Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yesterday on the major news outlets, it was reported that 2 radical Islamic extremists beheaded a British soldier in broad daylight in full view of the general public. They were shot by the cops but still alive. Now, why do some people want to believe that we can be rational with Islamic extremists?

I don't know anyone who doesn't think Extremist Muslims are dangerous. That's a valence position--the debate is between people who see a distinction between extremist and non-extremist Muslims and those who don't, and also whether combating Islamic terrorism necessitates voiding our own principles.

This was a shocking attack, but it doesn't really change anything. "Dangerous Islamists are dangerous" is what we take away from this.

It is a very sad death. And I agree with Omega Vision. And it is shocking to see it close to home with people.

However this particular incident imo raises the question, since the UK is currently, by its own standards, at war in Afghanistan (and has been with other places recently) could this be considered an act of war?

OV, you sound like a dangerous islamist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a very sad death. And I agree with Omega Vision. And it is shocking to see it close to home with people.

However this particular incident imo raises the question, since the UK is currently, by its own standards, at war in Afghanistan (and has been with other places recently) could this be considered an act of war? Do you ask because they would be treated as pow?

Originally posted by Mindset
Do you ask because they would be treated as pow?

I ask because I'm unsure, and not very knowledgable about the topic.

I want to phrase this in a way as to not say something outrageously offensive, and I am pretty sure I fail at it, but it seems to me that, if these men identify with the Taliban (or even some greater Islamic force or whatever) targeting a soldier in the UK, is somewhat equivalent to what has happened for the last 12 years in Afghanistan (where I believe over 400 UK soldiers have been killed).

It is a legal term and I think it only applies to specific recruits of national armies. I'm not sure what would be the case in terms of a contractor, but I don't think the UK is under any legal obligation to treat these individuals as soldiers barring some weird revelations.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Now, why do some people want to believe that we can be rational with Islamic extremists?

Who believes this?

I guess what got me thinking was Glenn Greenwald's article about whether this was an act of terror http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback


Under my understanding of what terrorism is it definitely was an act of terrorism (although so are many acts that the US does in its wars). But it made me think that in some way killing soldiers in the UK, by someone identifying with or working for (whatever that means) the Taliban (if they even did that, it's purely hypothetical really), is equivalent to the casualties over in Afghanistan (or Iraq). Do you understand what I'm getting at? It feels different because it's not far away, but that's sort of artificially limiting the field of the war.

If the Taliban in Afghanistan were a more equal anymore there'd be soldiers (and civilians) killed at home constantly.

(there's also things that do make it different of course, like that they were residents of England for example, of course)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess what got me thinking was Glenn Greenwald's article about whether this was an act of terror http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback


Under my understanding of what terrorism is it definitely was an act of terrorism (although so are many acts that the US does in its wars). But it made me think that in some way killing soldiers in the UK, by someone identifying with or working for (whatever that means) the Taliban (if they even did that, it's purely hypothetical really), is equivalent to the casualties over in Afghanistan (or Iraq). Do you understand what I'm getting at? It feels different because it's not far away, but that's sort of artificially limiting the field of the war.

If the Taliban in Afghanistan were a more equal anymore there'd be soldiers (and civilians) killed at home constantly.

(there's also things that do make it different of course, like that they were residents of England for example, of course) Are you asking what makes this different from a general act of war?

Originally posted by Newjak
Are you asking what makes this different from a general act of war?

Yeah, I guess so.

The thing is that the Taliban aren't a real nation, so I'm not sure if you can even be at war (by the legal definition) with them.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The thing is that the Taliban aren't a real nation, so I'm not sure if you can even be at war (by the legal definition) with them. Maybe because of legality you might not be able to call it a war but honestly based on war in terms of history I don't think you need to have a recognized nation to be at war with them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I guess so. I don't think this really is any different. Wars are messy and bloody things. Terrorism, infiltration of the enemy and doing things to them even on their own soil is pretty routine and standard.

Originally posted by Newjak
Maybe because of legality you might not be able to call it a war but honestly based on war in terms of history I don't think you need to have a recognized nation to be at war with them.

It's more than just a legal formality. If you're fighting an enemy without a tangible territory, without a conventional government, and without diplomatic recognition it makes negotiations more difficult and makes it almost impossible to guarantee the rules of war are being followed by either side.


You're saying that the war with the Taliban is a de facto war, and I suppose I can agree with that, but the conflict itself is more like an insurgency.

And even so, I'm not sure how closely linked the perpetrators here are to the Afghan Taliban. There is however a historical parallel to what Bardock may have been getting at: the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Nationalist was at best incidentally connected to the Serbian government by all accounts that I've read, yet Austro-Hungary took it as an act of war by Serbia against them and so started WWI. (On a side note, I take issue with people saying that Princip "started the war"--clearly his acts were the catalyst, but shouldn't we lay the real blame on the saber-rattling empires that made the declarations of war?)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's more than just a legal formality. If you're fighting an enemy without a tangible territory, without a conventional government, and without diplomatic recognition it makes negotiations more difficult and makes it almost impossible to guarantee the rules of war are being followed by either side.


