Sergeant Alexander Blackman, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

[SpontaneousOrder]

These were not from any of those countries, the only common link is Islam.

Is an ideological link via an arbitrary choice of religion any less tenuous than one formed by an arbitrary geographical delineation? I'm not arguing against, or supporting your general point btw - I personally feel that much of the muslim world is peopled by savages (as opposed to 'simply' ignorant people elsewhere). Just pointing out that this particular line of reasoning, in my opinion, is incorrect.

I also think such comparison are irrelevant

I agree with this, different reasons i already mentioned earlier though.

[xoggoth]

Is an ideological link via an arbitrary choice of religion any less tenuous than one formed by an arbitrary geographical delineation?

I might reply if I knew what that meant. An Arbitrary (ie random) choice? What is arbitrary about the link?

[SpontaneousOrder]

I might reply if I knew what that meant. An Arbitrary (ie random) choice? What is arbitrary about the link?

Well one is born of a particular nationality purely by chance, and would align themselves with other people who happen to have been born in the same country, which is really just a particular geographical region delimited by imaginary lines drawn onto a map. Those regional definitions are arbitrary insofar as there is no such 'thing' as a country - just people choosing to differentiate themselves from one another according to the geographical circumstances of their birth, which they had no influence over.

In the same way someone's religious views are generally entirely dependent on which part of the world they, or their families happened to be from. They are arbitrary, insofar as any choice is concerned, because the almost 100% majority of people in the world do not analyse the various religions on offer and pick theirs for any particular reason - they're just born into it, or their culture imprints it onto them.

I don't see how choosing to fight on the side of those who happened to be born somewhere near you is any more logical than choosing to fight on the side of those who happened to be born into circumstances such that they share the same ideological values that you do.

If anything fighting for a common ideology makes MORE sense, because there is at least the (admittedly unlikely as i've already mentioned) scope for some kind of choice in the matter which could be based on some kind of value judgement.

[minestrone]

Say what?

[xoggoth]

All a bit academic really. People do indeed identify with their own group, whether defined by religion, region or anything else. Because that is so it makes very little sense to take in any who are not prepared to, or cannot, assimilate in the UK.

Even leaving aside extreme cases like this, it causes unnecessary and costly divisions - investigating crimes within communities is far more difficult due to unwillingness of people to betray their own, failures lead to resentment bringing costly riots, we spend enormous sums on translators, equality laws etc etc. It beats me why we spent 2000 years building a modern nation and now appear bent on restoring a tribal system.

[gingerjedi]

Getting back to OP's question.

One was condemned by all sides, the other has been condoned (refused to condemn) by a minority of influential figures in the UK Muslim community.

Anyone hear John Humphrys this morning?

[Old Greg]

Getting back to OP's question.

One was condemned by all sides, the other has been condoned (refused to condemn) by a minority of influential figures in the UK Muslim community.

Anyone hear John Humphrys this morning?

Not actually condemned by all sides. The BNP is predictably square behind Sgt Blackman. I didn't know that in advance - just guessed and googled.

Linky prob NSFW Appeal to the Queen Elizabeth II for 'Marine A' | National News | British National Party

[RedSauce]

Very good post, I tried to ask something similar in the office yesterday but wasn't worded quite as well as this.

The media are a lot to blame, there was very little coverage of the Blackman killing compared to the Adebolajo/Adebowale one, when i mentioned it yesterday half the office weren't even aware of it. If 2 English guys went to Afghanistan and murdered a Taliban soldier in the same way as Rigby was slaughtered I'm sure many people wouldn't see too much of an issue with it and many of the DM readers would call them heros. These 2 situations have further reinforced my view that the British media and public are fundamentally racist.

[tomtomagain]

I think trying to compare the two incidents is completely ridiculous. They are not comparable.

One was the aftermath of a gun battle between two opposing forces. In which ( presumably ) both sides had been trying to kill each other. If the UK forces had had a cleaner shot on the target in the first place there would have been no discussion.

This took place in a recognised war-zone. The Taliban combatant paid the price for being involved in a war, as have many British soldiers over the last decade.


The second incident happened in a London street, which is not a war zone and is therefore a civil matter. There is no justification for murder outside a war zone. The two Michael's paid the price for being common criminals.

[minestrone]

I think trying to compare the two incidents is completely ridiculous. They are not comparable.

One was the aftermath of a gun battle between two opposing forces. In which ( presumably ) both sides had been trying to kill each other. If the UK forces had had a cleaner shot on the target in the first place there would have been no discussion.

This took place in a recognised war-zone. The Taliban combatant paid the price for being involved in a war, as have many British soldiers over the last decade.


The second incident happened in a London street, which is not a war zone and is therefore a civil matter. There is no justification for murder outside a war zone. The two Michael's paid the price for being common criminals.

And why do we get to decide the war zone and not them? Pakistan is not a war zone yet they are getting bombed there.

If we say we are in a war with the Taliban who are a global organisation then it is to be expected that they will attack British military targets here and by our reasoning that we use to justify our actions they are themselves justified.