bluepoppy Posted January 19, 2005 at 10:16 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 at 10:16 PM I feel ashamed to be English at this point... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4185719.stm Warning: the pictures are quite shocking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberian Posted January 20, 2005 at 09:03 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 at 09:03 AM The liberators at work... Not a very good week for the Brits. Just a few days ago, Prince Harry was wearing a Nazi uniform at a party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dylan Thomas Posted January 20, 2005 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 at 03:00 PM Whilst these acts of torture are disgusting, up to/over 100,000 civilians have been estimated to have been killed in this illegal war (see here). These pictures don't do the likes of Blair too much harm, cos as long as these soldiers get a stiff sentence, then everyone feels good and then it's business as usual. With or without the pictures, I'd say there's reason enough to be ashamed - though i would dispute that I should feel ashamed for Blair's f*cked up war which most of us opposed from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepoppy Posted January 20, 2005 at 07:26 PM Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 at 07:26 PM I feel like it does need saying because this is an international forum and it's a good place to raise the point that the majority of people in the UK were opposed to the war, and I'm saying that I am opposed to what is happening there. It might be 'old news' but it's still happening... Also, have you noticed that most people abroad never heard about the London anti-war demonstrations? So no-one knows about the level of public opposition to the war...much higher in the UK than the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepoppy Posted January 20, 2005 at 07:31 PM Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 at 07:31 PM Ok, I agree though that we didn't need the photos to highlight this...it's just that photos have that power to make an irrefutable point where words such as 'liberation', 'insurgents', 'terrorism' and 'freedom' are banded around to mislead people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhchao Posted January 20, 2005 at 08:11 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 at 08:11 PM where words such as 'liberation', 'insurgents', 'terrorism' and 'freedom' are banded around to mislead people. I could not agree less. Last year the LA Times ordered its editors to prevent usage of the word 'resistance' to describe the daily events in Iraq because the term had romantic connotations originating from WWII. Previously journalists were using the word 'resistance' to describe the quagmire there. When the order came, they changed it to 'insurgents'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepoppy Posted January 20, 2005 at 08:33 PM Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 at 08:33 PM Last year the LA Times ordered its editors to prevent usage of the word 'resistance' to describe the daily events in Iraq because the term had romantic connotations originating from WWII. Previously journalists were using the word 'resistance' to describe the quagmire there. When the order came, they changed it to 'insurgents'. That's what I mean. That the word 'insurgency' is being used rather than resistance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wushijiao Posted January 21, 2005 at 12:36 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 at 12:36 AM Also, have you noticed that most people abroad never heard about the London anti-war demonstrations? So no-one knows about the level of public opposition to the war...much higher in the UK than the USA I was in China at the start of the war, and the protests in the UK seemed to get a lot of coverage. Are the protests still going on? If so, they aren't getting any coverage. That's what I mean. That the word 'insurgency' is being used rather than resistance I disagree. Truck bombing Iraqi politicians and other people at random is not resistance. What are they resisting? Free elections? Are they providing an alternative vision of the future of Iraq? What would be their economic policies? Who would they appoint as Ministers? How would they conduct foreign policy? They have no answers to any of these questions. I don't like certain British politicians, but I think it would be a bit rude of me to protest by walking into a Safeway and killing and maiming a dozen people with a nail bomb. I think the war was started based on a lot of shaky intelligence, but I think at this point, there is only one reasonable side to be on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amory hill Posted January 21, 2005 at 12:48 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 at 12:48 AM one should never feel ashamed, other than at one's own actions. and even then, only in moderation. remember, it's yourself you've got to live with. lose your self-esteem, what have you got left? embarrassment, that's different. usually at something perfectly ridiculous. prince charles when he was overheard saying that stupid thing to camilla. (tampon, it's on your search-engine!). that, I would not survive. they're a thick-skinned lot, over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dylan Thomas Posted January 21, 2005 at 10:30 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 at 10:30 AM from wushijiao: I think the war was started based on a lot of shaky intelligence, but I think at this point, there is only one reasonable side to be on. Makes it sound like you believe the "you're either with us or against us" bullshit. Shitheads like Bush use illogic like that to try to brand his opponents as supporters of terrorism. Your "reasonable side" (i presume you were referring to the US/UK occupying forces?) is never going to bring stability or peace to Iraq the way things are going. and no, before you say it, please don't take this to mean that i think terrorism will. But any government supported by the occupiers will always lack legitimacy in the eys of the majority of iraqis. the only type of government likely to get legitimacy would be one with a fairly hostile attitude towards washington - which, as we all know, they would never allow to get power at all, democratically elected or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wushijiao Posted January 21, 2005 at 11:53 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 at 11:53 AM But any government supported by the occupiers will always lack legitimacy in the eys of the majority of iraqis. the only type of government likely to get legitimacy would be one with a fairly hostile attitude towards washington - which, as we all know, they would never allow to get power at all, democratically elected or otherwise. It's a fair point, but are you sure? I don't think the US has veto power on who is elected. I would bet anything that a strong theocrat will win sooner or later. And so be it. No, I don't believe in Bush's "your with us or against us". But, there is only one reasonable opinion to have on violence directed at Iraqi civilians and workers preparing for the upcoming election. From what I've read (granted, in Englsih), the "resitance" fighters are hated by most Iraqis who call in to talk radio to vent their frustrations. Of course, the US is hated, too. Nonetheless, one side has a plan, the other doesn't. It's not like other wars, like, say, the Chinese civil war in which the CCP presented an alternative view for governing. The foreign fighter contingent, perhaps unlike some disgruntled former Repubican Guards, promise only holy war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.