Terrorists release suicide bomb vid of Black Watch

[Greg S]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 05,00.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn/index.php?n ... ic&t=10042

Hmm.........how can you win 'hearts and minds' when dealing with deranged sociopaths.........

Apparently the whole video shows the filth kicking around British body parts.........

The Americans have the right idea...........I hope the US Marines clear out fulluja (as in kill every last one of the mother f*ckers)..........

[Guest]

We will just have to hope that the American and Iraqi attack on Falluja (sp) will help to cause a decrease in these terrorist attacks on our forces.

Quite interesting when one of the Black watch Officers (might have been the OC) saying about them walking into a bees nest, and their troops are the honey.

James

[Sol Bro]

A mate has a theory that the reason the black watch were deployed was to divert the jihadis from falluja. Trouble is i dont think the black watch were given enough time to set up properly and stamp their authority on the area before the assault on falluja stirred things up.

NB these scum think making propaganda videos of dead brits is going to make us back down .... all i can think of is i hope the US Marines kick some serious ass....to all leathernecks out there 'GET SOME '

[Chappy]

The US control the media coming out of Falluja and they are saying they have over 70% of the city, but some Indys which the BBC has published show that isnt the case, they also report the loss of the hospital which was taken. I would also think 16 deaths of US marines would be understated and the deaths of the fighters in Falluja over estimated.

Whoever in Washington who planned this is raving mad if they think this will bring peace to Iraq.

Personally I blame the US for each and every killing that happens in Iraq including those by caused by car bombs. They invaded and occupied a country illegaly created a situation of lawlessness and near anarchy. There were no car bombings active in Iraq before this illegal occupation. In this terrible situation would you take 100,000+ deaths with the US occupation or whatever Saddam fancied killing? Which I would think even that would be less than 100k+.

All they want is the oil. After that they are gone. You don't really think they care for anybody but theirs do you?

[BenChug]

Whats all this crap I keep on hearing about "illegally" occupying a country?
Last time I checked the UN didn't do anything to stop it, making it 'illigitimate' how? As far as I'm concerned the day the UN didn't do anything it made this a 'valid' war.

Even the whole idea of any kind of fairness or law involved in going to war is absolute crap, don't fight based on the UN saying you have to have one hand behind your back. Rules in war but not rules for war.

Sorry for the rant it probably doesn't even make sense but, for remeberance day yesterday I got in a fight with some daft c*nt who called me a baby killer.

[Chappy]

International Law was broken by the US. And the UN for all its faults didnt have the balls to stand up to the US. Annan stood by and let the wrong thing happen again like he did in Rwanda. He then decided to go on record and say it was 'illegal', but maybe it was too late.

International Law states:

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

Now you will say, KlinkKlank, self-defence...yeah Mr, thats what it was!
Well no, Article 51 is the argument for a pre-emptive self defence. Article 51 explicitly provides only for "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs," over the years, scholars have expanded the required trigger for self-defence to include both when an armed attack occurs and when an armed attack is imminent. The legal definition of "imminent" has grown out of an 1800s incident in which British troops attacked a ship, which US citizens were using to take supplies to Canadian rebels fighting British rule or something like that. Then Secretary of State argued that the use of force in self-defence is justified when the need for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This criteria subsequently became the standard in international law.
Read more about that: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.1/crawford.html
But such circumstances, in which an armed attack occurs or is imminent do not really describe the current Iraqi crisis. And so Bush, in all his slyness, over the past several months has introduced a new category of self defence, pre-emptive self-defense that he claims is legally justified in the new post Sept 11 world.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 09,00.html

Iraq war illegal, says Annan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Annan: Iraq War 'Illegal' Without U.N. OK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm

UN First Committee General Debate: September 30-November
http://www.acronym.org.uk/un/2002fc3.htm

Questioning the Iraq wars legitimacy
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review ... ce_id=5392

Iraq war is illegal
http://www.obv.org.uk/reports/2002/rpt20020820c.html

POPE SAYS WAR ON IRAQ IS UNJUST AND ILLEGAL
http://www.therevival.co.uk/articles/po ... unjust.htm

Even the pope says so.

