[Closed] Is The Luton Protest Just Wrong?

Do they not have a right to protest?

They do have a right to protest, but bear in mind its just a very small minority of people, so its nothing to make a fuss of...

I would suspect that in the black and white world of the press however will blow it all out of proportion.

Too tired for this one, I'm off to watch South Park!

Right to protest yes. But I thought inflammatory plackards etc, were a no-no these days. I mean, kicking off a protest like that at such an event is somewhat stupid. Were it not for the fuzz I reckon they would probably had a bit of a kicking. More likely this bunch of idiots knew the fuzz would protect them.

Pity the soldiers didn't open fire on them.

It was quite funny that they decided to stage this protest in "lootin" of all places.

I was really angry when I first heard about this. But then I thought about it, and if it wasn't mostly muslims who were protesting I don't think I'd have a problem about it at all.

So I think it's best I ignore it.

Pity the soldiers didn't open fire on them.

British service personnel have died and still are dying to uphold their right to freedom of expression. Although your comment may be in jest its hardly a suitable one given the parties involved.

Whilst the opinion of the protesters is not one I share I stand by their right to make it heard.

Of course I don't believe their protest was aimed at the correct target but then again, due to the unique way New Labour view the right to protest, they can't very well go having a protest at the workplace of those who ultimately make the decisions over where and when to deploy British troops.

The irony though is that in countries that feature as hardline a set of Islamic beliefs as these protesters seemed to have they would very likely have been imprisoned or very possibly executed for making such a protest against the forces of the state.

Ho hum.

Yes I think its pretty disturbing that the people peacefully protesting get threatened, moved away and some of them arrested.

I watched this and have often wondered about how to continue protesting aginst the war.

What is the best way to try and educate the public about the fact that it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners. (Seymor Hersh, the journalist who revealed the initial photos, and has watched all the videos, has been touring the US lecturing on what he saw on video but that was not reported in the press.)

How do you protest about the effects of depleted uranium on unborn children?

How do you protest about the white phosphor that was used to decimate Falluja?

The government have done quite well on the propaganda side, and members of the public are outraged as they see our boys fighting against Saddam Hussein, who was a torturer. But he used to be our tyrant some years ago, and of course there are British and American troops stationed around the world in countries where the tyrants there still torture, but they are our tyrants and serve the interests of our governments, so our boys are not called into action against those ones.

So yeah, I still very much want to protest, but that particular protest I feel did not have much effect in reaching the people it needed to reach.

Would I have joined in? Probably not.

For clarity I do not see our troops as muderers. My problem is with a very small number of people calling the shots at the top. I have joined many an anti war demo in support of our troops, i.e. trying to prevent them having to go into illegal wars in the first place.

I still need to find ways to protest against those who are guilty at the very top, and try and find peaceful ways to fight the propaganda too so that people can really understand the message of the truth seeking genuine protesters.

still are dying to uphold their right to freedom of expression

what bollocks, up holding our right to cheap oil you mean.

Anyway better stood at the side of a road lobbing insults than lobbing bombs and I expect thats one thing the armed forces and I would agree one.

was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoner

Come on now... where's the facts for this particular allegation? The Insider?

No-one held a gun to those soldiers heads (excuse the pun) and forced them to sign up where they knew that they might end up fighting abroad. It's a job and they do it for money.
They're not heroes for me.
Totally surprising that they have a parade when they return, perfectly right to demonstrate.

The F'ing protestors should shut the F up. I've met many soldiers going to and coming from Iraq at Hounslow Barracks and they are just regular guys and gals doing their job. Coming back means being alive, celebrate this. Go and bore politicians with your moronic ideas, cheer the people who survived hell.

For once I agree with simon.
I am not aware of the torture cases he reports and they seems a bit extreme to me though.
I agree with Napalm too.

And the war in Irak was NEVER about freedom. Cheap oil it is.

Psyche

The Guardian and The Telegraph, plus Seymour Hersche.

"[i]What is the best way to try and educate the public about the fact that it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners. [/i]"

Proof?

"[i]For clarity I do not see our troops as muderers.[/i]"

No, merely as paedophilic sadists.

You know the sad thing? a bunch of totally innocent Asian lads probably got their heads kicked in that night as a result of those few protesters actions.

It's a job and they do it for money.

It's a job and they do it out of [i]duty[/i].
There are plenty of easier jobs for money.

I'm no big fan of the war(s) and to look at it just didn't look like any other anti-war protest. The sentiment reminded me of the Vietnam anti-war protests - but strangely a world apart and this one looked under-pinned on religion / culture.

"what bollocks, up holding our right to cheap oil you mean."

"And the war in Irak was NEVER about freedom. Cheap oil it is."

errrrrrr...............
get your facts right, what happens to the oil prices when countries with oil start squabbling?

