Anyone else up watching things unfold?

DannyBoy bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the
lines of:

Depends. If it's a removal of the royal family, then not a lot of
Saudi's would cry over that.

The removal of the Saudi royal family and the installation of another
American puppet/supporter would more than likely cause a civil war as
opposed to an anti-American war. IMO, of course.

 

It means a case where unarmed civilians were killed, the incident
investigated, & no valid reason found i.e. the guy killed them just
because he felt like it. I'd be surprised if you believe it happens
just because there are "countless tales". There are also countless
tales of trolls under bridges, fairies at the bottom of gardens & God -
but you don't believe any of those, do you?

 

Probably not the instigator, but these things do have a habit of coming
out. I'm sure if it had happened countless times, the facts surrounding
at least one of those cases will have come to light.

 

As you've adopted your usual technique of "I'm right, but I can't
provide any evidence to support my claim so I'm just going to patronise
you instead", I agree it's not worth continuing. But here's a free clue
for you: Abu Ghraib.

 

So would I. They're not *heartless* people, simply *careless*; *reckless*,
perhaps, and as infuriatingly self-righteous, complacent and egocentric as
the British [and other] colonialists of bygone days. The 'rag-heads' of the
21st century are the 'fuzzy-wuzzies' of the 19th. I just wish that the
Septics could learn from the crass behaviour of the European powers, and
avoid making the same mistakes. But, sadly, they refuse to learn anything
from anyone, and are determined to create lots of clones of their own
society because, after all, God smiles on them - doesn't She.

 

But that's the whole point - "the soldiers opened fire because they
feared for their lives". There were several cases of soldiers opening
fire on unarmed civilians at checkpoints, but only because those
civilians didn't stop when ordered to. It doesn't have to be an
aggressive action to trigger it. You choose to believe the soldiers
killed them for the hell of it, I choose to believe they did it because
they felt there was a genuine threat, regardless of whether that threat
proved real or not after the event.

 

Preston Kemp says...

A checkpoint is a checkpoint is a checkpoint, manned by armed soldiers.
If you do not stop you can expect to be shot. It doesn't matter if you
are a 40 year old terrorist in Fallujah or a 17 year old joy rider in
Armagh, if you don't stop, you deserve all you get.

I really don't understand why soldiers who are ordered to fire upon such
vehicles can find themselves in court on murder charges.

 

ACE muttered

< TFFT

It's a relief for everyone then. He's an arse, really. I was one of
the few people left here that was prepared to give him any latitude but
he's even worn me down with his endless self justification, delusions
and lies. RIP. No flowers.

 

Quick google - no claims made as to the reliability of source apply
your own judgement.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-02.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1093239,00.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4230.htm

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_briefs&sectionID=5

 

Preston Kemp muttered

Whatever you do, don't do a Google search for "Aussaresses" and
"Algeria".

 

Lozzo bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the
lines of:

Ah, but if they don't check the right card and read out the right
orders/commands, it get's all very hairy.

In NI, it was a fscking nightmare for Soldiers to do things properly.

I do agree with you though.

 

After a quick scan, I can't see anything in any of those that changes
my opinion. Lots of deaths that shouldn't have happened without a
doubt, but they all seem to be the result of a perceived threat or
accident rather than pure cold blooded murder.

 

From the first page..

The Amnesty report now points towards shooting of civilians. In
several cases it documents letters written by British officers in
which they acknowledge that troops killed civilians when there was no
apparent threat from the victims to themselves or to others.

Further googling

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1299521,00.html

British soldier charged with murder.

http://news.orb6.com/stories/nm/20040927/iraq_usa_murder_dc.php

US soldier gets 25 years for murder

 

I might give you that one, once the details come out, even though it's
a Brit rather than a Yank.

Again, I might give you that, but it was a soldier he killed, not a
civilian.

 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:25:27 GMT, "Preston Kemp"

Of whether there has been killing of civilians (other than 'collateral
damage' *spit* of course)

I decided to widen the debate. I could widen it further. The
intimidation of journalists by American troops for a start. The web
logs from various aid agency workers and unofficial teams such as
circus2iraq which detailed the *daily* outrages. Those here on the
Mark Thomas mailing list (which I no longer have the time to keep up
with) could I'm sure provide you with further input.

Read the article. First paragraph.

Two U.S. soldiers have been charged with murder in the death of an
Iraqi civilian, raising to four the number of U.S. soldiers from the
same unit charged with murder of Iraqis in the past week

Much as it galls me to take Des's side in this I think you have to
concede he has a point. Still 'tis the women who have to run around
doing the work...

 

Thing is, there's an argument that both in Fallujah and in Armagh, the
checkpoint is manned by occupying forces who shouldn't be there.

 

Yeahbut at the end of day soldiers are just people, and at the end of the
day in a big group of people there's always going to be some nutters.
Admittedly nutters in the army have more access to heavy weapons than your
average nutter.

Thats different from saying that the American Army has a deliberate policy
of killing innocents for a laugh. You could also have googled and found
more than one, say waiter, who had murdered someone.

 

That's cheating. It's hard enough trying to maintain my position as it
is without you moving the goal posts.

It would seem so, but I'm confused about what to do next. Should I
admit that you've provided the evidence that I requested & therefore
proved me wrong, or should I say ROFL, call you stupid, & tell you to
get back to doing the dishes?

 

She shoots, she scores. These goal posts are blinking heavy.

No further action needed. Unlike other posters who shall remain
nameless I don't need need you to humble yourself before me
proclaiming my superior intelligence. Though if you want to...

I think you claim the UK isn't a superpower and then ask if I TIUTA.

 

Ben Blaney says...

In the case of Fallujah I have to agree, but not in the case of Armagh.
Either way, if there's a bloke with a gun pointing at you telling you to
stop, then I can't see why your surviving family can whinge when you get
shot for not doing so. What's more serious, a conviction for joyriding
or a bullet between the ears? Maybe the teenagers of Northern Ireland
would like to ponder that next time they nick a car.

Only people with something serious to hide run through armed
checkpoints. That's why soldiers have orders to shoot at them.