It is currently Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:54 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous 17 8 9 10 11 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:53 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
Holyman wrote:
As destabilising to the region as the U.S?

:-?


Regime change would have worked if everyone against it just stfu and didn't fight back. It's all their fault.

_________________
Norks


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:45 am 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
I guess you're right.

I dimly recall Donald Rumsfeld promising it would be a "cakewalk", that the Invasion would pay for itself, and US "Liberators" would be welcomed with open arms.

I guess that last prediction was fulfilled... Though Rumsfeld might have thought to mention open RPGs, IEDs and suicide bombers as well.

If only those being invaded had realised they were in fact being liberated, I'm sure the Middle East would be an oasis of Peace and Calm right now.

=P~

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:17 am 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
Meanwhile...

I'd like to get back to the issue of why World War Three seems to have been postponed.

*WHY* aren't the U.S. and Iran at War?

U.S. attempts to justify Soleimani's assassination are based on claims that he was actively waging War on the U.S., its military forces and citizens. And since he was the second-most powerful person in Iran, those activities (that the U.S. claims) were acts of War against the U.S. and its "Allies [sic]" in the Middle East.

The assassination of Soleimani was an Act of War.

Iran's retaliation against the U.S. (which we're now hearing did result in injuries to US military personnel) was also an Act of War.

The United States spends more than a trillion dollars of its citizens' wealth every year, "protecting" those citizens from countries like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. (Need a "trying-not-to-laugh" smiley here...)

Yet when it came to the actual fight...

The U.S. bottled it.

The United States of America, the "Greatest Military Machine the World has Ever Seen", was attacked by Iranian ballistic missiles.

And it did nothing.

There are two things we can take from that:

1) The Trump Administration knew how badly Trump had fucked up with the assassination of Soleimani; and so it allowed the Iranians to retaliate, without fear of further retaliation.

(That is so self-evident, only a fool would try and dispute it.)

2) The "Greatest Military Machine (&c.)", is in fact just a means for funneling U.S. Citizen's wealth into the pockets of the Defence Industry. War is not the objective: Profit is.

Low-intensity fighting against impoverished (usually by unilateral U.S. sanctions) nations, is perfectly good for keeping those profits flowing.

All-out War wouldn't be.

Mostly because when nations *ACTUALLY* go to War, they tend to Nationalise their Defence Industries...

Plus, War can be *REALLY* disruptive of other profit-making activities as well... *MOST* other profit-making activities actually...

So whilst the Corporations that own our politicians are happy for their demagogues to keep the Citizens afraid and willing to keep paying for "Defence"; under no circumstances are those politicians allowed to do anything that would interrupt Global Commerce.

Hence:

No War between the U.S. and Iran.

And I'm fairly certain that means there will never be another World War.

...

That's my reasoning, anyway.

Anybody have an alternative explanation for why the U.S. and Iran aren't at War now?

:!!

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:10 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
Holyman wrote:
Anybody have an alternative explanation for why the U.S. and Iran aren't at War now?


Iran: Cos the *regime* would fall

Murric: there's minimal support in Murrica for going full retard and getting bogged down in another protracted bloody conflict.

_________________
Norks


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:41 am 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
Slacks wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Anybody have an alternative explanation for why the U.S. and Iran aren't at War now?


Iran: Cos the *regime* would fall

Murric: there's minimal support in Murrica for going full retard and getting bogged down in another protracted bloody conflict.


Alright.

Obviously Iran cannot defeat the United States single-handed, and it can't rely on the Russians and Chinese to jeopardise their economies by going to War with the U.S.

So we know that Iran definitely doesn't want a War with the U.S. (It just wants the U.S. to stop bullying it...)

That may or may not be accurate. But since we have no Iranians here at the OP, nor anyone else who is a supporter or (rhetorical) defender of the Islamic Republic of Iran... Accuracy isn't that important.

But we *DO* have some Americans, and a few of them even continue to support and (rhetorically) defend the U.S. Government.

So I'll try and be as accurate as I can here:

A majority of Americans blame Trump’s policies for heightened tensions with Iran.

Three-quarters of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, say that war with Iran would be unwarranted.

None of the U.S. erstwhile “Allies” would support (provide diplomatic/domestic cover for) the U.S. in a War with Iran.

And of course, there’s the small Constitutional issue that a U.S. President is not permitted to declare War on another Nation: only Congress can do that.

So…

There can’t be a War between U.S. and Iran.

And if anybody was in any doubt of that, the fact that the U.S. killed Iran’s #2, and Iran fired ballistic missiles at U.S. military bases, and the countries are still *NOT* at War, should remove such doubt.

The United States of America uses a succession of “bogeymen” like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and (a lot less convincingly) Soleimani, to keep the U.S. population afraid and cowed; and to ensure they keep tithing over large portions of their income, to increase the profits of U.S. “Defence” firms.

There.

I’ve said it.

Tell me that's inaccurate!

<8|

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:51 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Slacks wrote:
Holyman wrote:
As destabilising to the region as the U.S?

:-?


Regime change would have worked if everyone against it just stfu and didn't fight back. It's all their fault.


Radical Shias in Iran/Iraq along with radical Sunnis in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Europe.........bear a fuck ton of responsibility for spending the last 15+ years murdering each other and blowing up each other's mosques.

Imagine if all of the British born jihadis didn't got to Syria and Iraq can participate in genocide and mass rape - filming the joyful execution of aide workers, Christians and reporters?

Seriously, raise your hand if you think Solomeini has no blood on his hands and was stabilizing force in the Region.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:31 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
Foota wrote:
Seriously, raise your hand if you think Solomeini has no blood on his hands and was stabilizing force in the Region.


Most definitely responsible for thousands of intentional deaths.

Murrican government on the other hand is merely responsible for many, many thousands of regrettable deaths.

Families mourn far less when a government regrettably kill their loved ones than when they're intentionally killed, so it's not as bad.

_________________
Norks


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:46 pm 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
You've got this one Slacks.

B-)

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:49 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:
Seriously, raise your hand if you think Solomeini has no blood on his hands and was stabilizing force in the Region.


Most definitely responsible for thousands of intentional deaths.

Murrican government on the other hand is merely responsible for many, many thousands of regrettable deaths.


The radical Shia's under Solomeini's direction and most certainly the radical Sunnis in Al Qaeda, ISIS and former Baathists killed the vast majority of people in the Region since 2003 both intentionally and unintentionally.

Remember back in the shit days when thousands of Iraqis were killed each week when Shias were blowing up Sunni mosques and vice versa?

The vast vast vast majority of deaths in the Region were the results of Muslims killing Muslims.

America certainly failed to keep crazy Muslims from killing each other.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:19 pm 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
Just a quick interjection:

If we're choosing what strata we will limit distinction...

I.e. blithely dismissing the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims; and discounting the fact that *ALL* acts of Islamic "terror" in the 21st Century have been carried out by Sunni Muslims, most frequently (though few in the West notice...) against Shia Muslims...

Can I prod you just one degree higher Foota, and hear you acknowledge that:

The vast vast vast majority of deaths in the Region, were and are the result of Humans killing Humans?

I mean, if you're content to sweep aside the fundamental distinctions between Sunni and Shia Muslims (i.e. conflate the two to suit your own political rhetoric)...

Can I not fairly sweep aside the distinction betwern one group of violent psychopaths who feel they are justified in their destruction of other people's lives, and another?

:-??

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:28 pm 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
I'm sure you are aware that today is the day when we all together remember the victims of all Holocausts.

I am not so sure that you are aware that in your rhetoric, you are asserting American racial superiority over Muslims, in much the same way that ordinary German citizens in the 1930's asserted racial superiority over people with Jewish heritage.

I am just saying.

:(

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:35 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Holyman wrote:

I.e. blithely dismissing the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims; and discounting the fact that *ALL* acts of Islamic "terror" in the 21st Century have been carried out by Sunni Muslims, most frequently (though few in the West notice...) against Shia Muslims...

:-??


Here is your bud Cockburn describing the ethnic cleansing (which I think counts as terrorism) going on by all sides. This blood-letting by both sides is responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in the Middle East.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 87731.html

Most of the Syrian refugees are Sunnis and were pushed out by the likes of Solomeini and his Shia terrorist proxies.
https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Cultural/EN%20 ... rofile.pdf

How do Sunnis end up as refugees when they are the majority population in Syria? Assad is able to do alot of killing when he has Solomeini and Russia stirring the shit up.

We have greater chance for peace in Syria and the return of Sunni refugees back to their homes when fuckheads like Solomeini are taken out of the mix.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:38 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Holyman wrote:
I'm sure you are aware that today is the day when we all together remember the victims of all Holocausts.

I am not so sure that you are aware that in your rhetoric, you are asserting American racial superiority over Muslims, in much the same way that ordinary German citizens in the 1930's asserted racial superiority over people with Jewish heritage.

I am just saying.

:(


WTF?

When have I ever asserted "racial" superiority over anything?

I will proudly assert that Western culture is superior to fanatical radical Islam culture every day of the week and twice on Sundays!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:52 pm 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
Ah, ok.

Now I am sure you were not aware.

Foota wrote:
America certainly failed to keep crazy Muslims from killing each other.


:-??

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:57 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:
Seriously, raise your hand if you think Solomeini has no blood on his hands and was stabilizing force in the Region.


Most definitely responsible for thousands of intentional deaths.

Murrican government on the other hand is merely responsible for many, many thousands of regrettable deaths.


The radical Shia's under Solomeini's direction and most certainly the radical Sunnis in Al Qaeda, ISIS and former Baathists killed the vast majority of people in the Region since 2003 both intentionally and unintentionally.

Remember back in the shit days when thousands of Iraqis were killed each week when Shias were blowing up Sunni mosques and vice versa?

The vast vast vast majority of deaths in the Region were the results of Muslims killing Muslims.

America certainly failed to keep crazy Muslims from killing each other.


That's kinda what happens in the ME when you go blundering into somewhere without the foggiest clue wtf you're doing.

If only there was some form of 'history' to learn from or something.

_________________
Norks


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:48 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Slacks wrote:

That's kinda what happens in the ME when you go blundering into somewhere without the foggiest clue wtf you're doing.

If only there was some form of 'history' to learn from or something.


And when the US treats the Region with benign neglect dealing with existing rulers like Saudi Royals, Saddam, Shah, Musharaff, Mubarak, Ghadaffi, Assads.... to keep a lid on the crazy, the US get blamed for their human rights abuses too.

Face it, the Muslim world is fucked up all by their own. The Sunnis have been fighting the Shias long before America even existed.

Long past time to put the blame where it belongs instead of aping Islamist and Commie prop blaming the Middle East's dysfunction on the Joos, America and the West in general.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:52 pm 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
The blame lies with anyone who uses violence as a substitute for dialogue.

And the United States is the most violent entity on Earth.

X|X

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:05 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Holyman wrote:
The blame lies with anyone who uses violence as a substitute for dialogue.

And the United States is the most violent entity on Earth.

X|X


Really? China has over a million people in concentration camps right now. But whatever......you do what you do.

In any given society, law enforcement are the most "violent entity" within that society as they have to use violence to subdue violent people.

Yet, if we had no law enforcement using targeted violence against criminals, we would have much more violence and crime on the streets. Just look at many of the Democrat run big cities that are seeing an increase in crime and violence as more limitations are being put on law enforcement.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:34 am 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
Really? China has over a million people in concentration camps right now. But whatever......you do what you do.


The United States has over two million people locked up in its (for-Profit) Prison System; and its total population is only 25% of China’s.

Foota wrote:
In any given society, law enforcement are the most "violent entity" within that society as they have to use violence to subdue violent people.


Utter bollocks.

When Sir Robert Peel established the principle of a Citizen’s Police Force, it was in explicit response to the repeated failures of the military to “police” civil disorder in a manner that was politically acceptable. It is for this reason that British Police Officers originally wore blue uniforms: to clearly distinguish them from the red coats worn by British troops in the 19th Century.

The U.S. has similar principles enshrined in its Posse Comitatus Act.

Key point being that a Police Force must by definition be comprised of citizens from the region being policed. Otherwise, it is not an area being policed: it is an area under military occupation.

It is a police officer’s responsibility to *UPHOLD* the Law: *NOT* to enforce it.

The Judiciary enforces the Law.

Police officers patrol, in order to dissuade law-breaking.

When a crime is reported, they try to get to the location reported as quickly as possible, hopefully in time to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens. If possible, they will detain anyone alleged to have committed a crime, whilst evidence is gathered that may support or disprove any allegations.

An effective Police Force will also use its connections with fellow citizens to maintain an effective intelligence network within the Community. The Police will use this intelligence network to try to both detect and prevent crimes.

Court-appointed bailiffs enforce laws. Governmental agents like customs, immigration and revenue officers enforce laws. City building inspectors, health and safety officials, even a school’s truant officers, all possess the authority to enforce the law.

Police officers do not.

In order for a citizen to act to enforce a law, he or she *MUST* have a warrant to do so, issued by a member of the Judiciary, with very clear and specific instructions on how the particular legal judgement is to be enforced.

For example, a city building inspector has a warrant issued by the local legal authority, to enforce penalties where building-code violations are identified. The inspector doesn’t need to gather evidence to put in front of another decision-maker: he or she can make the decision themselves, because they have a warrant that permits them to.

Police officers by definition, may never enforce or execute the Law. Even if a copper catches you speeding, bang-to-rights, caught-on-camera… It isn’t the bobby who decides your punishment and metes it out to you there and then. He or she merely gathers the evidence (hopefully including a non-coerced confession, ‘cos that saves a *LOT* of paperwork…) and submits it to the proper legal authorities, who will then enforce the Law.

In a 1970 scholarly work on the principles of policing, Egon Bittner defines the police in terms of their:

“capacity to use non-negotiable coercive force in any situation that appears to require a prompt and decisive response.”

One final point before I move on:

99.9% of all police work does not involve violence. Even I suspect (though I may be going out on a limb here) in your nation.

It’s mostly plodding or driving around the streets being a “visible deterrent”; doing countless hours of paperwork; controlling crowds; gathering evidence; community out-reach; and more paperwork…

I know it is a little different in your society, but in the Civilised World, any violence organised and projected by police forces is done in a highly-controlled manner. To give you an illustration, I suspect the police officer who shot the Muslamic on London Bridge at the end of last year, hasn’t even begun to finish all the paperwork, peer- and executive reviews of his action; he probably hasn’t yet been allowed to return to Active Duty.

I recall about five years ago, having to pick Holyboy 1.0 up from our local police station, where he’d been detained after spitting at a police officer who was telling the snot-rag to “Move along.”.

When I arrived and saw HB1, it was clear that he had been taught a very valuable lesson about not spitting at police officers. Nothing permanently disabling, but he got a good kicking.

Since my sympathies have always inclined towards the Police (‘cos that was my career intention from ages 10 thru 23), and I felt that his visible injuries were actually quite minor, given the circumstances, I was happy to take him home, lesson learned.

But actually it was the Custody Sergeant who informed me that he had requested an inquiry into the conduct of the officer who’d arrested HB1. Result of that, when reviewed by a charming (female) inspector, was nothing actionable – mostly because I wasn’t kicking up a fuss.

The Custody Sergeant said to me:

“Look, we’re permitted to use whatever level of force we feel is reasonable and necessary, up-to-and-including killing someone. But we *MUST* be able to show that the force was warranted and proportionate to the threat.”

Which seems fair enough to me.

So now let’s get back to your load of old bollocks Foota.

I think what you are trying to say is that the reason why the United States of America has killed so many civilians in the Middle East (and elsewhere) over the last couple of decades, is because it is enforcing the law.

Foota wrote:
In any given society, law enforcement are the most "violent entity" within that society as they have to use violence to subdue violent people.


You’re wrong, of course, and not just for the theoretical/conceptual reasons I’ve outlined above.

Law enforcement (or the Police) in any society (except possibly the United States) are *NOT* the most violent entity within that society.

They are the only entity within that society that is legally permitted to use controlled and proportionate violence, if necessary, to enforce and uphold the law.

Pick any one of the half-dozen dominant North London gangs, and you’ll see that they have assaulted and murdered more people in the last year, than the Metropolitan Police Force has in ten years.

And do you know how many innocent civilians have been killed by the Met Police during a firearms operation in the last two decades?

1.

Might surprise to hear that after the Muslamic was shot on London Bridge last November, much of the talk in the office (and elsewhere) over the following week, was about whether or not the Police *HAD* to kill him. Even my father, the once-staunch Conservative, took that line.

So you’re wrong on all the basic civic, sociological and philosophical fronts.

And you’re also wrong on the political/geo-political front.

The United States of America carries no warrant to uphold International Law.

When George Bush I attacked Iraq in 1991, he was enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 678, which authorised and empowered all states to use “all necessary means” to force Iraq out of Kuwait.

Once Bush had fulfilled that mandate (and after a bit of a Turkey Shoot on the “Highway of Death”), hostilities ceased.

Not because Bush didn’t think that going after and getting rid of Saddam Hussein wasn’t a “good” thing to do: but because he knew that the United States had no legal mandate to oust Hussein.

His son tried (desperately and comically) to get a similar mandate… Failed… But went ahead anyway.

The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal; and everything that has resulted from that Invasion (all of which was widely predicted) is a consequence of that illegality.

The United States has no UN mandate to be in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. It is an occupying force in Syria and now Iraq. The U.S. repudiates any International Legal Framework it doesn’t see any advantage to itself in; it is a “Law” unto itself; and it projects its “Law [sic] Enforcement” activities into nations and societies where it is neither invited nor required.

All of the civilians that have been killed by the United States over the last twenty years have been murdered by an illegal military force, which claims to be acting in the wider interests of Human Society, whilst manifestly and evidently doing everything it can to fuck everything up for everybody.

And yet here you now are Foota, trying to justify those deaths by claiming the U.S. is enforcing laws.

What laws would those be?

And why doesn’t the US enforce the same laws on Israel?

\!x/

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:24 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 18976
Netanyahu used the Auschwitz celebrations to bang on about killing Iran. Classy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:16 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 14783
Location: The OC
Holyman wrote:
Foota wrote:
Really? China has over a million people in concentration camps right now. But whatever......you do what you do.


The United States has over two million people locked up in its (for-Profit) Prison System; and its total population is only 25% of China’s.

Foota wrote:
In any given society, law enforcement are the most "violent entity" within that society as they have to use violence to subdue violent people.


Utter bollocks.

When Sir Robert Peel established the principle of a Citizen’s Police Force, it was in explicit response to the repeated failures of the military to “police” civil disorder in a manner that was politically acceptable. It is for this reason that British Police Officers originally wore blue uniforms: to clearly distinguish them from the red coats worn by British troops in the 19th Century.

The U.S. has similar principles enshrined in its Posse Comitatus Act.

Key point being that a Police Force must by definition be comprised of citizens from the region being policed. Otherwise, it is not an area being policed: it is an area under military occupation.

It is a police officer’s responsibility to *UPHOLD* the Law: *NOT* to enforce it.

The Judiciary enforces the Law.

Police officers patrol, in order to dissuade law-breaking.

When a crime is reported, they try to get to the location reported as quickly as possible, hopefully in time to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens. If possible, they will detain anyone alleged to have committed a crime, whilst evidence is gathered that may support or disprove any allegations.

An effective Police Force will also use its connections with fellow citizens to maintain an effective intelligence network within the Community. The Police will use this intelligence network to try to both detect and prevent crimes.

Court-appointed bailiffs enforce laws. Governmental agents like customs, immigration and revenue officers enforce laws. City building inspectors, health and safety officials, even a school’s truant officers, all possess the authority to enforce the law.

Police officers do not.

In order for a citizen to act to enforce a law, he or she *MUST* have a warrant to do so, issued by a member of the Judiciary, with very clear and specific instructions on how the particular legal judgement is to be enforced.

For example, a city building inspector has a warrant issued by the local legal authority, to enforce penalties where building-code violations are identified. The inspector doesn’t need to gather evidence to put in front of another decision-maker: he or she can make the decision themselves, because they have a warrant that permits them to.

Police officers by definition, may never enforce or execute the Law. Even if a copper catches you speeding, bang-to-rights, caught-on-camera… It isn’t the bobby who decides your punishment and metes it out to you there and then. He or she merely gathers the evidence (hopefully including a non-coerced confession, ‘cos that saves a *LOT* of paperwork…) and submits it to the proper legal authorities, who will then enforce the Law.

In a 1970 scholarly work on the principles of policing, Egon Bittner defines the police in terms of their:

“capacity to use non-negotiable coercive force in any situation that appears to require a prompt and decisive response.”

One final point before I move on:

99.9% of all police work does not involve violence. Even I suspect (though I may be going out on a limb here) in your nation.

It’s mostly plodding or driving around the streets being a “visible deterrent”; doing countless hours of paperwork; controlling crowds; gathering evidence; community out-reach; and more paperwork…

I know it is a little different in your society, but in the Civilised World, any violence organised and projected by police forces is done in a highly-controlled manner. To give you an illustration, I suspect the police officer who shot the Muslamic on London Bridge at the end of last year, hasn’t even begun to finish all the paperwork, peer- and executive reviews of his action; he probably hasn’t yet been allowed to return to Active Duty.

I recall about five years ago, having to pick Holyboy 1.0 up from our local police station, where he’d been detained after spitting at a police officer who was telling the snot-rag to “Move along.”.

When I arrived and saw HB1, it was clear that he had been taught a very valuable lesson about not spitting at police officers. Nothing permanently disabling, but he got a good kicking.

Since my sympathies have always inclined towards the Police (‘cos that was my career intention from ages 10 thru 23), and I felt that his visible injuries were actually quite minor, given the circumstances, I was happy to take him home, lesson learned.

But actually it was the Custody Sergeant who informed me that he had requested an inquiry into the conduct of the officer who’d arrested HB1. Result of that, when reviewed by a charming (female) inspector, was nothing actionable – mostly because I wasn’t kicking up a fuss.

The Custody Sergeant said to me:

“Look, we’re permitted to use whatever level of force we feel is reasonable and necessary, up-to-and-including killing someone. But we *MUST* be able to show that the force was warranted and proportionate to the threat.”

Which seems fair enough to me.

So now let’s get back to your load of old bollocks Foota.

I think what you are trying to say is that the reason why the United States of America has killed so many civilians in the Middle East (and elsewhere) over the last couple of decades, is because it is enforcing the law.

Foota wrote:
In any given society, law enforcement are the most "violent entity" within that society as they have to use violence to subdue violent people.


You’re wrong, of course, and not just for the theoretical/conceptual reasons I’ve outlined above.

Law enforcement (or the Police) in any society (except possibly the United States) are *NOT* the most violent entity within that society.

They are the only entity within that society that is legally permitted to use controlled and proportionate violence, if necessary, to enforce and uphold the law.

Pick any one of the half-dozen dominant North London gangs, and you’ll see that they have assaulted and murdered more people in the last year, than the Metropolitan Police Force has in ten years.

