What is to be done about British war criminals?
Freeman
troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
Justice in due course?
Or am I just being naive?
Dave'n'Alias
"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
> If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
> Justice in due course?
>
> Or am I just being naive?
No mention of the Iraqi leadership or millitia in your post... I wonder why
?
>
> Freeman
> www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
Dave
"Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b6f1cr$4m77g$1...@ID-163212.news.dfncis.de...
Good point. There never will be. It's a sort of racism that implies
that you can't really expect them to behave differently.
f.woodhead
think gonna win raghead lover
"Dave" <Da...@ajax.com> wrote in message
news:b6f1rh$bba$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Nicolas Benicoeur
why
> ?
International law allows you to protect yourself from an illegal occupying
power by all means available. What is International law? laws agreed upon by
mainly rich white nations in the last century or so.
Jay
Mr D
You are not naive, you are a fool.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Richard Miller
<davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
invaded.
Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
of the waging of this war, it is the Brits and Americans who are legally
in the more ambiguous position.
--
Richard Miller
Stephen Horgan
International law does not allow 'you to protect yourself from an
illegal occupying power by all means available'. In terms of allowable
actions there is actually no distinction. The Geneva convention for
example requires that irregular forces obey much the same rules of
conduct as regular armies.
--
Stephen Horgan, http://www.horgan.org.uk
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
snout.52
<ste...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:55:16 +0100, "Nicolas Benicoeur"
><dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>International law does not allow 'you to protect yourself from an
>illegal occupying power by all means available'. In terms of allowable
>actions there is actually no distinction. The Geneva convention for
>example requires that irregular forces obey much the same rules of
>conduct as regular armies.
>
"whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall
fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the
streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and
even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large
part of it were subjugated and starving..... (aside during a pause)
then we'll beat the bastards about the head with bottles, if that's
all we've got."
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4634198,00.html
Blair war criminal
Christopher Morton
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <b6f1cr$4m77g$1...@ID-163212.news.dfncis.de>, Dave'n'Alias
><davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
>>> If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
>>> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
>>> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
>>> Justice in due course?
>>>
>>> Or am I just being naive?
>>
>>No mention of the Iraqi leadership or millitia in your post... I wonder why
>>?
>>
>
>Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>invaded.
...by murdering women and children.
>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
>should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
HOW? Send him a summons?
>of the waging of this war, it is the Brits and Americans who are legally
>in the more ambiguous position.
It would take a Saddam supporter to think that.
--
"If she's elected, I'll make a point of putting "D-Israel" after her
name." - Brian Zepp Jamieson referring to Black liberal Democrat, Denise Majette.
Greg Hennessy
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
>>should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
>
>HOW? Send him a summons?
>
"...come along quietly Mr Hussein or PC Dixon here will have to slap the
cuffs on.... "
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Büch dich befehl ich dir wende dein Antlitz ab von mir
dein Gesicht ist mir egal büch dich
Steve Walker
> Only losers commit war crimes winners get to decide who gulity who do
> you think gonna win raghead lover
Erm.... likely winners include international terrorism, arms dealers and
the very worst politicians
Steve Walker
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:30:43 +0100, Richard Miller
> <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>> invaded.
>
> ...by murdering women and children.
... invaded by people who are murdering their women and children.
Remember Northern Ireland? Many people preferred the rule of the
paramilitaries, because they hated the occupying Brits even more. That's
what's happening in Iraq now.
Christopher Morton
<spamc...@example.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:01:08 -0500, Christopher Morton
><chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
>>>should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
>>
>>HOW? Send him a summons?
>>
>
>"...come along quietly Mr Hussein or PC Dixon here will have to slap the
>cuffs on.... "
It's a fair cop....
Richard Miller
Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> writes
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:30:43 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>No mention of the Iraqi leadership or millitia in your post... I wonder why
>>>?
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>>invaded.
>
>...by murdering women and children.
That seems to be the preserve of Americans at checkpoints at the moment.
They have provably killed women and children in the course of this war,
and they have made unproven allegations that the Iraqis have done so.
>
>>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
>>should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
>
>HOW? Send him a summons?
No. By using the same methods as were used to bring Milosovic to trial,
or as have been attempted with Pinochet (although in the case of the
latter mass murderer, torturer and abuser of his people, he has had so
much help from you Americans that it is no surprise he has escaped
justice so far).
>
>>of the waging of this war, it is the Brits and Americans who are legally
>>in the more ambiguous position.
>
>It would take a Saddam supporter to think that.
No, just someone who looks at matters objectively rather than blindly
supporting a nation just because he lives there.
--
Richard Miller
Fat Freddy's Cat
news:b6fg41$ldj$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
Hello Steve, long time, no discussion between us...
Although I have a great deal of sympathy for all civilians caught up in
conflict, surely their blood lies squarely on the hands of Saddam - after
all he could have upped and left weeks ago?
I know you are a do-gooder at heart, but what is your view of the
following breaches by Iraq;
soldiers dressing as civilians,
storing weapons in schools and hospitals,
torture chambers in 'police' stations,
dozens of young mens ID's found (given it is illegal in Iraq not to carry
ID, where are the men?)
In fact, when the question of ID's arises in this group you liberals
vehemently oppose it, but it seems that you are willing to allow another
country to impose such a regime, punishable by very harsh measures if
broken.
Iraq was not a nice country under the current regime, I think everyone
here agrees on that, but do you honestly think the UN or a further 12
years of talking would have changed anything there?
I really cant see the 'war crimes' and 'murderers' argument used against
our troops - it seems I dont do enough tree-hugging or peaceful
protesting to get it...
g.
Joe Lee
"Greg Hennessy" <spamc...@example.com> wrote in message
news:puem8v0teeuhoudc0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:01:08 -0500, Christopher Morton
> <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
> >>should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
> >
> >HOW? Send him a summons?
> >
>
> "...come along quietly Mr Hussein or PC Dixon here will have to slap the
> cuffs on.... "
>
>
> greg
HOW? In the same way that Milosevic has been brought to trial, & many others
before him.
HTH, but I guess it depends on whether you believe in the rule of Law or the
law of the jungle.
Fat Freddy's Cat
news:2QjBJ9ST...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>>
>
> Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
> invaded.
>
How far would you defend that right Richard?
Lets say hypothetically, The US forces advance on Baghdad and some form
of chemical nerve agent is used against them, killing thousands of
troops, together with a healthy dose of Iraqis.
Would that change your perspective at all?
Is it ok to defend to that extreme?
Would the use of chemical weapons justify the allied actions?
> Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
> should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere
> fact of the waging of this war, it is the Brits and Americans who are
> legally in the more ambiguous position.
But what exactly was going to end Saddam's rule? Harsh language? Peaceful
protest?
I am not pro-war (who is?), but I can see the rationale for this allied
action. I see in this group one or two 'do-gooders' who appear to be
losing all sense of perspective in this conflict - they are starting to
come across as a bit 'foamy-mouthed'.
g.
Fat Freddy's Cat
>>
>>...by murdering women and children.
>
> That seems to be the preserve of Americans at checkpoints at the
> moment. They have provably killed women and children in the course of
> this war, and they have made unproven allegations that the Iraqis have
> done so.
>
So Richard, you are quite happy to believe all the stuff the allieds are
not trying to hide - and are obviously devastated about some of the
tragedies.
>>
>>It would take a Saddam supporter to think that.
>
> No, just someone who looks at matters objectively rather than blindly
> supporting a nation just because he lives there.
Richard, I would suggest you are one of the least objective people on
this group with regard to this conflict. You never comment on a war that
is being carried out with some of the lowest number of civilian
casualties ever, by one country who could flatten the whole of baghdad
with one bomb - pretty restrained really.
You never comment on the Iraqi failures to comply with the rules of war -
civilian dress for soldiers, storing munitions in hospitals and schools
etc etc.
Everything pro-US or pro-UK is 'propoganda', everything else is gospel
truth - hardly a balanced objective view.
I find it hard to understand how on the one hand you confirm the Iraqi
regime as corrupt etc etc, but then dont believe a word of what is coming
out of that country now from the allies. Surely such a corrupt and
hellish regime will not shirk at the odd use of simple lies to back their
own campaign - after all, they in the past have been willing to kill 10's
of thousands of their own people for getting a bit shirty!
g.
Steve Glynn
"Nicolas Benicoeur" <dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6f4ll$4jv8u$1...@ID-186693.news.dfncis.de...
Well, in point of fact, it doesn't allow you to protect yourself from an
occupying power, legal or illegal, by all means available. You're still
bound by treaty law (e.g. the Geneva Conventions) if you're a signatory to
the threaty in question -- and customary international law (according to
the ICRC, 'To prove that a certain rule is customary one has to show that
it is reflected in state practice and that there exists a conviction in the
international community that such practice is required as a matter of law.
In this context, "practice" relates to official state practice and therefore
includes formal statements by states. A contrary practice by some states is
possible because if this contrary practice is condemned by other states or
denied by the government itself the original rule is actually confirmed'.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/homeeng?OpenDocument&style=Cus
to_home
See also http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/customary-law.html
Steve
Steve Glynn
If they are _allegedly_ committing war crimes (or genocide or crimes
against humanity) the ICC has jurisdiction, since the UK has signed up to
the ICC, unlike the US or Iraq. A prosecution could be brought by a
State Party, the ICC Prosecutor or the Security Council. Since the ICC
'will only act when countries are unable or unwilling to investigate or
prosecute', it's in practice highly improbable that the UK would hand Tony
Blair over in the equally improbable event that a State Party, the ICC
Prosecutor, or the Security Council decided to bring charges.
