I see where the widow of a British soldier from here is upset. She feels her husband’s death has been diminished, because she wasn’t invited to the unveiling yesterday of a memorial to the British soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It must be hard indeed for a younger woman to lose her husband so early in life. Whether she should see a non-invitation to the unveiling of that memorial as important is another matter.
The monument was dedicated to all the British soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the early part of this century. There were quite a few of them – my calculation makes it somewhere between 600 and 700 British soldiers. They were killed in two foreign countries – Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of miles from their homes, by people from those countries.
In Iraq alone, between 112,000 and 125,000 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed in the same period. If we add another 30,000 Afghan civilians killed, we get a total somewhere around 150, 000 people.
Was there any indication of sorrow or sympathy for these innocents caught up in the wars where British soldiers were killed? Any element of contrition? Alas, no. If you were blunt-speaking, you might point out that the British soldiers were heavily armed and fighting in another country a long way from home, while the native victims were unarmed and in their own country. But war memorials don’t allow for that kind of wider picture. Theirs not to reason why/ Theirs but to do and die.
And the DUP is outraged (again) by Michelle O’Neill’s attendance at the commemoration of four IRA men killed in her home town.
‘No Man is an Island’
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
A little Vanilla ripple from R. Kipling,Esteemed Blogmeister, might not be entirely inapropos,
It is the last verse from his pome ‘The Young English Soldier’ and might well be used as a not entirely inappropriate insert on a Christmas card one might be thinking of sending in the direction of the chinless leaders and cheer-leaders of the Khaki Whackos on both sides of the Irish Sea.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
Jude drawing equivalence again between the legitimate armed forces of a state and an illegal illegitimate terror gang.
Disgusting.
Why?
Presumably because he views the Provisional IRA as legitimate, but you’d need to ask him directly.
Why, MT?
“Why, MT?”
Only Jude can answer that. I wouldn’t like to presume.
Both groups killed people.
Surely drawing a comparison between them is reasonable?
“Both groups killed people.
Surely drawing a comparison between them is reasonable?”
Of course we can compare them: and when we do we conclude that they aren’t equivalent.
If they both killed people why arnt they equivalent?
“If they both killed people why arnt they equivalent?”
Because one is the legitimate armed forces of a democratic state, accountable to its parliament and under instruction of the democratically accountable government, recognised as legitimate by the people on whose behalf it acts and in international law, and the Provisional IRA was an illegal, unaccountable, unrepresentative criminal gang opposed by the people who it purported to represent.
Surely it’s the actual act of killing that holds more importance in the equivalency rather than who said it was ok to do the killing?
One group kills people = bad
Another group kills people = good
That seems strange.
“Surely it’s the actual act of killing that holds more importance in the equivalency rather than who said it was ok to do the killing?”
Hardly, given that legitimate and legal armed forces are allowed to kill people and, indeed, are authorised to do so, while.criminal gangs are not.
It’s not rocket science.
I’d imagine Iraqi, Afghani and other civilians round the world might see it extremely differently.
“I’d imagine Iraqi, Afghani and other civilians round the world might see it extremely differently”
If they’re unable to distinguish between the legitimacy of a particular war and the legitimacy of a state’s armed forces, yes.
I’d imagine Iraqi and Aghani civilians don’t see a foreign army in their land killing them as legitimate and care not a jot that the British government have gave them authority to do it.
“I’d imagine Iraqi and Aghani civilians don’t see a foreign army in their land killing them as legitimate and care not a jot that the British government have gave them authority to do it.”
Almost certainly, but that doesn’t mean thst the British, American and any other armed forces aren’t legitimate and lawful armed forces.
We’re discussing the legitimacy of thr armed forces themselves, not the legitimacy of particular conflicts to which they are sent.
But we are talking about the equivalency.
Which is why I suggested earlier that the actual act of killing holds more importance in the equivalency than who sent them or gave them the permission to do so?
Legal/lawful/legitimate does mean it’s right.
Many, many actions throughout history were deemed lawful/legitimate by those who perpetrated them, and their allies, at the time and indeed after. Did not mean they were right.
That’s why the equivalency is drawn between the actual action of killing and not who decided it was ok to do the killing. Legitimacy/lawfulness is transient.
British army kill civilians = that’s ok because the British government and/or their allies says it’s lawful/legitimate
IRA kill civilians = not ok
Surely killing civilians is simply wrong, regardless who said it was ok to do it?
Why are you arguing about the legitimacy of particular actions when the discussion is about the legitimacy of the organisation?
Obviously armed forces can and do take part illegitimate and illegal conflicts and sometimes within legitimate and legal ones they can and do commit unlawful actions. That does t mean they are illegitimate organisations.
It’s not a difficult distinction to make: are you deliberately trying to change the subject?
“Surely killing civilians is simply wrong, regardless who said it was ok to do it?”
Obviously that depends on the circumstances. Killing terrorists as they launch an attack, in protection of life, is not wrong. Killing someone walking down the street who doesn’t pose a threat to anyone is clearly wrong.
But that argument is irrelevant to the point in hand.
I’d suggest you’re the one trying to change the subject.
I’ve been talking about equivalency from the start.
There is equivalency between 2 groups who have killed innocent civilians.
“I’d suggest you’re the one trying to change the subject.
I’ve been talking about equivalency from the start.
There is equivalency between 2 groups who have killed innocent civilians.”
No. The discussion is about the equivalency of the armed forces of democratic states compared to terrorist groupings.
You’re trying to change it to a discussion about the equivalence of some actions of the former with the actions of the latter.
Presumably, then, you intend to use a fallacy (because some actions of the former are equivalent to those of the latter, that means the former organisation is equivalent to the latter organisation), to claim that the PIRA is equivalent to the British (and presumably all other states’) armed forces.
It’s a bit transparent.
There is clearly equivalency between 2 sets of groups who kill civilians.
It’s matters not if they are deemed “legitimate”.
Isn’t if weird how the invading force frequently deem themselves legitimate and yet the defending native force illegitimate, particularly where the British army is concerned?
As already mentioned legitimacy is transient. Therefore it should play no part in equivalency.
You shouldn’t presume to make assumptions MT.
“There is clearly equivalency between 2 sets of groups who kill civilians.”
Two sets of groups? What does that mean?
As for equivalency between two groups there may or may not be. It all depends on which groups.
“It’s matters not if they are deemed “legitimate”.”
But it does matter if they actually are legitimate or not.
“Isn’t if weird how the invading force frequently deem themselves legitimate and yet the defending native force illegitimate, particularly where the British army is concerned?”
The invading force doesn’t deem itself legitimate. In the case of UK and US forces, for example, they are objectively legitimate, being the lawful armed forces of legitimate democratic states.
Again you’re confusing the legitimacy of a particular war with the legitimacy of a state’s armed forces.
“As already mentioned legitimacy is transient. Therefore it should play no part in equivalency.”
Legitimacy isn’t transient.
“Two set of groups? What does that mean?”
It’s pretty self explanatory.
“But it does matter if they actually are legitimate or not”
No it doesn’t.
“The invading force doesn’t deem itself legitimate”
Yes it does.
“Again you’re confusing the legitimacy of a particular war with the legitimacy of a states armed forces”
No im not.
“Legitimacy isn’t transient”
Yes it is.
“It’s pretty self explanatory.”
No it isn’t. What have sets of groups got to do with anything?
“But it does matter if they actually are legitimate or not”
“No it doesn’t.”
Wow. Why do you think legitimacy doesn’t matter? Do you know what legitimacy means?
““The invading force doesn’t deem itself legitimate”
Yes it does.”
Does it? Well, even if it does that’s not what matters.
“Again you’re confusing the legitimacy of a particular war with the legitimacy of a states armed forces”
“No im not.”
Then why do you keep arguing about the legitimacy of particular wars?
“Legitimacy isn’t transient”
Yes it is.”
How?
“Do you know what legitimacy means?”
Yes. It’s still irrelevant.
“Then why do you keep arguing about the legitimacy of particular wars?”
I’m not
“How?”
It’s subjective.
““Do you know what legitimacy means?”
Yes. It’s still irrelevant.”
The meaning of legitimacy is irrelevant in a discussion about legitimacy?
““Then why do you keep arguing about the legitimacy of particular wars?”
I’m not:
Yes you are. You keep.going on about Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Does it? Well if it does that’s not what matters.”
I agree. It doesn’t matter.
“given that legitimate and legal armed forces are allowed to kill people ”
So, who in Iraq or Afghanistan (or any other country, for that matter) gave this permission to Britain to kill their people?
“So, who in Iraq or Afghanistan (or any other country, for that matter) gave this permission to Britain to kill their people?”
Parliament.
Where did the legitimacy of the British and American armies in Iraq and Afghanistan come from? Saddam had no WMD and the people of Britain protested in their hundreds of thousands against sending troops in
“Where did the legitimacy of the British and American armies in Iraq and Afghanistan come from?”
From Parliament and Congress respectively.
“Saddam had no WMD and the people of Britain protested in their hundreds of thousands against sending troops in”
I know. That doesnt make the armed forces illegitimate, though.
Do you approve then?
“Do you approve then?”
Is this directed at me?
Approve of what?
Governments sending their soldiers to attack countries on the basis of lies
“Governments sending their soldiers to attack countries on the basis of lies”
No, of course not. Do you?
Why are you defending the British action in Iraq and Afghanistan?
“Why are you defending the British action in Iraq and Afghanistan”
I’m not.
You’re not saying it was a legitimate action then?
“You’re not saying it was a legitimate action then?”
Saying what was a legitimate action?
The British action in Iraq and Afghanistan
“The British action in Iraq and Afghanistan”
Certainly not Iraq. And probably not Afghanistan. How about you?
So the actions of the British army in those conflicts were not legitimate and they should have had the moral courage to refuse to go, or mutiny?
I don’t suppose you have anything to say about the 50 years of sectarian bigotry and brutality that the Catholics of N. Ireland suffered under successive Unionist regimes..??