[Greg S]

First thing - the UN likes to talk about stuff but never gets round to doing anything! Just look at the Sudan situation, its a total farce.

As for the Iraq war, I've changed my mind from being slightly anti-war to pro-war. The fact is that the Iraqis DO need us in there to help rebuild their society but this will never happen until they're free.....

They wont be free until every one of these terrorists is destoryed, otherwise they'll end up with another dictator..........

Plus the USA needs us at the end of the day, look at how many of their boys died for the us in World War 2.........

Support our troops, support American troops..........

Greg

[BenChug]

KlinkKlank, as far as I am concerned the US hasn't done anything wrong, the UN has allowed this so called 'breach' to go on with out any real protest or attempts to stop it. Allt his has done is to basically condone the American's action. A lack of action here is to set a precedent allowing others to act with impunity, a farse of an organisation I say and that is waht this is all about isn't it illegal invasion, screw that to the victor goes the spoils and he makes the rules, then rights history. Why should Americans tcare about what people in South Africa think about their war. In that case I'm sure alot of them would bring up apartheid, which was alot more recent and government endorsed than any persecution given by americans. As far as I can tell Canada is the one of only probably 3 countrys in the G8 which play by the rules at the UN.

How can the UN interfere in one country and not in another? The UN is only effective at controlling 3rd world countys (yes I said county not country) at the will of one of the top 5 sitters on that there security council.

[sneaky beaky]

The UN is a waste of time except as a talking shop. They have no teeth whatsoever, without the say so of the Security Council.
Sneaky

[Chief_1975]

Did anyone see Panorama last night about Sudan?, if anyone needed any more proof that the UN is incapable of taking decisive action when it is needed their it was.

[Sol Bro]

When you go for your interview with RM and they ask you 'what you think of going to iraq' you'd better get that peacenik stuff out of your head.

That aside you seem to be saying that unless we are directly attacked militarily we can only take military action if the UN says so. You really think we should be dictated too by an unelected unaccountable organisation like the UN? All the Un is good for is for rubberstamping military actions by individual countries for political purposes. The Us is the only country in the world with the clout to actually get things done militarily. The rest of the world and the UN has been willing to let them as they didnt want to bear the cost. Is it any wonder that the US doesnt feel any obligation to the UN?

[Guest]

Frankly its breathtakingly hypocritical of the US to declare the UN irrelevant but demand the rest of the world comply with its resolutions to the letter or else.

The UN is imperfect but its the best we've got. Its ironic that its the US who founded it in the first place! Do we really want a world where everybody says screw the UN and does whatever they want? The world would slide into anarchy and chaos.

[Chappy]

I agree the UN isn’t doing what it should and is looking every day like that League of Nations. As I stated above, Annan never intervened in Rwanda which shows general incompetence.

The US went into Kosovo without a UN Security Council resolution and no one said anything... Look at it from the other side: could the Security Council condemn this illegal intervention? No, because the United States will use its veto right or pressurise other member states to vote against a condemnation, so that there is no majority vote.

But there is a very much sane law there, which to you or I seem a plausible fair one. And the US broke it.

If you are an optimist you will say this is not the first crisis within the United Nations in the last 55 years. The United Nations has in its history been able to overcome many more difficult crises: the blockade of Berlin, the aggression against Egypt in 1956, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam... it survived all of these and continued to work. So this will be remembered as an accident, a sad accident, but six months later, everything will be back to normal. If you are a pessimist, you will say this is the beginning of the end of the United Nations, just like the League of Nations that disintegrated before the Second World War.

And Sol Bro I appreciate your concearn for me and my RM interview, thank you for the advice but I hope you will not be offended when I dont use it.

[BenChug]

Frankly its breathtakingly hypocritical of the US to declare the UN irrelevant but demand the rest of the world comply with its resolutions to the letter or else.

I wouldn't say so because the UN needs the US, the US doesn't need the UN.
Anyone who has ever been off to Bosnia in the early days can see that the UN is a joke, the way to sort out that kind of mess is by ways of NATO.

[Guest]

NATO??? You having a laugh? Now that is a dead institution!