There has been a debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of the new term.
The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, "because we don't know what [his] views were."
Is there a time when even "combatants" -- or anyone else -- should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?
Who is surprised?
That is one question I have most wanted to know since the video was released of the murder of American journalist James Foley.
The politicians keep expressing it.
And interviewers have kept asking people whether they feel it.
But who can honestly say that he was surprised to learn that the murderer of the American journalist turned out to be a "British" man?
Did anyone really still think that a British Islamist would not be capable of doing this?
That is one question I have most wanted to know since the video was released of the murder of American journalist James Foley.
The politicians keep expressing it.
And interviewers have kept asking people whether they feel it.
But who can honestly say that he was surprised to learn that the murderer of the American journalist turned out to be a "British" man?
Did anyone really still think that a British Islamist would not be capable of doing this?
Why wouldn't he, if he is capable of doing it in Syria or Iraq?
After all, it was only last year that two other Islamists beheaded one of our own soldiers – Drummer Lee Rigby – in broad daylight in London.
And it is only twelve years since another Londoner – Omar Sheikh – arranged the abduction and decapitation of another American journalist, Daniel Pearl.
After all, it was only last year that two other Islamists beheaded one of our own soldiers – Drummer Lee Rigby – in broad daylight in London.
And it is only twelve years since another Londoner – Omar Sheikh – arranged the abduction and decapitation of another American journalist, Daniel Pearl.
What is shocking is that expressions of "shock" seem to be regarded as an adequate response.
Prime Minister David Cameron has pronounced himself "appalled" by the act, and made clear that he "utterly condemns" it.
As though anyone should ever have expected him to think otherwise.
But this is to a great extent what government policy is reduced to in Britain, as in the United States. Politicians briefly break off their holidays in order not to do anything much, but to be seen to be doing "something."
And they then make sure to stand in front of the cameras and say how opposed they are to "something."
It is the denigration of people in positions where they actually could do something, to the level of the commentariat.
Prime Minister David Cameron has pronounced himself "appalled" by the act, and made clear that he "utterly condemns" it.
As though anyone should ever have expected him to think otherwise.
But this is to a great extent what government policy is reduced to in Britain, as in the United States. Politicians briefly break off their holidays in order not to do anything much, but to be seen to be doing "something."And they then make sure to stand in front of the cameras and say how opposed they are to "something."
It is the denigration of people in positions where they actually could do something, to the level of the commentariat.
The question, as written here before, is not how sorry any one political leader feels about such savagery, but what they are going to do about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment