. If you want a laugh, I suggest you read these comments on the BBC “Have your Say” page concerning the imminent arrival of US President Bush to the UK tomorrow. I particularly enjoyed Muhammad (sic) Adam’s comment that “Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist and murderer. He should not be allowed into the UK. His presence in this pure land violates its sanctity. Bush has not done anything good for his nation, or for any nation for that matter ever since he took office. He should be arrested for crimes against humanity, for genocide, for international terrorism.” I think Muhammad may be articulating BBC policy on this topic as they prepare for a hurricane of protest at the Bush visit. I’ve been invited on the BBC Northern Ireland Nolan Show tomorrow morning as someone who supports the President’s record on te war on terror. Guantanamo is one area that I suspect will be tackled, with the likes of Shamnesty International’s street burlesque in orange jumpsuits through Belfast city centre being give considerable media time by the BBC. My only problem with Gitmo was that enemy combatants made it that far. A gulag of our times that allows inmates to put on weight is a gulag too far. I know the hard-left will be out in full-on moonbat mode tomorrow, whinging about all the imperfections of the US President without anything substantial to say about the Islamic pathology that brought us 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali to name but a few. Bush derangement syndrome will be evident in BBC new coverage over the next 48hrs and I will report back on my experience tomorrow.
BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Bookmark the permalink.
God Bless George W. Bush, he has more balls than the entire KGBBC staff.
Cowards never learn. When Marxism takes full root in Britain, the KGBBC staff will be OFFED or RE-EDUCATED in favor of Party media.
KGBBC is close, but Marxists will never trust them.
Just now listening to the World Service, and heard that any differences between Bush and Brown about withdrawing troops from Iraq seem to have been resolved. British troops will only draw down incrementally, and only based on security assessments. The military presence in Afghanistan will be increased.
The Beeboid spoke as if the correct result was for all British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq permanently, and as soon as possible. He said that perhaps the hope was that a new US President would have a different approach so that all troops could be removed.
More violation of the Charter and Agreement. That’s taking a political stance on a specific issue.
One other thing:
You can all blame Mr. Brown’s infestation of No. 10 at least partly on BDS. There is a related syndrome with the same initials: Blair Derangement Syndrome. Boris Johnson suffered from it, and turned some of his positions around on things like Iraq and Afghanistan, just because of the association with Blair.
The same is true, I think, of the BBC and the general public. I know there are plenty of domestic reasons people got sick of him, but one of the biggest negatives – so far as one could tell from BBC reporting – was Blair as “Bush’s Poodle”, being in thrall to Bush, etc. In fact, I doubt the whole Gilligan incident with the 45 minutes and “sexed up” dangers would have even happened if there was no Bush connection to Iraq.
I’m not saying this was the entire reason Blair was more or less squeezed out in favor of Mr. Brown, but I think his association with Bush played a big part in his falling out of favor with the Lefterati.
David Preiser,
You Americans are under the impression that because Bliar went along with the invasion of Iraq that he is one of the good guys,that is completely false.Whilst freeing Iraq,Britain has been turned into an almost third world police state,they even spy on our dustbins (trash cans).
There are too many areas to go into on this thread, but Britain has the largest number of surveillance cameras in the world.
Peter: Socialist Governments have always been control freaks.
I agree with your comments about Blair, he’s destroyed this nation, it’s being split apart, his disgusting sucking up to the Muslims by allowing the preachers of hate to come and go, the Human Rights act that allowed his wife to personally benefit financially from (could you imagine if a Tory PM had done that?) and the persecution of ordinary people by the Police and Local councils whilst the drunk violent scum are allowed to roam free.
Peter | 16.06.08 – 5:49 pm |
As I said, I am aware that Blair had many domestic political problems. Please don’t insult my intelligence by assuming that I think Blair was one of the good guys on any issue other than Iraq and Afghanistan.
In any case, the issues you’re talking about are concerns of rational private citizens, not the BBC. Part of the reason Blair ceased to be the apple of Auntie’s eye, though, was his association with Bush. There haven’t been noisy, violent protests about CCTV, or license fee enforcement thugs, or ID cards, or any of that. The BBC rarely casts a harsh glare on it, either.
