UK soldiers to face prosecution for war crimes

N17

N17

Permabanned
Joined
20 Jan 2012
Posts
680
I think the chemtrails have made your tinfoil hat a bit too tight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpMCs2XlDRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1URXX7LjJM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUX3kZmp6oE

http://www.tomatobubble.com/id661.html

"Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.

The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles."
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2005
Posts
12,980

I gave that long text the benefit of doubt and read it.

I think we both have wildly different views on certain aspects. One where I am crazy and one where you are crazy.

Nothing more can be said. Let's all celebrate in freedom of opinion

Just a side note, in the same post you describe soldiers as "shocking" (the theme of the british servicemen and women being almost the same as terrorists), then go on to say you know some who are fine individuals.

Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Posts
15,459
To be fair to him, I think it is pretty much accepted that the west has helped of some of the very people we are now fighting against.
 

N17

N17

Permabanned
Joined
20 Jan 2012
Posts
680
Helped, yes. Set-up and funded to run false-flag operations against their own citizens, not so much.

Of course the CIA and Mossad have been running false flag events. Look at the supposed beheadings that ISIS carry out, and they are actually all done against a green screen
 
Associate
Joined
27 Jul 2009
Posts
590
Location
UK
To be fair to him, I think it is pretty much accepted that the west has helped of some of the very people we are now fighting against.

I think a better point would be what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

N17, post the ISIS-related junk in the ISIS thread - that's where it belongs.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2011
Posts
3,099
here is, currently, no army anywhere on the face of the planet fighting for me or to keep me and mine safe. I wasn’t asked if I wanted UK troops in Afghanistan
Have "you" ever considered "you" may not be the centre of the world or uniquely smart? So that others who hold different opinions to "you" may not be both stupid proles or "privileged officer class tories" characters

I’m also more than a little sick of the accusing and outraged responses my articulating of such sentiments provokes.
Its because the argument is stupidly black and white and reduced so far that it loses all meaning. So people reply that its nonsense...and then you start shouting about Isreal and the CIA. everyone sighs, understands and steps back, whilst you copy and paste arguments from your little echo chamber, trying to get all your cute angsty prejudices out.

Now I’m no wild-eyed, army-hating pacifist. I’m privileged to know some fine human beings who have served in the British Army. One, in particular, spending an eventful career involved in incidents that will definitely not be subjected to public scrutiny any time soon. Interestingly enough, though, they all seem to have a far clearer and much more accurate understanding of the motivations underpinning the UK’s military excursions than those who support them. Motives, they would assure you, which have nothing whatsoever to do with noble concepts like freedom, democracy and philanthropy.
this paragraph reads like the racist who has a black friend as "cover". incidentally funny that the military "you" apparently know are actually normal people so "you" have to separate them from the frothing madness that "you" attribute to everyone else in the military.

But the point is this; currently doing the rounds on Facebook (where else?) is this
Strawman. absolutely nothing to do with the military just because some equally biffy person has tried to evoke the military in their argument.

I know I’ll never have to stand weeping over a box filled with bits of my kids.
Unfortunately not true, and attempting to use this argument on parents of military personnel is shameful. Just because "you" deny "your" family a right to choose their own life, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Let them send their kids, let the privileged officer class be the heroes, let’s see the Cabinet sending their sons and daughters to perish in the desert.
Officers went. "Your" class warfare is pathetic and hypocritical considering "your" previous arguments against the "proles" that don't agree with "you".

So, you want to support ‘Our Boys’, eh? Then do it in the only way that matters; bring them back from Afghanistan. Oppose this pointless, unwinnable, immoral and dirty war. Give your kids the chance to live or you aren’t a parent; you’re a moral coward. A disgusting individual prepared to sacrifice your children for the hollow lies sold you by the governments of the UK and USA. Are you real? What kind of human being are you that you’d do that but presume to judge me for my lack of patriotism? Dulci et decorum est pro patria mori, eh? What is wrong with you people?
Talk about putting arguments in someone's mouth. Nice bit of dehumanisation, oddly fascist tone as well.

Btw that text you just C+P is all from 2012. you seem utterly incapable of free thought. Talk about moral cowardice.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2005
Posts
12,980
I am still waiting for replies to two questions I threw out there at N17.

The first was show us all this evidence that backs up the claim that there have been British Soldiers (and many) that have committed war crimes which have gone unnoticed

The second was does N17 class all servicemen and women being almost the same as terrorists (but in uniform) or does N17 seperate those who N17 knows personally, who are according to N17 "fine human beings"
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Erm in case you missed it, Islamic State do far worse to captured soldiers than "shoot them in the head" after they surrender.

International law is pointless and will always be pointless unless you have some way of actually enforcing it. Who is going to arrest these Islamic State psychos who burn captured pilots alive? Who is going to stop China destroying coral reefs in the South China Sea? Who is going to take Putin to task for his war crimes in Ukraine, Georgia and now Syria?

By playing nice we don't actually set an example, we just look weak and invite our enemies to attack and undermine us, which is precisely what is happening with the global jihad and Russia's recent activities.

You know, that's why I stated a specific example...

It would be a war crime if ISIS did that, along with many of the other things they do, which are also considered war crimes. If the British army did the same then they should also be considered war crimes.

Just because they are "foreigners" doesn't mean we shouldn't care what happens. Following laws and showing you are the "good" guys could (and will) make the difference between people seeing us as people to trust and people to fight. It's called hearts and minds and makes the difference between winning a war and not when that war involves foreign soil.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
How far back do we go, a soldier was recently arrested for an alleged crime in 1972 recently.

Personally I think there should be statue of limitations on this sort of thing, along with many other alleged crimes, unless there is hard evidence against the accused there should be a time limit. With accusations that just boil down to verbal evidence (witnesses) you can't suggest that 20 years after the alleged incident you can really have no reasonable doubt if it really is just some people word against another (as opposed to written orders/film/audio etc from the incident).
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
if there is solid evidence then we should go back as far as we like... for example if a known Nazi involved in death camps is caught and happens to be in his 90s I don't think some statute of limitations should be used as a technicality
 

N17

N17

Permabanned
Joined
20 Jan 2012
Posts
680
I am still waiting for replies to two questions I threw out there at N17.

The first was show us all this evidence that backs up the claim that there have been British Soldiers (and many) that have committed war crimes which have gone unnoticed

The second was does N17 class all servicemen and women being almost the same as terrorists (but in uniform) or does N17 seperate those who N17 knows personally, who are according to N17 "fine human beings"

Look for yourself at "British War Crimes" The killings of innocent men, women and children. You'll soon see.
 
Back
Top Bottom