Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Stone the crows

Will British troops, to be sued for compensation by Iraqi rioters they were filmed beating up, be able to counter-sue for stress caused by the hand-grenades and stones thrown at them?

We started throwing stones at them because we believed that they were behind all our misery. - Bassem Shaker, 27

Why isn't the Pope as concerned about Christians being stoned as Sir Iqbal Sacranie is about Muslims being beaten up by British troops!?!

4 comments:

Alison said...

hurray for you. i agree. if they had turned the rioters over to the then corrupt police force they would have met an official brandishing an electric screwdriver...

id also like to know why its taken so long for them to come forward when anyone would have jumped on their story withouit video evidence.

Id like to see our troops come home home soon. i feel so sorry for them.

Lone Primate said...

Will British troops, to be sued for compensation by Iraqi rioters they were filmed beating up, be able to counter-sue for stress caused by the hand-grenades and stones thrown at them?

Perhaps when Iraq invades Britain. This is a bit like driving drunk and then demanding the person you ran over pay to buff the human-shaped dent out of your hood. Errr... bonnet?

Another issue here is the terminology. Were the French Resistence "rioters"? And when the Germans dealt with them, remember the punishment they themselves were eventually liable to. What comes around goes around, and cherrypicking your terms to suit the occasion won't -- or at least, shouldn't -- save you. The British are invaders.

Yet again. :(

Snafu said...

Lone Primate, it's a fair point about the terminology used for the rioters, presumably the same issue should arise when referring to the insurgency in the American colonies in the 1770s!

The official line is presumably that Britain is trying to help Iraq back on it's own two feet and will leave at some date in the future. I certainly don't consider the British to be invaders on a par with the German invasion of France in 1940.

For what it's worth, I did support the original invasion on the basis that Tony Blair had access to military intelligence on weapons of mass destruction not available to the general public to protect the sources. For the Government not to have challenged the source of this intelligence and commit British troops on out of date information is lamentable.

That Tony Blair survived a General election despite this is shameful to the British public.

Lone Primate said...

Lone Primate, it's a fair point about the terminology used for the rioters, presumably the same issue should arise when referring to the insurgency in the American colonies in the 1770s!

No argument here.

The official line is presumably that Britain is trying to help Iraq back on it's own two feet

Having helpted to knock it off of its own two feet in the first place, yes...

I certainly don't consider the British to be invaders on a par with the German invasion of France in 1940.

No, France actually had an army worthy of the name at the time. The Germans are at least owed gruding admiration for having the guts to take on a target that was at least militarily a peer. Other than that, the parallels are close: invaders arrive to remake a foreign land in their own image to suit themselves and expect the population to accommodate them, and then punish them when they don't. Only the colour of the whitewash changes.

For what it's worth, I did support the original invasion on the basis that Tony Blair had access to military intelligence on weapons of mass destruction not available to the general public to protect the sources.

Even at the time I could not fathom how anybody could be taken in by that. It was obvious rubbish. The man stood up in the House of Commons, and demanded the nation back an invasion by waving a dossier the contents of which he refused to show for reasons of national security. HUH??? Like, what was he afraid of? That Saddam Hussein might be listening and become aware of WMD he didn't even know he had? And yet, 600-odd of presumably the best of brightest of an entire nation thought that was good enough to set aside ancient standards of democracy and even judicial standards of evidence and launch a murderous campaign that has cost the lives of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of "liberated" Iraqi civilians. Liberated? From their bodies, from their families, from their homes, yeah. I once had some regard for the British Labour Party, but it's demonstrated to me that no matter who sits in No. 10 Downing Street, the British are addicted to the idea of being a part of an empire... anyone's empire... and cannot and will not break themselves out of that cycle of brutality; voters for the Liberal Party notwithstanding.