To Antonia_Tiger: Why It's Not OK for British Rebels to Behead British Soldiers in Britain
In response to antonia_tiger in Radicalising Language..
The forces the British are fighting against in Afghanistan are the ones who approved of the attempt to and cheered on the successful murder of three thousand civilians, including British ones, on 9-11-2001. You have lost sight of the context of this war, as if America and some other countries just decided to go into Afghanistan and kill Afghans (and the other mostly-Arab Muslims who had come into Afghanistan to form the Taliban and Al Qaeda) just for fun.
You are equating "radicals" who merely want to keep more of their OWN money from the taxman and campaign for this through in a legitimate and peaceful political manner with genuine radicals who behead British soldiers on British streets. Are you seriously trying to argue that these are morally equivalent actions? If you are, how is peaceful politics to be conducted under your rules? Can people who want tax cuts start beheading people who work for tax agencies? Remember, same rules for both sides!
Finally, the killers weren't Afghans. They were British citizens. When you accept citizenship in a country that country becomes yours: you are expected to be loyal to it and not some other country. The terms for someone who pretends loyalty to one country while fighting through violence against that country are "rebel" and "traitor." If you make this argument, you are also implicitly arguing for those charges to be added to those already being made against the killers. Was that your intentions?
And finally, on your conclusion
In Afghanistan they know us by the fruits that they gather. We do not care who happens to be in the same place as an alleged Al Qaeda leader. For all the derision heaped on claims that Islam is a religion of love, we let our leaders follow the examples of savage old-time Christians who proclaimed Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Kill them all, they cry, God will know his own!
that is the nature of war. Comparison of the War on Terror with other historic wars quickly reveals that we have tried very hard to kill as few innocent civilians as possible. Unfortunately, war is chaos, and in chaos innocents will die.
As I'm sure you know, in pretty much every war of the 20th century, most especially including the World Wars, lots and lots of civilians were killed on both sides, and not always intentionally. (The few exceptions are wars, such as the Falklands War, which were fought so far from major population concentrations that it was relatively easy to avoid killing civilians). As I'm sure you also know, in this specific war, the vast majority of Muslims (including Afghans) who have been killed have been killed by the Terrorist forces, not by the West.
Why are you claiming that we are so uniquely guilty of killing civilians in this war that it justifies rebellion, treason and murder by subjects of the Crown? Would you have had such sympathy for a British subject in World War I who beheaded a Royal Navy sailor due to the mass deaths caused by the blockade to the German civilian population? Or a Britis subject in World War II who beheaded a Royal Air Force airman due to the mass civilian deaths cased by the night bombings of German cities? If not, why not?
And yes, comparisons are necessary to understand any historical event, because only comparisons can reveal if the consequences were intentional or unintentional, and still more importantly, avoidable or unavoidable Otherwise, all one can do is shriek "BAD!" when one sees a bad event occur, without any understanding of its causation or avoidance. This does not lead to the reduction of bad events, because sometimes the current policy was the lesser of the two evil choices.
Also, the rather big question comes up as to why you give the Muslim terrorists a pass for killing fellow-Muslim civilians on PURPOSE, but don't give us a pass for killing them by ACCIDENT. This looks to me like rather a large bias on your part, either against the West, or (more subtly) against Mulsims ("They can't be expected to do better, the poor dears. They're not capable of self-control, as we are.")Finally ...
From your spelling of "radicalising," I know you're British. That means that you're advocating blurring the moral distinctions between domestic politics and murder, and international aggression and defense, regarding your own country.
Has it never entered your head that by doing so, you run the risk that if most of your fellow Britons agree with you on this, your life and security are at risk? For those who politically-disagree with you might decide to play by the same rules, and beat or even murder with you if you dissent with them. Remember, rules cut both ways: if it's ok for those extreme Muslims to behead that soldier, it's also ok for those extreme Tories to behead that taxman. (Or that Muslim, for that matter).
And internationally, you might lose your security against death by foreign aggression, as a Britain following your proposed rules of war ("if you kill civilians the war is immoral") would be utterly-unable to defend or retaliate against attack from abroad. This you probably don't see as much of a threat, but that's because you're the beneficiary of decades and centuries of successful British warfare, such that most foreign Powers would think twice before raiding your country on a lark.
Things were once very different: read the history of your island from the 17th century and earlier. Note especially the frequent Continental and Moorish piratical raids on British shores. And they could be that way again -- updated to modern technology.
If enough Brits agree with you, that is.
