The Islamic state

[Pickman's model]

Let's wait then until some wedding party gets hit, America and Britain give it a fucking rest.

that's so last decade

 

[Spymaster]

do tell

They're secrets which unfortunately I'm not in on.

 

[Pickman's model]

They're secrets which unfortunately I'm not in on.

you should apply to editor to change your name from spymaster to filing clerk, which might reflect your security clearance more accurately

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

you should apply to editor to change your name from spymaster to filing clerk, which might reflect your security clearance more accurately

 

[Athos]

On the one hand, I'll shed no tears for these blokes, if, as it seeems, they're ISIS fighters. But, on the other hand, when you think about it, it's a hell of a thing for the government to set out to extra-judicially execute two of its own citizens, particularly when the county is not formally at war, and without any scrutiny by parliament.

 

[not-bono-ever]

I think that's the crux of it athos

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

On the one hand, I'll shed no tears for these blokes, if, as it seeems, they're ISIS fighters. But, on the other hand, when you think about it, it's a hell of a thing for the government to set out to extra-judicially execute two of its own citizens, particularly when the county is not formally at war, and without any scrutiny by parliament.

Think that perfectly sums up how most people feel about it, a bit meh and at the same time.

 

[LDC]

On the one hand, I'll shed no tears for these blokes, if, as it seeems, they're ISIS fighters. But, on the other hand, when you think about it, it's a hell of a thing for the government to set out to extra-judicially execute two of its own citizens, particularly when the county is not formally at war, and without any scrutiny by parliament.

Yes, except that's it's not new thing to happen, so it's a bit odd to see people thinking of it as such a out there thing when the State kills in all sorts of ways every single fucking day.

 

[Athos]

Yes, except that's it's not new thing to happen, so it's a bit odd to see people thinking of it as such a out there thing when the State kills in all sorts of ways every single fucking day.

I agree that the state has blood on its hands in many ways on many days. But there are few examples of the state boasing about deliberately killing its own citizens.

Interestingly, this would undoubtedly be illegal if it happened in the UK. The fact that it occured overseas might be a bit a grey area.

 

[LDC]

what pacifist influence is this?

I think since the 1960s pacifism has exerted a significant influence in the UK political left. I think it does so openly with a number of people and groups adopting its ideas wholesale, and also more subtly where it in part defines the terms of acceptable activity for the left to engage in.

I think part of the effect that this has had has been to deeply root some quite problematic tendencies in the radical left political/activist scene.

For example, how do you feel the UK left might respond now to a call to arm the Republicans and revolutionaries in 1930s Spain? IMO it would be tying itself in knots and finding all sorts of tenuous moral arguments to avoid doing so, in part due to the prevalence of pacifism on our political psyche over the last 40/50 years.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think since the 1960s in the pacifism has exerted a significant influence in the UK political left. I think it does so openly with a number of people and groups adopting its ideas wholesale, and also more subtly where it in part defines the terms of acceptable activity for the left to engage in.

I think part of the effect that this has had has been to deeply root some quite problematic tendencies in the radical left political/activist scene.

For example, how do you feel the UK left might respond now to a call to arm the Republicans and revolutionaries in 1930s Spain? IMO it would be tying itself in knots and finding all sorts of tenuous moral arguments to avoid doing so, in part due to the prevalence of pacifism on our political psyche.

grand, i say. bring it on so we can see who the conshies are.

 

[Athos]

I think since the 1960s in the pacifism has exerted a significant influence in the UK political left. I think it does so openly with a number of people and groups adopting its ideas wholesale, and also more subtly where it in part defines the terms of acceptable activity for the left to engage in.

I think part of the effect that this has had has been to deeply root some quite problematic tendencies in the radical left political/activist scene.

For example, how do you feel the UK left might respond now to a call to arm the Republicans and revolutionaries in 1930s Spain? IMO it would be tying itself in knots and finding all sorts of tenuous moral arguments to avoid doing so, in part due to the prevalence of pacifism on our political psyche over the last 40/50 years.