With what crimes do you suggest Tony Blair et al be charged? Note that
'illegal agression' or 'waging an illegal war' or whatever is outwith the
ICC's remit, largly because the UN have been arguing about how to define an
illegal war for the last 40-odd years.
See http://www.icc-cpi.int/faq/faq.php for further details.
Steve
Fox Mulder
im sorry, that made me laugh very loudly...
wild monkeys will fly out of my arse on the day that happens
"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
MP
"Greg Hennessy" <spamc...@example.com> wrote in message
news:puem8v0teeuhoudc0...@4ax.com...
Stephen Magpie
What a stupid comment. There are plenty of precednts of leaders of
losing sides being tried. Freeman is posting from the UK, he's
interested in seeing laws enforced against the leadership of his
country. Why does he have to mention Iraq in the same post? Does he
have to mention Mugabe? Why was there no mention of Kim Jong Il in
*your* post?
Stephen Magpie
>
> >of the waging of this war, it is the Brits and Americans who are legally
> >in the more ambiguous position.
>
> It would take a Saddam supporter to think that.
You slipped and put an extra letter in your name there, Chris.
Steve Glynn
"snout.52" <snout.52@trough-of-human-blood> wrote in message
news:c9cm8vgmc2bvnvake...@4ax.com...
Stirring stuff, but what's it got to do with the simple fact that, as
Stephen Horgan points out, international law doesn't allow 'you to protect
yourself from an illegal occupying power by all means available'?
Not what Churchill said, and, had he said it, he would have been mistaken.
If, for example, the 'all means possible' include -- as Iraq threatens they
do in this instance -- disguising regular troops as civilians, or -- as Iraq
is alleged to have done -- feigning surrender or using medical facilities
as a cover for military operations, they are illegal whatever the
circumstances.
See Antony Dworkin's article 'Guerilla War, "Deadly Deception, and Urban
Combat' at http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-guerrilla.html
for further info.
Steve
PeteM
<por...@hotmail.com> gans
>Although I have a great deal of sympathy for all civilians caught up in
>conflict, surely their blood lies squarely on the hands of Saddam - after
>all he could have upped and left weeks ago?
The same argument shows that World War II was entirely Beck's fault.
After all he could simply have handed Danzig over to the Germans.
>
>I know you are a do-gooder at heart, but what is your view of the
>following breaches by Iraq;
>
>soldiers dressing as civilians,
>storing weapons in schools and hospitals,
>torture chambers in 'police' stations,
>dozens of young mens ID's found (given it is illegal in Iraq not to carry
>ID, where are the men?)
>
>In fact, when the question of ID's arises in this group you liberals
>vehemently oppose it, but it seems that you are willing to allow another
>country to impose such a regime, punishable by very harsh measures if
>broken.
We don't regard it as our business if *other* governments want to issue
ID cards. "Allowing" doesn't come into it.
>Iraq was not a nice country under the current regime, I think everyone
>here agrees on that, but do you honestly think the UN or a further 12
>years of talking would have changed anything there?
You've forgotten that that isn't the ostensible purpose of the war. Or
was it? Let's have a look in that memory hole ...
--
PeteM
MARK JOHNSON
victors always dictate what happens.It is very unlikely that any British
soldiers will be punnished for war crimes.
"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
> If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
> Justice in due course?
>
> Or am I just being naive?
>
> www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
Colin Wilson
A bird-brained idea
> It is very unlikely that any British soldiers will be punnished
Made fun of ?
Paris
news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
> If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
> Justice in due course?
>
> Or am I just being naive?
Fraid so......
Just remember when it comes time to choose which side of the line you
stand.. That you remember which side
of the line you should be standing on... And everything will be fine...
--
Paris. Not the City
dickbo
"MARK JOHNSON" <mm...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1049375134.627865@dyfi...
h0mi
Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2003 20:21:20 GMT:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 20:37:57 +0100, Greg Hennessy
><spamc...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:01:08 -0500, Christopher Morton
>><chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity
>>>>and should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the
>>>>mere fact
>>>
>>>HOW? Send him a summons?
>>>
>>
>>"...come along quietly Mr Hussein or PC Dixon here will have to slap
>>the cuffs on.... "
>
> It's a fair cop....
If ever there was some good use for Justin Volpe or the 4 cops who killed
Diallo, this was it.
Paul Hyett
>If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
>troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
>expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
>Justice in due course?
>
>Or am I just being naive?
Yes.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Cynic
wrote:
>Richard, I would suggest you are one of the least objective people on
>this group with regard to this conflict. You never comment on a war that
>is being carried out with some of the lowest number of civilian
>casualties ever, by one country who could flatten the whole of baghdad
>with one bomb - pretty restrained really.
Oh, so if a burglar enters your home, kills your wife, rapes your
daughter but lets you and her live, you should be *grateful* that he
did no worse when it was in his power to have done so?
>You never comment on the Iraqi failures to comply with the rules of war -
>civilian dress for soldiers, storing munitions in hospitals and schools
>etc etc.
I do not find those things to be at all reprehensible. Were my
country to be invaded by a vastly superior military force, I would
have no hesitation in doing the same.
I suppose you realise that the coalition forces almost certainly have
people working for them who pose as civilians in order to gather
information? Nothing reprehensible in that, either.
What I do condemn is attacks on civilians by forces of either side. I
have heard 2 credible descriptions of this taking place, one a
particularly nasty episode where an alleged coalition informer had his
tongue cut out and was left to die in public as a lesson for others.
As the situation becomes more desperate, I expect we will see more
ruthless behaviour on both sides. Of course, using the logic of some
people who have posted, the torture of the informer must be *our*
fault for making use of informers. I don't subscribe to such
dishonesty.
Should the Iraq troops use civilians as "human shields" (as they have
already been accused of but without any grounds), I will be condemning
that action. It is easy to misunderstand situations that are shown,
and I have seen several cases where the same video has been described
by each side as showing completely different things. A group of
civilians *willingly* defending their country against an attack is a
completely different thing to civilians who are being forced against
their will to act as a shield, but a video may not show the
distinction too well.
Forcing civilians to fight for their country is IMO morally wrong,
though it is quite acceptable throughout the World, and is called
"conscription". The US did it for Vietnam, and the UK for WWII. I
was conscripted to fight for Rhodesia (as it was then). Yet I expect
that if Iraq civilians are forced to take up arms against the
coalition, it will be condemned.
>Everything pro-US or pro-UK is 'propoganda', everything else is gospel
>truth - hardly a balanced objective view.
Not at all. I question every item to see whether it stands up to
scrutiny. I have not mentioned the vast bulk of information coming
from Iraq because it is so obviously untrue propaganda. You will see
that my criticisms are mainly of "facts" that others have raised in
the group. Such as the police station article, for instance. If I
were to make a list of all the stuff I do not believe to be true, the
bulk would be on the pro-Iraq side. Did a farmer shoot down a
helicopter with a bolt-action rifle? It would be possible. What is
by far more *likely* however is that the helicopter developed a major
malfunction, probably due to sand, and made an emergency landing. So
what?
I am posting in a group that is being read by the English-speaking
Western World. My thrust is to show why I believe *our* side is
wrong. I take it as read that Saddam's regime is more corrupt and has
a lower standard than I agree with, but I am not addressing their
regime. Believe me, if I were I would be a *lot* more condemning of
anyone who supports Saddam than my criticisms of our behaviour. So
far I have not come across anyone on the newsgroup who is pro-Saddam.
>I find it hard to understand how on the one hand you confirm the Iraqi
>regime as corrupt etc etc, but then dont believe a word of what is coming
>out of that country now from the allies.
There is much that can be believed, and you cannot say that Richard or
I have disbelieved *all* of it. Richard has in fact commented on very
few specific news items - his comments are mainly to do with the
correctness and legality of the war itself. You can bet that most of
our news is controlled, and quite a bit of "reading between the lines"
is required. I don't pretend I get it right all the time, but I
certainly don't swallow the majority of it whole.
> Surely such a corrupt and
>hellish regime will not shirk at the odd use of simple lies to back their
>own campaign - after all, they in the past have been willing to kill 10's
>of thousands of their own people for getting a bit shirty!
They were not exactly their "own people" - the situation is not that
simple. Like most information coming out of this, it is a half-truth.
If you want to have fun shooting down some outrageous pro-Iraq
propaganda, go ahead and swing your satellite dish around to Hotbird
(as I do quite frequently), or look at the more disreputable web
sites. Most are in Arabic, but you get specific English language
broadcasts or subtitles fairly often. I wouldn't disagree if you
called most of it outrageous lies, and would be happy that you were at
least getting some idea of the stuff that the Iraqi civilian is
hearing, and probably believing. It might give you an idea as to
*why* they are not sticking flowers in their rifle barrels and dancing
in joy as the gallant liberaters ride slowly into the sunset.
--
Cynic
Fat Freddy's Cat
news:86baa7304a864892...@news.teranews.com:
<snipped the lot>
A very balanced and articulate response indeed - thank you.
(not like you at all)
:0)
g.
Cynic
wrote:
>> Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>> invaded.
>How far would you defend that right Richard?
>Lets say hypothetically, The US forces advance on Baghdad and some form
>of chemical nerve agent is used against them, killing thousands of
>troops, together with a healthy dose of Iraqis.
>Would that change your perspective at all?
>Is it ok to defend to that extreme?
>Would the use of chemical weapons justify the allied actions?
