05 August 2009

Where were the SAS when we really could have used them?

This is a reference to Operation Flavius, the incident where SAS troopers shot and killed three terrorists on Gibraltar which was characterised as an 'execution' with no attempt to arrest the IRA members by the ITV programme Death on the Rock. There are allegations that the SAS had a shoot to kill policy against IRA terrorists.

Now, thinking about it, the entire idea that there was a right to armed self-defence is silly if we think about the armed thugs who called themselves "patriots" that existed at the time of the War for American Independence who ran around destroying property or tarring and feathering British Officials who were just doing their jobs. I mean shouldn't a British Tax collector who had legal authority have some sort of firearm for self-defence in this type of situation? Wouldn't they be justified in using them when they were being attacked by an angry mob?

Unfortunately, that wasn't the case! Take for example:

The Boston Massacre which was an incident that led to the deaths of five "civilians" (actually rioters) at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770. 7 British squaddies and their officer were surrounded by a lawless, angry, and violent mob intent on harm. The soldiers were simply keeping guard and trying to keep the peace. One of the riotous attackers threw a club at private Hugh Montgomery, knocking him off his feet. Rising, Montgomery fired a shot into the air. He was stricken again with a club and Montgomery had no choice but to point his gun at the attacker, Richard Palmes who quickly fled. At the same time another soldier Private Matthew Killroy pointed his musket at the other two attackers, Edward Langford and Samuel Gray. “God damn you, don’t fire!” Gray called out.The anger and the fear of being beaten by a club like his fellow solder, private Killroy pulled the trigger and mortally wounded Gray. More shots were fired and more rioters fell to the ground wounded or dead, leaving the aftermath of 5 dead and 6 wounded civilians.

Gray deserved to be shot! The soldiers fired in self-defense. The thugs threw stones, bricks, and oyster-shells at the soldiers. A club-wielding man knocked down one of the soldiers. The soldiers were in fear of serious bodily injury or death, they had a right to fire their weapons.

Guess what, the British soldiers found themselves on trial because the use of a firearm against an attacker, even an armed and violently riotous one, was excessive force. Despite this fact, any possibility of a fair trial in Boston was impossible. Josiah Quincy and John Adams (yes, that John Adams) took it upon themselves to defend the soldiers. The justice prevailed and the jury vindicated the British regulars. Preston and his four men were fully acquitted and the other two solders were found guilty of lesser charges and sent back to England.

Now if they had CS gas back in 1770...

Likewise, 3 years later, a merchant vessel carrying tea was left unguarded in the same town and country with its reputation for mob violence. Now, wouldn't any self-respecting merchant have an armed crew, or even better either something like the 18th Century equivalent of Blackwater (or XE as it is now known) guarding his vessel knowing that the inhabitants of Boston were far from "law abiding"? Nope. Again, a gang of a hundred or so thugs violently deprived their countrymen of access to desirable goods to which the gang had not the slightest claim of ownership.

Again, you could imagine the screams if the law abiding merchant or his employees pulled a Harry Bennett and opened fire on the hooligans! Even better if they could have done so with machineguns as did Bennett! Not that the hooligans wouldn't have deserved getting shot for their illegal activites. In fact, the uppity locals would have been much better behaved if the British and Loyalists had fought back more frequently, let alone would have shot and killed the useless rebels.

Anyway, here is what those wimpy patriots had to say in their silly "Declaration of Independence" even without proper enforcement of the law by the systematic killing of the useless thugs who fashioned themselved "Patriots" by armed Loyalist hit squads:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
I mean, really, think of the screams if there had been something like the SAS to asassinate the likes of Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine (the most deserving of a bullet to the skull), and so on! Although, I am sure most of these people (Paine, a professional agitator excepted) would be easily converted if they were able to see the nation that resulted from their foolishness. They would be appalled by what this country has become with RKBA and teabagging ninnies (although Franklin would like teabagging of the sexual kind).

Seriously, here is a rebellious mob complaining about "plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people". I mean, seriously, they were fighting lawful authority. They had it coming to them.

I mean if there was ever a case for self-defence by law abiding citizens loyal to the King, the War for American Independence was it! This was a case of terrorism and the "patriots" should have been treated like the terrorists they were.