Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Harrowby Hall on December 07, 2017, 08:11:45 AM
-
So, we now appear to have cabinet minister who believes in the elimination of people whose motives he doesn't like.
We have been free from judicially-imposed capital punishment for a long time, but it seems that politicians should now have the right to order the killing of British citizens without any legal process.
-
Can you point out what's wrong with what he said? I admit that "a dead terrorist can't harm us" is a statement of the bleeding obvious but that's certainly how I'd like to see terrorists.
-
I suspect he puts grey highlights in his hair.
-
You ought to change your name to Corporal Jones.
-
Can you point out what's wrong with what he said? I admit that "a dead terrorist can't harm us" is a statement of the bleeding obvious but that's certainly how I'd like to see terrorists.
What part of the concept of "Rule of Law" don't you understand?
-
What part of the concept of "Rule of Law" don't you understand?
What part of "enemy combatants aiding and abetting a terrorist group against this country and its citizens" don't you understand?
-
You ought to change your name to Corporal Jones.
Not really.
My general advice is to panic.
-
You ought to change your name to Corporal Jones.
Pike, surely?
You know, the one that is the "stupid boy"!
-
Pike, surely?
You know, the one that is the "stupid boy"!
Your avatar is very dark........are you trying to save money?
-
So, we now appear to have cabinet minister who believes in the elimination of people whose motives he doesn't like.
We have been free from judicially-imposed capital punishment for a long time, but it seems that politicians should now have the right to order the killing of British citizens without any legal process.
This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.
-
This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.
Pretty much, yes.
I never realised there was so much soft-soaping about eliminating people whose motives we don't like when those motives include trying kill our citizens and destroy our way of life. AFAIC even if you started out with it, you give up British citizenship as soon as you sign up to that.
-
Pretty much, yes.
I never realised there was so much soft-soaping about eliminating people whose motives we don't like when those motives include trying kill our citizens and destroy our way of life.
It's a Christian pacifist thing.
-
Can you point out what's wrong with what he said? I admit that "a dead terrorist can't harm us" is a statement of the bleeding obvious but that's certainly how I'd like to see terrorists.
He has a point, in fact, "dead ministers can't harm us" is also obvious.
-
This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.
Bollocks.
-
It's a Christian pacifist thing.
Bollocks twice!
-
I'm not sure Williamson's comments are quite what HH thinks but it's quite difficult to work out. It's not clear to me he's actually arguing for assassination, even if the combatant is unarmed, or indeed may not pursuing any aggression at all but it can be read that way. In which case we're talking about an avoidance of due process. I don't think to be concerned about due process is a either a pacifist in general, or a specifically Christian pacifist thing.
-
This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.
I think that's an odd misreading of HH's post.
-
I think that's an odd misreading of HH's post.
In what way?
-
I thought that the original rule was that you can kill someone if an attack is imminent, and also assuming that you're not at war (which we're not). However, this rule has been subject to mission creep, particularly by the US, and they now see it as legal to kill someone who has attacked you in the past, or whom you think may be plotting.
It also obviously depends on the physical context. A drone strike in the Syrian desert is probably considered legal, providing that the there is sufficient evidence of an attack, past or future; it's less likely in a bed-sit in Basingstoke. Of course, if an attack is imminent in Basingstoke, then the main rule applies.
I suppose arguments arise with people who want to renounce IS, and want to come home. It seems a bit harsh to shoot them at Heathrow, as they get off the plane.
-
This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.
We are not in time of war and even in war, you are not allowed to just kill enemy combatants if you have captured them or they have surrendered.
-
We are not in time of war and even in war, you are not allowed to just kill enemy combatants if you have captured them or they have surrendered.
[/quote]
And we have done this when?
Where is this action ptroposed in the quoted article?
-
Which quoted article?
-
And we have done this when?
Where is this action ptroposed in the quoted article?
Who said anything about an article. You made a claim about what not enemy combatants would be in time of war. I pointed out that we are not in a time of war, which renders your post completely irrelevant to the current situation.
-
So, we now appear to have cabinet minister who believes in the elimination of people whose motives he doesn't like.
We have been free from judicially-imposed capital punishment for a long time, but it seems that politicians should now have the right to order the killing of British citizens without any legal process.
He is playing to the gallery. Another distraction from the Brexit farce.
-
In what way?
I think HH's reading of Williamson's remarks is that we could effectively assassinate any individual we suspected in any way of beings terrorist even if they currently presented no danger, or indeed may have renounced their previous actions. This doesn't seem to !ran anything like you should never kill terrorists. Yes
-
And right on cue ... https://tinyurl.com/yazz4c36
-
And right on cue ... https://tinyurl.com/yazz4c36
So should we kill him?
-
No, as he's been tried and sentenced - it's not a war situation over here. Not conventional warfare at any rate.
If it had been, yes we should (and I wish it had been). He had an AK-47 and I assume it wasn't another household ornament to stand next to his Capo Del Monte underneath his painting of an Asian lady with a blue face.
-
We are not in time of war and even in war, you are not allowed to just kill enemy combatants if you have captured them or they have surrendered.
Yes we bloody well are!
OK, it is a war, like that against the I R A, that is referred to as an "undeclared war" but the attacks around the world by militant Islam cannot be described as anything but a war!
What is more it is a war being fought by an enemy that hides behind civilian clothes not having the courage to show their true colours by wearing a uniform
-
Yes we bloody well are!
OK, it is a war, like that against the I R A, that is referred to as an "undeclared war" but the attacks around the world by militant Islam cannot be described as anything but a war!
What is more it is a war being fought by an enemy that hides behind civilian clothes not having the courage to show their true colours by wearing a uniform
The Maquis didn't wear uniforms - was that lack of courage? We wouldn't treat IRA prisoners as prisoners of war, so how could it be war?
-
The Maquis didn't wear uniforms - was that lack of courage? We wouldn't treat IRA prisoners as prisoners of war, so how could it be war?
The I R A always demanded that their men be treated as prisoners of war - this I would suggest confirms that THEY considered they were at war. As the I R A was not a recognised "Army" by either the government of ther UK or that of Eire resulted in the refusal of P O W status toi I R A prisoners.
-
The I R A always demanded that their men be treated as prisoners of war - this I would suggest confirms that THEY considered they were at war. As the I R A was not a recognised "Army" by either the government of ther UK or that of Eire resulted in the refusal of P O W status toi I R A prisoners.
Which confirms that we weren't at war which defeats your claim that somehow we were.
-
Which confirms that we weren't at war which defeats your claim that somehow we were.
In a pig's ear!
Wind-up unsuccessful.
End of communication.
-
In a pig's ear!
Wind-up unsuccessful.
End of communication.
Are we at war? No. Was your representation of being at war, correct? No. End of sense? Yes.
-
Are we at war? No. Was your representation of being at war, correct? No. End of sense? Yes.
I am serously sorry but I find your dismissal of the nature of the attacks on various countries by militant Isalm as not a war, albeit a guerilla war, disturbing, pacifist and, possibly, in the end, downright dangerous.
I don't know what the ethinic/religious make-up of your local population is but around here more than a few walk on egg-shells in order not to upset the muslims who take any perceivesa slight, never mind any real oners, very personally and usually straight to the courts who seem to shit themselves be terrified at the possible consequences of finding for the defendants.
So, on this subject, I am making no further comment as, quite clearly, we need to agree to differ as we are, equally clearly, never going to just agree.
-
I am serously sorry but I find your dismissal of the nature of the attacks on various countries by militant Isalm as not a war, albeit a guerilla war, disturbing, pacifist and, possibly, in the end, downright dangerous.
I don't know what the ethinic/religious make-up of your local population is but around here more than a few walk on egg-shells in order not to upset the muslims who take any perceivesa slight, never mind any real oners, very personally and usually straight to the courts who seem to shit themselves be terrified at the possible consequences of finding for the defendants.
So, on this subject, I am making no further comment as, quite clearly, we need to agree to differ as we are, equally clearly, never going to just agree.
so if you indulge in misrepresentation as you have done here, then maybe leaving your take is ok.
-
Yes we bloody well are!
No we are not.
OK, it is a war, like that against the I R A, that is referred to as an "undeclared war" but the attacks around the world by militant Islam cannot be described as anything but a war!
We were not in a war against the IRA. We treated their members as criminals and murderers which is what they were.
To term these people as enemy combatants rather than criminals elevates them to a status to which they are not entitled.
Please don't misunderstand me: if our law enforcement agencies see a terrorist pointing an AK4 at somebody, they are absolutely entitled to shoot him (or her) dead. But we live in a democracy and we decided capital punishment is barbaric and the rule of law generally prevails here. I do not want to see that changed.
-
No we are not.
We were not in a war against the IRA. We treated their members as criminals and murderers which is what they were.
To term these people as enemy combatants rather than criminals elevates them to a status to which they are not entitled.
Please don't misunderstand me: if our law enforcement agencies see a terrorist pointing an AK4 at somebody, they are absolutely entitled to shoot him (or her) dead. But we live in a democracy and we decided capital punishment is barbaric and the rule of law generally prevails here. I do not want to see that changed.
and to elevate our combatants to fighting a war would then be hypocrisy
-
and to elevate our combatants to fighting a war would then be hypocrisy
Strange that you should think fighting a war is a more noble cause than fighting crime in a democracy.
I said don't elevate the status of the terrorists, not don't elevate the status of the action against them.