You're saying that the war with the Taliban is a de facto war, and I suppose I can agree with that, but the conflict itself is more like an insurgency.

And even so, I'm not sure how closely linked the perpetrators here are to the Afghan Taliban. There is however a historical parallel to what Bardock may have been getting at: the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Nationalist was at best incidentally connected to the Serbian government by all accounts that I've read, yet Austro-Hungary took it as an act of war by Serbia against them. Depending on the battle or war or time period you are talking about there really aren't any rules to war.

But I can see where you are coming from.

Originally posted by Newjak
Depending on the battle or war or time period you are talking about there really aren't any rules to war.

But I can see where you are coming from.
There's a story about Alexander the Great (who knows how accurate it was, I believe it was written in Augustine's City of God) where early in his conquests he forged an alliance with a certain maritime city-state/nation (I forget which) by hunting down and capturing a notorious pirate and destroying his fleet. Just before the pirate king's execution Alexander admonishes him for preying on merchants and raiding coastal villages, and the pirate king says something to the effect that the only difference between the two of them is that Alexander the Great commands a land empire while the pirate king commanded ships at sea, but one is called a conqueror while the other is called a pirate.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's a story about Alexander the Great (who knows how accurate it was, I believe it was written in Augustine's City of God) where early in his conquests he forged an alliance with a certain maritime city-state/nation (I forget which) by hunting down and capturing a notorious pirate and destroying his fleet. Just before the pirate king's execution Alexander admonishes him for preying on merchants and raiding coastal villages, and the pirate king says something to the effect that the only difference between the two of them is that Alexander the Great commands a land empire while the pirate king commanded ships at sea, but one is called a conqueror while the other is called a pirate.

The main difference ultimately may be that Alexander won.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess what got me thinking was Glenn Greenwald's article about whether this was an act of terror http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

For the most part I almost always agree with Glenn, and in terms of "what philosophically or morally constitutes terrorism or war", you, I and he will likely raise the same issues.

I think the specific reason why the UK wouldn't give these individuals the same rights allocated to POWs is that they don't fit the specific definition outlined in the treaties the UK is party to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's a story about Alexander the Great (who knows how accurate it was, I believe it was written in Augustine's City of God) where early in his conquests he forged an alliance with a certain maritime city-state/nation (I forget which) by hunting down and capturing a notorious pirate and destroying his fleet. Just before the pirate king's execution Alexander admonishes him for preying on merchants and raiding coastal villages, and the pirate king says something to the effect that the only difference between the two of them is that Alexander the Great commands a land empire while the pirate king commanded ships at sea, but one is called a conqueror while the other is called a pirate.

I like

Noam Chomsky used the anecdote as the basis for one of his books.

Edit: Classifying them as soldiers wouldn't afford them much rights as far as I know, the Geneva Convention talks about the treatment of civilians in war, but it doesn't say much about the treatment of soldiers from non-signatory nations. I could be wrong though, I haven't read the whole thing.

They dragged a person into public and cut his head off? How does something like that even happen?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They dragged a person into public and cut his head off? How does something like that even happen?
I think they also ran him over first.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: Classifying them as soldiers wouldn't afford them much rights as far as I know, the Geneva Convention talks about the treatment of civilians in war, but it doesn't say much about the treatment of soldiers from non-signatory nations. I could be wrong though, I haven't read the whole thing.

my bad, I wasn't trying to suggest there are more rights given to POWs, just that a nation wouldn't subject themselves to international scrutiny under POW laws if they could just use domestic charges

This is just disgusting. These extremist Islamists should be ashamed of themselves.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know anyone who doesn't think Extremist Muslims are dangerous. That's a valence position--the debate is between people who see a distinction between extremist and non-extremist Muslims and those who don't, and also whether combating Islamic terrorism necessitates voiding our own principles.

.

One has to wonder why the "non extremist" muslims aren't outraged and protesting everytime something like this happens.

They did. As I recall, there have been a number of public condemnationions of extremists by the muslim community.

since 9-11, mainstream Muslim groups have done nothing but condemn violence in their community. the press rarely shows up

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
They did. As I recall, there have been a number of public condemnationions of extremists by the muslim community. Originally posted by Oliver North
since 9-11, mainstream Muslim groups have done nothing but condemn violence in their community. the press rarely shows up

It's not the duty of the ignorant bigot to do his research, okay?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
One has to wonder why the "non extremist" muslims aren't outraged and protesting everytime something like this happens. The first groups to respond to these kinds of incidents are moderate Muslim organizations, and with good reason: they have to work extra hard to keep from getting scapegoated in a nation where lots of people believe Sikhs are Muslims.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not the duty of the ignorant bigot to do his research, okay?