Correct me if I’m wrong but international laws on the treatment of “combatants” applies only to officially recognized soldiers who wear a uniform with a clearly displayed insignia, to distinguish them from civilians.
Jason | 16.06.08 – 6:06 am | #
Stand corrected.
The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”
by KNUT DÖRMANN
GC I-IV, common Art. 3: “(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. (…)”
The bottom line: Once a combatant, illegal or legal has ceased to take an active part in the hostilities he is protected (with some exceptions) by the Geneva Conventions to which America and Britain area ratified signatories. That means that they have taken International Humanitarian Law into domestic law.
I wish people would stop the bullshit that the Army has a legal right to kill illegal combatants on the spot. Firstly, once they are no longer active – injured, captured or surrendered, the right disappears. Secondly, neither the US Armed Forces nor the British would ever give such an order. Thirdly, the propaganda windfall that such an order, or even soldiers acting without orders, would give the enemies of the West is far greater than any likely benefit.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (who administer the Geneva Conventions) are aware of the grey area of combatants out of uniform. Although this is not at this point International Humanitarian Law the view of of Nils Melzer, Legal advisor to the ICRC is that legal or illegal combattant has become irrelevant and the critical point is direct participation in hostilities.
I’m betting you’re a wet liberal who had ot play with dolls as a child?
Martin | 16.06.08 – 3:07 pm
Normally I don’t answer offensive trolls. However the question of treatment of prisoners deserves discussion.
I, as some regulars are aware, served in the Israeli army in a combat unit. There was not one day we went on patrol without an officer instructing us in the rules of engagement i.e. when to fire and when not to fire. What is your background?
Soldiers are NOT required to get the enemy to surrender. No one said they were. They are required to respect the rights of the enemy who have surrendered. Exactly when that is can be a judgement call, one usually left to the ranking officer.
The Israeli armed forces take prisoners and depending on the mission are expected capture the enemy if practical. Somehow Israel hasn’t collapsed because of this policy.
If you don’t want to be killed don’t be on the battlefield (and certainly don’t go to Afghanistan for a holiday or computer course)
What exactly was your experience in Afghanistan?
I also notice you make no reference to the torture and execution of American and British personnel (and civilians) by the Muslims. Illegal and unacceptable. Find me one example when either the British or American commands have authorised the tit-for-tat torture of Muslims.
Everything I have written represents (to the best of my research) the law of Britain and the United States (and Israel and almost 200 other states). You don’t like it? Write to your member of Parliament to persuade him that your country no longer wants to be a part of the Geneva Conventions. I suspect you will have as much chance as having complaints of BBC bias turn up on HYS.
If you chose to answer this post with an insult be my guest. I will simply ignore you.
deegee: Actually I did serve in the British forces for 12 years and am well aware of “rules of engagement”
If you don’t take prisoners, you don’t have to look after them. I really don’t care about Muslim extremists, so long as they are dead.
Rules of engagement are drafted by liberal lawyers and are intended for uniformed armies and the nations that sign up to them.
What we have today is a huge religious army intent on our destruction. Kill them before they kill us after all their greatest desire is ot meet up with Allah and get some pussy from a load of virgins. I only want to help them on their way.
If our enemies don’t want to abide by the Geneva conventions, then I certainly don’t either.
AS for our politicians. WEll when the Muslims start taking a few of them out, we might see them change their wet liberal attitudes.
He [the president of the USA, George W. Bush] wants us to think he’s been a force for good. What do you think?
That’s the BBC’s leading question on the cringeworthy World Have Your Say:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/talking-points-june-17/
Whatever you do, don’t access this site, especially the comments, on a Sunday if you’re not in a good mood. You might do your monitor serious injury. I’ve been contributing to the following debate and it’s damn hard work:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/gaza-a-deepening-gulf/
It’s a typical BBC let’s-pat-ourselves-on-the-back-because-we-are-so-sensitive-and-knowledgeable-and-caring-and-sharing-and-aware site.
I meant to add that there are a handful of people who seem to be regulars there and are doing sterling work fighting the bias. But it’s an incredibly incestuous, navel-gazing blog for what is supposed to be part of the output of an impartial public broadcaster.
Bryan,
I will try to help out when I get a few minutes.
Is WHYS actually part of the BBC – I thought it was just some amateur wannabees ?
Jack Hughes | 16.06.08 – 11:47 pm |
It’s an extension of the World Service programme of the same name. That’s presented by real Beeboids.
The commenters online are civilians, but the BBC is the instigator.
deegee:
The bottom line: Once a combatant, illegal or legal has ceased to take an active part in the hostilities he is protected (with some exceptions) by the Geneva Conventions to which America and Britain area ratified signatories. That means that they have taken International Humanitarian Law into domestic law.
The only trouble with that is, as soon as Islamic terrorist extremists break free from jail, they are right back in the hostilities again – by definition. They are NOT just “enemy combatants”, they are voluntary members of a savage CULT who have devoted their lives religiously to the killing of those who do not submit to Islam.
It’s like a couple of hundred rabid dogs escaped from their cages at the pound, and calls were made to spare their lives unless they actually attack someone.
Get real – they’re rabid dogs. You just kill them. It’s not a punishment, it’s not justice, it’s simply the control of a threat.
The Taliban are NOT legal combatants under the Geneva Convention (for the reasons I specified) and as long as they are free to move of their own volition they ARE engaged in hostilities and ARE a threat which must be eliminated. We are under no legal obligation whatsoever to treat them as regular POWs in the first place, and certainly under no legal obligation to spare their lives if they break out of jail.
Deegee, you’re talking as if the subject is “the treatment of Taliban detainees when they’re captured”. It is not. The subject is “what to do about Taliban detainees after they escape”. So your observation about them being “no longer active” does not apply.
As for the propaganda element – who cares? Fighting against them in the first place is all the propaganda they need. I’m sick of hearing people whine that the fight against Islamic terrorism “only recruits more to their cause”. So, once we declare war against them, they *shock horror* fight back? Why are so many people surprised? What should we do – only tackle threats in which the enemy has promised not to recruit any more to the cause? What kind of la-la land do you live in?
In case anyone thought that the last “Have Your Say” comment that was chosen to accompany a story about Bush was a random one and that the Beeb picks a representative cross section without any bias….here’s the next one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7456081.stm
Unless he comes on bended knees begging for forgiveness, I don’t think it will achieve very much – just wasting more of the US taxpayers’ money.
Jon, Switzerland
They could have course chosen a comment like this one…
God Bless You, President Bush! Thank you for your principled and courageous stand against the forces of brutality and oppression in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Those lands no longer harbour dark threats to the liberty of the free world and are now enjoying a chance at the freedom we take for granted. A chance procured by your resolve, and the brave acts of the forces of the USA, UK, and the rest of the courageous nations of the world. History will judge you a great man and leader.
Sol Invictus, USA, United Kingdom
Or this one…
Since the collapse of Communism, the demonisation of George Bush has been the only place for the Left to hang together. He has stood up to Islamic Fascism without appeasement. Watching the “Stop the War” Coalition protesters has been a useful reminder that there is only one war to stop – the war against the West. Funny how people forget who started it.
Andrew Wolf, South London, United Kingdom
They get as many or more votes of recommendation than anti-Bush comments around them, yet the Beeb would never in a million years think of taking one of them to represent “Have Your Say” on another of their pages.
deegee | 16.06.08 – 9:40 pm
deegee, You seem like a very upright and honest man, I also have the greatest respect for anyone that has served in the armed forces, as I freely admit I have not.
However I find my self more in accord with Martin’s feelings on this subject of taking prisoners or removing the threat permanently.
When these religious maniacs use the tactics of suicide bombing, explosives strapped to Women, children and the mentally handicapped and are willing to blow themselves up when approached by our troops, then I say it’s time to call all bets off.
When only one side is prepared to play by the rules, rules made by responsible nations to minimise casualties in the worst of circumstances but trying to maintain their humanity, they will end up losing more of their own precious fighting men which to me is unacceptable.
I am not advocating killing prisoners or wounded on the ground, but no effort should be given to lessen the opposition casualties once engaged, in fact strenuous efforts should be made to ensure any engaging force is wiped out each and every time.
It would keep our troops alive, would make the price the enemy has to pay high and when all is said and done winning should be the only objective in any war, not concentrating on winning while using minimal force.
Maximum opposition casualties in all engagements will shorten any war, and if the war is long then safeguard our own troops while having to fight it.
field.size:
deegee | 16.06.08 – 9:40 pm
deegee, You seem like a very upright and honest man, I also have the greatest respect for anyone that has served in the armed forces, as I freely admit I have not.
It’s just a pity that he doesn’t seem to know that the Laws of War were specifically enacted to protect civilians and “lawful” combatants.
The way they protect “lawful” combatants is to distinguish them from “unlawful” combatants.
He also seems unaware that the conditions at Club Gitmo actually greatly exceed those proscribed by the Genva Conventions.
General Loan summarily executes a Viet Cong captain, outside of uniform, who was caught after he murdered S. Vietmanese policemen and their families.
http://living-creatures.blogspot.com/2007/11/tet-offensive-1968.html
The indelible image belies the actual events. The Geneva Conventions were enacted to PROTECT civilians. If you want to do away with these safeguards and put up something more “militant-friendly”, lets be honest about it.
Interesting – here we have a discussion about the rules of war where an Israeli is counseling moderation and scruple, while a Brit is proposing callous killing out of hand.
Bet if the BBC hosted a discussion on this subject the roles would be reversed.
PaulS | 17.06.08 – 1:35 pm
Interesting – here we have a discussion about the rules of war where an Israeli is counseling moderation and scruple, while a Brit is proposing callous killing out of hand.
“callous killing out of hand.”…….excuse me but where in this discussion is anyone advocating killing callously out of hand other than the members of the ROP??
Beheading, throat slitting, unannounced civilian bombing….. callous yes, out of hand and without remorse yes…….Brits or Israeli’s no.
Armed un-uniformed terrorists, fighters, call them what you will, attacking our troops and their own civilians should be killed. Where does the callous & out of hand come in?
field.size
you asked for callous & out of hand. What about this enlightened comment?
The only trouble with that is, as soon as Islamic terrorist extremists break free from jail, they are right back in the hostilities again – by definition. They are NOT just “enemy combatants”, they are voluntary members of a savage CULT who have devoted their lives religiously to the killing of those who do not submit to Islam.
It’s like a couple of hundred rabid dogs escaped from their cages at the pound, and calls were made to spare their lives unless they actually attack someone.
Get real – they’re rabid dogs. You just kill them. It’s not a punishment, it’s not justice, it’s simply the control of a threat.
The Taliban are NOT legal combatants under the Geneva Convention (for the reasons I specified) and as long as they are free to move of their own volition they ARE engaged in hostilities and ARE a threat which must be eliminated. We are under no legal obligation whatsoever to treat them as regular POWs in the first place, and certainly under no legal obligation to spare their lives if they break out of jail.
Deegee, you’re talking as if the subject is “the treatment of Taliban detainees when they’re captured”. It is not. The subject is “what to do about Taliban detainees after they escape”. So your observation about them being “no longer active” does not apply.
As for the propaganda element – who cares? Fighting against them in the first place is all the propaganda they need. I’m sick of hearing people whine that the fight against Islamic terrorism “only recruits more to their cause”. So, once we declare war against them, they *shock horror* fight back? Why are so many people surprised? What should we do – only tackle threats in which the enemy has promised not to recruit any more to the cause? What kind of la-la land do you live in?
Jason | 17.06.08 – 1:09 am | #
gunnar | 17.06.08 – 4:20 pm
And you point is?
Those comments are on the reality of the struggle we find ourselves in, they are very true, if you find that callous and out of hand I suggest you volunteer to fight and then get taken alive by those you seem to defend…..that would give you a good education into the meaning of those words I think.
“PaulS:
Interesting – here we have a discussion about the rules of war where an Israeli is counseling moderation and scruple, while a Brit is proposing callous killing out of hand.”
Not only interesting, probably fairly typical in fact. Just think what things would be like if it were not so.
“Bet if the BBC hosted a discussion on this subject the roles would be reversed.
PaulS | 17.06.08 – 1:35 pm | “
Yes, indeed. One of the main reasons for this site.
field.size
My point is that Jason is dehumanising the enemy, in other words he is feeling no emotion and sympathy for the other side; in his example the taleban aka terrorists.
I am no fan of the taleban myself, but painting them in black and white and comparing them to rabid dogs is rather callous or not?
gunnar | 17.06.08 – 5:50 pm |
Which part of suicide bombing, throat cutting and killing civilians? Would you like us to sympathise with?
Which part of the terror regime do you like to consider a shade of grey?
When terrorist terrorise it becomes very black and white to me, we do not dehumanise anyone….they have shouldered that responsibility themselves, carrying out inhuman and deliberate bombing and killing of the civilian population accomplishes dehumanisation quite well I think.
field.size
It is just us against them, good vs evil. We are good and well-meaning, they are rabid dogs. The evil peoples behaviour is rooted in evil. They are not human. Simple as that. Is my understanding of your point correct.
gunnar | 17.06.08 – 6:11 pm | #
Don’t try to put words in my mouth.
It’s your decision as to what you regard as “evil”, answer me this….
What do you consider the beheading of a helpless prisoner?
How do you reconcile the packing of bombs with nails, ball bearings and bleach plus other chemicals to prevent wounds from healing, with being a fellow human being?
Do you consider people who have industrially disposed of 6 million fellow humans to be equal to soldiers who have fought and killed to re-impose sanity to Europe?
Would you embrace as a fellow human being a man who sent out a child to greet you and then remotely detonated a bomb strapped to that child?
If you can find excuses for behavior like this then you are in a better position than me to decide what evil is.
field.size
I have not put words into your mouth. That’s the reason I have asked for confirmation.
Personally I find the word “evil” in this context not helpful as it is too simplistic.
Here my answers to your questions.
“What do you consider the beheading of a helpless prisoner?”
A crime
“How do you reconcile the packing of bombs with nails, ball bearings and bleach plus other chemicals to prevent wounds from healing, with being a fellow human being?”
A crime
“Do you consider people who have industrially disposed of 6 million fellow humans to be equal to soldiers who have fought and killed to re-impose sanity to Europe?”
The first point is a crime.
The bombardment of Germans towns and deliberately killing civilians was certainly a crime too.
“Would you embrace as a fellow human being a man who sent out a child to greet you and then remotely detonated a bomb strapped to that child?”
No.
gunnar
“I am no fan of the taleban myself, but painting them in black and white and comparing them to rabid dogs is rather callous or not?”
That is just plain unfair. To rabid dogs.
gunnar | 17.06.08 – 7:31 pm | #
“Here my answers to your questions.”
“What do you consider the beheading of a helpless prisoner?”
A crime”
A crime? You mean like burglary or drug running? Or stabbing someone in a rage?
I consider it a crime against humanity, beyond the pale, a shift away from all that we regard as being civilised, re-entering the realm of animals who have no understanding of right and wrong. If these people do understand right and wrong and still carry out acts that I have described, then the only answer of a civilised society is to remove them from life to stop them repeating their despicable acts. If they do not comprehend right and wrong then what does separate them from a rabid dog?
“Would you embrace as a fellow human being a man who sent out a child to greet you and then remotely detonated a bomb strapped to that child?”
“No.”
Then Gunnar, what exactly would you consider such a person do be?
Do you seriously want our soldiers who face these people to risk their one and only life in some effort to “apprehend” them and bring then to “Justice” that is exactly the sort of behavior terrorists like this rely on to get more victims. Remember they are not interested in life, their own or anyone else’s just as much death as can be dispensed. Let them have what they want is my opinion, but without those they would take with them.
That is just plain unfair. To rabid dogs.
Andy | 17.06.08 – 7:51 pm | #
And you should always talk to a rabid dog.
Understand that you are the problem and not the rabid dog. Try to find out what is causing his rabidity.
Rabid dogs are open to rational thought and will always respond if you treat them well.
On a separate point, the term “rabid” is extermeely offensive.
Please try to use the term militant canine.
Comparing the Taliban to a confused, terrified, hallucinating, incontinent, salivating animal is deeply offensive to that animal, which cannot help itself and must be put out of it’s misery.
The cold, calculating Taliban do possess their full faculties of reasoning and logic however, and know exactly what they are doing:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/11/mil-011123-usia04.htm
These bastards with their voodoo beliefs and medieval values…
http://www.rawa.org/beating.htm
… must also be put out of their misery, but without the same compassion as that of the rabid dog…
field.size and others,
your responses seem to suggest, that the taleban or not human and are past the post. They are simply rabid dogs and must be put out of their misery.
Does this sum it up or do I miss something essential?
Gunnar, I just got home and noticed that you’ve had a particular bad bout of diarrhea of the mouth today – my condolences. Have you tried washing it out with Dettol?
Seriously though – your thinking reflects the general lack of intelligence and objective judgment which defines the left, especially when the subject is right and wrong.
You think it unfair of me to “dehumanize” the enemy? Get this into your thick skull – I don’t have to dehumanize the enemy in this case because they dehumanize themselves of their own volition.
You think it wrong to make clear distinctions between good and evil? Go and crawl back under the sterile, politically correct rock you came from. I’ll tell you why it is entirely appropriate to make such distinctions in this case, but first we must clearly define the difference between good and evil.
Evil is that which destroys or inhibits man’s life and pursuit of happiness..and good is that which furthers it.
Since the Islamic savages celebrate death over life, since death is more important to them than life, they are by definition evil. They do not live for the sake of living, and death is a great honor to them – something to strive toward. The realm that is important to them is the realm found after life – death. I don’t know how else to explain this to you. They are the living embodiment of evil. Their way of life and their intentions are not to further the pursuit of life on this planet, but to destroy all life which doesn’t submit to Islam.
There is something qualitatively different about military acts carried out in a time of war the intentions of which are explicitly and undeniably to defend human life in the long run – Hiroshima being a fine example – and senseless violence carried out in the name of hate, ignorance and a cult of death – 9/11 and everything else done by Islamic terrorists being the best example I can think of. To claim some kind of moral (or immoral) equivalence between the two is not just disingenuous, it’s a complete breakdown of the objective values by which sane humans distinguish themselves from the insane.
To be frank, it’s not even a question of “putting rabid dogs out of their misery”, or even the punishment of the evil by the good – it’s simply a rational process by which those who celebrate life seek to destroy, for their own safety (and love of life) those who celebrate death.
Islamic extremism is a virus, a cancer, rabid, whatever it is you wish to call it. They are not people engaged in the pursuit of happiness, they are people engaged in the deliberate destruction of other people’s happiness. They are evil, Gunnar, and no level of verbal gymnastics will suffice to sweep that fact under the rug.
Jason | 18.06.08 – 2:14 am
Very VERY well said, so well said that I feel any further additions to be superfluous.
My best regards
F.S
Thank you. Hopefully that will be the end of the matter. I just get so sick of the constant attempts of the left to sympathize with and humanize evil.
Not sure whether we’re still talking about Bush’s record here, but I’d make that point that whilst our enemies are indisputably evil and our motives are pretty pure as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t make Bush a success.
Churchill is lionised not because he confronted evil, but because he confronted it with a plan and a bit of skill and made a big contribution to kicking its arse.
Confronting evil in an underplanned, cack handed manner resulting in a bit of a mess, isn’t a net positive for your Presidential record.
If we’re being purely philosophical and have given up on Bush please ignore me. Ta 🙂
Jason
Seriously, temper your language. I have been polite to you and the least one can expect is response in kind.
No point taking this further. And please, the world does not slot into “good” and “evil”.
All the best!
gunnar
PS: I find this amongst many others extremely scary
“Islamic extremism is a virus, a cancer, rabid, whatever it is you wish to call it.”
You will know that other groups were labelled a cancer before. Mr Adolf Hitler springs to mind, labelling the Jews a cancer on the German body that needs to be exterminated “Ein Krebs an der gesunden Volkseele, der mit Stumpf und Stiel ausgerottet werden muss, Sieg Heil”.
Mate, just reflect on this for a few minutes, please.
All the best again.