This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

Bar,

Do us a favour, give us the total count and compare with Vietnam and Iraq. You can leave the other invasions out.

Hmm. The facts seem to support the view that the world is safer from Islamic extremists since the war rather than before it.

Well our part of the world is......

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined

If (and I realise its a big ask) Islamic terrorist killings since the Iraqi war, plus all allied caused casualties was a smaller number than a similar timescale for all Islamic terrorist killings before the war, could we assume that invasion was the right thing and has brought good?

Yes we could, any one good at sums? freddie boy..

It's all about Iraq, isn't it?

Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and...

...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5

WMD

I nominate H6 for this.


Runner up, Bar.

8-)

hewittalan6 - 18 Aug 2006 14:27 - 611 of 618
I would be interested to know the figures for deaths caused by islamic terrorists in the few years before the war and compare them with now, per annum, worldwide.

Unfair exercise. We have stepped up our anti-terror activities so it's not just down to removing Saddam.

As for a definition, any definition of WMD must include any item or substance which may be used to create large numbers of deaths, among the population.
any other thoughts?
Sounds OK. Car industry? Alcohol? Guns?

If we have no definition of WMD, then how can we say whether they existed in Iraq or not?

The point you have circuitously arrived at is that the item itself is not a WMD. The person using it makes it so.

hewittalan6 - 18 Aug 2006 14:54 - 623 of 623
If we have no definition of WMD, then how can we say whether they existed in Iraq or not?

????????
So how can we justify a war based on the fact that they exist and are a threat?

Ah, the laborious trap (LOL) finally arrives.

Like rottweilers, handguns and heroin.

see post 624

Fred - good luck with SEO - I have only ever had one similar dog and it is still painful.

No trap. just simple common sense.
Hair gel is not a WMD. Some idiot may choose to blow a plane out of the sky with it, but that does not make it a WMD.
Potential WMD and their means of delivery exist everywhere. We cannot uninvent them or get rid of them, so the next best thing is to eradicate those who supply or use them as WMD.
Saddam fits the bill very nicely and therefore Iraq did have WMD and we were right to invade and eradicate.

BRITISH Muslim groups have, in response to recent events, written to the prime minister to ask for urgent changes in UK foreign policy.

They argue, in particular, that the debacle in Iraq and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to hostilities in the Middle East provides ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

The government must abandon its foreign policy because it enrages a minority of a minority and so risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.


Three MPs, three peers and 38 groups signed a letter advancing these views. How should the overwhelming majority of British citizens who are not Muslims respond?

My answer is that they should reject these positions because they are undemocratic, false and dangerous.




Consider, first, democracy. The country has an elected government, with the right to carry out a foreign policy.

The argument that the government should abandon those policies, not because they are wrong but because they may provoke atrocities by a small minority of extremists acting under the banner of religion, is the abandonment of democratic government to the fear of extreme violence. This argument can only encourage the terrorists. It is illegitimate and unacceptable.


Consider, then, the policy itself. What is so outrageous to Muslims about foreign policy under Tony Blair? His government strongly supported the effort to bring peace to Bosnia, where Muslims were under attack. He intervened in Kosovo to protect Albanian Muslims. He supported an invasion of Afghanistan aimed at overthrowing an oppressive government that allowed the planning and preparation of large-scale terrorist actions. What should any moderate Muslim object to in any of that?


Then we come to the debacle of Iraq. I sympathise with those who condemn that invasion as contrary to the UKs national interests and its execution as incompetent. But why should those concerned with the fate of Muslims object? Saddam Hussein is a psychopath responsible for the deaths of well over a million Muslims. He came close to obtaining nuclear weapons before 1990. He would, if he had succeeded, have threatened all his neighbours. The alternative to the overthrow of his regime would have been the indefinite prolongation of sanctions at the expense of all Iraqis.


Why then should Muslims concerned about the fate of other Muslims object fiercely to his overthrow?

The answer, it appears, is that Iraq is now in chaos. But it is in chaos because some Muslims have launched extreme violence against other Muslims, rather than accept an elected government. This campaign is not the moral responsibility of the British government. It is the moral responsibility of those who preach and practise the violence.


Finally, there is the governments role in the conflict between Israel, the Palestinians and Hezbollah. I believe the expansionist policies of successive Israeli governments in the territories conquered in 1967 were a catastrophic error. This does not mean, however, that a peaceful solution was readily attainable. Nor does it remove Israels right to defend itself.


It is clear, moreover, that the government, under Blair, has done what it could to infuse life into the peace process. Its capacity is merely limited. It wishes, in addition, to secure a cease-fire in Lebanon that does not leave Hezbollah as a powerful state inside the fragile Lebanese state. Why should Muslims object to this aim, since war is, otherwise, sure to break out again?


No less mistaken than these arguments is the incessant criticism of the police. The intelligence the police possess will often be false and the actions they take will often prove mistaken. But they have a duty to err on the side of caution when atrocities are threatened. It is in the overwhelming interests of British Muslims themselves that the police should succeed in preventing further assaults on innocent civilians. Leaders of Muslim opinion should be stressing that Muslims have a duty to co-operate fully with the police, in their own interest.


What then should leaders of Muslim opinion be saying at this frightening moment in British history? They should not argue for changes in foreign policy merely to assuage extremists. They should repudiate the lie that the government is waging a war on Muslims. They should cease carping at the efforts of the police to protect us all. They are fully entitled to disagree with UK policies.

But they are wrong to advance arguments that undermine democracy and justify falsehoods. They should think again, urgently. Financial Times

As neat as a new pin! LOL

Premise seems ok but conclusion flawed, I'm afraid.

'so the next best thing is to eradicate those who supply or use them as WMD.'
Yep seems ok. So I look forward to your posts suggesting that we deal with those
selling cigarettes into third world countries, supplying arms to same and others, providing WMD to Saddam (who was that again?)

Incidentally, a phrase like 'Saddam fits the bill very nicely ' sounds like a West Midlands police fit up which is probably very near the truth; Bush was desperate to kick ass after 9/11 and instead of keeping his eye on the ball and dealing with Al Quada, evidence was shaped so that Saddam was kept in the frame.

I would support your position on cigarettes when it is proven that they kill others than those using them. (Before I get a diatribe on passive smoking I suggest you read the US surgeon Generals report on the effects of passive smoking).
Evidence was shaped?? Not another conspiracy theory, surely?

Copy and paste into your browser.

http://iraqbodycount.net/database/

Theres a one sided web site with an axe to grind if ever I saw one.
The first paragraph says that the deaths caused by roadside bombs and suchlike are as a result of military intervention!!!
How naive can you get? Do these people really think that this is brought about by the war, or do they not realise it is the various factions fighting each other for supremecy for when (they think) terrorism forces the withdrawl of troops.
Imagine what it would be without the troops there.

I think their intention is to say it wouldn't be happening if the invasion hadn't happened.

It shows what some Shia or Sunni Muslims are capable of when there's a power vacuum.