Nuremberg set the precedent in international law that soldiers are responsible for their actions so it's an important point to make, I think it was fairly clear that no comparison was being implied beyond the legal and moral responsibility of soldiers for their own choices. I don't really want to be drawn into a fruitless debate about the specifics of Iraq or Afghanistan. It's obvious that governments are primarily responsible and should be held accountable for the wars they start, but it is also a well established legal principle that soldiers themselves have a clear moral obligation to obey their conscience even if it means disobeying political orders. With a volunteer army there is simply no excuse: it's plainly a free choice and I hold soliders responsible for that choice. I don't respect or support troops who take part in wars of aggression, they have a moral duty not to do so, that they have made the choices they have means they are part of the problem, do not deserve respect and should be held accountable for their actions...
im not blaming the cause of the war on the soldiers, but its the soldiers who fight the war. i dunno how clear i can make this... but if you go into a recruitment office and sign up for the army, that is you signing up for the army and not the government sure the government tells you where to go and who to shoot... but you're a human being with moral choices. its not like a standard career where you can just sigh and think to yourself 'gee, this sure is a lousy job,' because you're job is about using violence to twist the politics of the world. just because someone is in the army it doesn't make them defunct from making moral decisions. if you don't like it go awol or refuse. thats not cowardice, its morality
^^But what confuses me is, you used WW2 as an example of where you support troops becuase Britain was in danger (I know that conscription was introduced- but not at first). But its not like Britain had to get involved at all. Hitler was perfectly happy to make peace with us and he greatly admired Britain. It could be argued that Britain got involved becuase it was the right thing to do, or rather in order to increase Britain's power over Europe. If Hitler had gotton too powerful, Britain may no longer have been a key player in European affairs. And you also agreed with me (Or at least didn't disagree) concerning the Cold War, the Falklands, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and basically everything except our last two wars. So I am just wandering why is World War 2 that much different then modern wars. It still involves fighting and death, it was still the British government trying to twist the world of politics through violence, it was still Britain sticking its nose in the buisness of other countries. So why the big distinction?
Personally I would say notions of Britain going into WW2 either as an act of self-defence or for humanitarian reasons are largely retrospective fictions. While it did turn out that the Nazis needed stopping and were committing almost unprecedented acts of genocide, turning the war (retrospectively) into a "just war", it was far from that simple at the time, and Britain joined the war for political reasons, as you say. The question of whether or not the Holocaust would have happened if there hadn't been a world war makes the question too complicated to disentangle... WW2 was (like all wars) a scourge, a disaster, a senseless waste, and in very few ways can it be considered successful or justified. That many see it as unproblematically a "just war" is a gross oversimplification. Atrocities were committed on all sides, the Allies' use of firebombing of civilian targets and the atom bombs against Japan could retrospectively be considered war crimes, so personally I wouldn't see there being too big a distinction, except perhaps in the fact that the Allies were not initially the aggressors as 'we' were in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan...
Islam4UK can march through Wootton Basset if they want, but as they say they're doing it there solely for maximum publicity. It will upset the relatives of dead British soldiers which is a shame, but Islam4UK are effectively fighting a war against our current system of Western democracy, and as Shakespeare said all's fair in love and war. The Green movement use similar tactics, e.g. flying flags from Big Ben to attract maximum attention. I don't want to see the UK become an Islamic state so I don't support their action, but I feel they do have a point in wanting to highlight the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan. I don't think we will ever "win" the war in Afghanistan, and I think it has only served to recruit more extremists against the West, we should never have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq, whether they were illegal actions or not is irrelevant in my view, and what's so moral about a "legal" war? You're still killing people.
Very true, I suppose I'd say that I'm not an "idiot pacifist" who would rather get killed than kill, and I accept that there may be times when going to war is the least bad option. Those times are exceptionally rare, and you'd need to be sure that your actions are going to prevent more harm than they cause. Such as in the case of military action to prevent a current and ongoing genocide. Almost never does offensive military action fulfil these criteria and prevent more harm than it causes. Starting an aggressive war against a nation is obviously going to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of people who would otherwise be alive... yes it's incredibly clear that 'our' actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have made bad situations much, much worse, made the world more dangerous and caused (directly and indirectly) the deaths of almost certainly well over a million people...
A protest should be against the government who sent troops to war, not at a place where the dead are taken to be buried. A protest in Wootton Bassett would almost be like one in a cemetery, and unacceptable.
It is distasteful. I guess that's the point. It makes me (and obviously others) think of all the dead British servicemen, the senseless and tragic waste on all sides, so I guess they're making their point, probably in fact a much wider point than they wanted to make
For those who are interested, Islam4UK has cancelled their plans for a demonstration. It seems it was purely a publicity stunt designed to create controversy and anger- which it did rather well. They have done similar things in the past (Announced plans for controversial marches before cancelling them). Can't say I am upset. Would have been better if the media just ignored them though.
despite the fact its been canceled i think the anger surrounding it was justified. Islam4UK were clearly disrespecting all our soldiers which had died by choosing Wootton Basset. And yes while it would have been better for the media to ignore them everyone knows thats not going to happen. Look at the swine flu, apocalypse is here for example. As for Islam4UK itself, i believe it is a disgusting group purely for the fact its clearly trying to alter our country into sumthing it its not...
By David Wooding, 10/01/2010 AN EXTREMIST Islamic group planning to march through a war heroes' town will be OUTLAWED this week. Home Secretary Alan Johnson will use his powers to smash warped organisations run by hate-preacher Anjem Choudary. He is expected to impose anti-terror laws as early as tomorrow to ban al-Muhajiroun and its latest offshoot Islam4UK. http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/new...or-laws-on-Anjem-Choudarys-organisations.html Probably jumped before they were pushed. Tbh, I don't think these idiots care that much about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan...a hint in their title: Islam4UK.
If that's the case (and it only seems to be reported in the News of the World so that remains unclear) I would like to know what this organisation has done to contravene the Terrorism Act. Their previous incarnation al-Muhajiroun seems to have been banned for "glorifying" terrorism, ie. suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were justified. As far as I can tell, this proposed march was to be a peaceful demonstration. There's no law against being tasteless and provocative, in fact it's a common technique for democratic protest. How can we allow the BNP - many of whose members have close links to illegal activities including Griffin himself - to be a legitimate political party and ban this group of incompetent idiots? Banning an extremist group does not make its members go away, it just drives them underground, and quite possibly makes them seem like an underdog, attracting even more support. Far better these people and their ludicrous ideas are exposed to the full light of day to be exposed for what they are. Not to mention the fact they have every right to protest peacefully wherever and about whatever they like. Put them on Question Time...
So would I. We'll have to see what these guys are banned for, if they are indeed banned. Marching through Wootton Bassett probably wouldn't have helped their case not to be banned. All we have are their words - which seem to be a little disingenuous. We'll never know now, though, what they had planned, and the consequences of their actions. The possible banning of the group seems to be unrelated to the march. *shrugs shoulders"...You got me! If any Muslims join a group called "Islam4UK"...at any point in the near future - regardless if the group is banned, and perhaps sent "underground" - then those Muslims probably felt that way anyway...they want Islam for the UK. It's like people who join the BNP and say: "I'm not racist, but..." Their ideas have been exposed to the full light of day: Islam for the UK.
I found the facebook group to be full of distgusting racist rants so I was originally all for them having a march but I haven't had time to read all the infomation, I'm a little detatched from the world recently but I did see they were banned on the news tonight and they way they span the story on the news changed my mind, but as I haven't looked into it much I'm not sure where I stand at the moment, like I would support someones right to protest, but for example I would support a KKK march regardless of their freedom of speech, so with this Woottoon Basset thing I don't know which side of the line it falls upon.