Hey, you're only half right, but at least I'm honest

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Hey, you're only half right, but at least I'm honest

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However this particular incident imo raises the question, since the UK is currently, by its own standards, at war in Afghanistan (and has been with other places recently) could this be considered an act of war?
Nope. No more than Theo Van Gogh's murder was an act of war.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
they have to work extra hard to keep from getting scapegoated in a nation where lots of people believe Sikhs are Muslims.
From a purely technical point of view, they don't have to worry about being scapegoated at all then. Since it's the Sikhs, who, semi-literally and semi-metaphorically speaking, get "scapegoated" as Muslims.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
From a purely technical point of view, they don't have to worry about being scapegoated at all then. Since it's the Sikhs, who, semi-literally and semi-metaphorically speaking, get "scapegoated" as Muslims.
I brought up the Sikhs as an illustration of how broad a brush most Americans use to paint Muslims or "Muslims"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I brought up the Sikhs as an illustration of how broad a brush most Americans use to paint Muslims or "Muslims"
I know why you referred Sikhs in particular(and South Asians in general, if my guess of your intent is correct here).

The most shocking thing about this incident was that it took the Metropolitan Police half an hour to get an armed response unit to the scene. The only reason the perps didn't escape or kill more people is that they chose not to.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I know why you referred Sikhs in particular(and South Asians in general, if my guess of your intent is correct here).
I refer to Sikhs and not Hindus (though they also get confused at times for Muslims) because Sikhs wear turbans, and a lot of Americans see turbans and think "Muslim."

Correction: 13 minutes (I misheard).

That's still quite a bit of time for the terrorists to have escaped or claimed more victims.

in a major city, 13 minutes is embarrassing for an assault call...

I'm pretty sure the Niceville sheriff's office/police department would respond in half that time to a public beheading.

Originally posted by Oliver North
in a major city, 13 minutes is embarrassing for an assault call...

13 minutes for armed response. British police aren't armed. They could have had general police on the scene much faster (and indeed they did, but they held back for the ARU) but an armed response unit needs to be specifically detailed to get going. 13 minutes is bloody good for London coverage.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
13 minutes for armed response. British police aren't armed. They could have had general police on the scene much faster (and indeed they did, but they held back for the ARU) but an armed response unit needs to be specifically detailed to get going. 13 minutes is bloody good for London coverage.

ah, my bad

Originally posted by Ushgarak
13 minutes for armed response. British police aren't armed. They could have had general police on the scene much faster (and indeed they did, but they held back for the ARU) but an armed response unit needs to be specifically detailed to get going. 13 minutes is bloody good for London coverage.
This does however bring up a question about whether the UK's police forces have sufficient numbers of armed officers. I understand the reasons for the UK not wanting to arm every policeman, but what's the ratio at now? How many armed officers are there within a hundred policemen?

Virtually none, and literally none by default unless a Chief Constable deploys firearms in response to a perceived threat. There is just a small group of very highly trained officers, working on a volunteer only basis, who get called in to respond to dangerous incidents; they only collect their guns when so called.

But it doesn't really raise that question, because the current setup proved perfect for dealing with this.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This does however bring up a question about whether the UK's police forces have sufficient numbers of armed officers.

This statement, although appropriate, worries me. The government using this to get more armed police on the streets.

In this case it wouldn't have mattered if beat police were armed unless one of them happened to be right there as the incident happened. From what appears to have happened. They attackers mounted the pavement in their car, knocked the victim down before hitting a road sign, jumped out and immediately started a frenzied knife and meat cleaver attack on him. He may have even been killed by the car running him over. Either way he was dead within a minute of them running him over and then hung around waiting for police. So unless there was an armed officer who happened to be right at the scene then it wouldn't have mattered. The the victim would still be dead.

Originally posted by jaden101
In this case it wouldn't have mattered if beat police were armed unless one of them happened to be right there as the incident happened. From what appears to have happened. They attackers mounted the pavement in their car, knocked the victim down before hitting a road sign, jumped out and immediately started a frenzied knife and meat cleaver attack on him. He may have even been killed by the car running him over. Either way he was dead within a minute of them running him over and then hung around waiting for police. So unless there was an armed officer who happened to be right at the scene then it wouldn't have mattered. The the victim would still be dead.
That was never my point. My point is that a lot can happen in 13 minutes if you don't have armed officers who can deal with men armed with knives and guns.

it is a very strange precedence that the UK has, when compared to places where there is no such assumption of unarmed police...

I don't see the argument that says this is a "crass political game" as a final answer, though I don't know a better place to start. Especially in a context where some perspectives will not be considered in a final analysis of aide distribution, but clearly there is a division between people in the state who want to effect real change and those attempting to be enforced by lobbyists.

huh...

ugh...

KMC wont host my atheist views....

Originally posted by Oliver North
but clearly there is a division between people in the state who want to effect real change and those attempting to be enforced by lobbyists.

Are lobbyists not defined by their desire to change?

There's been a copy cat style attack in France on a soldier there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are lobbyists not defined by their desire to change?

true...

though, I've read through that post probably a dozen times now and have absolutely no idea what I was trying to say, and it is likely a lot of booze are the reason...

It's been a rough couple of days, don't judge me

Glenn Beck, as poignant as always:

JyPTDcLAPz0

EDIT: Get him!

All hail the radio tough guy.

Let's not forget that the Greatest Generation said "Get him!" before lynchings. I bet Glenn Beck would like those to happen again.