You have the right to peacfull protest, hurling abuse is not peacefull, so you get arrested. I protested against the war, i didnt get arrested, and i didn't tell my neighbour he was going to hell.

SimonRalli, convenient that he doesn't show these video's and the press doesn't report them? Maybe im blinkered bu surely if said video existed it would be on the internet, which lets face it, has no boundaries for decency. I'm not saying that torture didnt take place, and i dont condone it. But bear in mind if you'd seen your friends nearly killed, and their dying bodies dragged through the streets behind a 4x4 while people stamp the life out of them. How exactly would you react when you caught them? I cant say for sure i'd not beat 7 shades of shit out of them to get information as to the whareabouts of those involved.

Simon,
i've just had a look on the guardian website and I couldn't find anything that stated it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners.
Could you provide a guardian link, or at least clarify what you believe the word policy means.

As far as I know it was American troops (and some British intelligence officers who were witnesses) in the prisons not British troops. That is why I specifically said I was not in protest against their actions. There is only so many ways of saying I am not anti troops so wont say any more here as I really tried hard to say I am against the atrocities being comitted and want to play a part in bringing those to an end. I don't have a solution and I don't know what the best way to protest is.

what did The Who say 'We won't get fooled again"
Somehow, each new generation do!

I may not support the war but I do support our troops - they were not protestors, they were a bunch of rabid animals!

Of course the war in Iraq was about oil. any other view is misguided.

I don't blame the squaddies personally but it stinks. since 1990 millions of Iraqis have been killed, extremism flourishes, disease rates and child death rates have soared, Al Quiada had no presence in Iraq before the war - it stinks to high heaven.

Anyway back to the original question was the protest wrong?
Most definitely. You have a right to protest in this country but you also have a responsibity to determine when and where is appropriate.
This bunch of Muslim idiots get as much sympathy from me as these bunch of Christian idiots [url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church [/url].

What is the best way to try and educate the public about the fact that it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners. (Seymor Hersh, the journalist who revealed the initial photos, and has watched all the videos, has been touring the US lecturing on what he saw on video but that was not reported in the press.)

Simon are you able to substantiate this with links etc? You mention the Guardian, do you have any more detail?
To say it was UK and US "policy" to torture and rape children is beyond the pale unless you can provide some proof.

So Simon you've picked up a little snippet of unsubstantiated gossip and posted it on an internet forum as fact? Ever heard of Chinese whispers?

One idiot makes a statement based on an unproven rumour.
Another idiot exagerates and passes it on and so on.
Eventually it is enshrined in truth and a good reason for a greater idiot to go out and kill someone.

[i]I don't blame the squaddies.....[/i]

And thats the point - I doubt many of our service men and women signed up so that they could secure oil, I think the vast majority did it to serve their country. Thats why I feel disgusted at these so called protestors / trouble-causers, whatever you want to call them.

Going off on a tangent about the reasons for going to war isn't really the point of this thread.

For once, I find myself fully agreeing with a Labour minister (I know, scary isn't it)

Justice Minister and Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik;

"If these people want an Islamic state as they profess my advice is to go to an Islamic country. Britain is multi-faith and we are proud of that fact as indeed we are of our soldiers."

British service personnel have died and still are dying to uphold their right to freedom of expression

We have a family member about to go out to Iraq. I talked to him about it because I really wanted to know how the soldiers feel. In truth, he wasn't concerned with freedom and democracy, he wasn't concerned with oil prices. He'd joined the army to fight and he was really pleased and excited that he was going to get a chance to do so. I asked if that was typical. He said it was.
I really like him, he's a nice guy and I hope that he comes home in one piece, physically and mentally. If he does become a casualty however, I won't feel that he's a victim or that he's made some sacrifice for the greater good. He joined up because he wanted to run that risk. He wants to fight, not to crusade.
I hope he comes back, unhurt, with nothing on his conscience to haunt him.

And the war in Irak was NEVER about freedom. Cheap oil it is.

Securing natural resources of strategic value PLUS a slice of democracy for the people of Iraq?

Oh no, silly me. According to the STW Law of Armed Conflict only one reason for going to war may be considered by the braying masses.

I know Menshed and Arji who I worked with in Iraq were quite happy that some of the cash from the oil was going to go Iraqi state coffers rather than Saddam's private account but they were far more happy about being able to actually vote for the chap that decides what that cash is spent on.

BTW, strangely one of the nations most pro-Saddam was France, who's largest oil company had shortly before GW2 started, negotiated a contract to exploit two of Iraq's oil fields with the potential to return profits of $650 billion.

'War for oil' or 'tyrant for oil'? Both seem equally odious but one seems to provide even less long term benefits for the people of Iraq.

He'd joined the army to fight and he was really pleased and excited that he was going to get a chance to do so. I asked if that was typical. He said it was.

And unfortunately, for those who haven't served 'fight' only means 'fight'.

He has trained to do a job, that job is ultimately to fight if required. That doesn't mean that he (and every other member of the Armed Forces) just wants to go out and brass up the first available target (you'd need an A10 to do that), he (I hazard a guess, though an educated one) wants to make use of the skills he learned, but unlike some IT weenie his day job doesn't involve traveling to an office if Slough to fix a printer.

'Fight' to the layman is what you see in town centres on a Saturday night. 'Fight' to a serviceman can mean something much more important. Doing their duty, the ultimate test of all that training that they've carried out over the years, protecting their mates who they are often closer to than their own families, serving 'Queen and Country', earning their pay, something necessary to succeed in the mission and all manner of other things. Things that are important to the individual, that although I've tried to put into words cannot be done so easily, which unfortunately can lead to the layman seeing the dictionary definition.

The WBC make me glad to be atheist!

Ah sorry, I'll stop reading The Telegraph and Guardian then on the web. Thanks for the tip.

Ah sorry, I'll stop reading The Telegraph and Guardian then on the web. Thanks for the tip.

I think your comments were irresponsible unless you have at least identified some sources.

Simon - if you want to make controversial statements you need t be able to back them up

If you want to make controversial statements you need t be able to back them up

TJ - Something which although we occasionally fail to see eye-to-eye I can't often accuse you of failing to do.

As an ex serviceman I always felt a little bit of mental uncertainty about stepping foot into another mans country. Doing the job I was trained to do was never the problem, the nagging doubt that you were not in possesion of the full facts was.
I had some what you might consider nieve notions about why I joined many years ago when I was a teenager. I.e bearing in mind these were the days of the Nuclear threat. I actually thought that if I and many like me put their lives on the line no one would need to press the button. And for want of better words the old 'chicken & egg' thing always played on my mind i.e if there were no more soldiers like me would all wars end, I did'nt think so.

Simon Ralli,

I have not heard of the cases of rape and torture of Iraqi women but I did see the documentary film "Standard Operating Procedure"

This film had proof of torture, sexual crimes and alledged murder against Iraqis by American soldiers (the proof was photographs and videos shot by the American soldiers themselves as kind of "trophies" of their time in Iraq).

There were many other incidents that most would class as torture but were classed by the army inquiry as "standard operating procedure" as a way of pressurising captives to talk.

Whilst I also don't agree with the protestors and the way they made their protest and the target they chose, it is a measure of why our society is better than an islamic state by the fact that they were free to make this protest at all.

ironically, it's had a disproportionate coverage in the tabloid press (the usual ones) which in itself can only breed hatred and bigotry.

I don't like the countryside alliance as I'm very much anti fox hunting, however I don't think they should be stopped from protesting.

Those that can are already removing any right we have to show what we think about a situation, politcal or not. Whilst I don't agree with the Lutonites method or timing, they're allowed to protest as much as anyone else is.

What concerns me more is the hysteria whipped up by the media - when I first heard it on Radio 1 this morning my immediate thoughts were ones of anger that people from another country could protest about our countrymen putting their lives on the line, purely from the way the story was reported. However, putting it in perspective - were any of the demostrators British born muslims? And even if they weren't, don't they have a right to show that they disagree with what the government is doing?

The British press have a lot to answer for and currently no one is holding them accountable

ironically, it's had a disproportionate coverage in the tabloid press (the usual ones) which in itself can only breed hatred and bigotry.

As disproportionate as the coverage of some oxygen thief who was made famous for being an idiot on national TV in a show watched by idiots and now has cancer?

Call me old fashioned but I'd consider ironic protesters protesting against the wrong people over events (or non-events) in Iraq far more newsworthy than one of many thousands of people who are dying from cancer who happens to have a good PR spinner.

i wouldnt do that, i'd just learn to read newspapers, you can publish anything you hear. So if your mate Dave down the pub says Gordon Brown has a pink cat, then you are perfectly entitled to publish that as a fact, without quoting a source.

The telegraph/guardian probably did publish a story, based on the lecturer you mentioned say so. Resonsible journalism would be reporting that he was saying these things, irresponible journalism would be touting 3rd hand evidence they cant substanciate as fact.

When I get home from work I'll dig out the articles from a number of sources and as yes, I do of course expect to be held to account for any opinions expressed. People are absolutely right to ask for sources.

By supporting freedom of expression political free thought and the right to peacful protest you are held to account when the protesters are saying the things you MOST disagree with.
There is no point allowing people to protest about things you agree with or support you must support those that you disagreee with MOST to have their voice and opportunity to protest and it will always leave a bad taste in the mouth.
That said I think they were targetting the wrong people like attacking a tax man becaue you dont like inheritance tax.