Poor little insurgents - they got shouted at - boohoo!
Discussion
Grumfutock said:
Heaven forbid that any lawyer might string the case out to make some more money. That could never happen...oooopsy!
you are right - therefore the state should decide who can have judicial reviews and access to justice generally - even for example where proceedings are to take someone's child away - but of course no savings should ever be made on the local authority's side in the same case 
pork911 said:
do you agree with misleading parliament on such a key matter in that debate?
my connection is no longer, practised more abroad and anyway was never publicly funded - so never any skin in this fight but of course only absolute amateurs with no even tenuous experience whatsoever should ever comment on such things (presumably home mechanics threads should be restricted to latin lit academics who don't drive?)
what grayling has been and is doing is appalling
fallon's comments - hmmm - who will be apologising on behalf of the crown to anyone found not guilty and for the waste of public money?
or does it just apply to anti-oooman rights BS PR?
and it's not as if a british soldier would ever murder an insurgent...ooopsy
yawnmy connection is no longer, practised more abroad and anyway was never publicly funded - so never any skin in this fight but of course only absolute amateurs with no even tenuous experience whatsoever should ever comment on such things (presumably home mechanics threads should be restricted to latin lit academics who don't drive?)
what grayling has been and is doing is appalling
fallon's comments - hmmm - who will be apologising on behalf of the crown to anyone found not guilty and for the waste of public money?
or does it just apply to anti-oooman rights BS PR?
and it's not as if a british soldier would ever murder an insurgent...ooopsy
jakesmith said:
almost 50p from everyine in the UK, a torrid & turgid waste
When you consider the pig s
t it was spent on, couldnt agree more!!!WTF did these lawyer's take on the case-defending murderous , two faced lying barstards in the first place-proinsurgents themselves? t
ts should be banned from practising!!!I'll sit back and wait for the band of do gooders/whoever to tell me what Ive just written is wrong.
Siko said:
pork911 said:
and it's not as if a british soldier would ever murder an insurgent...ooopsy
It's war you muppet, not a courtroom. Something the likes of you never understand.The more I read about war, in general and also, specifically, what went on in Iraq, the more I feel that some of the GC is of dubious merit and that 'total war' is the only rational approach - thereby, simultaneously acknowledging the utter barbarity and inhumanity of it too. War is chaos, hellish, repugnant, messy and to think we can make it 'better' by adhering to outmoded 'rules' - most of which are flatly ignored by contemporary terrorist opposition in any case - is at best foolish and at worst dangerous. That the rules give business to the likes of the lawyers who brought this case is yet another mark against them.
It now transpires that detainees of the Allied forces in camps in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 were gifted the ideal opportunity to convene and plot what is now known is IS or ISIS. They themselves freely admit the opportunity to arrange such a large meeting of terrorists and extremists would be logistically difficult and enormously risky, but being in a camp, they were able to plot with relative impunity and safety. Were it that summary execution, rather than detention was the policy, yes we will surely have accidentally killed innocents, but the overall loss of life and especially the collateral damage would be far lower.
It now transpires that detainees of the Allied forces in camps in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 were gifted the ideal opportunity to convene and plot what is now known is IS or ISIS. They themselves freely admit the opportunity to arrange such a large meeting of terrorists and extremists would be logistically difficult and enormously risky, but being in a camp, they were able to plot with relative impunity and safety. Were it that summary execution, rather than detention was the policy, yes we will surely have accidentally killed innocents, but the overall loss of life and especially the collateral damage would be far lower.
Digga said:
The more I read about war, in general and also, specifically, what went on in Iraq, the more I feel that some of the GC is of dubious merit and that 'total war' is the only rational approach - thereby, simultaneously acknowledging the utter barbarity and inhumanity of it too. War is chaos, hellish, repugnant, messy and to think we can make it 'better' by adhering to outmoded 'rules' - most of which are flatly ignored by contemporary terrorist opposition in any case - is at best foolish and at worst dangerous. That the rules give business to the likes of the lawyers who brought this case is yet another mark against them.
It now transpires that detainees of the Allied forces in camps in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 were gifted the ideal opportunity to convene and plot what is now known is IS or ISIS. They themselves freely admit the opportunity to arrange such a large meeting of terrorists and extremists would be logistically difficult and enormously risky, but being in a camp, they were able to plot with relative impunity and safety. Were it that summary execution, rather than detention was the policy, yes we will surely have accidentally killed innocents, but the overall loss of life and especially the collateral damage would be far lower.
Interesting points.It now transpires that detainees of the Allied forces in camps in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 were gifted the ideal opportunity to convene and plot what is now known is IS or ISIS. They themselves freely admit the opportunity to arrange such a large meeting of terrorists and extremists would be logistically difficult and enormously risky, but being in a camp, they were able to plot with relative impunity and safety. Were it that summary execution, rather than detention was the policy, yes we will surely have accidentally killed innocents, but the overall loss of life and especially the collateral damage would be far lower.
When we look at the defeat of imperial expansion of Germany and Japan, history writes that it was a justified war, necessary to destroy dark forces that threatened us all. If the same climate existed then that we have now, the liberation of Europe would never have happened. The Allies fought hard and dirty. But it was regarded as the right thing to do.
Now we are being threatened again by fundamentalism - a force that would kill us all given the chance. What has changed?
Edited by toppstuff on Friday 19th December 09:54
toppstuff said:
When we look at the defeat of imperial expansion of Germany and Japan, history writes that it was a justified war, necessary to destroy dark forces that threatened us all.
As you say, today, given the GC etc. etc. would we authorise carpet bombing of industrial cities or the deployment of atomic weaponry? I am fully aware of the controversy at the time in WW2, but today you simply could not see it happening, and yet, nearly every account of the war cites both these as decisive actions on the route to victory.I am also fully aware of the human cost, not just to the losing side, but also the victors. A late, great uncle was a pilot - someone whom I (and I think a great many others) would consider a hero, with numerous missions from flying spies into and out of France in unarmed Lysanders, to bombing raids in Wellingtons and Lancasters - was perpetually wracked with guilt about his part in the 1000 bomber raids on Germany. For most of his life he drove Mercedes cars I think in some ways to try to put the war behind him and also to somehow do his bit to help the rebuilding of the nation.
As I said, war is hell - no place for weak stomachs and high morals and best avoided altogether. However - and this was something Orwel realised - there are times when you are left with no alternative but to engage an enemy and to those occasions, one should fully commit or not at all.
This is about a moral standpoint though isn't it? Do you really want a total war with no boundaries?
I'm not sure that most British citizens or serving Military would want to take this approach, indeed when the topic of Seargent Alex Blackman was discussed here, many serving military people openly agreed that he should be charged with murder for doing exactly the kind of things that would happen in a total war.
Fundamentally, if we lose the moral high ground, then we lose the war entirely. How can we argue that our way is right if we demonstrate that we are no different to the terrorists?
I'm not sure that most British citizens or serving Military would want to take this approach, indeed when the topic of Seargent Alex Blackman was discussed here, many serving military people openly agreed that he should be charged with murder for doing exactly the kind of things that would happen in a total war.
Fundamentally, if we lose the moral high ground, then we lose the war entirely. How can we argue that our way is right if we demonstrate that we are no different to the terrorists?
pork911 said:
Siko said:
pork911 said:
and it's not as if a british soldier would ever murder an insurgent...ooopsy
It's war you muppet, not a courtroom. Something the likes of you never understand.I think some people choose to look at the British armed forces through a lens that distorts reality. In some way, they have a world view which is linked to the baggage of empire, class and a neo-liberal perspective, whereby deep down they "want" to see British armed forces as the bad guys and they leap to scream about anything in the news that supports this view, even if it isn't true. The Guardian forum is full of them.
My perspective is different. I see the armed forces as containing people who know that they will stand up and defend me with their lives. Mistakes may be made along the way, but the reason for their existence and the covenant between the armed forces and the people is still really important and worth protecting.
tangerine_sedge said:
This is about a moral standpoint though isn't it? Do you really want a total war with no boundaries?
I'm not sure that most British citizens or serving Military would want to take this approach, indeed when the topic of Seargent Alex Blackman was discussed here, many serving military people openly agreed that he should be charged with murder for doing exactly the kind of things that would happen in a total war.
Fundamentally, if we lose the moral high ground, then we lose the war entirely. How can we argue that our way is right if we demonstrate that we are no different to the terrorists?
Moral high ground did not win WW2.I'm not sure that most British citizens or serving Military would want to take this approach, indeed when the topic of Seargent Alex Blackman was discussed here, many serving military people openly agreed that he should be charged with murder for doing exactly the kind of things that would happen in a total war.
