Britain and Iraq
It amazes me how a country that is so used to conflict can be so bad at it, yet the British have managed it. There were reports yesterday about two British soldiers in Iraq shooting an Iraqi policeman while undercover. The soldiers were duly arrested by Iraqi authorities. Now here comes the strange bit. Did the British authorities co-operate with their counterparts in Iraq and negotiate with that traditional and revered British diplomacy? Indeed they did not; they took SIX armoured tanks and knocked down the wall of the prison! The soldiers were not even there but in another building (another example of failing British intelligence). This was hardly a proportionate response; it will marginalise the already insecure, angry Iraqi people who will think that the only way to achieve their aims is by using force, the result of this action, and its combined result with other heavy handed British approaches, will be the birth of terrorists.
It appears that internally the British handle threats by a disproportionate and unjustifiable increase in power through legislation while externally they use excessive force to manage perceived threats, usually against weaker states. I call that bullying; whether it is a manipulative intimidation of the electorate or outright intimidation of weak states it is morally reprehensible. The difficulty is that history is written by the victors and the powerful, contrary to myth and fairytale, are usually victorious.
Nonsense. The troops were restrained - far too restrained given the events in Basra. The problem for some in NI is that they think British troops have no rights to defens themselves. They need to wise up.
What about the Iraqi people, are they not allowed to defend themselves?
The problem with the British is that they are never able to see their own faults, when they commit a violent act it is self defence but when anyone else does it, it is terrorism, unlawful use of force etc.
Don’t forget that British soldiers have been found guilty of torturing innocent prisoners for recreational purposes, hardly the actions of restraint, no wonder the Iraqi people are rebelling, so would I against a force which tortured my people and acted contrary to the rule of law while having the audacity to proclaim itself a liberal democracy.
Take off the rose coloured spectacles David.
With respect, you need to take off the Brit-bashing spectacles.
If you wish to address the Basra incident, these were terrorist scum trying to kill soldiers by pouring petrol into their vehicle. The restraint of the troops, as ever, was remarkable. Your comment that the Iraqi people are allowed to defend themselves is bizarre. Thanks to the US and UK military, they are now able to do that. You seem to conflate terrorists with ordinary peaceful Iraqis - something one expects from the political left.
Here’s a suggestion; stop assuming that the moonbats such as Galloway (Saddam, I salute you Sir) represent the views of ordinary Iraqis. They don’t. You need to accept that just as in Northern Ireland, the British ARMY has performed admirably and with remarkable self-restraint given the terrorist menace presented by scum in both countries.
My vision is clear - can we say that about yours?
It amazes me David how easy the government find it to convince people like you to believe their propaganda, it shows a remarkable lack of independent thinking. Yet I do not unerstand how even the most blind yes men to the British can say that in Northern Ireland the Army acted “with remarkable self-restraint”, do you know anything about the history of this country? Or are you well versed on one side of the story but blind to the other?
The British Army have been found guilty of a number of human rights violations, including the right to life and the right to be free from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Just because this is not always given such prominence in the media does not mean that it did not happen, remember Bloody Sunday? Even you can not deny that Bloody Sunday was as bad as any terrorist atrocity, or perhaps in your inability to take an unbaised look at Northern Ireland you can find some way to justify the Army acting unlawfully and in a disproportionate manner.
Do you think that the authorities should be able to act any way they please as long as they can provide some, albeit flimsy, moral justification for their actions? If this is the case then anything can be justified, a very dangerous path to take. Do not believe everything you read David, the government and their supporters have been known to lie, on occassion, when it suits them.
Sister-in-law,
Oh I agree the Government can lie. Like when it tells us that we should believe the IRA. Hope you agree with me on that.
PS. Bloody Sunday was far from a terrorist atrocity. In fact, if one believes a visiting FBI agent who was given publicity to damn the loyalist rioting, using lethal force in sch circumstances was the very least one can expect. The Para’s were ahead of their time, and that’s what a pro-Belfast Agreement FBI implant stooge implied in the Belfast Telegraph.
Finally, there is a moral imperative to kill terrorists, but here in NI too many moral bankrupts think you should reward them..which is where we came in…
Having said that David, would opening live fire on (and possibly killing) rioters frighten more moderate residents of those areas and increase their feelings of fear and frustration?
I don’t know a lot about Bloody Sunday, but it seems to have had the effect of entrenching many Nationalists who already felt marginalised.
I hate to tell you David but evidence would suggest and experts would confirm that most of those killed on Bloody Sunday were simply innocent people marching for their civil rights. The old cliche comes into play in this discussion, one man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist in many peoples eyes, it is all a matter of perspective.
In addition, think twice about trusting the FBI, after all the USA is an expert at claiming to be a liberal democracy that upholds human rights while at the same time abandoning these policies when it is politically expedient to do so. Remember Abu Gharib? Guantanamo Bay? If we took the US line on everything we would find ourselves in a frightening position.
Also if you believe there is a moral imperative to kill terrorists I question your morality. I believe that murder is always wrong but to blindly condemn without trying to resolve is foolhardy, we must address the root causes of terrorism. Killing terrorists in the short term may relieve some of the blood lust felt by some but in the long-term it is counter-productive. The problem with Northern Ireland is that to many people lives are cheap.
The problem with Northern Ireland is too many people turn a blind eye to the terrorist scum who murdered thousands of our fellow citizens.
You also conflate killing and murder - check out the difference. Perhaps you think that terrorists should never be killed? I think they should always be killed, not out of “blood lust” (Great lefty term) but out of a sense of justice.
Oh you don’t have to tell me the difference between murder and killing, murder involves an element which is necessarily absent in the modern notion of unintentional or justified murder. In Latin this term is mens rea, the mental intention to kill. This intention was present in the paras on Bloody Sunday and is often an element to be found in the minds of members of the armed forces.
Membes of the armed forces are broken down and rebuilt to be fighting machines, therein lies the problem, fighting machines intend to fight and to defeat, therefore the mental element of murder, the mens rea, is present along with the actus reus, the actual act of killing. Together these lead to MURDER.
Many people who attempt to justify the unjustifiable try to rely on an abstract notion of justice, as mentioned by you. Knee jerk reaction that satifies the need for retribution in some people is not always justice and in many cases if unrestricted can lead to mighty injustice. Terrorists should be killed in circumstances where this action is both necessary and proportionate, these are the rules of a liberal democracy, or perhaps you do not want to live a modern liberal democracy, in that case I suggest you move to a country that still cuts off peoples hands for stealing an apple, an eye for an eye David?
….and there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
I respect your view of the armed forces but don’t agree with a word you write.
As for what might constitute the appropriate circumstances in which to kill terrorists, how about whenever such people decide that they will kill and murder in pursuance of whatever warped ideology they advocate. Could YOU tell me in what circumstances a terrorist should be killed?
I want to kill those who steal lives, not apples. It strikes me that you may wish to move to a country that is so morally bankrupt as to reward terrorists…oops..you’re already living in one..must be the apple of your eye.
Governments use the rhetoric of terror for a reason. Terrorists should not be treated any differently than, for example, organised criminal gangs who murder as many, if not more people than terrorists, not for ideological reasons, but for monetary gain. The spread of class A drugs has had a more harmful effect on society than terrorism, so why are terrorists dealt with differently and more harshly? Because people are so afraid that they allow the government to pass draconian laws in an attempt to make them feel more secure.
In answer to your question in what circumstances do I think a terrorist should be killed, in my opinion there needs to be narrowly defined rules and safeguards in place. Do you remember the killing of Mr de Menezes, mistaken for a terrorist in London? Many people can justify any measure if the person is terrorist but this puts too much weight on often uncorroborated and unreliable intelligence and innocent people die, just like in terrorist attacks. I think that taking a life should be a proportionate response to the threat at the time, not a knee-jerk reaction to satisfy a terrified public. For example, a person should not be shot for being a suspected terrorist with little or no proof as to the truth of this suspicion; otherwise we are all in danger.
The killing of a terrorist should be necessary, no other options should be available, and it should be procedurally correct. The guidelines and rules on necessity and proportionality are in place for a reason, they may appear over burdensome but the police use them every day and there is no reason to abandon them now, indeed they are more important when there is a threat to national security otherwise we undermine the values we are defending. In cases where a quick decision is made and perhaps a life is taken when it should not have been, as can happen, the investigatory procedure must be impartial, independent and diligent.
You say that you want to kill those who steal lives, in my mind you are saying that you feel these people have no right to take a life, that their justification for taking lives is untenable, yet the reasons you cite for taking a life are justifiable. You have a lot of confidence in your ability to chose who deserves to die, don?t forget David that you too are fallible, as are those who actually carry out the measures you endorse. Terrorists also think that they are 100% justified in taking lives, they think in many cases they are acting in self-defence to protect ?their? people. The actions you propose are no different to the actions of terrorists, only the ideology differs. Perhaps you are more like terrorists than you think.
So, because I want to see terrorists brought to justice, or justice to them, that makes me “like a terrorist”?
Mmm..think we need to clarify three simple points.
1. Terrorists have a choice - if they decide to terrorise and kill then there can be no reason to tolerate them. I know in NI it seems logical to some to reward the killers but that’s because they have become corrupted.
2. Had Mr Menezes been a terrorist, do you think he should have been shot?
3. I distinguish between those who operate against the State and those who operate for the State. This is our fundamental difference as you cannot.
As regards your first point David I agree that in certain limited circumstance terrorists must be shot, but as I said before these circumstances must be limited and governed by very specific rules. I have no sympathy for terrorists, they take other peoples lives and if they lose theirs it is no great tragedy, but I think that killing people with little or no evidence of terrorist activity will, in the long-term create more terrorists. We need to come up with a long-term solution to the problem/s.
On your second point, if Mr de Menezes was a terrorist and did have bombs strapped to him then I feel that the police would have had very little choice but to shoot him with the intention of killing him lest he set off explosives. However, if you look at the case of Mr de Menezes there was no evidence that he was a suicide bomber, he did not even look like he had explosives strapped to him and this is the difficulty with knee-jerk reactions.
Finally, you may distinguish against those who act for and against the state but unfortunately many of those working for the state are as guilty of crimes as those working against it. There have been many instances of state actors behaving in a way that only be termed illegal and unjustifiable, such as the torture of prisoners or the illegal use of force. Acting on behalf of the state should not make you above the law, you should not be able to act with impunity. State representatives are still human and fallible and should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
On a lighter note, although I disagree with much that you say David, I have thoroughly enjoyed having a real debate with you!