Even before yesterday’s horror in Paris I could not see these ISIS scum standing trial anywhere, much as I would like to see it. They are all fully prepared to die and welcome the idea. Yesterday it seems most of them blew themselves up. So for the “chief” scum, quite apart from the practical realities of sending troops into the inner circles of Syria etc, it would seem like remote targetting is the only realistic way to stop them without risking further lives lost.
Someone has to decide who they go after and when to press the button. Lots and lots of concerns of course but my overriding thought is this is what we have to swallow, in order to have any chance to halt some of these new breed of terrorists, who actively welcome death.
Killing someone for their crimes, no matter how heinous, is revenge not justice. I will never support the death penalty, in any circumstance, no matter how trying.
It is not the job of the state to serve revenge, justice yes, but revenge certainly not. The idea of a vengeful state I find a pretty terrifying prospect.
But this is akin to a war surely? Do we insist on arrest, criminal charges, trial by jury and conviction for all those our military come up against? These terrorists are still criminals, yes, but they are much more like an opposing army too, albeit a very different army to those we traditionally had to fight against.
I’ve got real issues with state-sponsored killing in general, but specifically as it applies to the military. The Iraq War was illegal in the eyes of international law. I wonder then, what the legal status of a combatant is, in the eyes of international law.
I have huge underlying issues with the “state makes it right” mentality, especially when that right seems to be unassailable when such atrocities are committed overseas. When Jean Charles De Menezes was shot to death in Stockwell tube station, his family eventually got an investigation, flawed as that may have been. There is no such inquiry for the 95% collateral damage of drone strikes, nor do we have the validity of a nation defending itself or another nation at that nation’s legally recognised request.
As many as two million marched on the streets of London against the 2003 Iraq War. Those people, and I include myself among them, aren’t really going to see the consequent death toll in Iraq as legitimate, save for vindicating their position that we should have never gone in full stop. If the death toll is not legitimate, not legal, then the legality of individual deaths is surely an issue. Seriously, fuck Blair for putting those troops in that quagmire. We may not have suffered the 54K casualties that the US did in their campaign in Vietnam, but our conduct in facilitating Iraq has stained us in a similar way.
The disquiet among some labour MPs about their leader is starting to get a little louder, with some senior figures now also expressing concerns, according to this report about Corbyn’s stance on the use of violence to combat UK terrorists:
There is no point having a gun unless you are prepared to use it, I feel uncomfortable concerning them but “shoot to kill”?
Lets not be naïve here, we have always had a shoot to kill policy regardless of whether it has been called that and state sponsored killings have gone on since the dawn of time, it doesn’t make them right it is simply reality.
Thing is its not war though is it… not in the sense of war between nation states. I can totally understand the desire to see him dead, I can undersatnd the desire to see all of them dead, because they have not demonstrated any of the characteristics that we think elevate humans above animals. There is no compassion, so why should we show any?
Because that is what seperates us from those that chose to indescriminately kill and maim.
There is no point having a gun unless you are prepared to use it, I feel uncomfortable concerning them but “shoot to kill”? Lets not be naïve here, we have always had a shoot to kill policy regardless of whether it has been called that and state sponsored killings have gone on since the dawn of time, it doesn’t make them right it is simply reality.
Whether anyone agrees with this particular point or not, it is not good for the country, especially on points of national security, for the main opposition party to be in this state of disarray with its leader.
Whether anyone agrees with this particular point or not, it is not good for the country, especially on points of national security, for the main opposition party to be in this state of disarray with its leader.
I not only disagree. I really think the disaffected Labour lot need to shit or get off the bog, to paraphrase and anglicise a bit of dialogue from a Kevin Smith film.
I read an article in the Independent today about a Labour shadow minister apparently branding Corbyn “a fucking disgrace”. The shadow minister is not named, but the line is still quoted.
