Restoring the Death Penalty in Britain

[Anonymous]

Then you must be ashamed to have so many cold blooded killers (or at the very least, instruments of state sponsored execution) in your family if you cannot make the distinction. That's a shame. I would be proud of that heritage if I were you.

I'm very proud of my heritage :)

And I'm not ashamed to have "instruments of state sponsored execution" in my family, no. Everybody has their own cross to bear, and it isn't my duty to bear theirs. It's like when people say "well, you have to respect my beliefs!"; no I don't, I can find someone's beliefs utterly ludicrous and ridiculous, but I respect their humanity, just as I do for the same type of people who others want to use the death penalty to kill.

I would also say that unless you have experienced the bond of soldierly brotherhood, then you would never be able to understand it, in the same way that I cannot. But this is the same mantra that I have been told by every member of the armed services that I know that has gone into action. You may say "you know the way it is", but the truth is you don't. You think you do. But you do not, your lineage cannot change that and I'm sure any of our active members on the board will agree.

To be fair, you do have a point on this.

Damocles, in your view, was fighting the Second World War itself immoral. There were many atrocities committed within it which were in my view, but was fighting in it generally - outside said atrocities, immoral? Forget defending the country. In my view there was never a serious invasion threat to these isles anyway but let's say from September 17th 1940 onwards, was fighting in that war - atrocities aside, immoral?

I don't profess to be an expert on the Second World War; certainly not fit to lace your boots on it, but from my readings, the war was a defensive rather than offensive war. There was a clear and present danger to Britain and its territories from invasion by another state. I do not see the same threat in any of our current wars.

 

[SWP's back]

Where do you stand morally on protecting the civilians in Afghanistan now Damo? If we were to withdraw (ignore us being there in the first place as if you came to power tomorrow you wouldn't be able to change the past), would younmorally feel comfortable in allowing the Taliban to usurp power once again with all that would entail for the majority of Afghan's? (summary execution, implementation of extreme Sharia law, banning of tvs, playing with kites, education for females etc).

When is something worth fighting for? Can you only fight in defence of you're own country? Its just we didn't in 1914 & 1939, we were the ones in no danger at any time and we were the ones that declared warnon others. I'm ignoring the Falklands as it's a more controversial war. You say the world wars were defensive but we declared war in support ofmother nations.

 

[Damocles]

You mean a picture of a bus detonated by a guy who was born in Leeds, educated in Leeds, played footy and cricket for his local team and left the country only when he went to Mecca?

This shows that Afghanistan and Iraq is a defensive war?<br /><br />-- Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:27 pm --<br /><br />

Where do you stand morally on protecting the civilians in Afghanistan now Damo? If we were to withdraw (ignore us being there in the first place as if you cam to power tomorrow you wouldn't be able to change the past), would morally feel comfortable in allowing the Taliban to usurp power once again with all that would entail for the majority of Afghan's? (summary execution, implementation of extreme Sharia law, banning of tvs, playing with kites, education for females etc).

Tough question. I'd still pull out, simply because it's not our job to Police them. The Arab Spring has shown (amongst numerous revolutions in history), that the people will arise when and if they can/desire to.

Self determination is the bedrock of a free society. Us going in and removing them does nothing and this viewpoint only serves to make them a nation state of Britain.

You know that I'm going to throw the argument back at you here about why we fail to protect millions of others worldwide, and I presume you have a suitable answer prepared :)

When is something worth fighting for? Can you only fight in defence of you're own country? Its just we didn't in 1914 & 1939, we were the ones in no danger at any time and we were the ones that declared warnon others. I'm ignoring the Falklands as it's a more controversial war. You say the world wars were defensive but we declared war in support ofmother nations.

Yes, you can only fight in a purely defensive war. In both World Wars, as I'm sure you're aware and ignoring for the point of debate, there was a legitimate threat by a state that had plans on global domination. That's defensive, in my book.

 

[Anonymous]

You mean a picture of a bus detonated by a guy who was born in Leeds, educated in Leeds, played footy and cricket for his local team and left the country only when he went to Mecca?

This shows that Afghanistan and Iraq is a defensive war?

He shared the same views as the taliban. it's just an image to show quite clearly that we are always at risk from an outside (well technically this was inside) attack.

the man who detonated the bomb received instruction from AL Qaeda just because he was born in the country he was part of the group that we are fighting against.

therefore i think we need to carry on and win this war.

 

[Skashion]

I don't profess to be an expert on the Second World War; certainly not fit to lace your boots on it, but from my readings, the war was a defensive rather than offensive war. There was a clear and present danger to Britain and its territories from invasion by another state. I do not see the same threat in any of our current wars.

Most historians and certainly the ones where the Battle of Britain is their specialist area, have acknowledged the chances of a successful invasion were almost non-existent. That view wasn't held at the time though, and rightly so, arrogance has undone armies from the dawn of war. It was also the case that Hitler wanted peace with Britain and so we could have exited the war in that way. It was an option. I still have Battle of Britain Night - Aftermath (BBC4 Special) where Stephen Bungay and James Holland discussed it and if either of you are interested I'll upload it gladly.

My view on it this is that, knowing the atrocities that were being committed against the Jews from the earliest stages of Barbarossa, it was legitimate to fight the war beyond the bounds of our shores and skies in order to annihilate the regime that was committing them rather than seeking peace.

 

[Damocles]

He shared the same views as the taliban. it's just an image to show quite clearly that we are always at risk from an outside (well technically this was inside) attack.

We're always at risk from an outside attack, we have been since the beginning of history. Should the army of Norway now invade Vatican City because some Christians live there?

the man who detonated the bomb received instruction from AL Qaeda just because he was born in the country he was part of the group that we are fighting against.

If you can prove that, you'll be the only one.

therefore i think we need to carry on and win this war.

Define "win".

 

[SWP's back]

Tough question. I'd still pull out, simply because it's not our job to Police them. The Arab Spring has shown (amongst numerous revolutions in history), that the people will arise when and if they can/desire to.

Self determination is the bedrock of a free society. Us going in and removing them does nothing and this viewpoint only serves to make them a nation state of Britain.

You know that I'm going to throw the argument back at you here about why we fail to protect millions of others worldwide, and I presume you have a suitable answer prepared :)



Yes, you can only fight in a purely defensive war. In both World Wars, as I'm sure you're aware and ignoring for the point of debate, there was a legitimate threat by a state that had plans on global domination. That's defensive, in my book.

I'd pull out of everywhere to be honest. We spend too much on "defence". Let the US play world police if they wish.

As for the world wars, our nation state and empire were never under threat before we entered either war and certainly Hitler would have loved nothing more than to have Britain as anything but an adversary.<br /><br />-- Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:40 pm --<br /><br />

I don't profess to be an expert on the Second World War; certainly not fit to lace your boots on it, but from my readings, the war was a defensive rather than offensive war. There was a clear and present danger to Britain and its territories from invasion by another state. I do not see the same threat in any of our current wars.

Most historians and certainly the ones where the Battle of Britain is their specialist area, have acknowledged the chances of a successful invasion were almost non-existent. That view wasn't held at the time though, and rightly so, arrogance has undone armies from the dawn of war. It was also the case that Hitler wanted peace with Britain and so we could have exited the war in that way. It was an option. I still have Battle of Britain Night - Aftermath (BBC4 Special) where Stephen Bungay and James Holland discussed it and if either of you are interested I'll upload it gladly.

My view on it this is that, knowing the atrocities that were being committed against the Jews from the earliest stages of Barbarossa, it was legitimate to fight the war beyond the bounds of our shores and skies in order to annihilate the regime that was committing them rather than seeking peace.

I'd love to watch that if you ever get a chance to upload thanks mate.

 

[Skashion]

I'd love to watch that if you ever get a chance to upload thanks mate.

No probs, will do. Probably leave it to upload over night.

 

[SWP's back]

I'd love to watch that if you ever get a chance to upload thanks mate.

No probs, will do. Probably leave it to upload over night.

Many thanks

 

[Anonymous]

He shared the same views as the taliban. it's just an image to show quite clearly that we are always at risk from an outside (well technically this was inside) attack.

We're always at risk from an outside attack, we have been since the beginning of history. Should the army of Norway now invade Vatican City because some Christians live there?

the man who detonated the bomb received instruction from AL Qaeda just because he was born in the country he was part of the group that we are fighting against.

If you can prove that, you'll be the only one.

therefore i think we need to carry on and win this war.

Define "win".

well firstly, you say we have always been at risk which is very true but that would mean we were during WW2 as well as now, al qaeda is our main worry like the nazi's were (obviously the nazis were a much greater power) so i think it's important to go to war against our greatest threat, don't you?

secondly. im sure i heard on the news we had intercepted calls between the men who did the attack and members of al qaeda elsewhere? i could be wrong though.

and lastly, by the term win, i should think that would be defeating the taliban to a point where the taliban has no power in afghanistan over it's people anymore and no power.