Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Shafique - this ties in with your topic (why not Christian terrorists etc). I see it as a positive move, even if only done as a counter measure.

Britain Drops 'War on Terror' Label;

The words "war on terror" will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country's chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.

Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless "death cult."

The Director of Public Prosecutions said: 'We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language."

London is not a battlefield, he said.

"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."

His remarks signal a change in emphasis across Whitehall, where the "war on terror" language has officially been ditched.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between Islam and the West.

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities.

In an interview with BBC Radio's World at One, Macdonald made a fresh attack on plans to extend beyond 28 days the length of time a terror suspect can be held without trial.

He said that the evidence had shown that the existing limit was working well and he accused ministers of legislating on the basis of 'hypotheticals'.

I hope America starts to do this as well....its long overdue

bushra21 wrote:I hope America starts to do this as well....its long overdue

They wont ever because of 9/11 - it will haunt americans for centuries

I have never seen or heard Americans (USA) follow the lead of another country....hegemony it is....[/i]

arniegang wrote:

bushra21 wrote:I hope America starts to do this as well....its long overdue

They wont ever because of 9/11 - it will haunt americans for centuries

I can still hope

Ditto, but i feel the nation will never forgive and to some extent we cant really blame them

Encouraging news indeed. I've noticed recently that BBC journalists and UK politicians tend to say 'so-called war on terror'.


As for America not forgetting/forgiving - I don't have a problem with them working towards getting the terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks. I wonder when they will realise that the majority of the terrrorists were Saudi.

I feel sorry for the Sikhs and Shia (i.e. Iranians) who have been caught up in this anti-Islamic wave - when both had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (and 99.99999% of Sunni muslims similarly had nothing to do with it either)

Cheers,
Shafique

ya if americans will do it as well its really gona make a big difference isnt it. Come on.

they needed to stop it caz who was paying attention to it anymore. I think people r realizing where this terror is really coming from. After all people are "educated" in west and have started thinking about

" how come the most sophisticated army of the world cant catch one muslim terrorist in 17 years. " Surprising

Only time can tell when the wounds will heal.......and understanding and forgiveness will blossom again....

shahrez wrote:ya if americans will do it as well its really gona make a big difference isnt it. Come on.

they needed to stop it caz who was paying attention to it anymore. I think people r realizing where this terror is really coming from. After all people are "educated" in west and have started thinking about

" how come the most sophisticated army of the world cant catch one muslim terrorist in 17 years. " Surprising

they will find him - believe it, they will find him

look up pearl harbour and the consequences that entailed.

THe most famous quote from the film "tora - tora" as said by the Japenese Admiral -

"pray god, we have awoken a sleeping giant"

arniegang wrote:
they will find him - believe it, they will find him

look up pearl harbour and the consequences that entailed.

THe most famous quote from the film "tora - tora" as said by the Japenese Admiral -

"pray god, we have awoken a sleeping giant"

I remember many American colleagues who were 100% convinced that they would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I'm also sure that many people were convinced that the Americans would win the Vietnam war.

Interesting to bring up Pearl Harbour and the response to it.

I was reading up on the incident - early last month was the anniversary of the attack, and was thinking of starting a thread, but decided against it as it would be seen as too anti-US.

The Japanese attacked military targets in Pearl Harbour. As far as Japan was concerned, the US were the aggressors as they had imposed sanctions against Japan (sanctions which would be illegal today).

The US response was to bomb centres of civilian population.

Eventually they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now, we know that Japanese and Germans were prosecuted for war crimes.. but the war crimes committed by the US seem to go by without comment.

I saw an interesting quote - if Germany had developed the atomic bomb first and dropped one on the UK and one on the USA, then subsquently went on to lose the war, would the dropping of the bombs be seen as war crimes?

Cheers,
Shafique

Ah i see your reasoning now Shaf. Apply sanctions and that gives the green light to kill ad hoc.

Maybe you need to speak to my uncle Shaf, who was a japanese prisoner of war.

You seem to forget some basics about life Shaf. Sanctions are one thing, but it doesnt justify locking people up in Bamboo Cages and stabbing them with sticks and slowly starving people to death, and galaxies away from the concept of "traditional war".

Read up also "the holocaust / gas chambers" etc

at that time, that sleeping giant went on to kill japneez and then it became so Giant that it started killing in its own people.

At that time u were having a powerful constitution thats y USA was a giant. this time u dont have that luxury anymore. This time giant is not USA, this time its Mr Bush who doesnt even care for his own people. he will achieve what he wants to achieve caz u have put absolute power in his pocket without any resistance.

This time ur nations r in the same boat with the muslims , with japneez, chinese or koreans. so keep ur patrioticism as low as possible its not gona help anymore.

