Some on here are all to willing to accept that the ranting of these Muslim protestors is just a “lunatice fringe” and not representative of Muslims as a whole.

However they are all to ready to accept that the acts of some soldiers are representative of both the UK and US armed forces as a whole.

Why do you? To make crass generalisations easier?

No – I am talking about those at the very top. They are working towards the same objectives, the same plan. Hence the British support for rendition flights for example, and those at the top of the British army not willing to speak out about the crimes in Iraq. More recent examples of torture currently in the news also demonstrate this.

Blair and Bush always emphasised that it was a “coalition of the willing” no? We are also the coalition of the torturers, although no, I say it again as I already have done twice before, I do not hold the regular Army to account. I don’t know how many times I have to say I am not generalising, I am looking at the actions of those at the very top.

Which brings us back nicely to the OP.

Were the protestors right to protest?

Well they were protesting at people who do not decide where and when to fight but who believe, maybe sometimes rightly or sometimes wrongly, that they are signing up to protect the British people. So I would say no, and that we need to find peaceful ways to stop the decision makers and stand up and say no to the decision makers.

Tonga were in the CoW, do they share the blame for rendition flights? What about those two Icelandic ‘military’ nurses (Iceland has no formal military) who were working with the British in Basrah (and lovely they were too), were they really nasty torturesses by proxy?

Morning all.

Ok, breezed through the latest offerings and it would seem that all the allegations surround Abu Ghraib. We KNOW that outrageous abuses of human rights happened there. A good number of US soldiers have rightly been jailed and booted out of the army as a result. However I am not seeing anything to support your statement that the British and American soldiers are sadistic paedophiles.

Coyote

Hi – I can’t see where I wrote that so I will sign off now. This isn’t going anywhere.

I did of course write this

“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.)”

So I do feel what I should have written in the first place, and what I have been trying to say in subsequent posts, but clearly failing to do, was that while American soldiers comitted atrocities towards male, female and child prisoners of war, those at the very top stood by and did nothing to prevent it.

There are only so many times I can say I do not hold the British troops to account, so I’ll sign off now. The word “policy” was wrong in this instance, as to me it means one thing and to others another, so yes, here is my apology for using that word when trying to describe something slightly different.

I have given you the links to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh to back up my claims, but if that is not enough then we have to try and peacefully agree that we do not agree on this.

Peace to you

Right to protest – tick
Inflammatory behaviour aimed at provoking violence – cross
Brave and admirable UK soldiers – tick
Honest politicians – very cross indeed

Vote with your conscience.

Simon

those at the very top stood by and did nothing to prevent it.

Whilst indefensible is not the same as:

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

That is my point. Reaction to circumstances is not the same as creating a policy from the outset or even a broad policy during the conflict.
Terrible things happen in wars and its testimony to our sense of what is right and wrong that these are seen (in the benefit of the “cold light of day”) as outrageous and appalling and whilst I wouldn’t necessarily defend the outrages you refer to there is an argument that our soldiers are confronted with a hostile and murderous enemy and their responses are coloured by that.

The word “policy” was wrong in this instance, as to me it means one thing and to others another, so yes, here is my apology for using that word when trying to describe something slightly different.

I could only interpret the use of the word “policy” in one way. And to say you’re only describing something slightly different is incredible. In the former it sounds like you’re stating it’s the responsibility of the governments and on the other you step back and say (No) just the top brass of the US and British army. Is this actually realistic?

Or is it realistically more like the actions of collective individuals whom the top brass in the army has tried to hush?