriera This week on Heart Of Africa, Kudakwashe hosts respected int...

Many in Washington now dismiss further assistance to Libya as useless: the Libyans themselves are fractious and have limited 'absorbtive capacity.' At the same time, it is wrong to say we have no influence in Libya, or that we have no means of...

The troops deployed to flush out Boko Haram insurgents from Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states, yesterday, encountered intense resistance from sect members who were armed with sophisticated weapons from Libya...

U.S. officials say they have identified five men they believe might be behind the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.