English Democrat "Reprisal" is murder

There has been some interesting fall out (excuse the pun) from my last blogpost about the suggestion by English Democrat candidate for the Crime Commissioner post Steve Uncles that the Western powers should threaten Daesh (ISIL) with a Nuclear strike on Mecca the next time there is a terror attack in the West.

In the follow up of the debate on Twitter there were questions about my ancestor’s political affiliations and what I would do with Cyril Smith… The most disturbing seems to be Collective punishment.

A simplistic way of putting it is what happened to my Grandfather at school when the head teacher caned an entire class because someone had drained the radiator to fill their water pistol and as he lined them up he said “The innocent will suffer with the guilty.”

I will let you interpret the tweets for yourself and see if you come to the same conclusion as I have;

What do you think?

My interpretation, added to the original post about nuking Mecca during the pilgrimage as punishment does concern me greatly and leads to this “Collective responsibility” and took me to thinking about other examples of this in the past.

First one that popped into my head was the village of Lidice in the Czech Republic. Three Czech “terrorists” assassinated the German governor of Bohemia & Moravia Reinhard Heydrich on the 27^th May 1942 (he died on 4^th June). In reprisal for this terrorist act and to try to stamp out similar acts the German authorities liquidated the village of Lidice including executing all of the men, most of the children and sending the women to concentration camps. Buildings were flattened, animals were executed and even the dead were disinterred and their remains destroyed. In total 1300 people in the protectorate were killed in these reprisals.

Another example, sadly again from the World War Two era, are the executions of civilians for each German soldier killed ten local civilians would be shot. This happened in Greece (where whole male populations were liquidated) and notably in Russia with these duties falling to regular Wehrmacht troops not just the Nazi SS.

Although Mr Uncles has distanced himself by saying We can all agree that National Socialism is a terrible thing. I still cannot see the difference in the reprisal by nuclear weapon killing innocent civilians and the Karbiner 98 rifle shooting innocent civilians…

In the United Kingdom we have our own sordid past with the rounding up of women and children in South Africa during the Boer War, their property burnt and their internment at concentration camps where many died from disease and poor conditions. There is the reaction to the 1857 rebellion in India which saw British subjects, military and civilian being murdered and brutalised was avenged by British troops bayonetting civilians (including women and Children) in Delhi;

These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed reported the Bombay Telegraph.

Another report stated;

The orders went out to shoot every soul… It was literally murder… I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I have witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their husbands and sons butchered were most painful… Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that of a man’s heart I think who can look on with indifference.

All in the aim of ending “Terrorism” and protecting British/English citizens and rule.

In my mind, and I leave it up to the reader to make a final decision, there is little difference between these lamentable periods of history and threatening to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca as a reprisal for a terrorist action in the West.

The one constant between the Lidice, Feldpolizei, Indian Mutiny and Boer War examples AND a strike on Mecca is that a large/extreme number of people face or have been MURDERED in reprisal for actions carried out by a few.

My family have been involved in Policing for over a century with my Great Grandfather Walter joining the Metropolitan Police in early 1914 and the immutable faith in the notion of Justice has been passed down from generation to generation and the ultimately the biggest nuggets of knowledge have been –

1.) Don’t make idle threats
2.) Two wrongs do not make a right

Murdering civilians in their hundreds of thousands during a pilgrimage in Mecca is ethically and morally abhorrent and is on the same scale as the terrorist who blows up a bus of commuters and the Oberleutnant who orders a nearby village levelled because one of his men was shot by a terrorist. 

As far as Mr Uncles is concerned, the only difference is that ISIS are not signed up to the Geneva Convention so are seemingly exempt from its protection. I'm sorry to say that this is not how the convention works a                                          

English Democrat calls for Nuclear strike on Mecca

I have studied war and all of its incarnations since the age of eight when I first picked up the Ladybird book of "Soldiers" and

started asking questions of my grandfather.

War is undeniably one of the great evils that mankind has unleashed upon the world and sadly the one thing at which we as a species excel at. Aggression breads technology and at the very top of the tree are the nuclear weapons.

Many people argue that Nuclear weapons are necessary.

They have never been necessary.

The excuse of ending World War Two quickly is touted too quickly but the truth of the matter is everyone knew Japan could not physically hold out much longer and that conventional bombing methods would have sufficed. Indeed the RAF and USAAF had proved that over Europe where 25,000 people in three days in Dresden of saturation bombing in 1945 and Hamburg had suffered 42,600 killed in the firestorms of Operation Gomorrah in July 1943. With Germany defeated the bomber fleets were free to relocate to the Pacific.

