tony.c
Well-Known Member
?
He was in the SAS for 9 years. Joined the British Army as a teenager, and served 25 years. He was the most highly decorated serving soldier when he left, so I don't think he would be making it up.
Was the killing in Woolwich murder or part of the war?
- Thread starter Brainaddict
- Start date
He was in the SAS for 9 years. Joined the British Army as a teenager, and served 25 years. He was the most highly decorated serving soldier when he left, so I don't think he would be making it up.
tony.c
Well-Known Member
I don't think there is any dispute about his having been in the SAS.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I bet he doesn't even no what colour the boat house at hereford is
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
more shootings?I haven't read this yet, but there has been shootings and machete attack in woolwhich:Mad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...machete-attack-in-south-east-London-live.html
a fit subject for a new threadBrainaddict
slight system overdrive
Not sure why. The UK is involved in daily combat in a twelve-year-old war. Someone who considered themselves on the opposing side in the war killed a British soldier. It was horrible and I wish it hadn't happened, but was it really legally and/or ethically different than if it had happened in Afghanistan? If so, how?
panpete
Blokes name, birds body.
Not quite that extreme.
What if the government are just blowing this up regarding terror and muslims, to increase racial hatred, to set us up against each other?
We're easy to control that way.
Is that martial law that I can see in the distance?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Legally, yes, clearly. Ethically, it depends, I would think - it's a subjective judgement.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
He was a combatant, or at least part of the opposing army (as this guy saw it).
panpete
Blokes name, birds body.
May already be one, will check and if not, raise one.more shootings?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Why legally? Do the rules of war only apply within the war zone, and how is that defined? Genuine question.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Bizarre grounds on which to choose to interrogate the politics of the situation - through some top-down legal definition derived from the state, rather than just from the politics - and i can't see the use in highlighting just how gosh darn hypocritical the state is. Maybe you can have a go at answering my question -if the soldier had decided to do this would you still consider it part of the war and not murder? Do you not see what pointless knots this would tie you in when there is no need to, just go straight to the politics of it.
tony.c
Well-Known Member
I'll take your word for that.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Actually the government are far more likely to be shitting themselves about that sort of fallout than anything else. Although some techniques of power rely on divide-and-conquer, its not in their interests to have communities so fractured that it becomes a major policing issue. They dont want rivers of blood or martial law. Not in the system of control we enjoy these days, which relies on things being kept a lid on in different ways and people having a form of freedom that capitalism, markets and other elements of the status quo can thrive on.
How's that then?
The only way ıt could be subjectıve ıs ıf you thınk people have an ethıcal oblıgatıon to support theır country when ıt ıs at war.
In that case, one's ethıcal judgment wıll dıffer dependıng on whether the person kılled shared one's natıonalıty.
But surely there ıs no-one here who belıeves such a sılly thıng.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I'll take your word for that.
don't take just mine, his ex regiment sgnt mjr calls him a billy bullshitter in his bio 'Eye of the Storm'
SAS bio top trumped!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I know...but if he wasn't, would you see this differently in terms of deciding whether it was "murder" or "part of the war"?
panpete
Blokes name, birds body.
Sorry, my mistake, Jeez (kicks self)more shootings?
It's the same attack
Edits post above.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
For pragmatic reasons as much as anything. A member of the Taliban captured by UK forces in Afghanistan is likely in due course to be a prisoner who is a member of a group that is negotiating peace, and quite likely to be released at some point. In the end, the legal status of IRA killers was different from that of 'normal' killers, and they were released for political reasons. This is not the situation with the two men in Woolwich yesterday.
Is there any dıspute that the vıctım was a member of the Brıtısh army?
Is there any dıspute that the Brıtısh army ıs occupyıng Afghanıstan?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
From the legal point of view clearly. Deliberately killing civilians is a crime even in a war.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Double lol
tony.c
Well-Known Member
So was that an SAS regiment sgt major?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
yeah, peter something, claims to have come up during Operation Storm the Oman counter insurgency war. Hold on I'll look it up
ratcliff. peter ratcliff
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eye-Storm-Years-Action-SAS/dp/1843170523
in this book he mainly calls all of his ex collegues cunts and bigs himself up.
''In the end'' yes.
But for decades the Brıtısh publıc was told that there was no dıfference between the IRA and ''normal'' kıllers, that theır kıllıngs were crımınal and not polıtıcal, and that they would never be negotıated wıth let alone released.
That's what the Brıtısh publıc ıs beıng told now.
The Brıtısh publıc mıght lıke to reflect that ıt has been told such thıngs before, very recently.
Then agaın ıt mıght not.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't see any circumstances in which these two could end up being treated as political prisoners - particularly as they are British.
Similar threads
- Poll
