Beheading in London
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?
Originally posted by Bardock42Do you ask because they would be treated as pow?
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?
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).
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 Bardock42Are you asking what makes this different from a general act of war?
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-blowbackUnder 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 Omega VisionMaybe 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.
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 Bardock42I 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.
Yeah, I guess so.
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.
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 VisionDepending on the battle or war or time period you are talking about there really aren't any rules to war.
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.
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.
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.