Me, I try not to argue for points which -- if successful -- would produce violent anarchy at home and insecurity from foreign aggression.
The forces the British are fighting against in Afghanistan are the ones who approved of the attempt to and cheered on the successful murder of three thousand civilians, including British ones, on 9-11-2001. You have lost sight of the context of this war, as if America and some other countries just decided to go into Afghanistan and kill Afghans (and the other mostly-Arab Muslims who had come into Afghanistan to form the Taliban and Al Qaeda) just for fun.
You are equating "radicals" who merely want to keep more of their OWN money from the taxman and campaign for this through in a legitimate and peaceful political manner with genuine radicals who behead British soldiers on British streets. Are you seriously trying to argue that these are morally equivalent actions? If you are, how is peaceful politics to be conducted under your rules? Can people who want tax cuts start beheading people who work for tax agencies? Remember, same rules for both sides!
Finally, the killers weren't Afghans. They were British citizens. When you accept citizenship in a country that country becomes yours: you are expected to be loyal to it and not some other country. The terms for someone who pretends loyalty to one country while fighting through violence against that country are "rebel" and "traitor." If you make this argument, you are also implicitly arguing for those charges to be added to those already being made against the killers. Was that your intentions?
And finally, on your conclusion
In Afghanistan they know us by the fruits that they gather. We do not care who happens to be in the same place as an alleged Al Qaeda leader. For all the derision heaped on claims that Islam is a religion of love, we let our leaders follow the examples of savage old-time Christians who proclaimed Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Kill them all, they cry, God will know his own!
that is the nature of war. Comparison of the War on Terror with other historic wars quickly reveals that we have tried very hard to kill as few innocent civilians as possible. Unfortunately, war is chaos, and in chaos innocents will die.
As I'm sure you know, in pretty much every war of the 20th century, most especially including the World Wars, lots and lots of civilians were killed on both sides, and not always intentionally. (The few exceptions are wars, such as the Falklands War, which were fought so far from major population concentrations that it was relatively easy to avoid killing civilians). As I'm sure you also know, in this specific war, the vast majority of Muslims (including Afghans) who have been killed have been killed by the Terrorist forces, not by the West.
Why are you claiming that we are so uniquely guilty of killing civilians in this war that it justifies rebellion, treason and murder by subjects of the Crown? Would you have had such sympathy for a British subject in World War I who beheaded a Royal Navy sailor due to the mass deaths caused by the blockade to the German civilian population? Or a Britis subject in World War II who beheaded a Royal Air Force airman due to the mass civilian deaths cased by the night bombings of German cities? If not, why not?
And yes, comparisons are necessary to understand any historical event, because only comparisons can reveal if the consequences were intentional or unintentional, and still more importantly, avoidable or unavoidable Otherwise, all one can do is shriek "BAD!" when one sees a bad event occur, without any understanding of its causation or avoidance. This does not lead to the reduction of bad events, because sometimes the current policy was the lesser of the two evil choices.
Also, the rather big question comes up as to why you give the Muslim terrorists a pass for killing fellow-Muslim civilians on PURPOSE, but don't give us a pass for killing them by ACCIDENT. This looks to me like rather a large bias on your part, either against the West, or (more subtly) against Mulsims ("They can't be expected to do better, the poor dears. They're not capable of self-control, as we are.")Finally ...
From your spelling of "radicalising," I know you're British. That means that you're advocating blurring the moral distinctions between domestic politics and murder, and international aggression and defense, regarding your own country.
Has it never entered your head that by doing so, you run the risk that if most of your fellow Britons agree with you on this, your life and security are at risk? For those who politically-disagree with you might decide to play by the same rules, and beat or even murder with you if you dissent with them. Remember, rules cut both ways: if it's ok for those extreme Muslims to behead that soldier, it's also ok for those extreme Tories to behead that taxman. (Or that Muslim, for that matter).
And internationally, you might lose your security against death by foreign aggression, as a Britain following your proposed rules of war ("if you kill civilians the war is immoral") would be utterly-unable to defend or retaliate against attack from abroad. This you probably don't see as much of a threat, but that's because you're the beneficiary of decades and centuries of successful British warfare, such that most foreign Powers would think twice before raiding your country on a lark.
Things were once very different: read the history of your island from the 17th century and earlier. Note especially the frequent Continental and Moorish piratical raids on British shores. And they could be that way again -- updated to modern technology.
If enough Brits agree with you, that is.
Me, I try not to argue for points which -- if successful -- would produce violent anarchy at home and insecurity from foreign aggression.