The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Because she’s living in the shithole that she voluntarily opted to go and live in, that’s the punishment and I can’t personally think of anything more appropriate.

Your personal opinion, or anyone’s personal opinion, isn’t how punishments are decided. And neither should it be

[NurembergVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

If that's somehow an analogy to the use of unmanned aircraft by the RAF to terrorism, then it's also as awry as Scott's post, IMO. But we're in danger of going off the topic of baby-eating tories here.

Sort of, but more where women and kids are accidental victims.

Either way, I appreciate it was somewhat trite.

[chrisp65]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

Sort of, but more where women and kids are accidental victims.

Either way, I appreciate it was somewhat trite.

Except it wasn’t was it.

If I was a Yemeni parent of some child killed by Saudi military sold british bombs with their RAF ‘technicians and advisors’ in the room, I think I’d deserve to wonder how that was any different.

Do the RAF people in the room and the people selling the bombs knowing what’s happening deserve enhanced human rights over and above a 15 year old female?

That’s the problem when we start to grade the right of access to human rights and justice.

That in no way at all attempts to plead on behalf of Begum. Just justice and human rights.

[NurembergVillan]

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Except it wasn’t was it.

If I was a Yemeni parent of some child killed by Saudi military sold british bombs with their RAF ‘technicians and advisors’ in the room, I think I’d deserve to wonder how that was any different.

Do the RAF people in the room and the people selling the bombs knowing what’s happening deserve enhanced human rights over and above a 15 year old female?

That’s the problem when we start to grade the right of access to human rights and justice.

That in no way at all attempts to plead on behalf of Begum. Just justice and human rights.

Also true.

Where my head was at originally was that the aims of a terrorist are their belief in a just cause.  Same as signing up to the military.  That what constitutes "just" is debatable is one thing, but everyone involved is aware of the likelihood of "collateral damage".

You could make a strong argument that Begum herself is collateral damage...

[blandy]

11 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

the aims of a terrorist are their belief in a just cause.  Same as signing up to the military

Not the same. Not remotely the same in my experience.  I signed up for the military. I didn’t do so because of a belief or cause, just or otherwise. Bluntly it was more about a mix of lack of jobs in Thatcher’s Britain, no desire to go into further education, and the opportunity of travel, and a biggie was learning a trade that would hopefully see me right for life while getting paid. I liked aircraft too.  And I’m pretty sure that the majority, if not all my fellow apprentices were similar. I didn’t want to shoot anyone, or get shot at, I didn’t do it to make the world safer or whatever. It turned out that in a very minuscule way I did help keep people safe, by keeping the aircraft flying to perform Search and Rescue, through arms headed for the IRA being tracked and intercepted, or Russian subs and spy ships being found and monitored. I’m happy with that.  Net result no one dead, some lives prevented from being lost. I left long ago, of course.

Thats just one person’s experience and it doesn’t prove anyone right or wrong, but maybe it’s a tiny counter to some narratives that the British Armed forces and the people in them are a bit like terrorists and just as guilty, or the result is the same, and all the rest.

Its probably the case that the Tories are less likely now to embark on wars than previous governments.  We’ll be too skint for a start. Maybe that’ll lead to fewer terrorists being created, maybe it won’t. But they still have to protect the people of the UK, from virus, from head choppers, from Russian and Chinese government malign actions. They’re not doing a very good job of all that all things considered.

 

[snowychap]

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not the same. Not remotely the same in my experience.  I signed up for the military. I didn’t do so because of a belief or cause, just or otherwise.

It might well be the case (indeed it's often put forward as the case) that a lot of people who end up fighting for 'terrorist' causes also fall in to it for various reasons (lack of jobs/opportunities, lack of direction, disenchantment and frustration with the world around them, looking for a sense of belonging, &c.) and not because they, at the point of joining up, are fully committed fighters for a cause.

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Back on topic :

 

[chrisp65]

48 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It might well be the case (indeed it's often put forward as the case) that a lot of people who end up fighting for 'terrorist' causes also fall in to it for various reasons (lack of jobs/opportunities, lack of direction, disenchantment and frustration with the world around them, looking for a sense of belonging, &c.) and not because they, at the point of joining up, are fully committed fighters for a cause.

