Re: French and Moland vs. Republic of Congo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sigurd
:laugh4:
Your googlefu aint that strong my friend. This so-called spokesman is a former advisor to Bondevik from the Christian People's party - not in government by the way, and wrote it on twitter. When confronted by the press, he deleted it and admitted it was a stupid thing to do.
So he did say it. Sorry about the obsolete job description, but doesn't his remark reflect the private attitude of Norway's leadership on the issue?
Anyway, it seems that Mr French had to resign from the Norwegian army when it was discovered that he and Mr Moland were recruiting soldiers for private security companies operating in Africa. So they were not serving only the King of Norway, were they? Their SIG company seems a murky outfit at best. They were carrying false identity papers and they were scouting an area where new oil deposits had recently been discovered. Now that's spying. What else were they and the SIG up to?
French had assumed the false name of 'John Hunt'. The Private Military Herald reports that
Representatives from SIG have thus far not commented publicly on the pending trial of Moland and French. However, in previous public interviews members of their staff, including one identifying himself as “John Hunt” had claimed that SIG has executed offensive combat operations in Africa, including in the DRC.
SIG has even been mentioned by Aftenposten in connection with murder missions. If anyone in this case tarnishes the reputation of Norway, methinks it is these two guys.
Re: French and Moland vs. Republic of Congo
Quote:
Alright, how bout this straight from dictionary.com
"a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism"
Very good Mook , well done. What is terrorism?
A dictionary definition will do , but it will raise another question about another word to define.
So before you wrote
Quote:
Learn what a terrorist actually it.
pehaps you should have thought about it first.
Quote:
When confronted by the press, he deleted it and admitted it was a stupid thing to do.
Wow politicians admitting that what they said was stupid, like that Edwina Curry saying british eggs were contaminted , it was true but a silly thing to do. McCreevy and Cowen both said they hadn't read Lisbon , true but a silly thing to do.
Re: French and Moland vs. Republic of Congo
Sigurd, Mooks, I labelled these two men terrorists because:
- Poetic license
- Because terrorists is what they would've been branded as, if instead of white Norwegian, they had been Muslim Norwegians.
- To get some fire into the debate. I tried to walk behind the façade of the building, to check what it looks like from the other side. Rather differently, I thought it did.
- Because the false names they picked are 'Mike Callan' and 'John Hunt'. :daisy: Nice touch that. I think this is quite telling of their level of respect towards their African surroundings. Can anyone make something of 'John Callan'?
European adventurers/soldiers of fortune/terrorists are in Guantanamo. Which is well comparable to this case. Has there been, in any Gitmo case involved, the same national outcry? I can't think of any. And at least in this Congo case, the defendants did get a speedy trial. Does this not show the racism of Europe?
The Congo (I forgot exactly whom) confirmed today that these two men will not be executed. The Congo does not execute the death penalty. This is good news for the two Norwegians. And bad news, because Europe is explicitly opposed to the death penalty. This threat gone, and considering the nature of this case, support from Europe may not be unlimited.
Re: French and Moland vs. Republic of Congo
Mooks:
If you're going to tilt at that most interesting of windmills, Tribesman, you simply MUST be prepared to parse the language carefully. Like all good Irish-descent critics and wordsmiths, he takes pains to hammer home the point that most English really don't know how to use their language properly and had to leave it to the Keltoi to bring it to its full flowering. :beam:
Tribes:
Tsk, tsk. I am certain that you are well aware of Mooks point.
Terrorism is to intentionally use violence against unarmed/uninvolved/innocent targets in an effort to maximize a sense of "terror" -- I think the German term "schrecklichkeit" actually captures the intended meaning of 'terror' in this usage -- so as to further a specific socio-political agenda. We tend to ascribe the label "terrorist" to those for whom such tactics have become habitual.
Therefore, some military actions -- even those enacted by Great Powers past and present -- can truthfully be described as terrorist attacks. Many other actions are semi-terroristic in that a legitimate target may be the primary focus of the act of violence in question, but little care to minimize civilian casualties (or even an outright disregard for same) was made. Most nations cannot be described as "terrorist states" because they have not and do not make such tactics a habitual practice. Sadly, there are few nations that have NOT performed some act of terrorism at some point in their history and it can be argued that many states were -- at least for some measurable historical period -- terror-states in that such tactics had become habitual.
Mercenaries of any stripe may, or may not, also be legitimately thought of as terrorists, depending upon their actions. The simple fact of being a mercenary and the simple fact of engaging in violence do not in and of themselves warrant the labels "terrorist" or "terrorism."
As to these two blokes and their actions, I do not know all of the specifics. Perhaps Louis' labeling of them is accurate as well as "poetic." Perhaps they were simply fighters relying on a sort of "dark humor" to get them through some episode (admittedly, such a sick sense of humor is itself problematic). I do not know.
From what I have gleaned in this thread, both of these individuals ARE flotsam that Norway would like to disown and leave to rot. The trial just undergone, however, appears to be farcical in character and execution. Couldn't Congolese prosecutors have produced some better evidence at trial? Or if they were mercs on the losing side of an engagement, why not simply use the traditional "field" solution for removing the problem? Why go to the trouble of a poorly conducted trial?
I believe Sigurd's outrage stems from the solid principle of taking care of one's own. He doesn't seem to think they were "martyred innocents" so much as he demands something for a fellow Norwegian that at least RESEMBLES legitimate due process of law. This is a sentiment with which I heartily agree.
I suspect Norway could make an extraction attempt if they wished. However difficult the task, Norway is possessed of a NATO-caliber military with a host of skills and abilities. It may be politically untenable to even try, but I do not believe it would be militarily impossible. There might be quite a price tag to it though.