I've read about this, here Pacifism as Pathology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and here How Nonviolence Protects the State | The Anarchist Library.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've read about this, here Pacifism as Pathology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and here How Nonviolence Protects the State | The Anarchist Library.

two good books, the first by ward churchill, the second by peter gelderloos

 

[kebabking]

...Interestingly, this would undoubtedly be illegal if it happened in the UK.

would it?

at first glance, obviously it would - but the Police use force upto and including lethal force regularly, and the reason they don't go to prison is because their actions are deemed reasonable in the context they occured in. so we fully accept that its acceptable for the Police to kill the bloke holding a knife to someones throat if we believe that he's going to harm them and if no other, less harmful option to prevent them from doing so is available.

we are fortunate that our criminals require nothing greater, or longer ranged, than bullets - but if they procured heavier weapons, like a 20mm anti-aircraft gun, then plod with his 5.56mm rifle and body armour is dead meat, and the definition of what was reasonable in order to stop them using said 20mm anti-aircraft gun would would move away from a rifle.

the police don't have anything that could approach the 3-4,000 metre range of such a weapon, so they'd have to borrow something else. a tank with a 120mm rifled barrel? a helicopter with a Hellfire missile? none of these things could be used by plod, they simply don't have the skill or training, so they'd have to ask the owner to use them on the Police's behalf.

so, how then is this really any different to that - the facts of the cases are the same: a person is believed to be involved in an imminent threat to life, the police are unable to detain them in the normal way, so other options are called forward.

oh there'd be an investigation by the IPCC or whoever but would there be a conviction?

 

[Teaboy]

I agree that the state has blood on its hands in many ways on many days. But there are few examples of the state deliberately killing its own citizens.

Interestingly, this would undoubtedly be illegal if it happened in the UK. The fact that it occured overseas might be a bit a grey area.

Yeah but this sort of thing happens all the time, we've already had the example of Ireland and Gibraltar and that's without all the ones that we don't know about and all the killing by use of proxy which has gone on down the years.

So that begs the question what is so different about this time? Is it because the government has owned up to it and brazenly so?

 

[Athos]

Yeah but this sort of thing happens all the time, we've already had the example of Ireland and Gibraltar and that's without all the ones that we don't know about and all the killing by use of proxy which has gone on down the years.

So that begs the question what is so different about this time? Is it because the government has owned up to it and brazenly so?

Yes, and the ECHR found that the UK had acted unlawfully in the case of the Gibraltar killings. But, even then the SAS soldiers' claimed that they thought the people they shot were reaching for a detonator. That's quite different from this case.

 

[Athos]

would it?

at first glance, obviously it would - but the Police use force upto and including lethal force regularly, and the reason they don't go to prison is because their actions are deemed reasonable in the context they occured in. so we fully accept that its acceptable for the Police to kill the bloke holding a knife to someones throat if we believe that he's going to harm them and if no other, less harmful option to prevent them from doing so is available.

we are fortunate that our criminals require nothing greater, or longer ranged, than bullets - but if they procured heavier weapons, like a 20mm anti-aircraft gun, then plod with his 5.56mm rifle and body armour is dead meat, and the definition of what was reasonable in order to stop them using said 20mm anti-aircraft gun would would move away from a rifle.

the police don't have anything that could approach the 3-4,000 metre range of such a weapon, so they'd have to borrow something else. a tank with a 120mm rifled barrel? a helicopter with a Hellfire missile? none of these things could be used by plod, they simply don't have the skill or training, so they'd have to ask the owner to use them on the Police's behalf.

so, how then is this really any different to that - the facts of the cases are the same: a person is believed to be involved in an imminent threat to life, the police are unable to detain them in the normal way, so other options are called forward.

oh there'd be an investigation by the IPCC or whoever but would there be a conviction?

Yes, it undoubtedly would. This was not a spontaneous response to an imminent threat; it was a pre-planned assassination.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah but this sort of thing happens all the time

all the time. surprised it has been reported, it's such a regular occurrence

 

[Teaboy]

Yes, and the ECHR found that the UK had acted unlawfully in the case of the Gibraltar killings. But, even then the SAS soldiers' claimed that they thought the people they shot were reaching for a detonator. That's quite different from this case.

Well that's what the SAS claimed but it was clearly an execution. The navy seals claimed Bin Laden was reaching for a gun but they weren't there to take prisoners. Cameron has told us how these two were planning imminent attacks on UK soil........

All I'm saying is that I think this sort of thing goes on all the time, the only thing that makes this different is that the government has owned up / boasted about it.