I don't see why voicing opposition to US war crimes would be in any way supporting war crimes of the Japanese. In a similar way, I do question some of the RAF bombing raids on the likes of Dresden and similarly view the bombings on London in WWII (my first flat was in East London and was built upon a spot of a house that was bombed in WWII).

For the record, I too have relatives who were in British Army in WWII (none saw combat though).

My view is that those who fought and died for our freedoms would not object to people advocating justice. War crimes are war crimes - crimes that go beyond 'acceptable' limits of war.

The moral of Orwell's 'Animal Farm' came to mind when I read the invitation to look up holocaust and bamboo cages - the images that came to mind was US internment camps for Japanese US citizens in the USA, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo!



Cheers,
Shafique

Abu Ghraib = 1 bloke, sad i know, but the people responsible were brought to justice. Hardly a fair comparrison in sighting examples of images of mass killing.


Guantanamo Bay detention camp :

Prisoners are held in small mesh-sided cells, and lights are kept on day and night. Detainees have rations similar to those of US forces, with consideration for Muslim dietary needs. However, many of the detainees have been denied access to the Koran for daily prayer, a Muslim tradition. Detainees are kept in isolation most of the day, are blindfolded when moving within the camp and forbidden to talk in groups of more than three. United States doctrine in dealing with prisoners of war states that isolation and silence are effective means in breaking down the will to resist interrogation. Red Cross inspectors and released detainees have alleged acts of torture[17] [18], including sleep deprivation, the use of so-called truth drugs[citation needed], beatings and locking in confined and cold cells. Human rights groups argue that indefinite detention constitutes torture.


Awwww didums i bet the detainee's would much rather be building a railway bridge somewhere, having their nails or teeth pulled out or even the excitement of joining the daily queue to be gassed.



Dresden = they basically asked for it in terms of retaliation. Maybe seek londoners views on this subject. Those able to remember the VI + 2 bombings and the carpet bombing of london will all probably disagree with you i am affraid Shaf.

Many questioned Bomber Harris's decision Shaf i agree, but there were the new Era of the PC Brigade. However the general perception was that they thought he did right.

Your theories and examples are still flawed in my opinion Shaf.

I don't think you can persuade me that war crimes can be justified or that Gitmo is a holiday camp

Let's agree to disagree arnie.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf,
No one is saying that war crimes are justified. Those that comit them should have the full measure of the law used against them.
But your interpretation of a war crime is obviously different to mine.
I would much rather go down behind american enemy lines than be caught by japanese, germans, or "islamic terrorists" (sorry I couldn't resist).
Wouldn't you?
The japanese are so stubborn they only recently signed a peace agreement with the US 50 years after the war ended.
More recently, the Iraqi jails housing downed allied pilot's during the gulf war made Gitmo look like a holiday camp, and Abu Graib for that matter.
Despite what some people think, I beleive that americans have been, and will be made accountable for any war crimes that they commit.
So there is no reason to complain about it and/or seek revenge against them... for this reason anyway.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

arniegang wrote:Abu Ghraib = 1 bloke, sad i know, but the people responsible were brought to justice.

Were they? Rumsfeld was implicated in allowing 'soft' torture...

And what is the comment about 1 bloke?

arniegang wrote:Awwww didums i bet the detainee's would much rather be building a railway bridge somewhere, having their nails or teeth pulled out or even the excitement of joining the daily queue to be gassed.

No, I suspect they'd settle for being tried or even given the basic rights prisoners of war are afforded.

arniegang wrote:Dresden = they basically asked for it in terms of retaliation. Maybe seek londoners views on this subject. Those able to remember the VI + 2 bombings and the carpet bombing of london will all probably disagree with you i am affraid Shaf.

Many questioned Bomber Harris's decision Shaf i agree, but there were the new Era of the PC Brigade. However the general perception was that they thought he did right.

Your theories and examples are still flawed in my opinion Shaf.

So let me get this straight - the citizens of Dresden 'asked for it' because London was bombed.

So let us review the sequence of events in terms of the Japanese:

1. Japanese and US on good terms, Japanese dependant on foreign trade.
2. US decide to economically blockade Japan
3. Japan view this as act of war
4. Japan attack military targets in Pearl Harbour - what we would now call a 'surgical strike'.
5. US retaliates by bombing civilian populations - causing what we would call 'collateral damage' or 'war crimes' depending on which side you support
6. Japan mistreats prisoners of war
7. US drops two nukes


If the inmates of Guantanamo and civilians killed in RAF bombing raids both 'deserved' their treatment - then surely the same logic can/should be extended to the Japanese for treating US and Brit soldiers in the way that they did - they viewed them as soldiers of brutal regimes that killed many in Tokyo etc - and ultimately they were proved right when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.


As horrid as the imperial forces were, I cannot bring myself to condoning the killing of civilians in Tokyo as a retribution for Pearl Harbour. Similarly - as despicable as the Luftwaffe bombing raids on London were, I cannot condone the scale of the bombings of Dresden, Cologne etc

A fair person, in my opinion, will conclude that if Britain were not victors, the bombings would be viewed as war crimes.

Anyway - just my opinion, but I feel strongly enough about not condoning war crimes and injustices even if they occured in the past that I thought I'd re-post.

In the end though, we will continue to agree to disagree (I suspect)

Cheers,
Shafique

lol NOW THEY REMEMBER!!!! hahahah what a joke. seriously. its been nearly what 6 years till 9/11 and NOW THEY REMEMBER to "unlabel" islamic terroists. hahahah what a joke seriously.

shafique wrote:Encouraging news indeed. I've noticed recently that BBC journalists and UK politicians tend to say 'so-called war on terror'.


As for America not forgetting/forgiving - I don't have a problem with them working towards getting the terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks. I wonder when they will realise that the majority of the terrrorists were Saudi.

I feel sorry for the Sikhs and Shia (i.e. Iranians) who have been caught up in this anti-Islamic wave - when both had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (and 99.99999% of Sunni muslims similarly had nothing to do with it either)

Cheers,
Shafique

shaf u want to tell me how u get to the conclusion that the terroists were saudi? or even egyptian or even pakis or whats so ever nationality??? how did u even know they were muslims??

Shaf the comment about 1 bloke means exactly that 1 bloke - Giving an example of just one person hardly makes any point here when discussing '000's .

No, I suspect they'd settle for being tried or even given the basic rights prisoners of war are afforded.

Are you being serious Shaf or is this some sort of wind up?
Being tried and afforded some basis rights like taking the Koran off them (boo hoo) hardly compares with the basic rights of the ,millions gassed by the Nazi's.

And before anyone thinks this is a pro Isreal disscusion it isn't. Hitler and the Nazi's also gassed tens of thousands of people that were not white, had any form of disability, the infirm and just about anyone else they didnt really like.

If i didnt know you better Shaf i would have just laughed at your comparison at those poor poor souls in GB, however out of the 350 left there, around 60 - 80 will be facing terrorist charges.

Still at least the rest will be allowed to go home to their loved ones init Shaf.

So let me get this straight - the citizens of Dresden 'asked for it' because London was bombed.

So let us review the sequence of events in terms of the Japanese:

1. Japanese and US on good terms, Japanese dependant on foreign trade.
2. US decide to economically blockade Japan
3. Japan view this as act of war
4. Japan attack military targets in Pearl Harbour - what we would now call a 'surgical strike'.
5. US retaliates by bombing civilian populations - causing what we would call 'collateral damage' or 'war crimes' depending on which side you support
6. Japan mistreats prisoners of war
7. US drops two nukes

Yup, thats a fair summary Shaf. At least we agree on something. However the only point of discussion here would be

"does having a mere blockade, justify killing 2600 civilians ?? Me,? i think not, even Sadam didn't stoop that low.

Surgical strike indeeed

If the inmates of Guantanamo and civilians killed in RAF bombing raids both 'deserved' their treatment - then surely the same logic can/should be extended to the Japanese for treating US and Brit soldiers in the way that they did - they viewed them as soldiers of brutal regimes that killed many in Tokyo etc - and ultimately they were proved right when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

mmmmmm i think the plot is being lost here.

1. In WW2 the Allies never treated prisoners of war with the same attrocities as was experienced by the the British and Americans. We even had better treatment by the Nazi's in their POW camps. Steve McQueen can testify to that. Well maybe the Gestapo were a bit naughty in doing the odd nasty thing, but we are talking quite small numbers here

2. The terrorists and alledged terrorists are not Soldiers. They are terrorists or alledged terrorists. /They are all just fine, well maybe missing their daily read, but they will survive.

As horrid as the imperial forces were, I cannot bring myself to condoning the killing of civilians in Tokyo as a retribution for Pearl Harbour. Similarly - as despicable as the Luftwaffe bombing raids on London were, I cannot condone the scale of the bombings of Dresden, Cologne etc

A fair person, in my opinion, will conclude that if Britain were not victors, the bombings would be viewed as war crimes.

And finally in the words of John Cleese from Faulty Towers "The Germans"
regarding Dresden etc:

"you started it"

Cleese:

"no we didn't, you did, you invaded Poland"


My case rests

shaf dont u get it????

America is the land of RIGHT. So whatever America decides to do is RIGHT. so if they killed a few odd thousand ppl in Japan with their NUKE they DID the RIGHT thing. And to rub it in they told the Japs hey guys U did the wrong thing u went to war with us u made our soilders into prisoners of war so you should be sorry and appologize for your leaders actions.