At the turn of the 20th Century the greatest weapons were Artillery (and Dreadnoughts) by 1915 the horror weapon was poison gas, by the 1930s it was the Bomber especially if carrying gas and by 1945 it was the A-bomb. The only reason to use it in 1945 was to show the Russians that the West had them and was not afraid to use them should they be pushed as Churchill (succeeded by Atlee) and Truman knew that Stalin would not have hesitated to use them if he thought he had the upper hand.

In modern times though there is a small clique of states who have nuclear weapons all eyeing each other suspiciously... However who is the major threat?

A lose alliance of Islamic extremists who have no state and whose ability to use a nuclear device is, for the moment, limited to a dirty bomb for which the only defence is keen Military intelligence.

Should one of these devices go off in central London the effects would be ugly and a lot of people would be irradiated and killed with many dying from the effects for years afterwards.

English Democrat and former Kent Police Commissioner candidate (I think I heard he is running again in 2016) Steve Uncles has an answer to this... A retaliatory Nuclear strike on Mecca after ANY terrorist attack on the West.

Mr Uncles argues in his blog that the heart of Islam, within Saudi Arabia, will be full of Muslim pilgrims. He states:

Massive retaliation works on the same principles as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), with the important caveat that even a minor conventional attack on a nuclear state could conceivably result in all-out Nuclear retaliation.

and...

This threat to of massive retaliation of 1 million Muslims and the destruction of the most holy Muslim site in the world, if a further "civilised" life is taken on respective sovereign territory, may be the only answer to eliminate Islamic Terrorism.

My first response upon seeing this was... What... the... actual.... F**k?

My more reasoned approach is this;

First off the bat:

In 1914 the Sultan of Turkey decreed a Jihad against Britain and her Allies, for all Muslims to rise up against the West and come to the aid of Germany and her allies. Apart from a few scattered uprisings including some rumblings in Persia and in the Far East the majority was limited to just the Ottoman Empire.

In 2015 the same is true. Despite the call for a universal Jihad the number of Muslims fighting the West is, on the grand scale of things, a small number. Should the Holy shrines of Mecca be destroyed by the West then there will be a massive uprising of Muslims worldwide and who could blame them? Their Holy places destroyed in one blast would cause horrific hatred and rightly so.

As would the slaughter of a million innocents. How can anyone legitimise the murder, and it is murder, of all of these people? How many will be terrorists or support terrorists? These people will have come from around the world and may even be citizens of your state on a religious pilgrimage - how can you kill all these people?

If it happened we would be no better than the terrorists.

Thirdly is the prickly ball of Saudi Arabia. Yes there are sections of their society who probably funding terrorism but they are also pro-West and supply a vast swathe of the much needed crude Oil. Should anyone Nuke Saudi Arabia then that vital line is lost and the West is somewhat dependent on it at the moment. There is also the Saudi investment in the West and its business, their withdrawal could cause absolute chaos in the business world and financial markets.

The terrorists and their strategists know this and know any threat on Mecca is a paper tiger - it would cause more harm than good and is morally and ethically wrong. It is akin to General Amherst reported suggestion that blankets from Smallpox hospitals be distributed to the Ottawa indians to quell Pontiac's Rebellion.

What frightens me the most about all this though is that there will be many who agree with him.

Syria - I just don't understand the inaction

It is true - I have an interest in war.

I've studied war in all its forms since I was a small boy. I'm fascinated by the tactics, logistics, strategy and human behaviours from the Field marshal on the hill to the Private on the fields - but I am not a war monger.

War for war's sake is always wrong and should always be a last resort to  sort out a situation.

As a Star Trek geek I also hold to the Prime directive of non interference in another nations internal affairs.

When Human rights are being, shall we say flexed(?!) then there is space for diplomatic sanctions and pressure.

When they are ruptured then more serious moves need to be made.

But when Women and children are being murdered in the streets or homes a line has been met and I truly believe that the Civilised world cannot sit idly by. As for using poison gas and nerve toxins, a practise banned after the Mustard and Phosphane gas attacks of World War One, on the helpless is absolutely unforgivable.

Seeing the news feeds of rooms full of dead children, civilians laying on the floor as if sleeping, people gasping for breath in hospitals through damaged lungs - I cannot understand how we cannot act?

I don't want to talk about the politics of the matter really, nor do I want to speculate on why Ed Miliband did what he did - I will merely point you to Dan Hodge's blog in the Telegraph.

I guess at the moment there is an area of doubt as to whether Assad has used the weapons or not and this is down to an MPs discretion as to whether or not it warrants action. I for one agree with Nick Clegg, that Assad has the weapons, he has used them before, his troops were shelling that area of town at the time and he has threatened to use them time and again - way to many coincidences for me there.Couple that with Military intelligence being pretty damn certain kind of hits the final nail for me personally.

Whether you are for or against an air strike though it doesn't matter as though as it was Party politics that won the day last night rather than a discussion of morality and right or wrong. Stackee's blog on Parliamentary Party politics puts my thoughts into words very succinctly.

So what are the solutions for Syria?

Well, we have precedent of such things:- Libya, Kosovo and Bosnia. The West provides an aerial strikes removing Assad's ability to deliver such weapons then pulls back.

Another approach is to provide Aerial superiority that will remove Assad's ability to wage war or to level the playing field for the rebels.

Neither option should be attempted before the UN weapon's inspectors have reported back. It is highly likely that for whatever reason the Russians and China will veto the Council if the decision to militarily intervene is decided. If this happens I still think that it is right to try and do all we can to stop these war crimes from being repeated.

I agree humanitarian aid needs to be delivered to the people in Syria and in the internment camps in the surrounding countries where hundreds of people are concentrating. This is always a recipe for disease and deprivation and aid must be organised. This needs to be done quickly as well.

History shows that when the world hesitates or decides to sit on its hands people die. Not the combatants or the ones who arguably deserve to but the innocents, the helpless and the defenceless.

The world cannot allow these atrocities to continue - it will not be forgotten and never forgiven.

Cameron, Trident and North Korea

I thought on the day that is timetabled as the end of the world and the day Kim-Jung Un orders his men to march south, that I'd write a small piece on why David Cameron was wrong about Trident being a good thing going into this possible conflict and why ultimately it doesn't make any difference.

Nuclear weaponry is something that the world wishes it could un-invent. One of the reasons the Allies pushed to coming up with an atomic bomb was just to act as a deterrent to the Axis powers having them and maybe starting the cold war early. The problem was the Germans hadn't the materials or means to deliver such a weapon and little real understanding of what the device would be. One scientist told Feldmarschall Milch of the Luftwaffe that an atomic bomb would be about the size of a pineapple!

When it came to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Allies only dropped the bombs to demonstrate to the Russians the power and awe that they had harnessed. Don't believe the argument that it shortened the war and saved the landing of troops as the USAAF, RAF, RAAF, RCAF and VVS all had enough munitions, aircraft and personnel to blast Japan back to the stone age with a lengthened aerial bombardment, the kind of firestorms and brute force that had been meted out to Germany's cities like Hamburg, Ulm, Dresden and Berlin.

The same is now true for North Korea. The UN and NATO have access to such a vast air fleet of strike aircraft, should North Korea go to start a war then within three days complete aerial supremacy could be attained. Don't be fooled, the CIA has got enough information on North Korea to properly assess their nuclear capabilities and their military strength and locations. This is no Cuban missiles crisis, nor the Balkans tensions in the late 90s when Russia and the West squared off over an airfield.

Nor is this a case of the Eastern bloc facing Democracy. The Warsaw pact powers no longer exist. Only China stands behind North Korea and they would back away should nukes start flying around the place!

Kim-Jung Un's nuclear delivery is really quite limited with only South Korea, Japan and maybe Guam falling in range. Though there are bigger rockets under development that could be used against Australia, Los Angeles and San Francisco they are far from ready.

As for Great Britain's contribution? Well last week David Cameron smugly stated that it was for moments like this it was a good thing we still had Trident.

Really?

The USA still has a massive arsenal of ICBMs and Stealth bombers able to launch from American soil and deliver a nuclear blast into down town Pyongyang.

What would they want our small fleet of submarines for?

England isn't under direct threat and our small amount of nuclear power would be a drop in the ocean compared to what America can fire.

The nation would be better off scrapping an obsolete relic of the cold war and investing the money into our ailing economy and job creation.

Defence cuts and reshaping

Lions led by Donkeys - as always

The British armed forces have always been badly treated by the Governments who sent them to war. The sailors who fought of Phillip II of Spain's armada were left in port to die from disease unpaid, the infamous redcoat of the 1770s was poorly paid in comparison to other less dangerous jobs in the motherland, battalions were sent to garrison forts in the Caribbean and decimated by yellow fever. The Boer war saw poorly trained troops massacred for financial gain and the First World War repeated the same mistakes for no gain at all.

