For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576119
To suggest that any type of terrorist is better or worse than another seems odd; in my books they are all bad as their aim is to upset/overthrow/destroy civilisation as we know and cherish it.

We coped with IRA terrorism by sticking to the law and stick terrorists in prison, why do we think that a different approach will be any better?

The evidence appears to be to the contrary.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576120
Miscellaneous wrote:
johnm wrote:I'm not prepared to allow the barstewards to make me compromise my standards of civilised behaviour, sorry.

Come on, John, headline grabbing and disingenuous thread title aside this idea of protecting what is a subjective, perceived and somewhat fanciful concept of civilised is exactly what they want and are given. It makes society a victim of its own actions.



Well up to a point. As I wrote earlier, my version of civilisation is not all that politically correct and I don't debate that some aspects of the process of dealing with these people on the back of the Human Rights stuff is interpreted here rather more generously than elsewhere and that's counter-productive.

It's really quite ironic that we can have the Abu Hamza fiasco and RIPA in the same year. :roll:
User avatar
By kanga
#1576121
I am reluctant to accept that a Brit on the front line in (say) Eastern Syria evidently and irrefutably preparing a murderous attack on his/her fellow-human beings, and in the sights of a Typhoon, requires or deserves the same (ie instant, lethal) response from the agencies of HMG as a comparable Brit (or even the same Brit a few weeks later) who turns up with his/her UK Passport in the Immigration line at Heathrow. :roll:
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1576124
kanga wrote:I am reluctant to accept that a Brit on the front line in (say) Eastern Syria evidently and irrefutably preparing a murderous attack on his/her fellow-human beings, and in the sights of a Typhoon, requires or deserves the same (ie instant, lethal) response from the agencies of HMG as a comparable Brit (or even the same Brit a few weeks later) who turns up with his/her UK Passport in the Immigration line at Heathrow. :roll:


I must have missed the point where that was being suggested? :?

That said, should it be the same Brit returning after carrying out a murderous attack because the Typhoon didn't, in your view legitimately, kill him before he murdered it seems rather perverse that a lesser punishment should be more appropriate.

Or, is that in the name being civilised, to somehow give us a moral high ground? If so is the moral high ground the reserve of those not directly effected? Is said moral high ground washed away by the blood of relatives who unwittingly become embroiled?
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576126
Or, is that in the name being civilised, to somehow give us a moral high ground? If so is the moral high ground the reserve of those not directly effected? Is said moral high ground washed away by the blood of relatives who unwittingly become embroiled?


We saw this in the second world war, where some bereaved were still able to distinguish between Nazis and ordinary Germans and others weren't. Those who retained the moral high ground could see that Germans might also be bereaved and were able to forgive, though not forget, and move on.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1576131
Trouble is, John, there is no moving on and there never will be. Sadly this determination to hold the moral high ground, which let's face it is a notion, only facilitates the enemy.

It's like having a determination to take boxing gloves to a gun fight because one doesn't believe in guns, in the sense that it serves the enemy's purpose.

The more I read the more convinced I become that holding the moral high ground to claim being civilised is more important than any number of innocent British civilian lives, women, children and men alike.
Last edited by Miscellaneous on Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Katamarino liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576133
Miscellaneous wrote:I must have missed the point where that was being suggested? :?


Those advocating the death of the terrorists don't seem to make any distinction.

Miscellaneous wrote:The more I read the more convinced I become that holding the moral high ground to claim being civilised is more important than any number of innocent British civilian lives, women, children and me alike.


What sort of rubbish is that?

Nobody is suggesting that at all.

What John and others (including) me are saying is that we should stick to the law and ensure that law is appropriate and appropriately applied to those who break the law.

Not sticking to the law is always going to end up as a sticky mess with worse for all involved.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576135
The more I read the more convinced I become that holding the moral high ground to claim being civilised is more important than any number of innocent British civilian lives, women, children and me alike.


It's not as simple or black and white as that. However an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a very primitive response. If we throw away the moral high ground, how do we then judge rapists, murderers, terrorists, rioters etc. etc.

We have to establish some moral standards and then develop systems of justice that reflect those and then stick to them as best we can. In this context "we" is everybody and that's why engaging marginalised citizens through education and other initiatives is so important. There is then less motivation for them to do bad things. We are unlikely to eliminate the mentally ill or plain evil and we need sensible ways to deal with them too.
User avatar
By FlarePath
#1576140
They are violent organised criminals and we should be using the criminal justice system to address the issue.


Rubbish.

to try and compare the Irish problem Is utterly ludicrous. That was a specific Irish/British problem that did not involve every Catholic from all over the world inflicting terror on us by uniting as "brothers in arms" and attacking indiscriminantly. Even though the Irish troubles were essentially brought about by religion it was more the political side that dominated.

For all those who are trying the pointless "Hearts & Minds" policy as a way of stopping those vile bastards inflicting their twisted stone-age mentality on the rest of us. The so true statement by Edmund Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" is prevelant here and unfortunately in Westminster too.

The inference that these "people" are not soldiers is naive to say the least and as such should be subject to war conditions. I do not believe that they should be killed outright when presenting themselves at Heathrow but are legitimate targets while in those areas deemed to be in conflict with our way of life.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1576142
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Those advocating the death of the terrorists don't seem to make any distinction.

Is it a similar kind of rubbish to how your view of seem becomes fact? :wink:

I didn't claim anyone was suggesting it, FD.

The remark comes from my observations of the lack of political will, itself a consequence of lack of public support, to change the laws to appropriate laws. The reason, IMO, being a fear of the backlash from 'society', to at least the members of society still removed from the atrocities.

I whole heartedly agree we should operate within the law, but let's get them sorted! :thumleft:
Last edited by Miscellaneous on Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By romille
#1576143
johnm wrote:They are entirely comparable, the IRA wanted a united Catholic Ireland and their support was there because Catholics in NI were the subject of oppression and discrimination. Conversely protestants wanted to cling to their position which they saw as dependent on support from the rest of the UK.


I agree that in the dim and distant past the catholic minority had been oppressed but that was not the situation in the 1980/90's. The IRA and Loyalist organisations were thugs that extorted money from the population at large. I am also aware that a large part of the catholic minority were not in favour of a united Ireland and did not support or condone the IRA or it's actions. The reason the IRA began to negotiate was down to dwindling support and the realisation that The Armalite and the ballot box strategty would never work.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576144
FlarePath wrote: I do not believe that they should be killed outright when presenting themselves at Heathrow but are legitimate targets while in those areas deemed to be in conflict with our way of life.


The ministers and others -including on this thread, seem to suggest there is no difference whether they present themselves at LHR or in the various hotspots.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576145
I don't disagree that they are legitimate targets if fighting in a civil war in a foreign country on the opposite side to that which we are actively supporting, they are clearly legitimate targets WHILE THEY ARE THERE.

Should they return then they are potentially criminals and should be treated as such.
ChrisT liked this
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1576146
FlarePath wrote:
The inference that these "people" are not soldiers is naive to say the least and as such should be subject to war conditions. I do not believe that they should be killed outright when presenting themselves at Heathrow but are legitimate targets while in those areas deemed to be in conflict with our way of life.


They are legitimate targets if engaged in/preparing for acts of violence. If they have laid down arms or are trying to surrender, wherever this may be, then they are not -- the Defence Minister is asking UK forces potentially to break international law and commit war crimes.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7