Jump to content

The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"


legov

Recommended Posts

If they succeed and kill him will the government be condemned for ordering that?

Again, there is a vast difference between 'condemning' and questioning the actions, intent and trustworthiness of the state carrying out actions where the public justification is just an utterance from a politician.

From my point of view, I think it's a dodgy situation for a nation's people to allow themselves to get in to accept, without question, that the actions of the state are only going to be in the best interests of its people (they may arguably be in a 'national interest' but I'm not sure that always coincides with the best interests of its people). Therefore, if extraordinary measures are to be taken (and if those measures are to remain extraordinary and not become routine) it behoves the people (and their representatives) to hold the state (and the executive on its behalf) to account when those actions are taken.

That for me is a real solution to these problems.

 

I think that depends very much on the context.  When dealing with domestic issues I think the above is absolutely spot on. When it is in regard to known terrorists where an individual's mere presence is conclusive proof of their intentions (if you travel to Syria and join IS then you are de-facto a terrorist) then applying the same nuances is simply not possible for practical and security reasons. Just because people may wish to know 100% of the detail around an event overseas or all about the circumstances of a highly specific case like with this individual, that's not the same as having the right to know. 

Anyway, he's dead. Hooray. Next please.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm really struggling to comprehend what alternative course of action is available to Cameron in the circumstances of this particular case.

I fully accept your point Snowy that it is foolish of a people to accept without question, that a Government's actions are always in the best interests of its people. I also accept the charge that in this particular case that is what I'm doing but I think like the action itself its justified. I think in domestic politics we have seen and continue to see examples of policy that isn't in the peoples best interest. (although that is often a question of political outlook) We have too seen examples in international politics too not least going into Iraq in the first place.

However like AWOL I personally feel that there is little debate to be hand in the context of this particular example. I guess you could argue that the execution of these individuals in counter productive in the longer term objective of healing the growing rift between the West and chunks of its own citizens. It would be hard to argue against that.

But those domestically who take issue with our actions in this case (I don't mean those such as yourself who object on points of principle or law) are already lost, they are already lost to the West to an ideology of hate, not a religion of hate I stress. Very few I'd imagine will make the journey back to the Western values.

In my mind, once individuals have crossed the Rubicon and fled the West to Syria and joined ISIS they are terrorists. There is no grey area, no room for doubt or debate.

Once intelligence is such they are deemed to be a credible threat to the UK then I would want, no I would expect our Government to take action by whatever means are available to them. Given the location of these individuals and our on going reluctance to put boots on the ground then the action taken seems to me the only available option and one that is entirely justified.

As much as I'd love to know more about what these individuals had planned and what led the Government to take this course of action I simply accept that those things will likely never happen. I accept that as being for the greater good but can understand why others might not given past events.

But that returns me to my initial point, what alternative is there when someone is a direct threat to the lives of UK citizens but they are out of the reach of international law or even the clutches of Special Forces?

Had Cameron not acted on whatever intelligence they saw fit to act upon and an IS supporter under the direction of these individuals launched an attack on the Bull Ring tomorrow killing a hundred shoppers. Would the Government then be culpable? I would argue they would be, actually I'd argue they had been negligent in the duties.

So in this particular case I'm prepared to accept the Governments actions and more than that I'm grateful to them for making that call and I'm glad that I'm not the one having to make it. This action is so extreme, so at odds with our previous involvement in Syria that it clearly in my mind warranted it.

 

Edited by TrentVilla
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really interested to see if people have a real solution to these problems in mind.

It's not going to be a quick fix, because it's such a mess.

Have you ever read 'Mr Nice' the Howard Marks biography Awol?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me is worried about having to trust the government to act out in our best interests when killing people abroad without us having seen the evidence or knowing exactly what is going on.  I don't trust anyone in government and neither should anyone else.  However, part of me is quite glad we have taken some action against ISIS, especially against those who are obviously looking to kill innocent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me is worried about having to trust the government to act out in our best interests when killing people abroad without us having seen the evidence or knowing exactly what is going on.  I don't trust anyone in government and neither should anyone else.  However, part of me is quite glad we have taken some action against ISIS, especially against those who are obviously looking to kill innocent people.

I'd say if the Government were to be crystal clear to joe public about what operations they are partaking in, that would be the stupidest **** idea ever.  And would lead to many more problems than what they solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me is worried about having to trust the government to act out in our best interests when killing people abroad without us having seen the evidence or knowing exactly what is going on.  I don't trust anyone in government and neither should anyone else.  However, part of me is quite glad we have taken some action against ISIS, especially against those who are obviously looking to kill innocent people.

I'd say if the Government were to be crystal clear to joe public about what operations they are partaking in, that would be the stupidest **** idea ever.  And would lead to many more problems than what they solve.

I don't disagree. However, it doesn't mean I trust them anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile....

Russia is building airbases in Syria to bomb ISIS and support Assad. That could be game changer in Syria in terms of ISIS but can't be good for the region in the longer term.

 

 

Good let Russia do the dirty work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really interested to see if people have a real solution to these problems in mind.

It's not going to be a quick fix, because it's such a mess.

Have you ever read 'Mr Nice' the Howard Marks biography Awol?

Yes, about 1997/98. Too long ago to be making the connection though - or maybe too much of his product since then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon Jenkins (who I usually regard as an insufferable buffoon) had a good column on this today. I've highlighted the key parts I agree with:

'It sounded good, but did it sound right? David Cameron’s Commons explanation of the execution of three Britons in Syria eerily recalled Tony Blair on the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that posed “an imminent threat” to British national security.

