Inquiry: UK soldiers who fought in Iraq may face prosecution

[lvr181]

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I must agree that criminals that prey on our peaceful British civilian society MUST be punished, even if they are followers of that odd cult of Islam. But to hold an enquiry into so called 'war crimes' allegedly perpertuated by members of one of the best professional armies in the world?They were in a battlefield situation and under a great deal of stress,and acted according to the situation as they saw it. Second guessing by chairborn PC tossers after the fact is stupid. These people are the ones who die so that YOU and I can sit at our keyboards and comment. My friend Pondgelding would agree with me on this.

I couldn't agree more. I wonder how many that decry the British Army have ever participated in armed conflict? As an ex soldier who has done so, I can assure you that there is no rule book when the lives of you or your mates are at stake and anyone, man, woman or child is a possible killer. March a mile in a soldier's boots before throwing out comments about justice from the comfort of your own home.

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

[evadgib]

Hanging the British military out to dry has been going on for years and will likely continue until promotions dry up (the C o C / ministers can be quite gutless if they feel their own prospects are under threat) or the money tap is turned off (legal aid opportunists). The knock-on effect is that soldiers hesitate which in turn renders them unreliable through no fault of their own and has lead to deaths or serious injuries to their own side or terrorists getting away.

Edited January 3, 2016 by evadgib

[Dumbastheycome]

Given that it has tentatively been acknowledged that the Iraq war was iniated based on fictitious reason ....the freekin war was a crime ! But individuals who went outside combative boundaries into vindictive personal acts should be held accountable. Otherwise who become the "terrorists"?

[lostboy]

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

[Docno]

I'm surprised how many (apparently) former military men here are so much on the defensive. Nobody is talking about killing in battle or inadvertent killing of civilians (aka the terrible term, 'collateral damage'). Rather the OP specifically mentions "murder, abuse and torture" ... does anyone here really want to defend these practices? Does anyone really believe that these practices are a legitimate part of warfare conducted by 'civilised' nations? If you are proud of your uniform and of your service, you should want the bad apples brought to justice. And if you are proud of your country, you should want those who bring disrepute to it brought to justice.

[meatboy]

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I must agree that criminals that prey on our peaceful British civilian society MUST be punished, even if they are followers of that odd cult of Islam. But to hold an enquiry into so called 'war crimes' allegedly perpertuated by members of one of the best professional armies in the world?They were in a battlefield situation and under a great deal of stress,and acted according to the situation as they saw it. Second guessing by chairborn PC tossers after the fact is stupid. These people are the ones who die so that YOU and I can sit at our keyboards and comment. My friend Pondgelding would agree with me on this.

I couldn't agree more. I wonder how many that decry the British Army have ever participated in armed conflict? As an ex soldier who has done so, I can assure you that there is no rule book when the lives of you or your mates are at stake and anyone, man, woman or child is a possible killer. March a mile in a soldier's boots before throwing out comments about justice from the comfort of your own home.

couldnt agree with you more FB.how many soldiers saw their mates blown to pieces by a suicide bomber,men,women and children,yet what are they supposed to do wait for them to shoot first.there are no winners in war only loosers.we all know what goes on all around the world.

its not have a fag,cup of tea and a biscuit.when interogaiting prisoners.

but this i am afraid is goner open a BIG BIG BIG can of worms.

[Richard W]

Should the individual air crews, ground crews, and admin staff have all been charged with the terror bombing campaigns initiated by Germany in both world wars? The certainly and knowingly targeted civilians as official policy.

I believe 'both sides did it' was an effective defence, against sentence at least, for air and naval war crimes at Nuremberg.

[thaibeachlovers]

Whats a disgrace is that we send our boys off to fight 'to help' foreign countries,---sungod

Wow is that why they were sent........and to think some people were cynical enough to think it was all about Oil.............

Well, I did use inverted commas, besides where are the oil fields in Afghan?

There are other minerals in Afghanistan, plus they want to route a pipeline through it. Bit difficult for the western capitalist scum multinationals to exploit if a load of jihadists are running the country.

Anyway, the Brits etc are only in there and Iraq because Blair was Bush's poodle.

For those that think the squaddies should have been allowed to run riot in Iraq, how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

The way some of you are talking, I doubt you have ever been in the military, as you seem to think it's OK to just go around behaving badly just because you are wearing a uniform, when that is far from true, regardless of who the bad guys are.

You are governed by Military Law at all times, and making mayhem is not permitted.

Whatever the inquiry is about, I'm sure it's not about what happened in the heat of battle, but it seems that the US forces were not the only ones involved in murder of civilians and torture, neither of which is permitted under military law.

Edited January 4, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[evadgib]

I'm surprised how many (apparently) former military men here are so much on the defensive. Nobody is talking about killing in battle or inadvertent killing of civilians (aka the terrible term, 'collateral damage'). Rather the OP specifically mentions "murder, abuse and torture" ... does anyone here really want to defend these practices? Does anyone really believe that these practices are a legitimate part of warfare conducted by 'civilised' nations? If you are proud of your uniform and of your service, you should want the bad apples brought to justice. And if you are proud of your country, you should want those who bring disrepute to it brought to justice.

While I share much of the above I remain apprehensive at the blurred distinction by successive Govts between Justice and appeasement; particularly if there's a carrot to be had (oil, defence contracts...)

Edited January 4, 2016 by evadgib

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been reported and removed.

[sungod]

Whats a disgrace is that we send our boys off to fight 'to help' foreign countries,---sungod

Wow is that why they were sent........and to think some people were cynical enough to think it was all about Oil.............

Well, I did use inverted commas, besides where are the oil fields in Afghan?

There are other minerals in Afghanistan, plus they want to route a pipeline through it. Bit difficult for the western capitalist scum multinationals to exploit if a load of jihadists are running the country.

Anyway, the Brits etc are only in there and Iraq because Blair was Bush's poodle.

For those that think the squaddies should have been allowed to run riot in Iraq, how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

The way some of you are talking, I doubt you have ever been in the military, as you seem to think it's OK to just go around behaving badly just because you are wearing a uniform, when that is far from true, regardless of who the bad guys are.

You are governed by Military Law at all times, and making mayhem is not permitted.

Whatever the inquiry is about, I'm sure it's not about what happened in the heat of battle, but it seems that the US forces were not the only ones involved in murder of civilians and torture, neither of which is permitted under military law.

how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

Paris, London, Madrid, 9/11 ???? Where have you been?

Your other point, doubt all you want...............

[billd766]

Of course murder should be investigated, and if found guilty, every single criminal should be sentenced to the full degree of the law.

Starting with ALL the politicians who sent them there.

[billd766]

Anyone who thinks it's OK for British soldiers to commit murder just because they are fighting in a foreign land needs to take stock of their values.

Were you ever a volunteer in the armed forces and in a fighting unit (of any country)?

I was.

[Seastallion]

Whats a disgrace is that we send our boys off to fight 'to help' foreign countries,---sungod

Wow is that why they were sent........and to think some people were cynical enough to think it was all about Oil.............

Well, I did use inverted commas, besides where are the oil fields in Afghan?

There are other minerals in Afghanistan, plus they want to route a pipeline through it. Bit difficult for the western capitalist scum multinationals to exploit if a load of jihadists are running the country.

Anyway, the Brits etc are only in there and Iraq because Blair was Bush's poodle.

For those that think the squaddies should have been allowed to run riot in Iraq, how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

The way some of you are talking, I doubt you have ever been in the military, as you seem to think it's OK to just go around behaving badly just because you are wearing a uniform, when that is far from true, regardless of who the bad guys are.

You are governed by Military Law at all times, and making mayhem is not permitted.