 

[Teaboy]

all the time. surprised it has been reported, it's such a regular occurrence

Reported by whom? How would they know? What would the proof be?

 

[Athos]

Well that's what the SAS claimed but it was clearly an execution. The navy seals claimed Bin Laden was reaching for a gun but they weren't there to take prisoners. Cameron has told us how these two were planning imminent attacks on UK soil........

All I'm saying is that I think this sort of thing goes on all the time, the only thing that makes this different is that the government has owned up / boasted about it.

No, that's not the only difference.

The Gib case was ruled unlawful.
OBL is irrelevant - we're talking about the UK.
And, what these blokes are alleged to have been planning was not imminint in the sense that it is used in the jurisprudence regarding article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is a significant thing.

 

[Teaboy]

This is a significant thing.

Fair enough. Its a big deal for sure, but I think the only thing that is unusual about this is that they've gone public with it, they could have easily said nothing and no one would have been any the wiser.

 

[teqniq]

I'm with Teaboy on this, I think the narrative is being very carefully managed:

*They've had the info for a little over two weeks, why not release it before?

*The volte-face by the tabloid press on the refugee situation from pretty much openly racist/xenophobic propaganda to 'omg omg we must do something to help these poor people'. Suddenly the environment in which to release the info about the strike is much more favourable.

I feel they want much more active military involvement certainly more airstrikes and possibly even boots on the ground (not counting the special forces presence already there, certainly in Iraq and quite possibly in Syria) and are none to fussed about how they go about getting it. This bothers me a great deal not least of all because the Russians are there and increasing their presence.

They may want a nice war for any number of reasons, two I can think of straightaway are: war is good for the economy (well certain interests for sure) and they wish to curb the geopolitical interest of the Russians and the Iranians.

 

[Athos]

Fair enough. Its a big deal for sure, but I think the only thing that is unusual about this is that they've gone public with it, they could have easily said nothing and no one would have been any the wiser.

Quite. That IS the significance - the fact that the government can openly boast of extra-judicially executing it's own citizens (deliberately and with pre-meditation), without being formally at war, and with no oversight from parliament. Terrifying!

ETA: And it's quite different from other cases, which have been denied altogether, of have been explained on the basis of an imminent i.e. immediate, threat to life.

 

[laptop]

There's something nagging at the back of my mind...

Until now, Daesh has mostly focussed on the "near enemy" - despite claiming some attacks that may as well have been lone-wolf efforts.

Now Cameron has claimed, in justifying this assassination, that the deceased were planning attacks in the UK.

But what worries me is the sense - ill-formed, to be sure - that Cameron is making a big deal of taking the war to Daesh in a more powerful way than bombing a random bunch of Chechens and Iraqis.

Certainly, he's telling potential Daesh supporters that if they go to Iraq or Syria the UK military will come after them.

So they might as well launch attacks here... mightn't they?

 

[frogwoman]

I'm with Teaboy on this, I think the narrative is being very carefully managed:

*They've had the info for a little over two weeks, why not release it before?

*The volte-face by the tabloid press on the refugee situation from pretty much openly racist/xenophobic propaganda to 'omg omg we must do something to help these poor people'. Suddenly the environment in which to release the info about the strike is much more favourable.

I feel they want much more active military involvement certainly more airstrikes and possibly even boots on the ground (not counting the special forces presence already there, certainly in Iraq and quite possibly in Syria) and are none to fussed about how they go about getting it. This bothers me a great deal not least of all because the Russians are there and increasing their presence.

They may want a nice war for any number of reasons, two I can think of straightaway are: war is good for the economy (well certain interests for sure) and they wish to curb the geopolitical interest of the Russians and the Iranians.

It's good for the economy but is it really that good when the spillover from the war starts coming here?

 

[frogwoman]

I cant see a ground invasion yet but the thing is, as with ukraine, these things may well spiral out of control.

 

[gimesumtruf]

that's so last decade

Do you mean nothing has changed in a decade, what are you like, eh!

 

[teqniq]

It's good for the economy but is it really that good when the spillover from the war starts coming here?

Yes well quite, that's why I said certain interests. Certainly not ordinary people's.

 

[likesfish]

isis have committed crimes against humanity and intend to continue so I cant see any reason not to bomb them. they actually manage to make assads regime look reasonable