Fundamentally, if we lose the moral high ground, then we lose the war entirely. How can we argue that our way is right if we demonstrate that we are no different to the terrorists?
The threat of Nazism in no way gave us the 'right' to knowingly bomb civilians alongside sundry targets, many of spurious nature. I think people see what they want to see.
Digga said:
Moral high ground did not win WW2.
The threat of Nazism in no way gave us the 'right' to knowingly bomb civilians alongside sundry targets, many of spurious nature. I think people see what they want to see.
The moral high ground would be passivism. But passivism has never won a war.The threat of Nazism in no way gave us the 'right' to knowingly bomb civilians alongside sundry targets, many of spurious nature. I think people see what they want to see.
As for your assertion that the treat of Nazism did not justify carpet bombing means you clearly have no idea what Nazism means.
pork911 said:
so you have no objection at all to anything done to 'our boys'?
Of course I do. But I also acknowledge that war is utterly inhumane, soldiers are trained to kill, suffer grievous losses to a mostly unseen enemy and in the heat of the action (or shortly afterwards) under severe stress and with emotions running extremely high, sometimes commit what appears to be (on video) what you call 'murder'. This has always happened and it always will, it is not right, nor is it wrong either...which is what you do not understand or have no concept of understanding....it just happens as instinct rather than as part of a cold, legal thought process. If you've ever smelled what troops smell like after they have been in combat you {might} understand: they are like animals, they smell like sh*t, fear, stress, sweat, pain and despair all rolled into one. Which is of course what has just happened to them.
Because you have never (I dunno..have you?) experienced that you never will.....but you sit in your nice comfy armchair and pass judgement (oopsy!) on them.
The truth of the matter is that a lot of the {often poorly-educated} soldiers are more scared of some clever well-educated lawyer like you trying to hang them after an event, than they are of the enemy. I wonder how many graves are filled right now with young scared kids who wondered 'shall I shoot...is this justified under ROE?'
PRTVR said:
Perhaps its time to send out barristers out with our troops, out in front, so they can see what's going on and advise on the best course of action.
A fantastic plan and one I am sure the legal community (especially Mr Shiner&co!) would be keen to embrace to ensure that full legal process is followed wherever our troops go.....or B?! Maybe they could start with Syria and let us know how they get on?Digga said:
s you say, today, given the GC etc. etc. would we authorise carpet bombing of industrial cities or the deployment of atomic weaponry? I am fully aware of the controversy at the time in WW2, but today you simply could not see it happening, and yet, nearly every account of the war cites both these as decisive actions on the route to victory.
I am also fully aware of the human cost, not just to the losing side, but also the victors. A late, great uncle was a pilot - someone whom I (and I think a great many others) would consider a hero, with numerous missions from flying spies into and out of France in unarmed Lysanders, to bombing raids in Wellingtons and Lancasters - was perpetually wracked with guilt about his part in the 1000 bomber raids on Germany. For most of his life he drove Mercedes cars I think in some ways to try to put the war behind him and also to somehow do his bit to help the rebuilding of the nation.
As I said, war is hell - no place for weak stomachs and high morals and best avoided altogether. However - and this was something Orwel realised - there are times when you are left with no alternative but to engage an enemy and to those occasions, one should fully commit or not at all.
A lot of sense spoken here IMO. War is indeed hell and I find the attempt to portray war nowadays as clean, clinical and fair is utterly morally repugnant....that we judge some weapons as 'good' and some as 'bad' is one of the biggest lies I've ever heard. That weapon 'a' that shreds a person to pieces is legal and fair, vs weapon 'b' that eviscerates a person to pieces in a slightly different fashion is bad confuses the hell out of me. They're all bad, war is bad, people die in a large variety of horrible ways, if you don't like don't go to war, simple.I am also fully aware of the human cost, not just to the losing side, but also the victors. A late, great uncle was a pilot - someone whom I (and I think a great many others) would consider a hero, with numerous missions from flying spies into and out of France in unarmed Lysanders, to bombing raids in Wellingtons and Lancasters - was perpetually wracked with guilt about his part in the 1000 bomber raids on Germany. For most of his life he drove Mercedes cars I think in some ways to try to put the war behind him and also to somehow do his bit to help the rebuilding of the nation.
As I said, war is hell - no place for weak stomachs and high morals and best avoided altogether. However - and this was something Orwel realised - there are times when you are left with no alternative but to engage an enemy and to those occasions, one should fully commit or not at all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff