Killings of off-duty Military personel.

[DiscoDancer]

I don't want to appear disloyal, unsympathetic or not to add my condolences to the families of military personel who lose their lives in whatever casue they are pursuing, but:
Can somebody explain the difference between the Lee Rigby killing and the many drone killings of so called terrorists in their family homes, cars or social gatherings?
Surely in all instances the off-duty military personel are killed (use whatever word you wish for "killed") by enemy miltrary personel.
One important difference I can see is how the killing is described by whatever government happens to be in power.
The other, perhaps more important difference is that Lee Rigby, alone died. Whereas a drone may kill all the family or many of the social gathering.

TBH, if I took an outsiders view, I would sugest that a difference is that between a rifle tactic and a shotgun approach.

 

[cajar]

I think you make a good point actually. The only way to reconcile these two situations is to decide that morality doesn't come into it, the only truth is that its ok to act in our own country's interests.

To sustain our civilised way of life, there must be brutality and bloodshed at the sharper end. We will never be in a position where we are grateful for the end of brutality, only grateful that we are far from it.

Quote George Orwell "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

 

[ellal]

Can somebody explain the difference between the Lee Rigby killing and the many drone killings of so called terrorists in their family homes, cars or social gatherings?

You won't get many sensible replies here because too many numpties swallow the official 'but they are the enemy' line...

edit: cajars' line "The only way to reconcile these two situations is to decide that morality doesn't come into it, the only truth is that its ok to act in our own country's interests." is proof of that way of thinking!

 

[cajar]

Without putting words in your mouth then ellal, I would presume your opinion is that our country's military strategy should be led by personal morality? ie killing an innocent person is always wrong because it's immoral?

 

[DiscoDancer]

Our great leaders obviously believe that they are pursuing the moral line, hence the use of the various terms for civilian casualties, as an attempt to minimise public reaction to those casualties, and the use of such terms to describe the various killings, whether of our military personel or 'theirs'.

If you believe that there should no place for claims to morality in the pursuit of war, (as I beginning to realise, although some wars may considered 'just') then all instances, deeds or agression should be described similarly. But then propoganda would be the biggest casualty.

 

[JBR]

Without putting words in your mouth then ellal, I would presume your opinion is that our country's military strategy should be led by personal morality? ie killing an innocent person is always wrong because it's immoral?

And that's why we shall always be at a disadvantage. Still, we can always regard ourselves as being morally superior!

 

[DiscoDancer]

/......... Still, we can always regard ourselves as being morally superior!

How so?

 

[ellal]

Without putting words in your mouth then ellal, I would presume your opinion is that our country's military strategy should be led by personal morality? ie killing an innocent person is always wrong because it's immoral?

Bingo...

Similarly I would presume that since you are questioning that thinking, then you believe that the killing of innocent civilians is acceptable since they are just 'collateral damage'?

 

[cajar]

But we're not though, JBR, that's just what the politicians tell the people. When 9/11 happened, it was mass murder, but americans have been sending drones to strike houses of enemy personnel where their families are and it's 'collatoral damage'.

The point is whether you accept that we have to be brutal against the enemy in order to protect and maintain our way of life, and realise that morality is just a smokescreen to get the public on side, or not.

 

[cajar]

Bingo...

Similarly I would presume that since you are questioning that thinking, then you believe that the killing of innocent civilians is acceptable since they are just 'collateral damage'?

Not in the slightest, but I do acknowledge the fact that unless the enemy has the same high morals and behaves accordingly, then the consequences for such morals could result in far more brutality in the long run.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't want to appear disloyal,

But, ideologically you are.

unsympathetic or not to add my condolences to the families of military personel who lose their lives in whatever casue they are pursuing,

Ok.

but: Can somebody explain the difference

I'll try.

between the Lee Rigby killing and the many drone killings of so called terrorists in their family homes, cars or social gatherings?

I presume the drone killings are targeted at strategic personnel, the removal of whom will, hopefully, have some effect on the outcome of the dispute/war.
The targets are, again presumably, not private Abdul walking home from the shops.
The killing of Lee Rigby by non-nationals (other than religious sympathisers) will have no effect on the outcome other than to enrage those on this side.

Surely in all instances the off-duty military personel are killed (use whatever word you wish for "killed") by enemy miltrary personel.

Are Rigby's killers 'military personnel'?
Had they escaped to the land they love I expect they would have also been charged and found guilty of murder because of the Geneva Convention.

One important difference I can see is how the killing is described by whatever government happens to be in power.

That is true but you may watch Al jazeera; can the other side watch the BBC?

The other, perhaps more important difference is that Lee Rigby, alone died. Whereas a drone may kill all the family or many of the social gathering.

True but that is 'war'.
Are you suggesting we send in individual 'brainwashees' to take out the leader of the Taliban and/or Al Queda and then accept the verdict of his fair trial.
(Will have to wait and see for Homeland to finish on Sunday)

TBH, if I took an outsiders view, I would sugest that a difference is that between a rifle tactic and a shotgun approach.

Again, true but that is how it works.

It would seem to be the converse of the Irish 'troubles' when the 'enemy' used the shotgun.

I suppose it boils down to whose side you are on or presumably if you are impartial you do not mind which side wins.
A view seemingly not shared by the majority of this forum.

Perhaps your views are tempered by the fact that it is not likely that they will take over Britain.
You may feel differently if you lived in Israel.

 

[DiscoDancer]

/............
The point is whether you accept that we have to be brutal against the enemy in order to protect and maintain our way of life, ..../

I would agree with your sentiment cajar, but, why is it not easier, cheaper, more morally acceptable, less risky to defend our way of life in our own borders, rather than 'taking the fight to the enemy'?

Surely by taking the fight to the enemy, thus incurring the civilian casualties in the process and killing the enemy during their off-duty time, we have lost any moral ground to which we laid claim.

 

[ellal]

but I do acknowledge the fact that unless the enemy has the same high morals and behaves accordingly, then the consequences for such morals could result in far more brutality in the long run.

reverse that logic and you might just come up with a thing called a 'moral high ground'...

 

[DiscoDancer]

I presume the drone killings are targeted at strategic personnel, the removal of whom will, hopefully, have some effect on the outcome of the dispute/war.
The targets are, again presumably, not private Abdul walking home from the shops.
The killing of Lee Rigby by non-nationals (other than religious sympathisers) will have no effect on the outcome other than to enrage those on this side.

Whereas the killing of all members of the family, women and children and/or the killing of friends who happen to be there at the time does not enrage the 'enemy' Or perhaps it's supposed to demoralise them?

Had they escaped to the land they love I expect they would have also been charged and found guilty of murder because of the Geneva Convention.

But did we consider deporting the soldier who killed the wounded enemy, be dealt with by the country in which the act had been perpetrated. Shouldn't our moral high ground have considered that?

That is true but you may watch Al jazeera; can the other side watch the BBC?

Well we certainly broadcast to them in the hope that our propanda reaches them.

Are you suggesting we send in individual 'brainwashees' to take out the leader of the Taliban and/or Al Queda and then accept the verdict of his fair trial.

Then why should we expect the killers of Lee Rigby to recognise our judicial systems?

It would seem to be the converse of the Irish 'troubles' when the 'enemy' used the shotgun.

But were we a little indiscriminate in the past?

A view seemingly not shared by the majority of this forum.

Maybe but that doesn't make it right

Perhaps your views are tempered by the fact that it is not likely that they will take over Britain.
You may feel differently if you lived in Israel.

But it is likely, in their view that they will be taken over by the western imperialists, just as palestinians are being taken over.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I presume the drone killings are targeted at strategic personnel, the removal of whom will, hopefully, have some effect on the outcome of the dispute/war.
The targets are, again presumably, not private Abdul walking home from the shops.
The killing of Lee Rigby by non-nationals (other than religious sympathisers) will have no effect on the outcome other than to enrage those on this side.

Whereas the killing of all members of the family, women and children and/or the killing of friends who happen to be there at the time does not enrage the 'enemy' Or perhaps it's supposed to demoralise them?

It is sad but that is war.

Had they escaped to the land they love I expect they would have also been charged and found guilty of murder because of the Geneva Convention.

But did we consider deporting the soldier who killed the wounded enemy, be dealt with by the country in which the act had been perpetrated. Shouldn't our moral high ground have considered that?

I think you have missed the irony in my post.
Had they escaped or been deported they would have been treated as heroes and the Geneva Convention ignored.

Are you suggesting we send in individual 'brainwashees' to take out the leader of the Taliban and/or Al Queda and then accept the verdict of his fair trial.

Then why should we expect the killers of Lee Rigby to recognise our judicial systems?

Whether they recognise it or not they are here.

It would seem to be the converse of the Irish 'troubles' when the 'enemy' used the shotgun.

But were we a little indiscriminate in the past?

Maybe but not as indiscriminately.

A view seemingly not shared by the majority of this forum.

Maybe but that doesn't make it right

If replicated throughout the country then by our pseudo democracy it should.

Perhaps your views are tempered by the fact that it is not likely that they will take over Britain.
You may feel differently if you lived in Israel.

But it is likely, in their view that they will be taken over by the western imperialists, just as palestinians are being taken over.

Are we invading for that purpose or in retaliation.
It depends how far back you want to go.

I quite favour chucking out the Normans.