October 9, 2004 Kenneth Bigley Executed
With the execution of Ken Bigley, the British government needs to send a firmer message to the terrrorists that committed this atrocity. Although there are rumours of a rescue attempt having been made, there’s no harm in a little vengeance to drive home the point that if you kidnap British civilians there will be repercussions.
This is a job for the SAS and not the politicians. Tony Blair’s televised comments after the killing were neither inspirational nor condemnatory. It was his usual school-teacher rationalisation. Oh, how those terrorists must be losing sleep tonight. They might get some condescending words from Tony.
But somehow I doubt that Tony Blair will do jack-shit without the say so from Washington. Prove me wrong, Tony, prove me wrong.
Tags: Political Rants
- 8 comments
- Posted under Blog
Permalink #
Phil
said
I agree entirely – the SAS would be perfect for a job like this – there are rumours that he may have been killed because the kidnappers, sorry, terrorists feared they were close to capture. If there is any intelligence as to where these people are then I think it is time for some extra-judicial activity with 5.62 mm ammunition.
Permalink #
Robert McClelland
said
The problem is who do you take vengeance against? The Iraqi people in general are innocent of these crimes. The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are already being targetted. And there really isn’t any kind of message that will have a meaningful impact on fanatics anyways.
Permalink #
Eshin
said
Interesting point.
But by calling them fanatics actually gives them more power. It makes them invincible and almost irrational. Sure, they are extremist but they are human at the end of the day.
While some might be convinced to suicide bomb themselves, they have reasons for doing what they are doing, and it sure isn’t getting themselves killed otherwise they can quite happily do that by themselves in the privacy of their own homes.
Nope, they are fighting for something. Which means they value something. Which means it can be taken from them. It can be destroyed, leveraged or threatened accordingly.
So yes, a message still can be sent to these so-called fanatics.
As to who to target or what to target, I’ll admit its something I wouldn’t be able to suggest. But there is always something.
Permalink #
kipper
said
You’re sounding scarily Bush-like there buddy…
Permalink #
manonmars
said
Not just the SAS. I’m sure just about every Special Forces unit, from Israel to US to the neighbouring Arab countries, have thought and planned operations to hit the terrorists.
its not a question of simply hitting back. There’s a lot of considerations that they have to look into. eg do they really do have the right information of where these terrorists are hiding, the repercussions of hitting back – the safety of their soldiers in Iraq as well as the wellbeing of citizens back in the UK… its not a localised fight anymore – where the threat is just over in Iraq…it could be lurking anywhere in the world where there are British interests or citizens.
Permalink #
Eshin
said
Kipper – my gosh, I hope I am not.
Rather than demonising these people, along with perpetuating the fear that the term “fanatic” implies, I think these people have something of value that we can strike at, and to take away.
By humanising these people, they become more mortal. They enjoy the term terrorists and fanatics because it does exactly what they want it do…strike fear into ordinary people.
Manonmars – it is nothing new to the British government. They have had this threat since they handed over Israel to the Israelis and since they’ve dealt with Northern Ireland. The threat of terrorism was ever present and this mentality only perpetuates what the terrorists want. For you to see bogey-men in the shadows.
The point was that the British government shouldn’t deal with the terrorists. This would only make it acceptable for the terrorists to threaten violence to get their aims. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened.
Now, there needs to be a message sent that if you threaten the lives of British civilians and kill them, there will be a price to pay.
As I said, the right targets elude me simply because I am not in Iraq or involved on a certain level. The problem is not so the worry of repercussions (by saying this, the fear has already succeeded in defeating you), but how best to deliver a message to these people who would kill someone to further their goals.
Permalink #
lisa
said
This is arealised fear and ripple effect that the coalition of the willing and its allies brought upon when they decided to invade Iraq.
The saddest thing is, half of the terrorists demand nothing more than a few million dollars or resolving issues that are ocean apart from the war-torn Iraq.
I reckon it should be made mandatory for politicians that support the war to be conscripted for military warfare.
Permalink #
Eshin
said
I don’t doubt that the invasion of Iraq certainly incited people that otherwise would not have raised up arms against the US and its coalition.
But withdrawing from Iraq at the behest of a terrorist demand is not an option. Especially for the UK because then the IRA might decide to take up arms again because it would be evident that by threatening UK civilians you can get away with murder (excuse the pun).
The withdrawal from Iraq – financial, militarily and physically – needs to happen in a way that doesn’t show that the UK is weak or fearful of Iraqi terror demands. Complete withdrawal from Iraq is now less of an option given the chaos that is raging there at the moment. Someone needs to fix the mess they’ve made.
Personally, I think that should be the Americans. Put more US soldiers in harm’s way and less from the coalition of the coerced. They wanted this war and they should damned well fix it.
I doubt one would ever get Tony Blair in khakis. And I doubt that anyone in uniform would want him anyway.