The shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes by citizen

Apparently the officer tasked with surveilance of the block of flats he left was 'relieving' himself at the time so couldn't make a positive identification...
I really hope this wakes people up a bit to the possibllity that not everyone who's slightly tanned is a terroist...
Some how I doubt it...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:45 AM

FIVVER

Please tell me itv.com is your version of moveon.org. IE not to be trusted.

The words 'tragic mistake' don't seem strong enough but are the only ones that come to mind.

The one thing your police are not noted for is being trigger happy. Was the threat level great enough to justify the issuing of a shoot to kill order (I can't remember the last time that happened here)? And I'm sure those cops did not wake up that morning intending to kill an innocent man.

May God's peace be with Jean Charles' family and those officers and may some better way to handle this be found.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:34 AM

Unfortunatly itv is a well known and respected news channel over here...
I heard the story on Channel 4 news, just found another link on their site:
http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1677571
It goes into a bit more detail.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fivver:
The one thing your police are not noted for is being trigger happy.

Thats what worries me...
Our armed police are specially trained, spend more time training than anything else, so a mistake like this shouldn't happen...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fivver:
Was the threat level great enough to justify the issuing of a shoot to kill order (I can't remember the last time that happened here)?

It took place after a second round of (attempted) bombings on the London underground.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:16 PM

SERGEANTX

Sadly, this is the inevitable fallout of terrorism. It's more or less the point of it - to get us so scared and jumpy we self-destruct.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 3:11 PM

RUXTON

Some patriot in the Metropolitan Police has leaked the classified internal report on the incident and reveals a whole list of lies in the official pronouncements following the shooting:

1. Mr. De Menezez was not wearing any clothing suitable for concealing a bomb; he wasn't carrying any kind of bag either.

2. Mr. De Menezez did NOT run into the station, vault the ticket barrier or do anything else of the kind. He walked into the station, used his electronic swipe card to get through the barriers and even paused to pick up a newspaper on his way down to the track levels. At this point, he had not been approached by any police officer, despite having been trailed for miles.

3. He jogged into the train but he did not trip and have to be held down by two policemen. Instead, he sat down in a seat in a train that had just arrived at Stockwell station.

4. The Rules of Engagement were as follows:
The suspect was NOT under ANY circumstances to be allowed on a train
Despite later claims to the contrary in the press, the day orders to the officers was that lethal force was only authorised if the suspect either refused to co-operate when challenged or ran away.

Despite these directives, no one was in the position to intercept him before he got on the train, despite the fact that they managed to get an undercover officer on the train ahead of him. Also, despite the fact that he was followed into the station, no one attempted to challenge him, despite the fact he was clearly not able to have a hidden explosive device on his person.

5. The police later claimed that the CCTV system at Stockwell Station was out of order. In fact, it was in perfect working order and filmed Mr. De Menezez as he entered the station, bought his newspaper, passed through the ticket barriers and descended to the track level.

6. Only after sitting down in the train was Mr. De Menezez approached and challenged by the armed police officers. He stood up and turned to look at them, probably intending to co-operate with the men shouting 'Police!' at him. Another undercover police officer, who was on the train, took the opportunity to grab him, pinning his arms, and threw him back into his seat. Then the armed officers threw the undercover officer aside (he was the one that eyewitnesses saw being pinned to the ground by two officers) and the others started pumping bullets into Mr. De Menezez's head as he sat, probably still not knowing what was going on.

The real kicker is this: Mr. De Menezez had been 'positively identified' as one of the 7/21 suspects despite the fact that no one seems to have seen his face clearly. The only officer in a position to do so was watching the entrance to the apartment block. Unfortunately he was taking a pee at the time and could only confirm that a 'male' had left. Unfortunately as he was 'indisposed', he was unable to turn on the video cameras in his vehicle to actually get a picture of the man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:08 PM

FIVVER

Here's another version of what's going on from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:37 PM

I thought what was happening was pretty bad some weeks ago shortly after the incident, but still hoped that it was just an accident. Its looking more and more like summary execution to me...
Ruxton, thanks for the points, do you have a source that I could get at?
Fivver, thanks for the source from the bbc, I was trying to find one last night, but they can be slow putting information up on their website.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Sadly, this is the inevitable fallout of terrorism. It's more or less the point of it - to get us so scared and jumpy we self-destruct.

We've been dealing with terroism for years over here in the UK, and I don't remember and incident like this. No one of 'Irish' appearence was shot walking on to the underground.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:40 AM

i thought i had posted this up here when we found out from the family campaign who had seen the cctv footage a couple of weeks ago - the press could have published this news at anytime but they have chosen now which is complete downtime in the political calendar - it is deliberatelty being buried at a time when newspaper circulation drops and politicians are topping up their tans

all i can hope is that i hope it puts a swift end to the 'shoot to kill' policy

according to the bbc this morning it seems the cock up over identity happened 'cos one copper was taking a leak - yeah they're that smart and i don't trust 'em and i don't like 'em on our public transport

all the lies that have been told have only served to heighten a sense of fear - this, hypocritically, from the people who tell us that they won't change 'cos of terrorists - its the establishment pumping the fear now - blair's attacks on civil liberties are outrageous and unjustifiable as is his initial refusal to link the bombings to British foreign policy - primarily in Iraq - something almost all mainstream commentators now accept

the media is not fooling me

smile pretty and watch your back
march for peace and liberty 24th September London, www.stopwar.org.uk

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Sadly, this is the inevitable fallout of terrorism. It's more or less the point of it - to get us so scared and jumpy we self-destruct.

the point of terrorism is to get us angry at our governments for the stupid things they do (I can't remember the academic studies but they say about 95% of suicide bombers quote this reason)but it usually backfires in this way

its why terrorism doesn't work - it allows the establishment carte blanche to do the stuff they wanted to but couldn't
project for new american century clearly wanted to go after saddam and couldn't but 9-11 (carried out by Saudis!!!!!) gave 'em every opportunity ('cos they told us there was a link between secular iraq and the wahabis in Saudi and the media repeated every unbelievable lie they were told )the london bombings let the blair government bring in their civil liberties attacks, id cards etc, palestinian bombers allow israeli state to curfew towns indefinitely - erect a wall cutting of people from thier land

this is why if want to stop the police being able to get away with murder we have to go on the offensive over the attack on civil liberties

smile pretty and watch your back

March for Peace and Liberty September 24th London, www.stopwar.org

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
i thought i had posted this up here when we found out from the family campaign who had seen the cctv footage a couple of weeks ago

I don't recall seeing that post. But it wouldn't surprise me. I beleive that the current 'revelations' are to do with newly leaked reports from the IPCC, not solely to do with the CCTV footage.

The climate of fear is totally the problem, and scares me more than any terroists bomb.
I can see parrallels with all sorts of cautionary tales with our current polical and social climate. Can anyone say the constant wars of 1984?
Theres presedent in history too, Nazi Germany blamed the Jews and just look what the people were willing to let and HELP the Nazi regime do. Nothing says that better than this quote:

Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

It is also not only Blair who is attacking civil liberties, just look at the patriot act in America. For christ-sake any law named the patriots act has got to be bad news...

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
march for peace and liberty 24th September London, www.stopwar.org.uk

I was a stuanch anti-war support before Iraq, just as I am stuanchly against any-premature withdrawl now. We can't pull the troops out now. In no way could I saction my country going in, toppling the goverment and infrastructure, and then leaving the populace 'to the wolves'.
This as unnacceptable to me as the war was. Leaving now will end with an extremist religous regime taking over Iraq to fill the power vaccuum, it will not stop the bombings, as any millitants just need to point and say "see they don't care, they come in blow up women and children, and when they've gotten what they want they just leave!".
Again, look at Germany, the only country in history (that i know of) that has undergone millitary regime change and appeared as something other than a mess. We still have troops stationed there NOW, Germany was not reunited until the fall of the Berlin wall.
Given that the country and its populace was far more stable than the situation in Iraq do you really think that we can withdraw our troops now and hope for a happy ending?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:18 AM

Citizen,
My flippant and short answer is what the hell have 'we' achieved being there - there is still mass torture going on at Abu Graib and other prisons, there is still no economic or social stability and there sure as hell isn't any democracy

the longer the occupation runs the worse we make it and the angrier ordinary people get over the lack of control over their lives - most of the resistance is not made up of 'foreign religious exteremists' but of native iraqis who want the troops out

two further things
- i want to have a longer discussion but have to work now and think this is slightly (but not much off topic), so i will get back on this

- i think we are basically on the same side here the key thing i think is to remember who the real enemies are in all this

smile pretty and watch your back

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
My flippant and short answer is what the hell have 'we' achieved being there - there is still mass torture going on at Abu Graib and other prisons, there is still no economic or social stability and there sure as hell isn't any democracy

I redirect you to my previous point, re. Nazi Germany... Although I understand, and freely point out that Germany after world war two is a very different situation it took a long time to rebuild Germany into a stable democracy. In contrast we've given Iraq what, two years?
Yes what we are doing in Iraq is almost counter-productive in the extreme, that does not beg the responce we should withdraw, more we should change what we are doing.
Like it or not we are there now, and leaving now will cause more problems than it will solve, if indeed it solves any. If we leave now, when, as you say there is no working goverment or infrastructure, what do we leave behind? And who is going to step in to pick up the peices?
The situation would have been infinatly more stable if George Bush hadn't been in such as rush to get in to Iraq, and the UN and Middle Eastern community could have been brought behind the action, but that is unfortunatly not the case.

Quote:
Originally posted by becsthebeast:
the longer the occupation runs the worse we make it and the angrier ordinary people get over the lack of control over their lives - most of the resistance is not made up of 'foreign religious exteremists' but of native iraqis who want the troops out

Foreign fighters are a part of the insurgency. Foriegn aid is what keeps it going.

Quote:
Many of the Arabs, according to the postings, were drawn to fight in Iraq under the banner of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the group run by Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi that has taken credit for a gruesome series of beheadings, kidnappings and suicide attacks -- many of them filmed and then disseminated on the Internet in a convergence between the electronic jihad and the real-life war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005
051401270.html

The native Iraqis who comprise the insurgency are far from the majority of ordinary people. They are religous extremist, the ordinary people are, as is often the case the ones caught up between the two extrems, those trying to make the best of a bad situation by joining the police/army or goverment, or continuing to keep their shops and buissness open.
If we withdraw now who do you expect will take over the running of Iraq?
I have serious doubts that it will be the ordinary people.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:51 AM

I can’t help but ask what is this freedom and democracy all these people are allegedly fighting and dying for, unless it’s the freedom to be shot in the head as the whimsy of the police dictates and the freedom to sit back and apathetically allow our civil liberties to be curtailed … talk about totalitarian regime – how long have we got ‘fore we’re living in one ourselves??

It's all very scary ... not to mention how horrific it must be if you live in Iraq! But then, hey, those people don't speak english, so that's OK ...

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:27 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by becsthebeast:
...this is why if want to stop the police being able to get away with murder we have to go on the offensive over the attack on civil liberties

Yeah, but I think it's important to remember that these people are on your side. Maybe not the PNAC, or the politicians willingly using terrorism as an excuse to expand their power, but the cops on the beat, the people investigating the bombings, even the vast majority of politicians, are doing their best to deal with the social pressure created by terrorism. I was commenting to suggest that turning us against each other in our mutual insecurity is exactly what the terrorists are trying to accomplish.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
I can’t help but ask what is this freedom and democracy all these people are allegedly fighting and dying for, unless it’s the freedom to be shot in the head as the whimsy of the police dictates and the freedom to sit back and apathetically allow our civil liberties to be curtailed … talk about totalitarian regime – how long have we got ‘fore we’re living in one ourselves??

It's all very scary ... not to mention how horrific it must be if you live in Iraq! But then, hey, those people don't speak english, so that's OK ...

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

What is your point Zoot?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:17 AM

my point is - I'm not sure who the good guys are anymore (if I ever was) ....

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:28 AM

they're are no good guys, as they're are no bad guys, they're are shades of grey, addmittedly with some grey being darker than others. At the end of the day the real bad guys are the people 'on the otherside'.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:45 AM

SIMONWHO

I disagree. A policeman who orders the shooting of a suspect without clear proof of identity, he's incompetent, disgraceful, sack-worthy. But he's not evil.

Someone who orders people to be tortured for days, purely for some perceived slight, that's evil.

I'm not suggesting that we're void of them on "our side" (hello Camp X-Ray!) but they're a lot fewer in number and challenged a great deal more.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:49 AM

I'd hold that theres just as many 'evil' people in our society as there is in 'theirs'.
Its just that they either can't gain a foot hold quite so easily here, and those that do are 'controlled' better...
Re. Lord of the Flies...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:26 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I disagree. A policeman who orders the shooting of a suspect without clear proof of identity, he's incompetent, disgraceful, sack-worthy. But he's not evil.

Thats too broad. I'd say "he's not neccessarily evil". The rest depends on the circumstances and his own heart both of which can often be difficult to discern.

I suggest a bit of tolerance for the British police as a whole. This incident is tragic, but the overall response to the bombings has been remarkable. Never the less a head should roll for this, one head and one head only.

Thats why they built the Tower of London isn't it?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:54 AM

One head and one head only?
You mean we should find a scapegoat?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:38 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
One head and one head only?
You mean we should find a scapegoat?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

I'm suggesting that they, the English, punish the officer who reacted poorly, rather then the entire profession.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:45 PM

Yeah, my reply was a little... *Ahem*
General point was that its unlikly one officer is ultimatly responcible...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:28 PM

HKCAVALIER

Two details from these stories got me thinking. First, the guy who went off to pee comes back and overreacts to cover his ass. Secondly, Ruxton says the police were instructed not to let the suspect onto a train, and I can't help thinking that the police, having obviously dropped the ball there, overreacted to cover their asses. Hrm.

It would therefore appear that the operative fear in these cases, may very well not have been the fear of terrorists, but the fear of being caught making a mistake.

Everyone in the modern world learns from grade school on that covering your ass is paramount to success. Not covering your ass will get you blamed and prolly flunked/fired. Plausible deniability, the ultimate expression of ass coverage, has made governance from the electoral process onward a contest of who can cover their ass best.

Across the board, people in authority in the modern world have too much power over the lives of the people under them. But this power is only perceived power, born (again) of fear.

We have got to stop letting fear make our decisions for us. We have got to take our power back.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:20 PM

FIVVER

HK,

I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, except for the 'overreacting to cover their asses'. You are right that the police dropped the ball big time but I can't believe these police officers could ALL come to the same conclusion that they had to kill him to cover up their mistakes in the few seconds they had. I really hope that was never in any of their minds.

I think the panic and overreaction came from the fact that they had let someone who they thought might have a bomb get so far ahead of them. Their carefully thought out plan of containment was in shambles and they had no plan B so they panicked in trying to restore control of the situation.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

I propose that if insurgents are mostly non-Iraqi extremists, controlling the border and currency should be sufficient to starve them out (metaphorically speaking). Sooner or later they will run out of money and hardware and personnel. The US should bring to bear all it has on controlling the border and currency.

And yet it is using a tactic completely different, which seems to be more about chasing insurgents from city to city. Do you think the US military is basing its strategy on different assumptions from yours?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:10 PM

Quote:
I disagree. A policeman who orders the shooting of a suspect without clear proof of identity, he's incompetent, disgraceful, sack-worthy. But he's not evil.

Someone who orders people to be tortured for days, purely for some perceived slight, that's evil.

yes, but both the policeman and the torturer need to be punished in some way, no?

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
One head and one head only?
You mean we should find a scapegoat?

If it's good enough for the ancient Greeks, it should be good enough for us (please read with irony) ... I say we do it properly and traditionally and just as it seems Jean Charles De Menezes was chosen pretty much at random, we randomly select a member of the British Police force (or even the great British public) and then joyfully feather and tar them, making us all feel a whole heap better ...

As Aristotle should have said – Ah, catharsis, absolving us of our guilt, how nice!!

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:36 AM

Rue:

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
I propose that if insurgents are mostly non-Iraqi extremists, controlling the border and currency should be sufficient to starve them out (metaphorically speaking). Sooner or later they will run out of money and hardware and personnel. The US should bring to bear all it has on controlling the border and currency.

It has been noted on numerous occasions that it would be practically impossible to control the entire Iraqi border.
Consider the resistance in continetal Europe. Without British support from SOE they would have collapsed within weeks. The Germany military knew this but were still unable to stop it.
Furthure more even if the US could bring all she has to bear on border control, the troops are currently needed elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
And yet it is using a tactic completely different, which seems to be more about chasing insurgents from city to city. Do you think the US military is basing its strategy on different assumptions from yours?

To be honest I think the US military command is incompetent, in so much as they are playing right into the hands of the Insurgents. The Insurgents want to drag them from city to city. That is classic Gorilla warfare, drag your enemy from engagment to engagment while preventing them from obtaining a desisive victory.
The US Military seems to be incapable of fighting a non-conventional war, and unable to get the existing population on side.
Contrast this with the British. British troops are being trained in Iraqi language and culture, and the standing attitude is to attempt a healthy and friendly dialog not just with the officials but the everyday man on the street. This is an attitude brought about from years of dealing with similar situations, and one the US military would do well to study.
I'm not saying the British are getting it all right. Nor am I saying that the only reason that the British controlled areas of Iraq are more stable than US controlled areas because of this 'dialoge'. But it helps.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ah.

That is why I propose the US get the Egyptians to guard the Iraq/Iran border, the Iranians to guard the Kuwaiti border etc. Or whichever combination of political/religious interests you can come up with to ensure that the guards have a vested interest in the job. And I think it requires different hardware, deployment etc. For example IR cameras on helicopters for night duty.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
For example IR cameras on helicopters for night duty.

I thought they already had that...

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
That is why I propose the US get the Egyptians to guard the Iraq/Iran border, the Iranians to guard the Kuwaiti border etc.

First problem, can the Egyptians, Iranians or whoever field the resources to guard their piece of the border? Take a look at a map of Iraq, most of the Iran/Iraq border is mountainous...
difficult to guard/patrol, easy to hide in.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/iraq.html

Besides that, look at America or Britain for that matter, both have thousands of illegal assylum seekers crossing their borders.
If we can't adequetly protect our own borders can we protect Iraqs?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:23 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As to why the US doesn't adequately secure its borders, it's b/c the will isn't there. As a prime example of that fact, the Border Patrol is chronically underfunded (hence the Minutemen). And the reason for that is, rhetoric aside, the US likes its cheap labor too much to give it up in fact.

It's not necessary to secure 'the border' per se. At some point those mountains meet the plains where most of the people live. That interface is able to be secured.

Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia have large modern militaries courtesy of US aid and trade. Iran has a large and fairly modern military by shear population and bootstrapping.

I see the worst problem as diplomatic - getting agreement that no one wants to see a different vested interest getting ahead of their own in Iraq; selecting the proper force/border combinations; and getting Iraq to agree to foreign presence inside its borders (aside from the US); and also getting the US to admit the situation is out of control and something different needs to be done.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:20 AM

Ok guys – sorry to jump back but have had work and family sh*t to deal with and not much head space – but I said I’d come back mainly ‘cos citizen puzzles me – if you thought something i.e. occupation of iraq was morally wrong 3 years ago – how can it be right now?

So apologies if this is now out of sink or of topic and a bit long if it bothers you skip it

You seem to have a belief that somehow the British and American ruling classes will change – they lied to us over the war and you think they’re not lieing now or that they really have a ‘humanitarian’ interest

To counter your Washington post quote – hows this from a senior US military official quoted in the Los Angeles Times ‘They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and formenting all this violence. We don’t think so. What’s the main threat? It’s internal.’

If you’re only reading the mainstream press then you’re probably only getting one side of events

You see its media spin that the resistance in Iraq is made up of die hard Saddam supporters, Al Qaida members of Arab foreigners – nearly all the reports I’ve read that I believe to be from reputable (ie not embedded) journalists, serving soldiers, letters from those soldiers who have lost their lives and folks with contacts on the ground sound like this resistance is just that a resistance to occupation as ever has been – when imperialist forces take over the folks that live their don’t tend to like it – take Algeria, Palestine, Spain, Native Americans or the Viet Cong

And of course I’m not naïve enough to think that religious fanaticism in opposition the blatant western imperialism doesn’t grow – I just don’t see this as the only alternative to occupation in a country that for much of its history has been avowedly secular. Which country has the most fanaticism – Saudi Arabia but you won’t hear much about that in the mainstream
In the January elections the overwhelming majority of those standing where unequivocally against the occupation so if those running the show in Iraq really believed in democracy they’d get out as this was what people voted for (those who could actually get to the ballot boxes that is)
I’m not a great thinker – I do tend to go on my gut class instincts of whats right – Naomi Klein writing in the Nation puts well the argument I think I’m trying to make:
‘There is no question that Iraqis face a mounting threat from religious fanaticism, but US forces won’t protect Iraqi women and minorities [becs: remember what happened to the Kurds after the first gulf war] from it any more than they have protected Iraqis from being tortured in Abu Ghraib or bombed in Fallujah and Sadr City. Liberation will never be a trickle-down effect of this invasion because domination, not liberation, was always its goal. Even under the best scenario, the current choice in Iraq is not between Sadr’s dangerous fundamentalism and a secular democratic government made up of trade unionists and feminists. Its between open (my emphasis) elections – which risk handing power to fundamentalists but would also allow secular and moderate religious forces to organize – and rigged elections designed to leave the country in the hands of Iyad Alawi and the rest of his CIA/Mukhabarat-trained thugs, fully dependent on Washington for both money and might.’
And it not just armchair liberals try this – www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Oh and about cops the police are not on my side, they protect the privileged status of the people who oppress us and I am not in the ruling class – ergo not on my side – you ever been on strike or a demo? – you’ll see whose side the police are on – and its not about individual cops it’s the gorram system

smile pretty and watch your back

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
cos citizen puzzles me – if you thought something i.e. occupation of iraq was morally wrong 3 years ago – how can it be right now?

I never said, nor do I think, that the occupation is morally right, then or now

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
You seem to have a belief that somehow the British and American ruling classes will change – they lied to us over the war and you think they’re not lieing now or that they really have a ‘humanitarian’ interest

Nope. I think as I have always thought that this war was part securing the second confirmed (possibly largest?) oil fields in the world, part securing lucrative rebuilding contracts for Bush supporters, and possibly part simple revenge. I beleive that that the offical line was part deception part convenient excuse. Its not without precedent that a war is fought for reasons other than the offical line, even in modern times, just think of the Falklands.
Our goverments have to rebuild Iraq and work on helping install a democratic goverment. Believe it or not this is a democracy, and if no attempts to install a democratic goverment, or a purely western puppet goverment is installed, the labour goverment will be very lucky to have a chance of being voted back in within the next fifty years.
Your assertion of American and British 'ruling classes' confuses me somewhat though. Are you saying that we live in a facade of democracy controlled behind the scenes by some shadowy ruling class?

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
To counter your Washington post quote – hows this from a senior US military official quoted in the Los Angeles Times ‘They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and formenting all this violence. We don’t think so. What’s the main threat? It’s internal.’

My assertion was not that foriegn fighters make up the bulk of the insurgency, but that they are there. It is unlikly, however, that the 'insurgency' could continue without foriegn aid.

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
If you’re only reading the mainstream press then you’re probably only getting one side of events

No, not at all, I have a number of sources of information

. Beyond that just remember who our mainstream sources are. Not to harp on about it but the BBC is the only truly independent news service in the world (independent in so much as those that fund it (the gov) can't tell it what to report and what not to). Thats why I don't like it when people grumble about paying a TV licence fee.
FYI:
http://vitw.org/
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
And it not just armchair liberals try this – www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

He says nothing that I haven't more or less said myself elsewhere in this thread. Except his assertion that seems to suggest that the Iraqi's liked the oppressive Baath regime?
Further more he makes an assertion that he knows more than your average soldier.
His position as a reservist and a NCO makes this fairly unlikely...

My point was never we are doing the right thing. Indeed we need to drastically change what we are doing in Iraq. No one less than the Americans, whos attitudes, at least from the troops, largely is of a conquering power. As I said earlier the British troops are schooled in Iraqi language and culture, the US troops are not. More over they have a policy of shoot first, check targets later. British units have come under fire from American troops while driving British army Landrovers flying a Union flag.
If an American infantry man has insufficient training to distinguish British army units from 'the enemy', how can they distinguish 'the enemy' from civilians?

What I ask is do you believe that the situation in Iraq will improve without the coallition forces?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I never said, nor do I think, that the occupation is morally right, then or now .

- if it isn't right we should go

Quote:

Our goverments have to rebuild Iraq and work on helping install a democratic goverment. Believe it or not this is a democracy, and if no attempts to install a democratic goverment, or a purely western puppet goverment is installed,

sure they should but i don't believe they will - or at least not without a great deal of pressure at home and in Iraq

Quote:
Your assertion of American and British 'ruling classes' confuses me somewhat though. Are you saying that we live in a facade of democracy controlled behind the scenes by some shadowy ruling class?

they're not that shadowy really, we live in a class society (you may have guessed by now i'm a marxist) - i'd say a deomcracy is a facade when (in US) only half the electorare votes, once in four years

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
My assertion was not that foriegn fighters make up the bulk of the insurgency, but that they are there. It is unlikly, however, that the 'insurgency' could continue without foriegn aid.

was trying to answer this point
Quote:
Leaving now will end with an extremist religous regime taking over Iraq to fill the power vaccuum,

by suggesting that most Iraqis wouldn't want this kind of regime but the real answer is in Naomi Klein's exposition of what would happen without occupying forces and i agree with her that the coalition forces are no protection against extemism - in fact there's a whole lot of stuff on the way the forces are playing divide and rule and introducing sectariainism into Iraq when is barely surfaced before - bit simarly to the Balkans really

Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
I have a number of sources of information .
genuinely pleased about that

Quote:
BBC is the only truly independent news service in the world

Its not bad - but the BBC is 'advised' and the people i know who work in the news have told us of very deliberate campaigns to silence certain voices that are not in keeping with what the government wants - have you heard on the BBC about the long and vicious anti-union campaign that led to the gate gourmet staff walking out (lets leave this for another day but its just to make a point that the BBC is not completly impartial)

Quote:
Except his assertion that seems to suggest that the Iraqi's liked the oppressive Baath regime?

not really sure how you read that - assertion to me seems to be that iraqis are angry that they keep getting killed see no mention of Ba'athists (it is late and i'm tired though - may have missed it)
Quote:
Further more he makes an assertion that he knows more than your average soldier.

i think he just saying his not a 17 year old fresh into battle

Quote:
Indeed we need to drastically change what we are doing in Iraq. If an American infantry man has insufficient training to distinguish British army units from 'the enemy', how can they distinguish 'the enemy' from civilians?

exactly - and are 'we' gonna change, is there gonna be that training? - and seeing as the civilian death toll (along with the deaths of our troops) keeps rising there seems to be no evidence they're getting better at that - shouldn't we leave and stop that toll rising?

Quote:
What I ask is do you believe that the situation in Iraq will improve without the coallition forces?

Yes, because i don't believe they will change and do the things you quite rightly think they should - the counter question seeing as you agree the war is wrong, that the military leadership is incompetent and given a sense of history that occupying powers generally don't help is - what good are the coalition forces actually doing?

smile pretty and watch your back

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:05 PM