Woolwich serious incident
- Thread starter Maccapacca
- Start date
Surely you mean a Jewish saying? It's Old Testament not New.
It is not as simplistic as that, and yes, it was an invitation to help which we answered, just as allies do.
A terror training camp with the express purpose to train people to target, attack and kill civilians is a completely different thing from an army barracks. They are actively training to kill innocent civilians and therefore post an immediate threat to civilian populations, both ours and their own. Army barracks are not.
They held no affliation with any recognised militant organisation or were operating under the authority of any militant organisation or nation state....trying to justify and legitimise their actions as being comparable to serving soldiers is a bit disingenous, and I'm being polite.
Currently we are fighting a Pakistani based Taliban insurgency and affiliated militancy who seek to destabilise the current administration and return the country (and potentially those around it) to a fundamentalist and brutal Islamic regime. The Taliban came to power as a militant organisation largely founded and supported by the Pakistani Intelligence Service, they attempted to take control of Afghanistan by force, until a series of defeats forced the ISI to supply them with increased military support along with financial support from Saudi factions and therefore tipping the balance of power.
It wasn't about the 'will of the people' it was about a militant insurgency supported by a well funded and almost autonomous group for the intent of creating a rule by proxy. It was for all intents and purposes contrary to the will of the people, as the people had no option in the matter.
It still 404s..possibly because I am on an iPad. I don't know.
Besides the fact that these two are not 'the enemy' as they have no affliation with the Taliban or Al Qaeda....the way you are trying to express yourself certainly implies that you are trying to legitimise and justify their actions. There is a marked difference between our modus operandi and the Taliban's/al Qaeda etc...as I explained. I think you might wish to express yourself differently if you do not want people to think that you are doing as many here are accusing you of doing.
Last edited:
It is a shared expression common to the Abrahamic faiths, in fact the only one that could be said to have discarded it as doctrine is Christianity as The New Covernant potentially abolishes the obligation to the laws that inform and validate that expression.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,025
- Location
- melee island
Right, I had to go out into the night and get a clear head on this one.
Come to the conclusion that using an event like this to push ANY adgenda of my own, is wrong.
No matter how well meaning, it somehow condones the act.
Apologies if I have offened anyone.
Come to the conclusion that using an event like this to push ANY adgenda of my own, is wrong.
No matter how well meaning, it somehow condones the act.
Apologies if I have offened anyone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Oh an invatation to help by the US, i thought you meant an invatation by the Afghanies. It is according to the documentary, we didnt bring in the rest of the country to form the government and army back in 2003 and are paying for it today.
In the eyes of the enemy, an army barrack is the exact same thing. Training to kill them. Its hardly unconventional for the enmy to strike back at similar facilties.
They picked a side, it is simple as that. Their actions and statements back that up. This is not a conventional war Soldier A vs Soldier B. No justification needed or intended, both sides want to kill each other.
The current regime is illegitimate, and corrupt to its core and has been kept in place for them exact reasons. "welcomed into power" are not my words but that of a BBC journalist. And like i said they will return to power after pull out, our analysis. You cant do that without having popular support, which isn’t surprising given the amount of resentment towards to installed government. Again watch documentary.
Not my words.
Here youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKHPTHx0ScQ
They picked a side and ran with it. All i am saying in war both sides want to kill each other. Rights or wrongs of either side aside, that is war. Targeted killings in non combatent situations, is as simple as that. You could say well they would go on to cause danger, but the enemy can just as easily say well your serving troops at home are training and are a potential danger us.
Your looking at it from a view of the "good fight", we are right. Many disagree with you when you take in to context the broader conflict including Iraq and many other conflicts. (not limited to the Islamic World)
My point is not who is right or wrong, or if this action was justified or not (which i dont believe to be so) just saying in war it happens. Just because the opposing side doesnt have the capabilty to strike back on UK soil most times, does not mean when they do its any worse than we do to them on a daily basis.
Maybe my view is coming across as not what intended (i don’t see these actions a legitimate) I am and was just as horrified as anyone else, my heart goes out to the soldier and his family.
As i see it, in war (which the UK is in) both sides kill each other. I understand your point regarding these two were not representing any nation or faction but i disagree. They picked a side opposing the UK and aligned them self with opposing forces maybe just as simple as representing themselves in a broader coalition and killed a enemy soldier (not civilian)
Last edited:
Why waste your time trying to explain to Craterloads? He is clearly beyond the point of absorbing your information and coming to a sensible conclusion on the matter. I'm going to bet you could post until you're blue in the fingers and he still wouldn't reconsider his stance. Ignorance, it's awesome.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Its not just my opinion, many in this very thread have agreed with it. From a broad range people.
Just because i see things differently doesnt make my opinion any less or yours any greater. Thats the great thing about a public forum, sharing of opinions. Not just to say "hey yours differs so im not talking to you". Not really line with the values of this country.
There is a difficulty that your average Joe can grasp most concepts easiest if it is just presented to them in simple black & white, I know I certainly do. However, with Afghanistan-Pakistan the political and social situation there is very vague and complex. You need to either visit and experience the area or do some extensive research before we even begin to understand the tribal socio-economic patterns, the Durand Line, the lack of real recognition, by Pashtuns, that there is a border there. The way the people live and the meaning of honour and Allahs will. All the events leading up to our arrival in Afghanistan and then all the events that have unfolded out here since. Some of these events have admittedly been tragic for us the ISAF elements, and some elements have been of sweet success. When we say "do some extensive research" I mean, actually study not just wikipedia it, like you need a degree in this stuff to understand fully (and I'm certainly not claiming to do so!).
If the public can't see positive, tangible differences soon after infil, then the inevitable finger pointing begins...
"it's the evil lying governments, who want to target innocent men, women and children (for no particularly justifiable reason)!!!1"
When we sit back and just apply common sense we can't deny that changing an entire nation takes generations and the compliance of it's people.
Last edited:
I meant the Northern Alliance.
Aside from the fact that these two men were not members of an organisation or militia that is at war with the UK, in the eyes of such an enemy it is acceptable to train what are often vulnerable and innocent peope to kill other innocent people including their own.....I would not take that kind of persons morality and opinion as being authorative on the comparative justification of disparate Armed Forces, particular as one is designed to defend civilians and the other trained and indoctrinated to kill them.
They held no affliation with, membership of, or licence from any militia, militant organisation or recognised terror group in order to carry out such an operation. They do not belong to the 'other side' in any earning full way...they simply committed murder under the guise of a political justification....they are not The Enemy, they are criminals.
The Taliban did not need broad popular support before, and neither do they need it now. I have briefly explained the reality of how the Taliban came to power and there is no reason to believe that would not be the similar case if conditions warranted it again. However I do not have a crystal ball so while it is possible that the Taliban could wrest power again, I would not be o bold as to predict what might happen or how it might happen.
You refered to the 'will of the people' , again in this very post you refer to popular support which amounts to the same thing.
Sorry I thought it was an article to read.
I don't have 90 minutes to dedicate to a documentary to comment on an thread on an Internet discussion I'm afraid. I understand the Afghan situation enough that I feel it isn't necessary to participate in any case.
The two men were not at war with the UK, they belong to no groups that are and no group has claimed they acted as proxies or under instructions from them or their associates. They committed murder using a political justification. It was not an act of war, it was an act of criminal homicide.
I understand now that you are not attempting to justify their acts, but you are attempting to compare legitimate acts of war in accordance with international law and Rules of Engagement with an act of murder in order to delegitimise actions you may not agree with in Afghanistan or Iraq. Which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Ok hypothetically if these men where Afghanis, members of opposing forces, would this situation be any different? I'm guessing you will say no which leads to the suspicion when British troops die its bad/wrong/unjust, but when opposing fighter are killed its ok?
International law and Rules of Engagement have gone out of the window many a times, so lets not pretend otherwise. Targeted assassination, attacking funerals because militants are present, drone strikes on non-combatant situations along with many other state sanctioned actions, are all fine by you? Says more about you than me.
I can take on board your comments regarding affiliation, so fair enough, it makes sense. What these men did was murder and a horrific one at that.
Last edited:
Quite. Although I think it is worth trying, albeit briefly as I did, even if the person I am addressing doesn't listen or understand, others might.
Even down to the relationship withe the Northern Alliance, when we arrived in 2001 it was a close thing on whether they were going to welcome us or try to kill us such is the complex nature of the relationships between the factions that made up the NA and their relative relations with the West. The ISI knew this and took advantage of it, both before and during our involvement.
I haven't read through every post in this thread, however there seems to be a lot of people justifying this, or other acts of violence on both sides
Whatever the rights or wrongs of it are a young bloke lost his life.
The bit that really gets my goat is the fact that all these radical groups are allowed to practice in the Uk without any repercussions. Can you imagine a bunch of white folk walking down a street in Afghanistan shouting about how much they hated Islam.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of it are a young bloke lost his life.The bit that really gets my goat is the fact that all these radical groups are allowed to practice in the Uk without any repercussions. Can you imagine a bunch of white folk walking down a street in Afghanistan shouting about how much they hated Islam.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Why are you accusing me of sentiments I have not expressed?
I haven't stated that I agree with all State (or non State) sanctioned actions, and certainly not with breaking International accords on the articles of War or the breaking of the stated RoE. Nor do I equate all actions equally justified or validated.
To answer your question, if the men were actual members of an organisation that deliberately and operationally ordered the killing of that young soldier then they would be deemed Enemy Combatants (or Terrorists dependant upon the context and organisation to which they belonged) and would therefore come under the Terror laws we currently have in place...as it is they are not and have been (or will be when fit enough to do so) detained under the normal PACE stipulations of the criminal code.
Then we are agreed, on this at least.
Last edited:
They pretty much already do
I take your point, but I mean your average joe, without guns or military backing. The extremists here can get away with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Just the general feeling i get is its bad/wrong/unjust when our own are killed but not a blink of an eye when others are. I just find it unjust and hypocritical.
Why terror laws? Why not as soldiers of the opposing side?
Maybe i was looking at it too simplistically or mixing it in with my broader feelings regarding western intervention around the world (shared by good portion of the world) instead of looking at it as the isolated incident it was. So apologise if i caused any offence, again not my intentions.
Last edited: