Monday, September 28, 2015

Tagged under: ,

Isil Needs To Be Opposed ....

Mick Hall cautions against illegal war in the fight against ISIS. Mick Hall is a Marxist blogger @ Organized Rage.

Isil needs to be opposed, but it must be done legally, jaw jaw is a far better way to end Syrian nightmare than war war.
After the RAF killed Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin in a drone strike there are a number of misnomers floating around which attempt to justify the British government assassinating its own citizens.

Most of the mainstream media (MSM) have reported erroneously this is the first time the British government has deliberately targeted and killed its own citizens on foreign soil. What short memories these people have. In 1988 three IRA volunteers Seán Savage, Daniel McCann, and Mairéad Farrell, all three born in the UK, (NI) were gunned down by the SAS on the streets of Gibraltar in an operation code named Flavius.

The failure of the media to mention this fact is important because the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the British Government had acted illegally in shooting dead the three IRA volunteers in Gibraltar, even though the court accepted that the UK government had a genuine belief that they were planning a bombing attack. Indeed the court accepted the victims were IRA volunteers reconnoitring the ground while planning an operation, and refused compensation to their families on those grounds. But the court refused to accept there was no possibility of foiling the plot through methods other than summary execution.

The ECtHR also concluded the planning and control of the UK operation was so flawed as to make the use of lethal force almost inevitable.

As an article on Wikipedia points out:
The case is considered a landmark in cases concerning Article 2, particularly in upholding the principle that Article 2, paragraph 2, defines circumstances in which it is permissible to use force which may result in a person's death as an unintended consequence, rather than circumstances in which it is permissible to intentionally deprive a person of their life. It has been cited in later ECtHR cases concerning the use of state sponsored lethal force.
It is also worth noting the killings in Gibraltar led to a spiral of violence within the north of Ireland, as author and academic Richard English wrote:
They provoked an awful sequence of interwoven deaths, it was one of the conflict's most strikingly memorable and shocking periods.

Craig Murray had this to say about the similarities between the death of the three members of the IRA and Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin:
In the light of the decision that Operation Flavius contravened Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is difficult to understand how the government can claim its killing of British men in Syria, with no trial, is anything other than murder. I personally find it difficult to imagine technically how men journeying in a car in Syria were imminently able to instantly wreak havoc in the UK so that it was impossible to prevent by any method other than their execution without trial. The level of certainty required for that decision would involve sufficient knowledge of what was to happen in the UK to stop it here. If there was vagueness about what was actually to happen in the UK, there cannot have been the certainty about the threat claimed. It is a logical impasse.

He adds:
For the government to claim the right to kill British people through sci-fi execution, based on highly unreliable secret intelligence and a secret declaration of legality, is so shocking I find it difficult to believe it is happening even as I type the words. Are we so cowed as to accept this?

Another aspect of the MSM coverage of this issue has been to resurrect that old chestnut that the men killed in the drone strike were traitors. Yes their methodology is barbaric, resurrected from the dark ages and yes Isil needs to be opposed, but it must be done legally. If the fiasco of Iraqi WMDs have taught us one thing, it is surely that.

If Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin are traitors I would pose the question traitors to whom? Take Khan, he went out of his way to publicly pledge allegiance to Isil. He could not have been clearer. Enemies for sure, they make no secret of it, but traitors? What good does such name calling do, it will not make a single young person who is considering travelling to head-chopper land pause, let alone change their mind.

This will only be achieved by a political solution which will end the Syrian civil war, and give its people some respite from death and destruction. Yet the UK Tory government, which doesn't have a single cabinet minister who voted against the Iraq war, are bombastically pontificating about defeating the Assad regime, while continuing to turn a blind eye when its allies arm Isil.

This is the worst viable option of them all. Syria would become yet another failed state within a region of failed states. The Assad regimes defeat would result in standing the Syrian army down, which would all but repeat one of the major failures of the Iraq occupation.

In victory the various armed opposition factions would turn on each other as they have in Libya, and use their weaponry to fight over the spoils. Such a scenario in Syria would in all probability result in Isil coming out on top.

Russia and Iran believe a settlement can be reached with the Assad regime, the Free Syrian Army and some of the less militantly Islamic factions. So far the UK and USA continue to oppose this, as it will mean going against the wishes of their Saudi and Gulf state satraps, who have been fanning the flames of the civil war by financing and arming Isil and other Wahhabist armed factions.

To quote that old rogue Winston Churchill's words: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."


DaithiD said...

Cameron wanted to bomb Assad to aid the rebels, now with a straight face, he asks to bomb the same rebels. America spends years vetting troops for their Division 30 militia in Syria, the first 54 graduates lose their weapons and leadership in a surprise attack by al-Nusra after a week, the next 70 grads didnt even wait a day before surrendering their weapons to al-Nusra again. What will it take before people lose faith in the competence of these people? Only in public service(s) is this waste allowed.

Organized Rage said...

I agree it is a pigs ear, [sorry could not resist] On this issue Russia and Iran are spot on, you cannot have a viable solution to this war without Assad being central. I was talking to a Syrian guy the other week, a hospital consultant who is treating me, who's lived here for 15 years but his folks are still in the country and have no intention of leaving. They live in an area controlled by Assad and he says the regime is not perfect but "at least you can live". [The later are his words]

If Assad goes he told me the civil war will continue as the armed islamic groups, which includes the so called free Syrian army, will turn on each other and fight to the death over the spoils. We saw it in Iraq, Libya, so why would Syria be any different he asked me?

DaithiD said...

Mick, I havent a clue what the best end scenario for Syria would be, I do know it wont involve Western bombs and bullets though.What happens with ISIL will be interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word), its too embedded to disappear, too big to ignore, and too ideological to comprimise any part of its agenda.