'Why did Blair send my teenage son to fight an illegal and dishonest war?'

[parihaka]

This is the flaw with the WAR !! It can be legal but with a clear immoral character, as in Iraq and Afghanistan or may be in Iran, fought by the great SATAN and his friends! It can be completely illegal but with all moral character such as fought by fighters in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan, because of an absence of a people's government there !!

Salim you are right !! But the other way !!

That is why Muslims insists that religion MUST be the basis of governace. Because it is only religion which can gaurantee the highest moral standards to the governace !! Not the other way round!!
There is a very famous Misra'a (One line of a couplet) of Allama Iqbal, which says :

Juda ho dee'n siyasat say to reh jaati hai changaizee

If you exclude the religion from politics (And there by governace) what remains is only "Changaziyat" or mahem, deception, lies, attrocities, loot and anarchy !!

This is what the world is witnessing !!
Kashif

Why exactly would a religious autocracy have any greater standards of morality than a secular one? If you examine history, many wars have been fought for religious reasons.

 

[A.Rahman]

The reason those officers and men were on trial in Nuremburg was not generally over their conduct during battle, but their conduct against civilians. There are codes of conduct that most nations are signatory to which layout what they may and may not do during times of war, just as there are Rules of Engagement for the soldiers during combat. The fascists and nazis broke those rules and so were prosecuted for it. War is legal internationally when those international treaties are obeyed.

and what have Colation forces done lately?

-Abugharib.
-rape of 14 year old iraqi girl
-Terrorism acts while posting as Insurgents
-killing civilians in terms of pentagon aka collateral damaga

-manymore that will surface after occupying forces leave Iraq.

Nazis went to trail because they lost.

The one who wins writes the history. The end.

 

[parihaka]

and what have Colation forces done lately?

-Abugharib.
-rape of 14 year old iraqi girl
-Terrorism acts while posting as Insurgents
-killing civilians in terms of pentagon aka collateral damaga

-manymore that will surface after occupying forces leave Iraq.

Yeees, and thus far all put on trial too.

As for civilians killed during conflict in the war zone, that is legal as per international treaties as long as it is truely 'collateral', and you'll note civilian casualties in conflicts during say WWII bombing raids vs civilian casualties during the invasion and bombing of Iraq.

Frankly, and I'm speaking purely as an historian here, I view the American ability to LIMIT civilian casualties as exemplary.

 

[A.Rahman]

I view the American ability to LIMIT civilian casualties as exemplary.

You mean something like this?

Ever seen the video of US Contractors going on killing spree?

 

[parihaka]

You mean something like this?

Ever seen the video of US Contractors going on killing spree?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. COIN? Are they contractors? Certainly the ones training were, the checkpoint and drivebys, who knows.
As I've already pointed out, civilian casualties from American forces actions are at an historical all time low. As I've also pointed out, the abuses by the American forces, where known, have been punished.
Do you expect no-one to be killed in war and counter-insurgency operations?

 

[sigatoka]

1. Yeees, and thus far all put on trial too.

2. As for civilians killed during conflict in the war zone, that is legal as per international treaties as long as it is truely 'collateral', and you'll note civilian casualties in conflicts during say WWII bombing raids vs civilian casualties during the invasion and bombing of Iraq.

3. Frankly, and I'm speaking purely as an historian here, I view the American ability to LIMIT civilian casualties as exemplary.

1. They have tried to cover up as much as they can, it was the work of individuals who uncovered the atrocities, the advance of technology such as digital cameras which allow individuals what previously was nto possible and the mushrooming of arab t.v. channels which are eager to run these that allowed these attrocities to be uncovered.

2. It is not legal to kill civilians. Dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas, ordering execution of military age men and so forth can never be legal.

3. It is not exemplary, and they are doing no more than they must because if they killed more civilians, the globalisation of news ensures that U.S. interests will be greatly harmed. This is quite unlike 15 years ago when "news" was only CNN.

 

[sigatoka]

1. As I've already pointed out, civilian casualties from American forces actions are at an historical all time low.

2.As I've also pointed out, the abuses by the American forces, where known, have been punished.

1. 100,000 civilians who are dead who otherwise would not have been?? Is that low casualities, in fact that is a factor of nine more than those who died in the twin towers.

2. Only those abuses uncovered by external entities have been investigated and a punishment levied because to not do so would further fuel the flames of insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Awesome]

1. 100,000 civilians who are dead who otherwise would not have been?? Is that low casualities, in fact that is a factor of nine more than those who died in the twin towers.

The mentality is, a 100,000 of theirs than a 100 of ours

 

[parihaka]

1. 100,000 civilians who are dead who otherwise would not have been?? Is that low casualities, in fact that is a factor of nine more than those who died in the twin towers.

The Iraq war is a WAR. What do you expect, no civilian casualties at all? Or America to loose more people than they kill just to please you?

2. Only those abuses uncovered by external entities have been investigated and a punishment levied because to not do so would further fuel the flames of insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And this is different from any other war how exactly? Or any operational army? How many Russians have been prosecuted for actions in Kosovo? Pakistanis or Indians for actions in their various wars?
When you look at it, the Iraqi war is remarkable for the fact that some soldiers ARE being prosecuted.

 

[parihaka]

The mentality is, a 100,000 of theirs than a 100 of ours

Are you suggesting that any nation should think any differently?

 

[parihaka]

1. They have tried to cover up as much as they can, it was the work of individuals who uncovered the atrocities, the advance of technology such as digital cameras which allow individuals what previously was nto possible and the mushrooming of arab t.v. channels which are eager to run these that allowed these attrocities to be uncovered.

It is virtually always the work of individuals who uncover atrocities.

2. It is not legal to kill civilians. Dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas, ordering execution of military age men and so forth can never be legal.

It is legal to kill civilians, otherwise every army in every conflict in every time period of history would be guilty of crimes. As long as the armies follow the basic International treaties they are signatory to, they have done nothing wrong.

3. It is not exemplary, and they are doing no more than they must because if they killed more civilians, the globalisation of news ensures that U.S. interests will be greatly harmed. This is quite unlike 15 years ago when "news" was only CNN.

So.. therefore it is in their own interests to limit civilian casualties, which they are doing. Thankyou for backing up my argument.

 

[Awesome]

Are you suggesting that any nation should think any differently?

A nation's defence should not lie in the murder of 100,000 innocent civillians.

 

[parihaka]

A nation's defence should not lie in the murder of 100,000 innocent civillians.

A nations defence lies in defending its citizens, the rest of your statement is mere viewpoint.

 

[Awesome]

That's not much of a nation and so not much of a defence.

Philosophical, you can be a brute and ignore it. Afterall that'd be part of the defence

 

[parihaka]

That's not much of a nation and so not much of a defence.

Philosophical, you can be a brute and ignore it. Afterall that'd be part of the defence

As indeed has happened countless times in history. Nevertheless, I'd rather live in a country that would do anything to protect my family than one which would rather sacrifice them for a moral point of principle