Conscientious objection isn't a legitimate posture...

No, I think it is forcefully stating what he thinks, eloethan, not saying no-one can disagree. Jim Murphy is not a stupid man and saying no-one can disagree would be stupid because he has no control over that.

If I tried I daresay I could couch something I feel strongly about in similar terms, and so could you. People could still disagree with us. We would think them wrong (their thinking "illegitimate") but that's not the same thing as saying differences of opinion are not allowed.

Surely we both think some points of view wrong? Jim Murphy thinks doing nothing in Syria is wrong. At least that's my interpretation of what he said.

"It doesnt take much of a read of the rest of the Bible to see that it means as in murder. Not war."

Thank goodness there are many people who do not set their moral compass by that bible.

Eloethan: If you look up the Just War Doctrine of the Church it will give you the criteria they judge by.

Why dont cos partake in state sponsored warfare? Everyone is supposed to be a co according to them? So we all wait until they are at our doors, then go in for "restraining"?

soontobe Who is to know how anyone will behave in desperate circumstances. But since the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" I often wonder how the established church has throughout its existence managed to ignore that commandment while others who do not necessarily profess to be religious try to abide by it.

It doesnt take much of a read of the rest of the Bible to see that it means as in murder. Not war.

thatbags He said in his article "conscientious objection isn't a legitimate posture". By saying something isn't legitimate (acceptable, valid, reasonable etc.) instead of just saying "It's something with which I disagree", that is surely trying to invalidate a person's right to a different point of view?

I wouldn't say it's right or wrong to be a pacifist but I'm sure it's a very difficult course of action to maintain and certainly not an easy option. Conscientious objectors, as I understand it, are not necessarily pacifists but have an objection to fighting for certain causes and in certain circumstances.

soontobe Who is to know how anyone will behave in desperate circumstances. But since the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" I often wonder how the established church has throughout its existence managed to ignore that commandment while others who do not necessarily profess to be religious try to abide by it.

I am sure that a CO would of course defend a neighbour as well. As I said above they do not take part in state-sponsored warfare. You may be confusing them with pacifists.

So they would defend themself, but not others?
They would not defend a next door neighbour for example?

Indeed they would - if a terrorist turned up at their door they would defend themselves. What they would not do is to take part in state-sponsored warfare; but they would act as medics or medical/nursing assistants. It is not cowardice but moral principle that motivates them.

soon!

So they would "restrain" ISIS if they were at their own door?

Conscientious objection is not the same as 'doing nothing' - as I recall it, the C.O. would claim the right to 'restrain' the rapist threatening his sister, or other similar attacker, without compromising his principles.

In my RAF days, in the 1950s, I remember we had to swear an oath, and there was no facility for the atheist to affirm. Does anybody know if that is stall the case in our military forces?

Hopefully we will learn from this.

We are still selling weapons - chemical and others - to Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries.
If the government banned that, it would be a start, show that human lives were more important than money.

Tony Blair admitted that intervention caused the rise of Isis.

There is also the question of what is possible - an aim might be laudable, but we might not be able to carry that out without "collateral damage" - i.e. innocent people dead.

And others are doing just that right now on Gransnet.

In what way is JM denying others their sense of right and wrong? All he's doing with the article is saying what he thinks. Others can do the same.

Is he not saying that the use of chemical weapons takes this a step further than previous things? There is a UN ban on the use of chemical weapons, is there not, because of their absolute rock bottom foulness. I think that came about because of gassing during WW1 and the horror of the consequences. I would call that learning from history.

Seems to me that until recently we were acting on a learning from history stance and keeping out of the war in Syria.

I don't accept that intervention has caused Isis or the civil war in Syria.

This article is very much in keeping with Jim Murphy's general philosophy. He is a member of the Henry Jackson Society, a "transatlantic think tank" named in honour of an anti-communist US senator. It advocates interventionist foreign policy by both military and non-military means and has been described as a right wing, neo-con organisation.

He refers to "my sense of right and wrong" and yet appears to be denying the right of others to have a different sense of right and wrong. Anyway, a sense of what is right and wrong in a given situation may not necessarily be linked to conscientious objection/pacifism but may also be arrived at through examining what results past actions have yielded.

The thrust of his article is that we should not learn from history - it seems to me that he is saying we should ignore the mess that accrued from empire and from Israel and from Iraq (and all the rest), where we carved up bits of the world ad lib. We must learn from history - we cannot turn our backs on it.

"Some kind of reaction" as a moral imperative must not lose sight of the need to spell out precise aims of that reaction (both militarily and politically). The outcomes from these excursions are often unpredictable and negative, both for inhabitants on the ground and for us, against whom hatred is further fermented.

There are subtleties and cultural factors that need to be taken into consideration - we cannot wade in as a knee jerk reaction to our legitimate revulsion to the actions of terrorists. It may be that past actions of ours have triggered and encouraged terrorism and we must not lose sight of that.

Never ignore history.

Presumably they don't object to self defence. Self defence is not war.

Also, I think it's probably possible to conscienciously object to one war but not another. Using chemical weapons against children, as happened in Syria, is utterly evil. I think some kind of reaction is a moral requirement.

Very good article.

I wonder if conscientious objectors would do nothing if ISIS were at their own front door.

Likewise. That's why I thought I'd share it. Nobody has to read it but it's there if they want to have a look.

I very rarely read links posted on the forum, but did read the whole of this and found it to be entirely sensible and also interesting.