Now occupation forces from Afghanistan are returning to redundancy and uncertainty on civy street- Thanks for all you've done guys!

Whilst I remain horrified at the human cost and the treatment of the heroes by the Ministry I can also see the motives, however cold, and insensitive they are.

Warfare is a fluidic and evolutionary creature that needs to be kept up with, something we failed to do in 1914.

Although the teachings of Guderian in Achtung Panzer and the Blitzkrieg showed that the day of the Infantry and Cavalry were well and truly over for successful offensives but it soon became evident that vast swathes of infantry still had to be used for garrisons and policing roles. Some seventy years on and we're in a similar boat. In fact things have moved backwards as aircraft design has accelerated. Modern fighter jets are too noisy and fast for photo reconnaissance and satellites too expensive to move. Moreover in a war against insurgents who hit and fade into the countryside rather than fight as a division it is hard to spot them, especially when you're travelling at 600mph and filling the area with noise sending people running for the hills. So who has to go on patrol and see what's what? The infantry.

Unmanned drones are silent, hard to spot on radar and visually, they're also slower as well as more fuel efficient. For recon purposes they are the pinnacle and they save lives. No one will be put in danger of attack and the drone can coordinate an artillery barrage, air strike or missile strike.

Once the occupation is started it is difficult to mount strikes with infantry ales time. Helicopter infantry is very dicey these days as any untrained fool can take down a helicopter with a one shot rocket launcher. Also the time needed to mobilise infantry, who aren't trained for surgical strikes, takes time. Modern warfare against plain clothed terrorist insurgents requires time and effort that is watched. If an incident happens around the world , and let's face it it is happening now in Mali, Algeria, Somalia - an armed response can be a logistical nightmare to organise and deploy.

Small teams of highly mobile elite squads is much more preferable for special operations. SAS and SBS teams can be mobilised and dropped into a combat zone within 48 hours rather than 48 days plus. They're harder to find and combat too. You can also arm and equip small teams with the best equipment for a lot less than outfitting a regiment and it's support staff with standard equip. It is thus very understandable, from an operational point of view, to why the MoD are scaling back and moving to a more fluidic form of warfare that will be more effective at combating terror and insurgents than sending our boys enmasse into a situation they're not equipped or trained to deal with properly.

If this scale back is to occur though, it is the duty of this government to thank the troops for their return and help get them jobs, homes in the same way demobbed troops were received after World War Two.

Response to Laurie Penny's article

Yesterday I saw a tweet with the comment depreciating an article by Laurie Penny and Remembrance Day stating how disrespectful and inaccurate it was. Of course, despite my brain telling me how much I would hate it, I read it and boy was I cross. Any way on my third read I have managed to come up with a review and can see what she's driving at in a few places but I also agree that her attacks on "the Establishment" is a little misplaced and her facts a little shaky.

Anyway the actual article is here. 

One of her driving thrusts is that Politicians wearing Poppies is hypocritical because they have authorised the deaths of British Service people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also have;

"Authorised the decimation of jobs, welfare and public education to defend Britain's military spending and Nuclear arsenal."

I agree with the sentiment of not cancelling Trident. I was most disappointed by that but it was one of the things that we Libdems had to suck up as part of the Coalition. As for the preservation of the Military budget then she is way off the mark. When a Government CUTS military budgets it is the soldiers on the ground who suffer.



The other side. German Soldiers at the Marne



As any student of military campaigns knows the British army has often suffered from this, be it in the War of Independence, the Crimea, Zulu War, World War One and even in World War Two British Infantrymen have found themselves without vital kit and have either had to make do or succumb to the enemy. Even recently the British soldier has been known as the "Borrowers" by US military personnel as they have never got enough kit, we have rifles that don't fire or go off when you're on sentry duty, radios that are picked up on Mobile phones, a lack of ammunition, aircraft that are as old as I am and burst into flames... This is not a high tech over spent military, we've officially got more Generals than serviceable tanks, more Admirals than warships and now it has been reported in the Metro that we don't have any warships guarding Britain's home waters for the first time in centuries! We are also not a Miltary orientated state, unlike the Kaiser's Germany or even Pre World War One Britain. Her beloved protests have not been met by the Army, nor a single bullet fired by the state. If we were like the afor mentioned states then things would have turned out differently in the riots and protests of the last year. Pre 1914 a gunboat openned up on striking workers in Liverpool and the cavalry were deployed against protestors in Ireland before the Black and Tans moved in.

As for politicians being hypocritical for wearing poppies. I can see her point however the argument is again flawed. Governments of all ilks have to make the important decision and War is always furthest from their minds. (usually.) When war was declared in 1914 it was not Asquith's intention to fight, nor was it when Chamberlain offered his ultimatum to Hitler over Poland, he wanted war to be averted. Other politicians such as Eden and Blair struck first in the Middle East and those were unjust wars. Should that mean that they shouldn't wear poppies and remember the fallen as a consequence of their actions? Also the death toll in both World Wars, the big ones commemorated by remembrance day, touched every family. My Grandmother lost three relatives on the same day in the Somme. How can you say, Clegg, Cameron or Miliband or even Blair cannot wear a Poppy to remember the deaths of their family? The sacrifices they're forebears made for this country and the cause of democracy. Its not hypocritical it is the very reason to wear a Poppy.

If we are going to talk of hypocrisy of poppy wearers we should look at the senior officers who commanded men in the field, the ones who plan the campaigns, or is it the junior officers and NCO's who actually physically send their men to die? After all British Commanders on the field ignored the reports of the German army preparing to use gas at Ypres, they had German defector's testimony and gas mask equipment shown to them but they ignored the warnings. When my Grandfather was in Italy they warned a Grenadier Guard officer not to march his men down a road because of the minefield. He ignored them and most of them were killed. Soldiers are killed. How is Asquith, who lost his son in World War One, more responsible than these men? Also, and lets be fair about this, the enemy, be they German, Korean, Japanese, Iraqi, Islamic extremist terrorists, Argentine etc, are all trying to kill British soldiers and occasionally they succeed.

I do agree that the war in Iraq was an illegal war. Yes it overthrew a vile genocidal dictator but the British public were lied to by Government and the West has profited from the peace. This should not mar the process of Remembrance though it is something separate. The same is true for those who burnt Poppies in protest of perceived "British Militarism."
Remembrance is a deeply personal thing, a moment to think about sacrifice and loss, the day is a day for the fallen and their families to mourn and commemorate, whatever cause they fell for or the government's motivation for sending them. Protests should be directed in other formats on another day. This is their day, an apolitical day.

A mythology has grown up about both wars and media doesn't help. The struggle seem to be glorified with the Second which by the way Laurie was quite avoidable for the West especially in June 1940. Does that mean that the blood of all those Britons who died after the "Appeal to reason" from Germany is on Churchill's hand's?  No Churchill did what had to be done. The same with Cameron and Libya.
Ms Penny asserts that the soldiers are being to sent to fight for a cause that they don't understand, all I can say is this is not the 19th Century when there were all manner of Political reasons, or even World War One when "Belgian Neutrality" and "German Militarism" were facades for complicated foreign policy. We sent troops into the Balkans to stop genocide, to Afghanistan to overthrow a terror state, Libya to stop oppression and encourage democracy. If anything I can't think of a cause more worthy than democracy and freedom of others (or yourselves.).

I do agree with her sentiment about the commercial side of Remembrance day and with the Crystal encrusted poppies, and the pomp and ceremony that can over hype the whole day, the glorification of War in some places. Although, if you ignore the Media side of it and look to the parish churches and to families you will see the true face of Remembrance, people talking over their losses, of the friends and family who didn't make it and there is the true message.

Finally, there comes the notion of sacrifice. Yes, there are two kinds of sacrifice; Volunteers who willingly give their lives and the ones who were sacrificed by Generals. Unfortunately, Ms Penny again misses the tragic point. In war, they are often both the same thing. Tough decisions have to be made and people lost. Yes, there are many great mistakes, failures and defeats as well as piric victories too. War is awful.
Yes it is OK to hate the Armament producers as she does but the simple fact is they only exist because there is a need for them, and business is good (in a time when austerity has struck everyone else) because War is so prolific. The simple facts are;
1: They pay their taxes and provide massive employment.
2: Until the Human race can evolve a higher sense of purpose and overcome its petty differences War will always exist thus so will Arms producers.

So in answer to the question of what my response is, I think Remembrance is a deeply personal thing, you cannot generalise as Ms Penny has done and say no one group should not be allowed to commemorate and that save the protests and flag waving for another day. Remembrance day is not about celebrating War, or politicising War, its about the lost and the fallen and remembering them no matter what side they fell for.