shot on suspicion: martial law. SHOT ON SUSPICION: Martial Law.
It is a tragedy that the one English-speaking nation which has
always had the highest tolerance for individual eccentricities,
strange manners, speech, conduct and dress, should now find
itself in the situation where a law-abiding Brazilian man has
been shot to death by the London metropolitan police simply
because he looked suspicious to them.
The situation is not improved by what the Guardian newspaper has reported. Up to seven other people have come within seconds or inches of also being shot to death by the special teams of the British police.
This IS a shoot to kill policy! It is also a failure on the
policy level. Regardless of Prime Minister Blair's protestations
that it is not true, 85 percent of the British public according to
the latest polls have drawn a straight line connecting the British
military participation in the attack and occupation of Iraq and
the attacks made in London. According to Prime Minister Blair,
that makes 85 percent of the British public supporters of
terrorism!
Prime Minister Blair is blatantly ignoring the nearly two million
people who peacefully marched past the offices of the British
Government in London, protesting against him joining with
President Bush in an attack upon Iraq even before that military
attack had been made.
Now, the British Armed Forces are in Iraq and "others" have decided to bring the consequences of aggressive war back to Britain, so that the people in England could themselves get a taste of what war is really like. At the policy level, Mr Blair has clearly decided that a "shoot on suspicion" policy is the proper answer.
Here lies the ultimate failure of Mr Blair's policy. It has made
the British civil police as dangerous to any person who might
attract attention as are the terrorists themselves. What is the
difference between being blown up in a terrorist bombing or
being shot to death by the police because of a foreign policy
which is certain to bring about such terrorist bombings?
Terrorism, so-called, is the militarily weak party's response to
being attacked because it does not have the Tornados or the F-
16s with which to make a "proper" military response to being
attacked.
The central policy question here is simple. Is Prime
Minister Blair prepared to accept that a full-scale air and ground
attack would be made upon Britain because of his own military
attack upon Iraq? The answer to this nearly classical question is
obvious. Of course, Prime Minister Blair would NOT have
made his attack if the response could have been a real, full-
scale, "proper" military war with the nation he had attacked.
The attack upon Iraq was made by Prime Minister Blair
because he thought that it was "safe". He thought that there
would be no direct "proper" military response, because Iraq did
not have military means with which to respond.
Now, a response has come. It is neither a "proper" nor an
official response. Four bombs exploded in London and another
four might have gone off a few days later, if the detonators or
home made explosives had functioned. They did not and
Londoners were saved from another massive number of dead
and wounded.
Now, the political cry is out to the effect that the
Blair government needs additional emergency powers. When
Parliament returns, it looks like these emergency laws will be
passed very quickly. Then, Britain too will be under emergency
laws, with the only difference from martial law being that it is its
civil police doing the random killing instead of soldiers, as would
have been the case under martial law.
=======================================
- Forums
- General
- ww3: how it it all works ...
ww3: how it it all works ..., page-49
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 1 more message in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)