Whatever the inquiry is about, I'm sure it's not about what happened in the heat of battle, but it seems that the US forces were not the only ones involved in murder of civilians and torture, neither of which is permitted under military law.

how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

Paris, London, Madrid, 9/11 ???? Where have you been?

Your other point, doubt all you want...............

See, there's where your irrationality shows.

Fighters fight fighters, or face the law for killing innocents.

What gives a squaddy the right to kill an Iraqi child? You're suggesting his right comes from 9/11. Ridiculous.

[lvr181]

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Edited January 4, 2016 by lvr181

[lostboy]

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

[sungod]

There are other minerals in Afghanistan, plus they want to route a pipeline through it. Bit difficult for the western capitalist scum multinationals to exploit if a load of jihadists are running the country.

Anyway, the Brits etc are only in there and Iraq because Blair was Bush's poodle.

For those that think the squaddies should have been allowed to run riot in Iraq, how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

The way some of you are talking, I doubt you have ever been in the military, as you seem to think it's OK to just go around behaving badly just because you are wearing a uniform, when that is far from true, regardless of who the bad guys are.

You are governed by Military Law at all times, and making mayhem is not permitted.

Whatever the inquiry is about, I'm sure it's not about what happened in the heat of battle, but it seems that the US forces were not the only ones involved in murder of civilians and torture, neither of which is permitted under military law.

how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

Paris, London, Madrid, 9/11 ???? Where have you been?

Your other point, doubt all you want...............

See, there's where your irrationality shows.

Fighters fight fighters, or face the law for killing innocents.

What gives a squaddy the right to kill an Iraqi child? You're suggesting his right comes from 9/11. Ridiculous.

The only irrationality here are your posts, no one is suggesting anyone has the right to kill children, stop twisting statements and making stuff up. I simply replied to the other fella its already happening.

No more ping pong for me, my interest is fading quickly with this thread, as with your argument.

[evadgib]

@lostboy

The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

Try turning the numbers around

Edited January 4, 2016 by evadgib

[thaibeachlovers]

Whats a disgrace is that we send our boys off to fight 'to help' foreign countries,---sungod

Wow is that why they were sent........and to think some people were cynical enough to think it was all about Oil.............

Well, I did use inverted commas, besides where are the oil fields in Afghan?

There are other minerals in Afghanistan, plus they want to route a pipeline through it. Bit difficult for the western capitalist scum multinationals to exploit if a load of jihadists are running the country.

Anyway, the Brits etc are only in there and Iraq because Blair was Bush's poodle.

For those that think the squaddies should have been allowed to run riot in Iraq, how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

The way some of you are talking, I doubt you have ever been in the military, as you seem to think it's OK to just go around behaving badly just because you are wearing a uniform, when that is far from true, regardless of who the bad guys are.

You are governed by Military Law at all times, and making mayhem is not permitted.

Whatever the inquiry is about, I'm sure it's not about what happened in the heat of battle, but it seems that the US forces were not the only ones involved in murder of civilians and torture, neither of which is permitted under military law.

how would you like it if a bunch of people from another country arrived in YOUR country and murdered your civilian friends, tortured you and your family, and generally behaved badly?

Paris, London, Madrid, 9/11 ???? Where have you been?

Your other point, doubt all you want...............

Are you claiming it was Iraqis that carried out those attacks? This thread is about Iraq, right? OR, perhaps you believe ALL people from the middle east are terrorists- they all look the same, yeah!

9/11 was Saudis, but no one is doing anything about that bastion of freedom.

London was British people.

[lvr181]

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

[stevenl]

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?
What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

Sorry, but the one who is bullying and insulting here is just you.

[nontabury]

There will be one group of people who will benefit from this which hunt, Lawyers. I just wonder if Mrs Blair will be amongst them.

Just another thing to ponder. British soldiers, maybe also American etc who have served 20yrs on the front line are entitled to a pension of 50% of their final pay. The politicians who sent them into danger zones while sat on their backsides,are entitled to a pension equal to that of their final salary.

Edited January 4, 2016 by nontabury

[Scott]

I very strongly suggest that members post in a civil manner. Inflammatory posts detract from you message.

[Seastallion]

It has become apparent that all the Brit soldiers (or those that want to appear to be Brit soldiers) contributing to this discussion are severely missing the point and the message of the OP. Nobody is talking about battle deaths. Nobody is talking about heat of the moment, instant reaction deaths. The investigations are looking at wrongful deaths, and it appears (is alleged) that there were over 200 of them. It's got nothing to do with AlQaeda, ISIS, or the Taliban being nasty guys. Nothing. It's got nothing to do with your average Tommy being a brave chap. It's got nothing to do with Muslims taking over Europe. It has nothing to do with 9/11. It is all to do with allegations of murder or wrongful killing and torture.

If you think there should be no law with regard to wrongful killing or torture, take it up with the UN.

[Dumbastheycome]

AS interestingly personal as the previous exchange has been in intensity there can be no justification for atrocity outside of combat ! Collateral damage ? A excuse for obliterative methods...and as often resulting in mortality by " friendly fire" but which is often buried under other headlines. This topic originated in the investigation of suspected "atrocity". Argueing circumstances of extreme risk re' suicide bomber etc potential are not what the issue is about. It is about extracurricular vindictive abuse by soldiers occurring in situations that cannot be excused or justified by occupying forces unless you adopt the "jihad" approach. If that is the justification then the justication for the conflict is void and combatants on either side could be equally deemed terrorists. Devout adherence to dogma either by propagandist influences or by pseudo fascist directives or any other method become equally negative if resulting in atrocity!

[lostboy]

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

More questions. Very well. I will answer. Whose Law? Pretty much the whole world's law. "The four 1949 protocols of the Geneva Convention have been ratified by 196 States" You may see a list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions This is the Law. It is International Law. You have no choice in this matter irrespective of the number of words you Capitalise.

I was not the one attacking another poster on the basis of an absurdity that came out of Jack Nicholson's mouth in a Tom Cruise movie. I was not the one hurling implied slurs abut those who have not been soldiers having the temerity to comment on this topic.

Advocating or excusing the abeyance of international law governing conflict is immoral. Participants in such conflicts must be held to some standard. This is my morality. These are my ethics. Most civilised countries agree with me. I do not require your agreement.

[thaibeachlovers]

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

For a start, British soldiers have to obey the law, and that law does not allow them to go around willy nilly torturing and murdering non combatants, it doesn't even allow them to torture and murder combatants. The rules of engagement are there for a reason.

It's irrelevant what the enemy does, or if they do or don't obey the law.

If you don't understand that you have never been in the armed forces.

[thaibeachlovers]

There will be one group of people who will benefit from this which hunt, Lawyers. I just wonder if Mrs Blair will be amongst them.

Just another thing to ponder. British soldiers, maybe also American etc who have served 20yrs on the front line are entitled to a pension of 50% of their final pay. The politicians who sent them into danger zones while sat on their backsides,are entitled to a pension equal to that of their final salary.

The politicians who sent them into danger zones while sat on their backsides

If there was a law that they had to lead the troops into battle in any war they start I think all wars would cease rather quickly.

[billd766]

There will be one group of people who will benefit from this which hunt, Lawyers. I just wonder if Mrs Blair will be amongst them.

Just another thing to ponder. British soldiers, maybe also American etc who have served 20yrs on the front line are entitled to a pension of 50% of their final pay. The politicians who sent them into danger zones while sat on their backsides,are entitled to a pension equal to that of their final salary.

The politicians who sent them into danger zones while sat on their backsides

If there was a law that they had to lead the troops into battle in any war they start I think all wars would cease rather quickly.

Wars would end quicker still if the children of the politicians were the first to be sent into the battle front.

[nontabury]

What ever happened to the Chilcot report, "oh sorry" that was about politicians involvement in military adventures.