‘Disgusting’ – I’d say many families in Iraq and Afghanistan would find that a handy word to have in their vocabulary. And don’t refer to me as disgusting again, MT. I disagree vigorously with much of what you write/cut n paste, but I haven’t referred to you as ‘disgusting’. Yet.
“‘Disgusting’ – I’d say many families in Iraq and Afghanistan would find that a handy word to have in their vocabulary.”
So.do I but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also disgusting to seek to equate terrorist death squads with lawful state forces.
“And don’t refer to me as disgusting again, MT.”
I’ve never previously called you disgusting so.it’d not possible for me to do so again.
“I disagree vigorously with much of what you write/cut n paste, but I haven’t referred to you as ‘disgusting’. Yet.”
I should hope not.
Out of curiosity, Jude, is there an/any aspect of the PIRA campaign that you don’t support?
PF – are you saying I have expressed support for the IRA?
I have no idea what you think about the PIRA, hence the question.
Theirs not to reason why/theirs but to kill and kill with impunity.
This is from MT’s post.
“Where did the legitimacy of the British and American armies in Iraq and Afghanistan come from?”
”From Parliament and Congress respectively.”
So once Parliament and Congress deem it legal to invade another country then everything is fine and dandy. I think I will go and lie down for a while. All this deep thinking is becoming too much for me..
“So once Parliament and Congress deem it legal to invade another country then everything is fine and dandy. ”
Why do you think that?
The British government gives itself permission to invade another country, bomb that country and kill it’s civilians.
Buts that’s fine because it’s deemed itself “legitimate”?
Weird rationale that isn’t it?
“The British government gives itself permission to invade another country, bomb that country and kill it’s civilians.”
No. Parliament gives the government permission.
“Buts that’s fine because it’s deemed itself “legitimate”? ”
If you’re referring to Iraq, I don’t believe it was fine. In fact I opposed it. Did you?
“”Weird rationale that isn’t it?””
It would be, yes.
“No. Parliament gives the government permission”
Which is part of British government.
“Did you?”
Yes but that’s irrelevant.
You said that the parliament/congress conferred legitimacy on its armed forces.
“You said that the parliament/congress conferred legitimacy on its armed forces”
And?
And?
Ask the British people what they thought about those decisions. You think that just because a few overpaid, out of touch politicians make a decision to murder others in far away places that have nothing to do with them is ok does not make it ok.
The British people believe the British author of this destruction, Blair, should face a war crime tribunal and are deeply ashamed of it.
Wise up, MT.
“Ask the British people what they thought about those decisions. You think that just because a few overpaid, out of touch politicians make a decision to murder others in far away places that have nothing to do with them is ok does not make it ok.”
You seem to have a difficulty understanding the concept of parliamentary democracy.
You’re conflating two concepts:;the democratic legitimacy of a decision and whether or not a decision is right or wrong.
“”The British people believe the British author of this destruction, Blair, should face a war crime tribunal and are deeply ashamed of it.”
Many certainly do and are. But that is beside the point.
Wise up, MT.
“You’re conflating two concepts:;the democratic legitimacy of a decision and whether or not a decision is right or wrong.”
The decision is either right or wrong, irrespective of what sort of ‘legitimacy’ is bestowed upon it by politicians. The British people did not lend their support to the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.
And if I misunderstand Parliamentary Democracy, as you claim, then why did the British not overturn the result of the Brexit referendum.
You are all at sea here and you know it.
In fact, I see you as an apologist for murder – you have tried to legitimise the illegal invasion of two countries because some people voted for it (and even that, on the basis of lies).
“The decision is either right or wrong, irrespective of what sort of ‘legitimacy’ is bestowed upon it by politicians.”
You’re missing the point. A legitimate body may legitimately make a wrong decision. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate body. It has the right to make the decision even if it sometimes gets it wrong.
“The British people did not lend their support to the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.”
As I said, you don’t seem.to.understand the concept of parliamentary democracy. The british people elected a parliament to make decisions. They don’t make the decisions themselves.
Even if the British people had supported the invasions (and maybe they did – where’s fhe evidence to say they didn’t?), that wouldn’t have made it right.
“And if I misunderstand Parliamentary Democracy, as you claim, then why did the British not overturn the result of the Brexit referendum.”
Because they didn’t want to.
“You are all at sea here and you know it.”
I’m not. On the contrary, you are. You’re conflating different concepts and misunderstanding the nature of parliamentary democracy.
“In fact, I see you as an apologist for murder”
That’s odd, given that I oppose murder whereas I expect you support it.
“– you have tried to legitimise the illegal invasion of two countries because some people voted for it ”
No I haven’t. Where did I do that? (And by the way I’m not sure Afghanistan was illegal.)
“As I said, you don’t seem.to.understand the concept of parliamentary democracy.”
You don’t seem to understand where to put a full stop. Just sayin’.
As far as I can see the point Jude was trying to make was not about the legitimacy of Iraq/Afghanistan but about the failure to acknowledge all the lives lost including those killed by British forces.
This is a fair point and it is a pity that war memorials and commemorations do not do this.
Too often the focus is on the soldiers who lost their lives to the exclusion of the lives they took.
I expect IRA commemorations do not dwell on the lives of those killed by them either.