Blair killed stone dead the thesis that such assertions by ministers should be taken on trust. The suspicion has to be that British intelligence had a tag on the suspect Britons for some time and got lucky. British planes had been operating over Syria all summer, with orders to disregard parliament’s veto on military action if targets were of sufficient “value”.

 

As it stands, the visible evidence against them related to events that had already taken place peacefully. The threats appear mere bravado. If not, the more reason for explaining what exactly was the threat, other than “recruitment”.

 

Cameron’s lawyers were content that action was essential to prevent what international law recognises as an “occurring or imminent” Article-51 threat, notified to the United Nations. That law envisaged an army moving to cross a frontier, not a 21-year-old Cardiff terrorist. Even so, I doubt if anyone would quarrel with Cameron’s decision were a threat to be specific and ongoing – with ministers knowing about it in advance. But the menace would have to be so great as to justify the near certainty, as indeed happened, that bystanders would also die, as they have in dozens of American drone attacks (in retaliation for no conceivable “threat” to the American people).

 

It is the likelihood of an attack, not a threat of one, that must be substantiated. Asymmetric wars may demand new rules of engagement. But new rules must be reasoned openly.

 

Cameron’s covering news of the executions with an announcement on refugee relief looks suspiciously like a guilty conscience. Even at some risk to intelligence, he has absolutely no interest in Blair-like obfuscation.

 

The root of this trouble is an ongoing failure to define a “war on terror”. Calling an embryo caliphate “an existential threat to Britain’s national security”, as has Cameron, is not just an absurdity. It implies a government with no confidence in the resilience of the British state against a genuine military threat. It suggests ministers have lost all sense of proportion in matters of security.

 

Crazy youths who go abroad to fight in other people’s wars and make bloodcurdling threats against British people certainly merit drastic countermeasures. But they are criminals who would kill and maim. They do not threaten the state or its security. Nor do they justify the suspension of the rule of law or the traditions of open accountability. To claim otherwise is simply to concede victory to the enemy.

 

The proper question to ask of these actions is, who has benefited? The answer has to be the forces of violence in the Middle East. They need no further encouragement from Britain. As for the claim that drone strikes in Syria are the best way to tackle the refugee crisis at source, no one can believe that.'

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they left hear to go and fight for islamic state and they preached about hate and attacking the uk. for the life of me i cant understand how anyone could stick up for these two people and say maybe they were not terrorists,how can they not be? and its typical of this country to question if it was the right thing to do, of course it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, about 1997/98. Too long ago to be making the connection though - or maybe too much of his product since then. 

He enters the region looking to trade and finds a tribal people just getting on with it. Growing crops (in this case marijuana) and raising families.They have no time for central government or wandering bandits, both of whom they'd shoo off by whatever means worked for them. Borders on maps mean little, they have their patch for crops and look after their own.

Approaching as a trader Marks is welcomed, and sees a side to the locals that doesn't sell newspapers.

The Yanks and the Soviets both enjoyed tremendous military power, yet without support from the locals, suffered campaigns ending in humiliation.

The folks on the ground need to be behind the foreign troops to succeed, and then any success to stick.

So help them out on their terms. Don't try introducing Western (or Communist) ideas of government. Let them live in their tribal communities, help them out when they're threatened by the religious halfwits.

Oh, and buy their marijuana.

Anyone got better ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they left hear to go and fight for islamic state and they preached about hate and attacking the uk. for the life of me i cant understand how anyone could stick up for these two people and say maybe they were not terrorists,how can they not be? and its typical of this country to question if it was the right thing to do, of course it was.

How do you know any of these facts? I haven't seen anyone "sticking up for these two people". I've not seen any evidence of them being terrorists. I've read that it is true, but then I've read that Jimmy Saville was a really nice guy. I completely support this action and I expect that we'll learn more about it in time. I'm still sceptical when an authority figure claims something without evidence. Being sceptical should be the norm.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok why were they over there? and why were they in isis propoganda videos? no if's or but's on this one they deserved to be wiped out without any hesitation, but for instance i felt something was not right regarding the whole saddam hussein saga and that turned out that it was a complete conspiracy. bring back saddam thats what i say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

I thought one of them or both of them were in an ISIS video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, once individuals have crossed the Rubicon and fled the West to Syria and joined ISIS they are terrorists. There is no grey area, no room for doubt or debate.

Once intelligence is such they are deemed to be a credible threat to the UK then I would want, no I would expect our Government to take action by whatever means are available to them. Given the location of these individuals and our on going reluctance to put boots on the ground then the action taken seems to me the only available option and one that is entirely justified.

In which case the government should be making the case in general for this kind of action in parliament. Your post recognizes, in part, the point that I am trying to make that it is about more than 'the circumstances of this particular case', it's about a general situation.

If this were to have been a one off action that was actually justified under the article 51 self-defence thing and that the danger was imminent then it's an exception; if, however, it's a case of saying that anyone over there under the IS banner is therefore a terrorist and fair game for assassination (in this case being bombed by a drone controlled by the RAF) whenever the opportunity arises (which was the point I've made several times earlier in the thread) then the government ought to be making the case before parliament. I've been out today but I think I heard Fallon on record earlier saying that there could well be many more such targets to be taken out in the same way and for the same reasons. This would suggest to me that, if not the action itself, the circumstances surrounding it were the result more of a political decision rather than a 'national security' one as a prelude to further action possibly because the government are not prepared to take their case to parliament (or bring a motion) until 'there is consensus'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â