And do you know how many innocent civilians have been killed by the Met Police during a firearms operation in the last two decades?

1.

Might surprise to hear that after the Muslamic was shot on London Bridge last November, much of the talk in the office (and elsewhere) over the following week, was about whether or not the Police *HAD* to kill him. Even my father, the once-staunch Conservative, took that line.

So you’re wrong on all the basic civic, sociological and philosophical fronts.

And you’re also wrong on the political/geo-political front.

The United States of America carries no warrant to uphold International Law.

When George Bush I attacked Iraq in 1991, he was enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 678, which authorised and empowered all states to use “all necessary means” to force Iraq out of Kuwait.

Once Bush had fulfilled that mandate (and after a bit of a Turkey Shoot on the “Highway of Death”), hostilities ceased.

Not because Bush didn’t think that going after and getting rid of Saddam Hussein wasn’t a “good” thing to do: but because he knew that the United States had no legal mandate to oust Hussein.

His son tried (desperately and comically) to get a similar mandate… Failed… But went ahead anyway.

The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal; and everything that has resulted from that Invasion (all of which was widely predicted) is a consequence of that illegality.

The United States has no UN mandate to be in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. It is an occupying force in Syria and now Iraq. The U.S. repudiates any International Legal Framework it doesn’t see any advantage to itself in; it is a “Law” unto itself; and it projects its “Law [sic] Enforcement” activities into nations and societies where it is neither invited nor required.

All of the civilians that have been killed by the United States over the last twenty years have been murdered by an illegal military force, which claims to be acting in the wider interests of Human Society, whilst manifestly and evidently doing everything it can to fuck everything up for everybody.

And yet here you now are Foota, trying to justify those deaths by claiming the U.S. is enforcing laws.

What laws would those be?

And why doesn’t the US enforce the same laws on Israel?

\!x/



2003 invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Iraq was in constant violation of their 1991 ceasefire agreement. Such as daily attempts to shot down US and other coalition aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.

_________________
Radio Free Midnight http://www.twitch.tv/midnight562



Image

[**==] [**==] SomeGuy 2020 [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] It's going to be a [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] Brave New World [**==] [**==]


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:40 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
MIDNIGHT wrote:
2003 invasion of Iraq was not illegal.


Maybe, maybe not, but it was certainly short-sighted, ill-prepared and showed an acute lack of understanding on how that region works.

In layman's terms it was a fucking stupid idea, and Murrica and it's lapdogs (including the UK) should be held accountable.

_________________
Norks


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:40 pm 
Online
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
It was illegal because it wasn't explicitly authorised by the UNSC.

Bush II tried to get legal authorisation (at the expense of Colin Powell's career), and failed.

He then went ahead with the Invasion illegally.

I know. I remember it happening that way.

Only the U.S. Government (and its supporters) dispute the illegality of the Invasion.

Sorry.

:-??

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:24 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 14783
Location: The OC
Slacks wrote:
MIDNIGHT wrote:
2003 invasion of Iraq was not illegal.


Maybe, maybe not, but it was certainly short-sighted, ill-prepared and showed an acute lack of understanding on how that region works.



Oh I absolutely agree with this part. I thought at the time Bush #2 should have resigned when how big a shit show it actually was was revealed. Especially, when the WMD didn't materialize. (Concerns over WMD was completely legitimate, because Iraq had possessed and used them previously, clearly they overplayed this threat and seemingly presented false evidence like the centrifuge tubes that were likely it's only for use in rocket manufacturer.)

There was merit to the idea of removing Saddam and creating regime change but the implementation was criminally botched.

_________________
Radio Free Midnight http://www.twitch.tv/midnight562



Image

[**==] [**==] SomeGuy 2020 [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] It's going to be a [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] Brave New World [**==] [**==]


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 21610
Location: teh internet
Just thought I’d remind you all that Canada did not join this criminal venture.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous 17 8 9 10 11 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Holyman and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited