The Woolwich murderer, says Ian Welsh, is "a bad man," but "not as bad as the men we put in office"

"When Tony Blair and George W. Bush are put in front of war crimes trials, along with Rumsfeld and many others, we can talk. Till then, our 'justice' isn’t, it’s just tribalism dressed up in the name of justice, because it picks and chooses amongst murderers, letting the greatest of them, the ones with the most blood on their hands, walk free."

-- Ian Welsh, in a new post,
"The Moral Calculus of the Woolwich Murder"

by Ken

I don't say that our friend Ian Welsh doesn't mean exactly what he says, that "on the scale of bad, immoral things," the murder of that soldier in London by hacking his head off "ranks very low," in that "the murderer took the time to kill someone in the military" and "did not target civilians," which "makes him superior, morally, to the Boston bombers" also "to Obama, who routinely murders civilians, knowingly, but hitting weddings and funerals," and to Tony Blair and George W. Bush, "who launched a war based on lies against a country which was no threat to Britain or to America."

Ian further suggests:

You should read a transcript of the Woolwich murderer’s reasons. It seems that he was offended by the fact that other Muslim civilians were routinely being murdered. Having been taught, by the state, that murdering is acceptable, he proceeded to do so.

Now, as I say, I don't doubt that Ian means just what he says. But it's also possible to consider his position as intentionally provocative: challenging anyone who disagree to show how it's not the case that the Woolwich murderer "is a bad man, to be sure, but he's not as bad a man as the men we put in office." Or to find some way in which it's not true, despite "all the hysterical hand-wringing and the rush to moral condemnation" (which "bores and tires" Ian) that:

It is a fact that America and Britain killed, deliberately, tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in a war which was not even pre-emptive. The Iraq war was exactly the same type of war-crime for which Nazis were hung at Nuremburg. Exactly.

I don't see any obvious way to deny this "fact," or the rest of Ian's proposition regarding the people we place in high office. If you think you do, perhaps you should read the whole piece. first.

IAN WELSH

The Moral Calculus of the Woolwich Murder
Posted: 27 May 2013 06:00 AM PDT

So, a man killed a soldier in Woolwich London by hacking his head off.

That’s bad.

But on the scale of bad, immoral things, it ranks very low.

The murderer took the time to kill someone in the military. He did not target civilians.

This makes him superior, morally, to the Boston bombers. It also makes him superior, morally, to Obama, who routinely murders civilians, knowingly, by hitting weddings and funerals. It makes him morally superior to the British ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and to George W. Bush, who launched a war based on lies against a country which was no threat to Britain or to America.

All the hysterical hand-wringing and the rush to moral condemnation bores and tires me. It is a fact that America and Britain killed, deliberately, tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in a war which was not even pre-emptive. The Iraq war was exactly the same type of war-crime for which Nazis were hung at Nuremburg. Exactly.

You should read a transcript of the Woolwich murderer’s reasons. It seems that he was offended by the fact that other Muslim civilians were routinely being murdered. Having been taught, by the state, that murdering is acceptable, he proceeded to do so.

He, however, proved himself superior to the contemporary American and British States by murder a military man and not a civilian. He took far more care in choosing his victim than Obama does his.

So spare me the hand-wringing and condemnation. He’s a bad man, to be sure, but he’s not as bad a man as the men we put in office.

When Tony Blair and George W. Bush are put in front of war crimes trials, along with Rumsfeld and many others, we can talk. Till then, our 'justice' isn’t, it’s just tribalism dressed up in the name of justice, because it picks and chooses amongst murderers, letting the greatest of them, the ones with the most blood on their hands, walk free.

on edit: oh yes, and there are calls to censor the internet more. The net result of these attacks is to reduce your freedom. And no, censoring the internet more won’t make you more safe.

Which leaves one last question, in the event that we can't contradict the logic: What is the significance of our conclusion?

#