Seriously, fuck that person, fuck the leak or fuck the reporting. This bears hallmarks with many other slurs; no-one is actually named, so no-one can be held to account, not the potential rebel, not the potential leak, and even though you might think we could lay culpability at the door of the messenger, not the reporter either, because we’re operating in a climate where hearsay, thoroughly discounted in court in isolation (apt because no-one can be sued if complainant and/or defendant cannot be identified) is somehow acceptable for the national fucking press.
It might not be 1984, but 21 years later, we’re coming of age.
Whether anyone agrees with this particular point or not, it is not good for the country, especially on points of national security, for the main opposition party to be in this state of disarray with its leader.
No, it isn’t, and I really think the disaffected need to shit or get off the bog, to paraphrase and anglicise a bit of dialogue from a Kevin Smith film.
I read an article in the Independent today about a Labour shadow minister apparently branding Corbyn “a fucking disgrace”. The shadow minister is not named, but the line is still quoted.
Seriously, fuck that person, fuck the leak or fuck the reporting. This bears hallmarks with many other slurs; no-one is actually named, so no-one can be held to account, not the potential rebel, not the potential leak, and even though you might think we could lay culpability at the door of the messenger, not the reporter either, because we’re operating in a climate where hearsay, thoroughly discounted in court in isolation (apt because no-one can be sued if complainant and defendant cannot be identified) is somehow acceptable for the national fucking press.
It might not be 1984, but 21 years later, we’re coming of age.
And to think the Independent did that and not the Daily Mail, responsibility you say? When someone pulls the trigger of a gun are they solely responsible? Are you resonsible for your actions?
the issue this time is Corbyns planned attendance of the Stop the War xmas dinner, which normally wouldnt have been a problem up until the point they posted the tweet about Paris reaping the whirlwind.
The issue that the MPs have is that Corbyn, yet again, is dithering about taking a position on this ie will he now go or not. A lot of his MPs can see (even if he can’t) that his attendance will be viewed negatively by not only the media but by a lot of their own party members and the swing vote they need to get back in. Thats why they are pissed off…
Corbyn really doesnt handle these situations well, the obvious immediate answer was to condemn the tweet and say he was reconsidering the invitation. Done. End of story. But he just goes silent and lets the media dictate the agenda.
the issue this time is Corbyns planned attendance of the Stop the War xmas dinner, which normally wouldnt have been a problem up until the point they posted the tweet about Paris reaping the whirlwind.
I’m not even sure why it’s an issue. There’s nothing incorrect about that statement; it’s entirely keeping (and a hell of a lot weaker) than some of the other material they print. It’s also a version of what they’ve been saying all along. Corbyn too.
Have you actually thought about what this implied “war is right” attitude means for democracy?
The issue that the MPs have is that Corbyn, yet again, is dithering about taking a position on this ie will he now go or not. A lot of his MPs can see (even if he can’t) that his attendance will be viewed negatively by not only the media but by a lot of their own party members and the swing vote they need to get back in. Thats why they are pissed off…
Corbyn really doesnt handle these situations well, the obvious immediate answer was to condemn the tweet and say he was reconsidering the invitation. Done. End of story. But he just goes silent and lets the media dictate the agenda.
I don’t see that as obvious at all. The situation is that Corbyn still has to contend with his Parliamentary party, and that some of those are operating without any of the scrutiny he has received. Looking forward to the next big set of elections in May. This’ll end one way or the other then.
Interesting read. He berates Hollande for saying stupid things as a time of crisis, compares him to “Dubya”. Then says that Corbyn has got no chance because he won’t say silly things too.
I also enjoyed reporter’s assertion that Corbyn must capture the mood of the nation. All of us feel the same way about the weekend’s events, apparently. Now I’ve seen the likes of Chapel End Charlie claim to speak for an entire group of people before, but not on this scale.
Everyone wants more bombing (because that’s worked, right). Everyone loves shoot to kill. Jeremy is mad for not recognising this country wide consensus. I know, when you actually summarise like that, it’s laughable.