Comments on: Reactions, not reactionaries

By: Siawn Borg

Siawn Borg — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:12:00 +0000

"The incorrect use of ‘you’re’ in our final sentence was clearly the work of kulaks. Arrest them!"

By: Siawn Borg

Siawn Borg — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:10:00 +0000

"The bear: your woods-based excretion is about the most sanctimonious, bourgeois thing we’ve heard all day. Like the rest of the Islamist fellow-travellers of the pseudo-left, you can’t even be bothered to dispense with your waste in the appropriate receptacle. You’re outpourings are even duller than those of ‘dsquared’, with whom we are certainly not obsessed."

By: Siawphile

Siawphile — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:00:00 +0000

It’s also amusing how much the smallest jibes upset them. If a bear made a sound in a wood would anyone hear it? Yes, if it was a criticism of siaw, when they’d be overreacting within minutes.

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:55:00 +0000

Note also the ludicrous committee-speak ‘we’. Not at all cowardly, that.

By: lenin

lenin — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:04:00 +0000

A bit of graceless whining about what is obviously an ironic-aggressive tribute, padded out with accusations of ‘sanctimony’ – suggesting that irony and sense have long since departed from the repertoire of SIAW.

Cue witless jibe.

By: siaw

siaw — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:03:00 +0000

It won’t be any surprise to you that we think much the same of you, dear. But at least we don’t steal lines from other people’s blogs and pass them off as our own, as you have with one of ours. All hail John B: ignorant, smug, as sanctimonious as Chris Bertram and dsquared (which is record-breakingly sanctimonious), wildly and entertainingly irrational, and a sad little plagiarist too.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:48:00 +0000

Gosh, that’s all very intellectual. What about the black humour, eh? I could use some of that this morning. The Canucks around here are either indifferent or intrusively sympathetic & I’m not sure which reaction is worse. I hate these nice bastards ;-).
Amusingly, CBC did a bunch of interviews yesterday to see if Canadians were worried about being on the supposed AQ ‘list’ & discovered nobody’s concerned. Compared to the UK, there’s something very odd about being in a country too uninteresting for people to bother attacking it.

By: Euan Gray

Euan Gray — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:11:00 +0000

If you are at war with a state, you do not need proof to kill the soldiers of that state. The condition of war is sufficient.

However, if you are fighting a terrorist enemy, the major difficulty lies in knowing who the enemy actually is. You can adopt the knee jerk deport-the-wogs approach and say every Moslem is the enemy. This does nothing other than to ensure that every Moslem WILL become your enemy, even if they weren't to start with. America seems unable to figure this one out, sadly.

If you think that Suspect A is plotting against you, then you can observe him and collect evidence (or arrest him immediately if he's about to do something). When you have enough evidence, you arrest and charge him. If the court convicts, fine. If not, you have to accept it.

You cannot, however, go around assassinating people as a convenient shortcut. If you don't have the evidence to convict him, how can you be sure he's actually a threat? If your evidence is from "secret" sources and you don't want to reveal it in court, how do you know how reliable that evidence is? You can't just lock him up without trial, charge or evidence, because this flouts the rule of law and achieves exactly what the terrorist wants - the erosion of our liberties.

It is not enough to imprison or assassinate on the word of a state official. If you think that's ok, ask yourself how YOU would feel if YOUR son/brother/husband/father/whatever was locked up on evidence neither of you were able to see, with no charge being brought and with no idea when (or if) he was going to be set free. Or even worse, shot. How WOULD you feel? But surely, it's ok because the state says so, eh?

Think harder.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:56:00 +0000

Just wars and immediate self defense. Otherwise (yes, including capital punishment) it’s murder and therefore a bad thing.
Now, ifthe terrorists would just go and get themselves a state so we can declare war….ah, yes, I see the problems with that one.

By: Euan Gray

Euan Gray — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:33:00 +0000

Do you believe it is ever right for an army to kill the enemy?

Yes. However, there is a difference between on the one hand killing the enemy in a defined and lawful war, and on the other assassinating people on the street because you think they might be plotting against you.