I would say that the allied action precipitated the use of those
weapons that we had previously been able to contain. It is a *very*
plausible scenario. Saddam could well have such weapons, and I have
never claimed otherwise. He may well use them if he is fighting a
war, and I have bnever claimed otherwise. He has, after all done so
before.
>> Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
>> should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere
>> fact of the waging of this war, it is the Brits and Americans who are
>> legally in the more ambiguous position.
>But what exactly was going to end Saddam's rule? Harsh language? Peaceful
>protest?
You presuppose that it was necessary to end his rule. Ending Saddam's
rule is merely one (questionable) means to achieve a goal. The goal
itself however is to prevent Saddam from doing a lot of damage. To
contain him. In this we had *already* been successful. In due course
we could either have persuaded him to step down willingly by bribery
or other means, we could have assasinated all the key players around
him and left him vulnerable, or we could simply have waited for him to
get too old to carry on. Dictatorships tend to be unstable. The more
ruthless the dictatorship the less stable. Sooner or later it would
wobble, and we could push in the right direction.
>I am not pro-war (who is?), but I can see the rationale for this allied
>action. I see in this group one or two 'do-gooders' who appear to be
>losing all sense of perspective in this conflict - they are starting to
>come across as a bit 'foamy-mouthed'.
The foamy-mouthed ones are the ones who promote the war as a crusade
against evil by the white knights in their shiny armour.
--
Cynic
Robert Henderson
<davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
>> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
>> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
>> Justice in due course?
>>
>> Or am I just being naive?
>
>?
>
>>
>> Freeman
>> www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Fat Freddy's Cat
news:2fe775bda52bfe29...@news.teranews.com:
Forgive me for being a bit slow, but is 'Cynic' a sockpuppet of 'Richard
Miller'?
g.
Steve Walker
> "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in
> news:b6fg41$ldj$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>> Remember Northern Ireland? Many people preferred the rule of the
>> paramilitaries, because they hated the occupying Brits even more.
>> That's what's happening in Iraq now.
> Although I have a great deal of sympathy for all civilians caught up in
> conflict, surely their blood lies squarely on the hands of Saddam - after
> all he could have upped and left weeks ago?
So could Churchill - the Nazi's were eager to peacefully occupy Britain and
appoint a few co-operative Brit's as mouthpieces. Only that aggressive old
warmonger was ready to push it to the limit (including the use of illegal
chemical weapons incidentally, which he urged more than once during WW2).
> I know you are a do-gooder at heart, but what is your view of the
> following breaches by Iraq;
>
> soldiers dressing as civilians,
> storing weapons in schools and hospitals,
> dozens of young mens ID's found
All fine - same tactics as employed by French Resistance and other
liberation struggles. Can't condemn it when it's done by someone we don't
like. I'd do it tomorrow if the UK was invaded by North Korean troops, and
I hope you would too (have you ever heard of Gladio, Glaive or Stay
Behind?).
> torture chambers in 'police' stations,
Condemn all of Saddam's regime & apparatus, but doubt that killing his
population is an effective way to win their confidence. Amazing that
after just two weeks they fear & hate us more than they do Saddam.
> Iraq was not a nice country under the current regime, I think everyone
> here agrees on that, but do you honestly think the UN or a further 12
> years of talking would have changed anything there?
Why did we need it to suddenly change after 12 yrs? Be honest, this is
about George Bush's timetable, not the needs of the local people. We
could have just waited for the evil old sod to die (as we have in China), or
else assassinated his gang (commonly arranged by CIA in other countries).
We could have extended the no-fly zone, and given the Kurds a sovereign
nation (but oops, this isn't about setting people free though, is it?). we
could have armed the Shi-ites to rebel, and sent massive reinforcements to
support the Weapons Inspectors in gaining access wherever they wished.
I'm not opposed to violence per se, nor to overthrowing Saddam. What I'm
opposed to is that the US solution is always the same - kill truckloads of
innocents while talking shit about "smart bombs" and "regrettable collateral
damage". Worst of all, Iraqi children are dying as proxies for the US's
understandable hatred of OBL, when Bush knows damn well there's no
connection at all.
Regards....
Steve Walker
> news:2QjBJ9ST...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>>
>> Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>> invaded.
>
> How far would you defend that right Richard?
>
> Lets say hypothetically, The US forces advance on Baghdad and some form
> of chemical nerve agent is used against them, killing thousands of
> troops, together with a healthy dose of Iraqis.
Just as Churchill intended to do if the Nazi invasion of Britain had been
launched. He was going to drench the beaches with mustard gas, phosgene
etc, despite it being unlawful. See "A Higher form of Killing" by Paxman
& Harris.
Was that also wrong? Should Winnie have conceded defeat and accepted a
cushy exile in Canada in return for surrendering us to Hitler? Was he
justified in demanding increased production of anthrax shells?
Steve Walker
no
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> You presuppose that it was necessary to end his rule. Ending Saddam's
> rule is merely one (questionable) means to achieve a goal. The goal
> itself however is to prevent Saddam from doing a lot of damage. To
> contain him. In this we had *already* been successful.
Had we? Is there evidence that he hasn't continued to be a threat, or even
increase his threat, under containment?
(I am not offering evidence that he has - what would I know? - but a decision
to let him continue should be based on evidence that this is a sensible
option. It can't just be done by default).
> In due course
> we could either have persuaded him to step down willingly by bribery
> or other means, we could have assasinated all the key players around
> him and left him vulnerable, or we could simply have waited for him to
> get too old to carry on. Dictatorships tend to be unstable. The more
> ruthless the dictatorship the less stable. Sooner or later it would
> wobble, and we could push in the right direction.
[snip]
Hm! Given the period for which this regime has been in force, how "later" is
"later"?
(If he stepped down through bribery, what would his options then be? I suspect
he would realise that, detached from the regime, he would have no plausible
future to spend the money)..
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Scott
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rg1ja.2793$Ok4....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Cynic <cy...@none.none> wrote:
> [snip]
> > You presuppose that it was necessary to end his rule. Ending Saddam's
> > rule is merely one (questionable) means to achieve a goal. The goal
> > itself however is to prevent Saddam from doing a lot of damage. To
> > contain him. In this we had *already* been successful.
>
> Had we? Is there evidence that he hasn't continued to be a threat, or even
> increase his threat, under containment?
Yes there's loads of evidence from the very people now most in favour of the
war.
Tony Blair: "The sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein
in the last 10 years. During that time Saddam Hussein has not attacked his
neighbours nor used chemical weapons against his own people". (Nov 2000)
Peter Hain: (Foreign office minister) Sanctions have contained the regimes
threat to its people and neighbours. That is why Britain supports sanctions.
Since the Gulf War, our policy has contained the threat posed by the Iraqi
regime. In the last ten years, Iraq has not used chemicals weapons against
the Kurds or Iran or invaded its neighbours. Nor has it fired Scud missiles
at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Before sanctions, Iraq did all of these. That is
why Britain will continue to support sanctions and the No Fly Zones until
Iraq no longer represents a threat.
Brian Wilson: (FCO Minister of State) 26 February 2001 In a BBC interview:
"...the success of the past ten years has been the containment of Saddam
Hussein and the fact that he is not in a position to use chemical weapons
against his own people. The fact is that he is not attacking Kuwait and has
not developed the weapons of mass destruction programme to which he so
clearly aspires".
Steve Glynn
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3yeXQuAL$Gj+...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <b6f1cr$4m77g$1...@ID-163212.news.dfncis.de>, Dave'n'Alias
> <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
> >> If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
> >> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
> >> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
> >> Justice in due course?
> >>
> >> Or am I just being naive?
> >
> >No mention of the Iraqi leadership or millitia in your post... I wonder
why
> >?
> >
> What war crimes have they committed since the invasion of Kuwait? RH
>
> >>
Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform (indeed, they've
said that this is going to be one of their tactics) which is a pretty clear
breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
Geneva Conventions. They've also allegedly abused the Red Crescent
insignia and also feigned surrender a couple of times, though if these
allegations are proven it may well be individual commanders who've broken
international humanitarian law rather than the regime itself.
Let's see what else they've been up to .... The legality of the way
they've dealt with the Marsh Arabs in the South is certainly open to
question in IHL, ditto disappeared POWs from the invasion of Kuwait, and if,
as is alleged, they've recently used Skuds, that's almost certainly illegal,
too, since it's pretty near impossible to aim a Skud at anything more
specific than a small town, so they're banned as indiscriminate weapons.
Steve
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rg1ja.2793$Ok4....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > Cynic <cy...@none.none> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > You presuppose that it was necessary to end his rule. Ending Saddam's
> > > rule is merely one (questionable) means to achieve a goal. The goal
> > > itself however is to prevent Saddam from doing a lot of damage. To
> > > contain him. In this we had *already* been successful.
> >
> > Had we? Is there evidence that he hasn't continued to be a threat, or
> > even increase his threat, under containment?
>
> Yes there's loads of evidence from the very people now most in favour of
> the war.
None of the statements you quote (below) answer my question. I was asking
whether he continued to be a threat, or has even increase his threat. What you
responded was that he hadn't actually attacked - which wasn't my question.
My question (that I have also discussed elsewhere) is really whether
containment wasn't a solution to his aggressive intentions, but instead was a
measure that could not safely be lifted, yet was causing damage to Iraq & its
people. Containment wasn't a solution - as far as the future of Iraq is
concerned, it was even part of the problem.
> Tony Blair: "The sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein
> in the last 10 years. During that time Saddam Hussein has not attacked his
> neighbours nor used chemical weapons against his own people". (Nov 2000)
But what does that say about the threat?
> Peter Hain: (Foreign office minister) Sanctions have contained the regimes
> threat to its people and neighbours. That is why Britain supports
> sanctions. Since the Gulf War, our policy has contained the threat posed
> by the Iraqi regime. In the last ten years, Iraq has not used chemicals
> weapons against the Kurds or Iran or invaded its neighbours. Nor has it
> fired Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Before sanctions, Iraq
> did all of these. That is why Britain will continue to support sanctions
> and the No Fly Zones until Iraq no longer represents a threat.
And when would that "until" arrive? If ever?
> Brian Wilson: (FCO Minister of State) 26 February 2001 In a BBC interview:
> "...the success of the past ten years has been the containment of Saddam
> Hussein and the fact that he is not in a position to use chemical weapons
> against his own people. The fact is that he is not attacking Kuwait and
> has not developed the weapons of mass destruction programme to which he so
> clearly aspires".
The last sentence suggests that he hasn't increased one part of the threat,
but none of that indicates that the rest of the threat hasn't continued or
even increased.
Robert Henderson
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>> What war crimes have they committed since the invasion of Kuwait? RH
>>
>> >>
>
>Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform (indeed, they've
>said that this is going to be one of their tactics) which is a pretty clear
>breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
>Geneva Conventions.
Rather a redundant complaint as we are the invaders. In other words,
they are merely responding to our illegal action. RH
> They've also allegedly abused the Red Crescent
>insignia and also feigned surrender a couple of times, though if these
>allegations are proven it may well be individual commanders who've broken
>international humanitarian law rather than the regime itself.
>
>Let's see what else they've been up to .... The legality of the way
>they've dealt with the Marsh Arabs in the South is certainly open to
>question in IHL, ditto disappeared POWs from the invasion of Kuwait, and if,
>as is alleged, they've recently used Skuds, that's almost certainly illegal,
>too, since it's pretty near impossible to aim a Skud at anything more
>specific than a small town, so they're banned as indiscriminate weapons.
>
>Steve
>
>
--
Scott
The truth is Iraq is no threat to the UK and never has been, it's the same
old familiar pattern of scaremongering to get votes.
Ramachandran :The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and present
danger is, of course, without any substance at all.
Chomsky : Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except,
interestingly, the population of the United States.
In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of
government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The international
polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in
other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a
little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another
respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States
is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population
believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not
believe even in Kuwait or Iran.
Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was
responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened
since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was
about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to
about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out
major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so
again, well, in that case people will support the war.
This has happened, as I said, after September 2002. September 2002 is when
the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term election
campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed in the
election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront, but it
managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues - and
people huddle under the umbrella of power.
This is exactly the way the country was run in the 1980s. Remember that
these are almost the same people as in the Reagan and the senior Bush
Administrations. Right through the 1980s they carried out domestic policies
that were harmful to the population and which, as we know from extensive
polls, the people opposed. But they managed to maintain control by
frightening the people. So the Nicaraguan Army was two days' march from
Texas and about to conquer the United States, and the airbase in Granada was
one from which the Russians would bomb us. It was one thing after another,
every year, every one of them ludicrous. The Reagan Administration actually
declared a national Emergency in 1985 because of the threat to the security
of the United States posed by the Government of Nicaragua.
If somebody were watching this from Mars, they would not know whether to
laugh or to cry.
They are doing exactly the same thing now, and will probably do something
similar for the presidential campaign. There will have to be a new dragon to
slay, because if the Administration lets domestic issues prevail, it is in
deep trouble.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3369
PeteM
>
>Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform
>(indeed, they've
>said that this is going to be one of their tactics)
Before we argue about the rights and wrongs of it, could you provide
your source for this information, Steve?
>which is a pretty clear
>breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
>Geneva Conventions.
And an attack on a sovereign nation is illegal unless authorised by
explicit UN resolution. So is aerial bombing of civilian areas. So is
shooting of unarmed civilians as described in last Sunday's ST.
>They've also allegedly abused the Red Crescent
>insignia and also feigned surrender a couple of times, though if these
>allegations are proven it may well be individual commanders who've broken
>international humanitarian law rather than the regime itself.
>
>Let's see what else they've been up to .... The legality of the way
>they've dealt with the Marsh Arabs in the South is certainly open to
>question in IHL, ditto disappeared POWs from the invasion of Kuwait, and
>if,
>as is alleged, they've recently used Skuds, that's almost certainly illegal,
>too, since it's pretty near impossible to aim a Skud at anything more
>specific than a small town, so they're banned as indiscriminate weapons.
More so than a MOAB?
--
PeteM
Richard Miller
<cy...@none.none> writes
>There is much that can be believed, and you cannot say that Richard or
>I have disbelieved *all* of it. Richard has in fact commented on very
>few specific news items - his comments are mainly to do with the
>correctness and legality of the war itself.
Indeed. The one I specifically commented on was one in which a report
from a Western journalist in the Sunday Times described what amounted to
murder of a civilian by an American soldier. I have not criticised the
soldiers who shot the women and children in the minivan at the
checkpoint, I have not questioned the accuracy of reports except where
they have been demostrably proven to have been false.
--
Richard Miller
Cynic
wrote:
>Forgive me for being a bit slow, but is 'Cynic' a sockpuppet of 'Richard
>Miller'?
No. "Cynic" is and always has been my only Usenet identity in this
group. I have posted in other newsgroups with other names, but on
*totally* different subjects to any raised here.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>> You presuppose that it was necessary to end his rule. Ending Saddam's
>> rule is merely one (questionable) means to achieve a goal. The goal
>> itself however is to prevent Saddam from doing a lot of damage. To
>> contain him. In this we had *already* been successful.
>Had we? Is there evidence that he hasn't continued to be a threat, or even
>increase his threat, under containment?
Scott has addressed this very well.
>> In due course
>> we could either have persuaded him to step down willingly by bribery
>> or other means, we could have assasinated all the key players around
>> him and left him vulnerable, or we could simply have waited for him to
>> get too old to carry on. Dictatorships tend to be unstable. The more
>> ruthless the dictatorship the less stable. Sooner or later it would
>> wobble, and we could push in the right direction.
>[snip]
>Hm! Given the period for which this regime has been in force, how "later" is
>"later"?
Whenever we chose. It was *our* inaction that stopped us, not
anything Saddam did.
>(If he stepped down through bribery, what would his options then be? I suspect
>he would realise that, detached from the regime, he would have no plausible
>future to spend the money)..
Of course he would! Despot dictators retire to a luxurious and
anonumous life in loads of unrelated countries. If he shaved off his
mustache, would anyone recognise him? :-)
--
Cynic
Cynic
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> What war crimes have they committed since the invasion of Kuwait? RH
First, I note that most of the things you cite are resulting from
*this* war rather than being things he did since 1991. So if the war
had not been declared he would have continued to have behaved (mostly)
legally.
>Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform (indeed, they've
>said that this is going to be one of their tactics) which is a pretty clear
>breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
>Geneva Conventions.
I regard that as a *completely* acceptable tactic, given the odds
against them.
>They've also allegedly abused the Red Crescent
>insignia and also feigned surrender a couple of times, though if these
>allegations are proven it may well be individual commanders who've broken
>international humanitarian law rather than the regime itself.
It is not coming across as a general tactic, and indeed would not work
very often. Again, given the odds stacked against them, I do not find
myself recoiling in horror.
>Let's see what else they've been up to .... The legality of the way
>they've dealt with the Marsh Arabs in the South is certainly open to
>question in IHL, ditto disappeared POWs from the invasion of Kuwait
I'll take your word on those, not having read much about them. To
balance, the US does not have a very good track record in its
treatment of prisoners.
>, and if,
>as is alleged, they've recently used Skuds, that's almost certainly illegal,
>too, since it's pretty near impossible to aim a Skud at anything more
>specific than a small town, so they're banned as indiscriminate weapons.
If you are correct in saying that scuds are banned, then I think it is
absurd. It is only relatively recently that more accurate weapons
existed. To ban all older weapons effectively makes it illegal for
poor countries to defend themselves. Perhaps the richer countries
should do the right thing by offering to exchange all such weapons
from any country that asks with a 1:1 swap with a more accurate
missile!
--
Cynic
smicker
I can understand the question being posed though. You and Richard are
the very epitome of common sense normally but this war does seem to
have caught you both in distress.
smicker
http://smickersays.blogspot.com
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
[snip]
> > None of the statements you quote (below) answer my question. I was
> > asking whether he continued to be a threat, or has even increase his
> > threat. What you responded was that he hadn't actually attacked - which
> > wasn't my question.
> >
> > My question (that I have also discussed elsewhere) is really whether
> > containment wasn't a solution to his aggressive intentions, but instead
> > was a measure that could not safely be lifted, yet was causing damage
> > to Iraq & its people. Containment wasn't a solution - as far as the
> > future of Iraq is concerned, it was even part of the problem.
> The truth is Iraq is no threat to the UK and never has been, it's the same
> old familiar pattern of scaremongering to get votes.
You then go on to quote other sources that I do not have sufficient
information to judge, so I've snipped them. I judge that the current Iraq
regime (which I distinguish from the potential of Iraq, and certainly from 90%
of Iraqi people) inhibits the following desirable positions:
1: Iraqi people have the sorts of human rights that most of us take for
granted.
2: Iraqi people have the basic necessities for life.
3: Iraqi people are able to build their nation into whatever they want and
have the ability to achieve.
4: Related to "3", Iraq is a peer of other nations, without special
constraints.
5: Iraq is at relative peace with its neighbours.
6: This is achieved legally (according to consensus).
7: This is achieved without loss of life.
8: (other worthy aims, according to personal preference).
I draw my views about the current Iraqi regime from this. Fortunately, this
regime now has a very short shelf-life, and it is probably not worth
significant effort discussing a problem that will obviously soon be over.
It is more useful now to discuss whether "1" to "8" can be achieved
post-regime.
Marc Living
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>>>invaded.
>>...by murdering women and children.
>That seems to be the preserve of Americans at checkpoints at the moment.
>They have provably killed women and children in the course of this war,
>and they have made unproven allegations that the Iraqis have done so.
You really are a piece of work, Miller.
Please stop pretending that you are the least bit open minded about
this conflict.
--
Marc Living
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
Joe Lee
"Scott" <nos...@scott2.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b6jpc8$7sj$3$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
American military-industrial establishment would have to go on,
substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented.
Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy."
George F. Kennan, 1987. Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced
Study and former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union.
Joe Lee
all started singing to the new tune.
Richard Miller
<black...@bounceback.com> writes
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:17:39 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>>>>invaded.
>
>>>...by murdering women and children.
>
>>That seems to be the preserve of Americans at checkpoints at the moment.
>>They have provably killed women and children in the course of this war,
>>and they have made unproven allegations that the Iraqis have done so.
>
>You really are a piece of work, Miller.
>
>Please stop pretending that you are the least bit open minded about
>this conflict.
>
>
I have never pretended any such thing. We should not be there, and we
are responsible for every death that occurs.
What I do believe is that now we are there, continuing until Saddam is
out is the least worst option; but every possible outcome from here is
worse than if we had continued the non-war route, even if only for
another two months until there was proof of the existence of weapons of
mass destruction so that the UN would have accepted the need for this
war.
--
Richard Miller
Barry Pearson
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:57:39 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> You presuppose that it was necessary to end his rule. Ending Saddam's
> >> rule is merely one (questionable) means to achieve a goal. The goal
> >> itself however is to prevent Saddam from doing a lot of damage. To
> >> contain him. In this we had *already* been successful.
>
> >Had we? Is there evidence that he hasn't continued to be a threat, or
> >even increase his threat, under containment?
>
> Scott has addressed this very well.
It is often said truth is the first casualty of war. I disagree - I think the
first casualty of war is critical thinking, and truth fails as a result of
that.
As I understand it, Scott is the one who started the thread describing a "list
of propaganda/lies". My own analysis led me to believe that there were few if
any lies, and most the list wasn't propaganda. So we probably differ about the
credibility each of us assigns to Scott.
> >> In due course
> >> we could either have persuaded him to step down willingly by bribery
> >> or other means, we could have assasinated all the key players around
> >> him and left him vulnerable, or we could simply have waited for him to
> >> get too old to carry on. Dictatorships tend to be unstable. The more
> >> ruthless the dictatorship the less stable. Sooner or later it would
> >> wobble, and we could push in the right direction.
> >[snip]
>
> >Hm! Given the period for which this regime has been in force, how
> >"later" is "later"?
>
> Whenever we chose. It was *our* inaction that stopped us, not
> anything Saddam did.
Hm! So a regime with an awesome grip on the nation over a period of decades
will wobble (when we choose?) And we just have to push in the right direction?
I agree - that "push in the right direction" is currently underway. It is a
pity that the push has to involve war - but that appears to be the right
direction. And it appears to be working, which nothing else did over the last
decades.
> >(If he stepped down through bribery, what would his options then be? I
> >suspect he would realise that, detached from the regime, he would have
> >no plausible future to spend the money)..
>
> Of course he would! Despot dictators retire to a luxurious and
> anonumous life in loads of unrelated countries. If he shaved off his
> mustache, would anyone recognise him? :-)
We'll see - pretty soon.
Marc Living
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>That seems to be the preserve of Americans at checkpoints at the moment.
>>>They have provably killed women and children in the course of this war,
>>>and they have made unproven allegations that the Iraqis have done so.
>>You really are a piece of work, Miller.
>>Please stop pretending that you are the least bit open minded about
>>this conflict.
>I have never pretended any such thing. We should not be there, and we
>are responsible for every death that occurs.
Including somebody who dies of old age?
You are becoming a parody of yourself.
>What I do believe is that now we are there, continuing until Saddam is
>out is the least worst option; but every possible outcome from here is
>worse than if we had continued the non-war route, even if only for
>another two months until there was proof of the existence of weapons of
>mass destruction so that the UN would have accepted the need for this
>war.
Another couple of months would have taken us into high summer - which
is, of course, the reason why the Iraqis and French were trying to
delay for that period. Moreover, it had become perfectly apparent to
all fair minded people that Jacques Chirac would have rather danced
naked down the Champs Elysee than agree a resolution to topple a very
profitable market: so we would have been left with a summer war, but
still without UN backing.
Of course, it would be no skin off *your* nose if British troops had
to fight in the middle of summer - with their boots melting in the
sand - but then, you would never shed any tears for British soldiers.
You reserve your tears for foreign tyrants.
You ought to try living in a tyranny. Then we'd see how you like the
medicine you seem determined to prescribe for other people.
ny...@worldonline.co.uk
Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message >
> You ought to try living in a tyranny.
WTLF do you think you are living in at the moment?
Just because you ain't being tortured by the Government try walking in
Brixton or Haringey as a lone whiteman, we are being terrorised by Blacks
and dare not object!
FF sake Mark you can do much better than this, get your head from out of
your anal passage and take a look around!
Richard Miller
<black...@bounceback.com> writes
>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:26:27 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Please stop pretending that you are the least bit open minded about
>>>this conflict.
>
>>I have never pretended any such thing. We should not be there, and we
>>are responsible for every death that occurs.
>
>Including somebody who dies of old age?
>
>You are becoming a parody of yourself.
I'm becoming very surprised at just how silly you can get on this issue.
>
>>What I do believe is that now we are there, continuing until Saddam is
>>out is the least worst option; but every possible outcome from here is
>>worse than if we had continued the non-war route, even if only for
>>another two months until there was proof of the existence of weapons of
>>mass destruction so that the UN would have accepted the need for this
>>war.
>
>Another couple of months would have taken us into high summer - which
>is, of course, the reason why the Iraqis and French were trying to
>delay for that period.
> Moreover, it had become perfectly apparent to
>all fair minded people that Jacques Chirac would have rather danced
>naked down the Champs Elysee than agree a resolution to topple a very
>profitable market:
And why was Hans Blix doing it? Was he deliberately hiding evidence of
WMD in order to help the French keep their markets? What about Robin
Cook? Douglas Hogg? Senator Robert Byrd? The Mexican Government at the
UN? Canada? Pakistan? Germany? China? Or could it just be that all of
these people agreed that war was not the only or even the best option,
despite Bush's and Blair's repeated and ever more desperate assertions
to the contrary?
Now who is becoming a parody of themselves?
> so we would have been left with a summer war, but
>still without UN backing.
Ah, so all of a sudden, argument by crystal ball, to which you object so
strongly, is acceptable.
>
>Of course, it would be no skin off *your* nose if British troops had
>to fight in the middle of summer - with their boots melting in the
>sand
There is no clear justification for this war now. You claim it would be
impossible to fight it in the summer. What would be the difficulty in
delaying it until the autumn? Or is this now, in your mind, a
pre-emptive strike *in case* we found evidence in the summer?
> - but then, you would never shed any tears for British soldiers.
>You reserve your tears for foreign tyrants.
You really have become very silly, you baby-dismembering recruiter for
Osama.
>
>You ought to try living in a tyranny. Then we'd see how you like the
>medicine you seem determined to prescribe for other people.
>
>
I didn't prescribe either the disease or the cure. I just don't think
amputation by a quack using methods not approved by others is the best
treatment for an ingrowing toenail. As I mentioned on another thread,
last week I read a Home Office decision on an Iraqi's asylum claim. The
Home Office painted a very different picture of Saddam's Iraq from the
one you paint. It was one in which the vast majority of people were
allowed to get on with their lives unmolested by the regime. Why were
you not campaigning for us to go to war with Iraq in 2001? Could it be
because you didn't care then, but it is a useful pretext for this
slaughter now?
--
Richard Miller
Marc Living
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message
>> You ought to try living in a tyranny.
>WTLF do you think you are living in at the moment?
I live in a free country. Not as free as it used to be, but not even
beginning to think about approaching the outskirts of tyranny.
Where do *you* live?
>Just because you ain't being tortured by the Government try walking in
>Brixton or Haringey as a lone whiteman, we are being terrorised by Blacks
>and dare not object!
I am not being terrorised by anybody at the moment: if I was being, I
would certainly object.
Marc Living
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <npou8vsr471pmp1d2...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@bounceback.com> writes
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:26:27 +0100, Richard Miller
>><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Please stop pretending that you are the least bit open minded about
>>>>this conflict.
>>>I have never pretended any such thing. We should not be there, and we
>>>are responsible for every death that occurs.
>>Including somebody who dies of old age?
>>You are becoming a parody of yourself.
>I'm becoming very surprised at just how silly you can get on this issue.
I have no doubt that you consider anti-tyrant arguments to be "silly".
>>>What I do believe is that now we are there, continuing until Saddam is
>>>out is the least worst option; but every possible outcome from here is
>>>worse than if we had continued the non-war route, even if only for
>>>another two months until there was proof of the existence of weapons of
>>>mass destruction so that the UN would have accepted the need for this
>>>war.
>>Another couple of months would have taken us into high summer - which
>>is, of course, the reason why the Iraqis and French were trying to
>>delay for that period.
>> Moreover, it had become perfectly apparent to
>>all fair minded people that Jacques Chirac would have rather danced
>>naked down the Champs Elysee than agree a resolution to topple a very
>>profitable market:
>And why was Hans Blix doing it?
Doing what exactly? He was asked to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.
He reported that he was getting insufficient cooperation from the
Iraqi authorities in this endeavour. He reminded them that it was no
part of his job to play hide and seek. He expressed the opinion that,
given some more time, the Iraqi authorities may have a change of
height.
Our governments noted his findings, but disagreed with his opinion.
> Was he deliberately hiding evidence of
>WMD in order to help the French keep their markets?
He didn't find them. The reason he gave for that failure was that the
Iraqis were hiding them from him. He has never said that Saddam
doesn't have them.
The previous weapons inspectors also did not find the weapons which we
have subsequently been told - by high up members of the regime - were
being hidden from them.
>What about Robin
>Cook? Douglas Hogg?
Hogg doesn't support your case. His view is that it is none of our
business - not that the allegations aren't true.
> Senator Robert Byrd?
At least you don't have the front to cite George Galloway as a font of
wisdom.
>The Mexican Government at the
>UN? Canada? Pakistan? Germany? China? Or could it just be that all of
>these people agreed that war was not the only or even the best option,
>despite Bush's and Blair's repeated and ever more desperate assertions
>to the contrary?
Maybe they did. Maybe they (or some of them) had baser motives.
Either way, they were wrong, and we are right.
>Now who is becoming a parody of themselves?
Still you, I'm afraid.
>> so we would have been left with a summer war, but
>>still without UN backing.
>Ah, so all of a sudden, argument by crystal ball, to which you object so
>strongly, is acceptable.
I've given a reasoned explanation for that conclusion. But you are
correct to pull me up on it - it was merely a probable outcome.
>>Of course, it would be no skin off *your* nose if British troops had
>>to fight in the middle of summer - with their boots melting in the
>>sand
>There is no clear justification for this war now. You claim it would be
>impossible to fight it in the summer. What would be the difficulty in
>delaying it until the autumn?
You cannot just have armies hanging around aimlessly for months on end
whilst diplomats think up ever more imaginative quibbles.
> Or is this now, in your mind, a
>pre-emptive strike *in case* we found evidence in the summer?
"Evidence" of what? That Saddam is a tyrant? We know that. That he has
WMDs which haven't been properly accounted for? We know that too - not
least because we know who sold them to him. That he has been giving
Blix the runaround? We know that too - he told us so.
What "evidence" then do you still seek?
>> - but then, you would never shed any tears for British soldiers.
>>You reserve your tears for foreign tyrants.
>You really have become very silly, you baby-dismembering recruiter for
>Osama.
LoL. Name calling time is it? But you forgot "capitalist lickspittle"
and "running dog of imperialism" - you tyrant-loving accomplice in
rape and torture.
>>You ought to try living in a tyranny. Then we'd see how you like the
>>medicine you seem determined to prescribe for other people.
>I didn't prescribe either the disease or the cure. I just don't think
>amputation by a quack using methods not approved by others is the best
>treatment for an ingrowing toenail.
Fortunately that isn't what is happening here. Instead what is
happening is the tried and tested method of removing tyrants - save
that in this war the liberators are bending over backwards to ensure
as few casualties as possible.
This endeavour isn't assisted by the systematic use by Ba'athist
forces of perfidy* - which crime is rightly prohibited by the Geneva
Convention precisely because it puts civilians at risk (and is often
*intended* to put civilians at risk, as appears to be the case here).
Ah but ... the pro-tyrant brigade ask. What do you expect? They are
defending their homeland? Well, passing over the question of whether
the Ba'athists are fighting to save anything other than their own
worthless hides, it remains the case that even the worst of regimes
have not traditionally engaged in perfidy as a matter of deliberate
policy.
The retreating Nazis did not, nor did the Japanese. Nor (to pick the
regimes which you appear to despise above all) do the Israelis,
Americans or British.
What lovely people you are supporting.
(* The crime of perfidy (for those who don't know) includes the act of
pretending to surrender when you are not surrendering, and pretending
to be civilians when you are not.)
> As I mentioned on another thread,
>last week I read a Home Office decision on an Iraqi's asylum claim. The
>Home Office painted a very different picture of Saddam's Iraq from the
>one you paint. It was one in which the vast majority of people were
>allowed to get on with their lives unmolested by the regime.
LoL. Shall I inform the Home Office that none of your immigration
clients will ever be appealing from any of their decisions about the
earthly paradises from which they (said refugees) are inexplicably
fleeing?
>Why were
>you not campaigning for us to go to war with Iraq in 2001? Could it be
>because you didn't care then, but it is a useful pretext for this
>slaughter now?
This bizarre comment says far more about you than it does about me.
Bob Brenchley.
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <a40s8vgvh86r9hi1i...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@bounceback.com> writes
>>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:17:39 +0100, Richard Miller
>><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Perhaps because they are exercising their right to self-defence when
>>>>>invaded.
>>
>>>>...by murdering women and children.
>>
>>>That seems to be the preserve of Americans at checkpoints at the moment.
>>>They have provably killed women and children in the course of this war,
>>>and they have made unproven allegations that the Iraqis have done so.
>>
>>You really are a piece of work, Miller.
>>
>>Please stop pretending that you are the least bit open minded about
>>this conflict.
>>
>>
>
>I have never pretended any such thing. We should not be there, and we
>are responsible for every death that occurs.
We are there by sanction of a number of UN resolutions. Every death
that occurs can be blamed on Saddam Hussein.
>
>What I do believe is that now we are there, continuing until Saddam is
>out is the least worst option; but every possible outcome from here is
>worse than if we had continued the non-war route, even if only for
>another two months until there was proof of the existence of weapons of
>mass destruction so that the UN would have accepted the need for this
>war.
The UN accepted it when it passed a number of resolutions.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.
Bob Brenchley.
>
>Marc Living <black...@bounceback.com> wrote in message >
>> You ought to try living in a tyranny.
>
>WTLF do you think you are living in at the moment?
>Just because you ain't being tortured by the Government try walking in
>Brixton or Haringey as a lone whiteman, we are being terrorised by Blacks
>and dare not object!
I feel safe to walk the streets in both those areas.
>FF sake Mark you can do much better than this, get your head from out of
>your anal passage and take a look around!
>
--
Bob.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.
Bob Brenchley.
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <npou8vsr471pmp1d2...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@bounceback.com> writes
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:26:27 +0100, Richard Miller
>><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Moreover, it had become perfectly apparent to
>>all fair minded people that Jacques Chirac would have rather danced
>>naked down the Champs Elysee than agree a resolution to topple a very
>>profitable market:
>
>And why was Hans Blix doing it? Was he deliberately hiding evidence of
>WMD in order to help the French keep their markets? What about Robin
>Cook? Douglas Hogg? Senator Robert Byrd? The Mexican Government at the
>UN? Canada? Pakistan? Germany? China? Or could it just be that all of
>these people agreed that war was not the only or even the best option,
The problem is that nobody has ever put forward a workable alternative
that hasn't already been tried - and failed.
>despite Bush's and Blair's repeated and ever more desperate assertions
>to the contrary?
>
>Now who is becoming a parody of themselves?
>
>> so we would have been left with a summer war, but
>>still without UN backing.
>
>Ah, so all of a sudden, argument by crystal ball, to which you object so
>strongly, is acceptable.
>
>>
>>Of course, it would be no skin off *your* nose if British troops had
>>to fight in the middle of summer - with their boots melting in the
>>sand
>
>There is no clear justification for this war now.
There has been clear justification for many years.
> You claim it would be
>impossible to fight it in the summer. What would be the difficulty in
>delaying it until the autumn? Or is this now, in your mind, a
>pre-emptive strike *in case* we found evidence in the summer?
>
>> - but then, you would never shed any tears for British soldiers.
>>You reserve your tears for foreign tyrants.
>
>You really have become very silly, you baby-dismembering recruiter for
>Osama.
Your stupidity is really showing today.
>
>>
>>You ought to try living in a tyranny. Then we'd see how you like the
>>medicine you seem determined to prescribe for other people.
>>
>>
>I didn't prescribe either the disease or the cure. I just don't think
>amputation by a quack using methods not approved by others is the best
>treatment for an ingrowing toenail. As I mentioned on another thread,
>last week I read a Home Office decision on an Iraqi's asylum claim. The
>Home Office painted a very different picture of Saddam's Iraq from the
>one you paint. It was one in which the vast majority of people were
>allowed to get on with their lives unmolested by the regime. Why were
>you not campaigning for us to go to war with Iraq in 2001? Could it be
>because you didn't care then, but it is a useful pretext for this
>slaughter now?
300,000+ dead in just 12 years - it had to stop, we are putting a stop
to it at last.
Freeman
> they're already openly sharing the booty - it's announced in the Enron
> States of America that a senior suit from BP is to be "named" as top
> dog in whatever is setup to steal Iraqi oil
And a subsidiary of Halliburton -- Dick Cheney's old oil company --
has been awarded a contract for "reconstruction" in Iraq.
Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<eWtNjCETf$i+E...@activist.demon.co.uk>...
> In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 2 Apr 2003 at 07:57:42, Freeman wrote :
> >If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
> >troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
> >expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
> >Justice in due course?
> >
> >Or am I just being naive?
>
> Yes.
Thought so. Appreciate the well-thought-out argument.
Cynic
wrote:
>>No. "Cynic" is and always has been my only Usenet identity in this
>>group. I have posted in other newsgroups with other names, but on
>>*totally* different subjects to any raised here.
>I can understand the question being posed though. You and Richard are
>the very epitome of common sense normally but this war does seem to
>have caught you both in distress.
Either that, or Richard and I are maintaining our normal outlook,
whilst you are the one who has an outlook that is different to your
normal attitude.
--
Cynic
John Hill
>
>>I can understand the question being posed though. You and Richard are
>>the very epitome of common sense normally but this war does seem to
>>have caught you both in distress.
>
>Either that, or Richard and I are maintaining our normal outlook,
>whilst you are the one who has an outlook that is different to your
>normal attitude.
>
>--
>Cynic
Not from here Cynic. You Richard and John O seem to have adopted a
very surprising set of behaviours. It will take me a lot of time for
me to respect the three of you as I have before.
JH
Cynic
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>Hm! So a regime with an awesome grip on the nation over a period of decades
>will wobble (when we choose?) And we just have to push in the right direction?
Yes, exactly. The lighter the push, the longer it will take, but the
less the side-effects.
>I agree - that "push in the right direction" is currently underway. It is a
>pity that the push has to involve war - but that appears to be the right
>direction. And it appears to be working, which nothing else did over the last
>decades.
Of course a war will make a lot of changes very quickly. Of course
the US military can topple a regime in a country as weak as Iraq. You
are wrong to say that this is as opposed to "nothing else did" over
the past decade. There was no attempt made to topple the regime - so
no alternatives were suggested nor tried.
In a while the Americans will be celebrating and glorifying their
victory.
To me, it will be as sickening as seeing a man boasting about how he
punished his 6 year-old daughter by breaking her arms.
--
Cynic
Joe Lee
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
news:3091a6080b79a45c...@news.teranews.com...
And to complete the analogy, he would excuse his actions by saying he
couldn't trust her with a box of matches, (when in fact he had originally
given (sold!) her the matches). Whether she still had the matches at the
time of the beating pales into insignificance in comparison with his
double-standards.
Joe
smicker
Could be something to that as I usually ask questions of the experts
here but this is my subject so for once I can post rather than ask but
I am getting tired of the repetition though and so I only read some of
the posts now.
smicker
http://smickersays.blogspot.com
smicker
I don't go that far at all. I respect them all and their opinions on
the law in which they are experts. This however is a different ball
game and the three respected posters are analysing it as if it were a
court case and that is where views differ. It's rather like artist
discussing abstract art. They have opinions that the rest of us do not
understand because they look at the picture differently IMO.
smicker
http://smickersays.blogspot.com
Joe Lee
Richard Miller
<johnthewea...@opera.com> writes
Frankly, I won't lose sleep over losing the respect of a Christian who
thinks shooting dead an unarmed civilian woman is perfectly reasonable.
That goes way beyond what I thought you were capable of, and stretches
the definition of Christian well beyond anything I ever thought it could
reasonably cover.
--
Richard Miller
Barry Pearson
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:08:33 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Hm! So a regime with an awesome grip on the nation over a period of
> >decades will wobble (when we choose?) And we just have to push in the
> >right direction?
>
> Yes, exactly. The lighter the push, the longer it will take, but the
> less the side-effects.
I don't think the people of Iraq had the time available for this. Since they
didn't get this last decade, they probably wanted it this decade. The
"side-effects" would be happening all the time.
I believe that within days the regime will be over and we will start to hear
what the people of Iraq really believe, free from the constraints on their
free speech. I suspect it will be very illuminating.
> >I agree - that "push in the right direction" is currently underway. It
> >is a pity that the push has to involve war - but that appears to be the
> >right direction. And it appears to be working, which nothing else did
> >over the last decades.
>
> Of course a war will make a lot of changes very quickly. Of course
> the US military can topple a regime in a country as weak as Iraq. You
> are wrong to say that this is as opposed to "nothing else did" over
> the past decade. There was no attempt made to topple the regime - so
> no alternatives were suggested nor tried.
The ingredients for toppling the regime were there - sanctions, etc. But it
didn't happen. What stronger push would you have suggested? How long would it
have taken?
> In a while the Americans will be celebrating and glorifying their
> victory.
>
> To me, it will be as sickening as seeing a man boasting about how he
> punished his 6 year-old daughter by breaking her arms.
There will always be weirdos who get their kicks from unpleasant things that
have happened. Live with it - as long as it doesn't CAUSE those unpleasant
things to happen, it doesn't matter much.
Joe Lee
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
news:3091a6080b79a45c...@news.teranews.com...
Continuing the analogy, he would excuse his actions by saying he couldn't
trust her with a box of matches, (when in fact he had originally given
(sold!) her the matches). Whether she still had them at the time of the
beating pales into insignificance in comparison with his behaviour.
Joe
Bob Brenchley.
>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:08:33 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
><ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hm! So a regime with an awesome grip on the nation over a period of decades
>>will wobble (when we choose?) And we just have to push in the right direction?
>
>Yes, exactly. The lighter the push, the longer it will take, but the
>less the side-effects.
12 years of the "lighter push" cost 300,000+ civilian lives. A death
toll that would go on rising year after year after year.
3 weeks of an all out push has cost less than a thousand civilian
lives. And the end to those deaths is in sight.
>
>>I agree - that "push in the right direction" is currently underway. It is a
>>pity that the push has to involve war - but that appears to be the right
>>direction. And it appears to be working, which nothing else did over the last
>>decades.
>
>Of course a war will make a lot of changes very quickly. Of course
>the US military can topple a regime in a country as weak as Iraq. You
>are wrong to say that this is as opposed to "nothing else did" over
>the past decade. There was no attempt made to topple the regime - so
>no alternatives were suggested nor tried.
>
>In a while the Americans will be celebrating and glorifying their
>victory.
>
>To me, it will be as sickening as seeing a man boasting about how he
>punished his 6 year-old daughter by breaking her arms.
You really are sick.
--
Bob.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.
Cynic
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe that within days the regime will be over and we will start to hear
>what the people of Iraq really believe, free from the constraints on their
>free speech. I suspect it will be very illuminating.
They certainly have had a lot of practice in determining exactly what
the people in power want to hear, and then echoing that back to them.
They will quickly learn to sustitute "Bush" for "Saddam", and a short
while later will learn that "freedom" and "democracy" are the new
catchwords to chant.
As for discovering what they *really* believe - well - how many
ordinary people in the West believe anything other than what they are
told?
--
Cynic
Barry Pearson
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:10:17 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I believe that within days the regime will be over and we will start to
> >hear what the people of Iraq really believe, free from the constraints
> >on their free speech. I suspect it will be very illuminating.
>
> They certainly have had a lot of practice in determining exactly what
> the people in power want to hear, and then echoing that back to them.
> They will quickly learn to sustitute "Bush" for "Saddam", and a short
> while later will learn that "freedom" and "democracy" are the new
> catchwords to chant.
How will YOU judge whether they are speaking from the heart rather than saying
what they think listeners want to hear?
What would cause you to change you mind about whether that are genuinely
pleased with their new condition?
> As for discovering what they *really* believe - well - how many
> ordinary people in the West believe anything other than what they are
> told?
Tell us the answer. (Then we can each decide whether we believe you. After
all, in the West we get told a lot of different things, and even if we can't
create new ideas, we have a variety of other ideas to choose from).
John Hill
wrote:
> "...come along quietly Mr Hussein or PC Dixon here will have to slap the
>> cuffs on.... "
>>
>>
>> greg
>
>HOW? In the same way that Milosevic has been brought to trial, & many others
>before him.
>HTH, but I guess it depends on whether you believe in the rule of Law or the
>law of the jungle.
Milosevic's country was invaded which sparked a revolution.
Without the revolution he'd still be there
Spot the connection ?
JH
Richard Miller
<cy...@none.none> writes
>
>As for discovering what they *really* believe - well - how many
>ordinary people in the West believe anything other than what they are
>told?
>
On this subject, I found it very revealing that at the same time as John
Simpson was filming the bodies and body parts all around him and
reporting at least a dozen killed by the American plane that dropped a
bomb on him, US central command was confidently telling us that only one
person was killed and six injured.
And they wonder why no one believes a word they say.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Glynn
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LhdokKAH...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article <b6jdq1$4kfiv$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >>
> >> What war crimes have they committed since the invasion of Kuwait? RH
> >>
> >> >>
> >
> >Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform (indeed, they've
> >said that this is going to be one of their tactics) which is a pretty
clear
> >breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
> >Geneva Conventions.
>
>
> Rather a redundant complaint as we are the invaders. In other words,
> they are merely responding to our illegal action. RH
>
>
Which is no defence whatseover in International Humanitarian Law. If my
lot shoot some of your lot after they've tried to surrender, you don't get
to shoot an equal number of my lot in retaliation. Try it, and you'll end
up in the Hague alongside me charged with the same thing.
Steve
Steve Glynn
"PeteM" <Pe...@arcadia.net> wrote in message
news:kNjtyKA8...@arcadia.net...> <steve...@ntlworld.com> gans
> >
> >Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform
> >(indeed, they've
> >said that this is going to be one of their tactics)
>
> your source for this information, Steve?
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2899387.stm
Baghdad has warned suicide missions against coalition forces will become
"routine military policy", following a deadly attack against US soldiers on
Saturday.
Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said an army officer had carried
out the "martyrdom operation" which killed four American soldiers - the
first such attack against US forces since the war began.
The attacker - dressed in civilian clothes - drove a taxi to a checkpoint
near the central city of Najaf and, as the soldiers approached it, detonated
it.
<snip>
Iraqi television said President Saddam Hussein had awarded two posthumous
medals to the suicide bomber - junior officer Ali Hammadi al-Namani.
It said the attacker wanted to "teach the invaders a lesson in the same
manner as our Palestinian martyrdom fighters".
The soldiers killed were from the US Army's 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry
Division, US Captain Andrew Wallace said.
He said that when the driver stopped at the checkpoint, he indicated to the
soldiers that he needed some help.
"As they approached the car... he set off the bomb," he said.
"This is just the beginning," the Iraqi vice-president warned at a news
conference in Baghdad.
"It will be routine military policy. We will use any means to kill our enemy
in our land and we will follow the enemy into its land," Mr Ramadan said. '
>
> >which is a pretty clear
> >breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
> >Geneva Conventions.
>
> And an attack on a sovereign nation is illegal unless authorised by
> explicit UN resolution. So is aerial bombing of civilian areas. So is
> shooting of unarmed civilians as described in last Sunday's ST.
>
First, 'retatlation' is no sort of defence in international humanitarian
law. Sign up to the Geneva Conventions (as have both the USA and Iraq)
and you're stuck with it. They don't say 'this is what you can and can't
do unless the other side do it first'. It's 'We ain't going to do that'.
>
> >They've also allegedly abused the Red Crescent
> >insignia and also feigned surrender a couple of times, though if these
> >allegations are proven it may well be individual commanders who've broken
> >international humanitarian law rather than the regime itself.
> >
> >Let's see what else they've been up to .... The legality of the way
> >they've dealt with the Marsh Arabs in the South is certainly open to
> >question in IHL, ditto disappeared POWs from the invasion of Kuwait, and
> >if,
> >as is alleged, they've recently used Skuds, that's almost certainly
illegal,
> >too, since it's pretty near impossible to aim a Skud at anything more
> >specific than a small town, so they're banned as indiscriminate weapons.
>
> More so than a MOAB?
>
Don't understand. AFAIK, MOABs are an Israeli Boost-phase Intercept
missile and UAV system to knock out Skuds while they're in the air. So,
since a MOAB is designed to hit a Skud, which can't really hit anything
other than a small town,, I'd say the former were a tad more accurate than
the latter.
Steve
Cynic
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>> They certainly have had a lot of practice in determining exactly what
>> the people in power want to hear, and then echoing that back to them.
>> They will quickly learn to sustitute "Bush" for "Saddam", and a short
>> while later will learn that "freedom" and "democracy" are the new
>> catchwords to chant.
>How will YOU judge whether they are speaking from the heart rather than saying
>what they think listeners want to hear?
Mainly, I don't listen to what they say at all. I watch how they
live. If the average standard of living increases, I would say that
on balance they are better off.
As far as listening to what they say is concerned, I listen to the
*complaints* that they have. The more petty the complaints, the
happier they are overall. People who are living in fear for their
lives do not usually voice many complaints about how their neighbour
keeps parking in front of their house.
>What would cause you to change you mind about whether that are genuinely
>pleased with their new condition?
As above.
>> As for discovering what they *really* believe - well - how many
>> ordinary people in the West believe anything other than what they are
>> told?
>Tell us the answer. (Then we can each decide whether we believe you. After
>all, in the West we get told a lot of different things, and even if we can't
>create new ideas, we have a variety of other ideas to choose from).
We have variety about many things, but we are also fed a lot of common
themes that the majority of people accept without question.
When it comes to things that *really* fire huge numbers of people into
a storm of emotion, it is caused pretty much by blind acceptance of
what we are told to feel via the media. Only a tiny minority of
people really question the fundamental basis of what we are told, and
the number who actually take any action can be counted on the fingers
- and are usually condemned by the rest.
Really significant changes are made by a slow "tide of change" that
affects people in power as well as the man in the street.
--
Cynic
PeteM
>
>"PeteM" <Pe...@arcadia.net> wrote in message
>news:kNjtyKA8...@arcadia.net...
>> In article <b6jdq1$4kfiv$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> gans
>> >
>> >Well, they've had their soldiers fighting out of uniform
>> >(indeed, they've
>> >said that this is going to be one of their tactics)
>>
>> Before we argue about the rights and wrongs of it, could you provide
>> your source for this information, Steve?
>>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2899387.stm
>
>Baghdad has warned suicide missions against coalition forces will become
>"routine military policy", following a deadly attack against US soldiers on
>Saturday.
>
>Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said an army officer had carried
>out the "martyrdom operation" which killed four American soldiers - the
>first such attack against US forces since the war began.
>
>The attacker - dressed in civilian clothes - drove a taxi to a checkpoint
>near the central city of Najaf and, as the soldiers approached it, detonated
>it.
This is the key accusation. It is an unsourced statement made by the BBC
reporter. It is not attributed to the Iraqi spokesman, who was quoted
only as talking about a "martyrdom operation".
It is a very old reporter's trick to follow an uncontroversial
attributed quote with a much more contentious, but unsourced, claim. The
intent is to fool the reader (and the sub) into subsconsciously assuming
that the contentious claim comes from the same person who gave the
quote.
Whence, then, comes the BBC reporter's claim that the officer was not in
uniform? We can probably guess from the photo caption on the same web
page. It states: "The US says Iraqi troops are posing as civilians"
>
>"This is just the beginning," the Iraqi vice-president warned at a news
>conference in Baghdad.
>
>"It will be routine military policy. We will use any means to kill our enemy
>in our land and we will follow the enemy into its land," Mr Ramadan said. '
Still talking about "martyrdom operations". No mention of uniforms.
So IMO it still needs to be established that the regular Iraqi military
are fighting out of uniform.
Of course, they may be doing so. Iraqi irregulars certainly are, just as
I would in such a situation. But there are so many lies around that I
think it's important to keep a grip on what is really known and what is
merely alleged by the Americans.
>>
>> >which is a pretty clear
>> >breach of the law on perfidy and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
>> >Geneva Conventions.
>>
>> And an attack on a sovereign nation is illegal unless authorised by
>> explicit UN resolution. So is aerial bombing of civilian areas. So is
>> shooting of unarmed civilians as described in last Sunday's ST.
>>
>
>First, 'retatlation' is no sort of defence in international humanitarian
>law. Sign up to the Geneva Conventions (as have both the USA and Iraq)
>and you're stuck with it. They don't say 'this is what you can and can't
>do unless the other side do it first'. It's 'We ain't going to do that'.
Two questions in reply, then.
Does the Geneva Convention apply where war has not been declared (this
isn't rhetorical, I don't know the answer)?
Second, if an aggressor country repudiates the Convention first - either
explictly, or implicitly through its own actions - is it not
"legitimate" (in some sense) for the attacked country to repudiate it
also?
After all, it would seem rather unfair to expect an attacked country to
extend courtesies to their attackers which the attackers themselves did
not trouble with.
>> More so than a MOAB?
>>
>
>Don't understand. AFAIK, MOABs are an Israeli Boost-phase Intercept
>missile and UAV system to knock out Skuds while they're in the air. So,
>since a MOAB is designed to hit a Skud, which can't really hit anything
>other than a small town,, I'd say the former were a tad more accurate than
>the latter.
Must be a different MOAB. The one I have heard of is a gigantic US bomb
to be dropped from aircraft on ground targets..
--
PeteM
Doug
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 2 Apr 2003 at 07:57:42, Freeman wrote :
>>If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
>>troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
>>expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
>>Justice in due course?
>>
>>Or am I just being naive?
>
>Yes.
Naive is not the word I would use in your case.
I cannot give an answer at present , - I've given up swearing and
blaspheming for Lent.
I have lent my lawnmower to the next door neighbour.
Doug.
Doug
writes
>In theory they should be put on tril.
You find a cage big enough and I'll provide the budgie seed.~
Doug.
>That will not happen becuase the
>victors always dictate what happens.It is very unlikely that any British
>soldiers will be punnished for war crimes.
Becuase there are no soldiers in the Cabinet, you cannot punnish them
for war crimes.
Doug.
>"Freeman" <libertyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:59b7797b.03040...@posting.google.com...
>> If Tony Blair and other British political leaders, as well as British
>> troops, are committing war crimes under international law, can we
>> expect to see proceedings against them in the International Court of
>> Justice in due course?
>>
>> Or am I just being naive?
>>
>> Freeman
>> www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
>
>
Rob Mosley
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 20:37:57 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> <spamc...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:01:08 -0500, Christopher Morton
> ><chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>Saddam is no doubt guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity and
> >>>should be tried for them. But in this instance, looking at the mere fact
> >>
> >>HOW? Send him a summons?
> >>
> >
> >"...come along quietly Mr Hussein or PC Dixon here will have to slap the
> >cuffs on.... "
>
"right to self-defense"
There is no such thing a sovereign tyranny, and because of that they
being tyrannies have no right to defense, or to exist for that matter.
And anyone you takes up arms to defends them deserves to die.
Richard sounds like he supports that Tikiriti mafia because it has a
seat in the UN assembly. Despite the fact all involved in that
Baathist adventure have reserved for them a cubicle each, in hell.
Thank God, literally.
As far as sending in a super-Interpol squad to arrest Hussein goes,
what is so wrong with a kill/capture mission run by heavily armed and
well-trained Special Operations Forces Detachment D(Delta Force)guys
going in there.
I'll take the M-16's over 38. cals anyday.