 

Weren’t ISIS the only organisation paying any wages and organising any food distribution across swathes of land at one point?

 

[bannedfromHandV]

48 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It might well be the case (indeed it's often put forward as the case) that a lot of people who end up fighting for 'terrorist' causes also fall in to it for various reasons (lack of jobs/opportunities, lack of direction, disenchantment and frustration with the world around them, looking for a sense of belonging, &c.) and not because they, at the point of joining up, are fully committed fighters for a cause.

 

Are we honestly now suggesting that people just 'fall into' terrorism?

 

Like it's some kind of random career choice.

 

 

[chrisp65]

56 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Always looking at a debate and taking whichever side happens to fall into the moral high-ground category?

You wouldn’t take the moral high ground?

You’d look at an argument, see what you absolutely believed was right and true and fair and decent, and argue for something else?

That would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it?

 

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It might well be the case (indeed it's often put forward as the case) that a lot of people who end up fighting for 'terrorist' causes also fall in to it for various reasons (lack of jobs/opportunities, lack of direction, disenchantment and frustration with the world around them, looking for a sense of belonging, &c.) and not because they, at the point of joining up, are fully committed fighters for a cause.

It often is, yes. Of course that applies to all kinds of things and jobs. It's another reason why the analogy (IMO) is rubbish (sorry Rob). Because if people wish they can find almost anything has something in common with almost anything else - but that doesn't make them "the same as". I know Rob and Chris and maybe others weren't trying to say that being in the RAF was just like being a terrorist, however I think that there's a world of difference between the, if you like "Primary motivation" of radical Islamic terrorist groups and the primary motivation of the armed forces, or between the actions performed when acting as a member of the armed forces v radical Islamic terrorists. Our Government sets out laws and rules of engagement and regulations for the conduct of the military. There are international conventions and laws also governing those same things. None of that bounds terrorist organisations or their members.

Chris is right that the mother of a dead child killed by the Saudi military is going to grieve the same as the mother of a child killed by that Manchester numpty, but I's say that the numpty intended to do what he did. The RAF people in Saudi are trying (and having some success) to prevent the Saudi's from performing bad targeting, killing civilians and all the rest. Of course, there is a civil war going on in Yemen, around which neighbouring countries have formed coalitions supporting one side or the other and ending up only making the horrors worse.

Our government has chosen to, over many decades, "support" KSA through military equipment sales, training, facilities and all the rest. The return "we" get is money, which ultimately keeps people in jobs, pays taxes that pay for hospitals, schools and all the rest. It doesn't "justify" what the UK does - but you can't deny that there are upsides as well as downsides for the UK as well as the Saudis. And having decided to make that bargain, "we" are continually trying to influence the Saudis to be better, to have more care and more respect for life and "our" values. At best that seems to ebb and flow in terms of success, but looking from the outside it's clearly not anywhere near having had the success we'd have wanted. The Tories had to be prevented by the courts from selling some kit to the Saudis fairly recently. On the other side Iran is militarily supporting the Houthis who are similarly to the Saudis causing civilian deaths through shelling civilians, landmines, executions and all the rest. It's a proper catastrophe. I suppose the Tory Government (or the next one) will have to decide whether to kind of cut the chord, with all the negatives that has for the UK - from job losses to financial hit etc) and hope that Saudi doesn't simply go to Russia or China or the USA and say "we need some planes and bombs please, here's a bag of loot", or to carry on trying to gradually bring about change, and so keep the benefits we get, while accepting that Saudi is very imperfect and therefore there will be blood on our hands.

The UN has imposed arms embargos, and resolutions about peaceful negotiated solutions and all of that kind of stuff, but until the Houthis, the Yemeni Gov't, the Saudis, Iran, UAE and the other local participants actually want to stop the war, nothing will change. In that context, the RAF people in Saudi endeavouring to minimise civilian deaths are probably doing a good thing, though no one will thank them for it, because it's easy (not the right word, I know) to point at the bodies of dead children, feel utterly appalled and horrified and conclude "this has to, has to stop". It's the how that's the hard part. Taking away those RAF people won't stop it.

 

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Are we honestly now suggesting that people just 'fall into' terrorism?

Like it's some kind of random career choice.

 

Depending on accidents of geography, it could be life or death, for you and your family.

Not for those sat on message boards in their bedroom in Croydon, no, they have far more personal choice and personal guilt.

But for millions, the vast majority with minimal education and minimal knowledge of the world, it’s the only way to money and food and a semblance of security.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

You wouldn’t take the moral high ground?

You’d look at an argument, see what you absolutely believed was right and true and fair and decent, and argue for something else?

That would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it?

No. It's common. The moral high ground is not to eat meat. The moral high ground is not to Fly...there are a million examples that underline people don't do that.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

No. It's common. The moral high ground is not to eat meat. The moral high ground is not to Fly...there are a million examples that underline people don't do that.

That’s a fair point.

Annoyingly.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

That’s a fair point.

Annoyingly.

Humans is complicated innit.

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Are we honestly now suggesting that people just 'fall into' terrorism?

 

Like it's some kind of random career choice.

 

 

Erm, well, yes.

People can easily fall into radicalisation. What can start innocently can spiral quite rapidly without either you, nor your loved ones even realising it. 

[LondonLax]

17 hours ago, cyrusr said:

I think that my problem with this is that in essence its "trial by media". You have made your own mind up about it based on an interview she has done. That doesn't account for how she was prepared for the interview, whether it took into account her own difficulties, whether she was led to give those answers. I understand that she has significant learning difficulties and would constitute a "vulnerable witness". She is far more susceptible to being led and coerced. Think "Making a Murderer" as an easy example of how bad it could be. The point I am making is that it is usually never as clear cut as it is made out by the media, hence the need to ensure trials are done properly and fairly. It is why the cut in legal aid and criminal justice should be bigger news than it is, but that is another issue altogether. 

I think to be fair to you as well, we are all guilty of falling for "Trial by Media"  (Prince Andrew, Johnny Depp just as current examples). My criticism is more of an indictment of modern society rather than anything specific. With social media, instant reaction is easy to get and quick to be forgotten when the world moves onto the next issue having already prejudged what has happened without all the facts.  

Except Prince Andrew is dead set guilty though

[snowychap]

36 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Are we honestly now suggesting that people just 'fall into' terrorism?

Yes, absolutely. Especially some of those in western societies.

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

Our Government sets out laws and rules of engagement and regulations for the conduct of the military. There are international conventions and laws also governing those same things.

Hmm, yes, they might.

It doesn't mean that they're adhered to all the time by individuals, or from a policy perspective by those making the actual decisions (politicians or military bigwigs), or that you don't see countless people of a 'military' persuasion advocating ignoring those things or even politicians (of all stripes) turning blind eyes to things like rendition flights or nations apparently subscribing to these norms inventing justifications for torture or ways to get around the conventions or declarations about 'enemy combatants', &c.

Yes, you may be right that some military advisors are trying to reduce civilian casualties when they're advising regimes like Saudi Arabia in their bombing campaigns but I very much doubt your blanket 'this [to prevent the Saudis from...] is what they are trying to do' applies as it really doesn't apply to other, recent military campaigns carried out by western militaries where collateral damage seems not only to be acceptable but rather to be part of the point.

I can get your personal interest in the defence of the UK millitary perspective but painting it as a group of good guys intent on obeying and trying to do the right thing is frankly bizarre.

Edited July 17, 2020 by snowychap

[Jareth]

15 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Because she’s living in the shithole that she voluntarily opted to go and live in, that’s the punishment and I can’t personally think of anything more appropriate.

Dude, respect your opinion and understand it - but I have to think that if we are to be 'Global Britain' and stand alone, we need to take responsibility for our **** ups. 

[snowychap]

38 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Weren’t ISIS the only organisation paying any wages and organising any food distribution across swathes of land at one point?

To be fair, I was mainly thinking of the recruitment of those in western societies where a certain amount of preying on the vulnerable seems very much to be the case but going back to the time a couple of years ago when they were apparently running the area they controlled with a certain amount of actual governance then I think your point is a good one.