Arnie I dont know ur granddad am sure is a nice fella but ask him how was it there in the concentration camps. I am assuming it wasnt nice and I wouldnt wish it on anyone. But for a minute think about those "prisoners of war" in Gauntanamo Bay who have stuck there for 4 to 5 years on a Island, thousands of miles away from their family.

If they really are prisoners of war like America has hyptonized the world to think so y arent they being tried by a International Court? Y not the International court of Criminals or Prisoners? Y isnt UN trying them?

Its because of USA foreign policy like this one that is creating so many enemies for USA and even UK and the coalition forces.

Its too late for some law maker to remove the label "islamic terroists" cos the damage has been done both in Iraq and Afghanistan and even in London. And it really doesnt matter what some law maker in London does and says cos we all know whatever USA does or says is right. Yes folks even if they decide to NUKE a few thousand innocent ppl like they did in Japan, it will be considered doing a good and a righteous thing to do.

But for a minute think about those "prisoners of war" in Gauntanamo Bay who have stuck there for 4 to 5 years on a Island, thousands of miles away from their family.

Awwwwwwwwww boo hoo hoo so sad, better being 000's of miles away and still alive, than left for dead.

And.......... i repeat

the inmates in GB are NOT i reapeat NOT prisoners f war, they represent no county. They are TERRORISTS and as such the Geneva Convention (3) does not apply.

Gauntanamo Bay is a fekin holiday camp compared to the conditions faced by the Jap POW's.

Ps: please note i did not say "islamic terrorists"

arniegang wrote:

But for a minute think about those "prisoners of war" in Gauntanamo Bay who have stuck there for 4 to 5 years on a Island, thousands of miles away from their family.

Awwwwwwwwww boo hoo hoo so sad, better being 000's of miles away and still alive, than left for dead.

And.......... i repeat

the inmates in GB are NOT i reapeat NOT prisoners f war, they represent no county. They are TERRORISTS and as such the Geneva Convention (3) does not apply.

Gauntanamo Bay is a fekin holiday camp compared to the conditions faced by the Jap POW's.

Ps: please note i did not say "islamic terrorists"

oh i m really sorry arnie i didnt know that hey 9/11 attack was done in AMERICA. so it only gives AMERICA the right to try them. Even though AMERICA has said that the 9/11 attack was an attack on the whole wide world. Thats y hmmmmmm countries from across the world are helping AMERICA fight against terroism. But hey we all know whatever AMERICA says or does is RIGHT. Yep. so when ppl like Arnie (i am assuming supports the big AMERICA) say whatever America does is right then please close ur eyes, dont listen to anything else and just nod ur head or just say YES ARNIE U R right. lol

Arnie I am with u man may the Islamic terroists rot in hell especially those in Guantanmo. and hey Arnie its ok to say Islamic Terroists seriously cos Uncle Sams with u mate.

shafique wrote:As horrid as the imperial forces were, I cannot bring myself to condoning the killing of civilians in Tokyo as a retribution for Pearl Harbour. Similarly - as despicable as the Luftwaffe bombing raids on London were, I cannot condone the scale of the bombings of Dresden, Cologne etc

These were battles which ultimately won the war. That how wars were won back then. If they didn't do it you would be speaking German, or at least not speaking English anyway.
There is no point questioning it now, because back then it was an acceptable means of winning a war.
Torturing POWs to death and gassing people was not and never will be.

shafique wrote:A fair person, in my opinion, will conclude that if Britain were not victors, the bombings would be viewed as war crimes.

No. Only an ungracious winner would think that.
Pearl harbour was an act of war. Just like the german raids on london, or the japanese raids on Sydney were not war crimes. They were all acts of war.

benwj wrote:

shafique wrote:As horrid as the imperial forces were, I cannot bring myself to condoning the killing of civilians in Tokyo as a retribution for Pearl Harbour. Similarly - as despicable as the Luftwaffe bombing raids on London were, I cannot condone the scale of the bombings of Dresden, Cologne etc

These were battles which ultimately won the war. That how wars were won back then. If they didn't do it you would be speaking German, or at least not speaking English anyway.
There is no point questioning it now, because back then it was an acceptable means of winning a war.
Torturing POWs to death and gassing people was not and never will be.

shafique wrote:A fair person, in my opinion, will conclude that if Britain were not victors, the bombings would be viewed as war crimes.

No. Only an ungracious winner would think that.
Pearl harbour was an act of war. Just like the german raids on london, or the japanese raids on Sydney were not war crimes. They were all acts of war.

benwj - you are over-looking the fact that Germans and Japanese military officials were tried and convicted of war crimes after the end of WWII.

Nurenberg you should have heard of and the Japanese equivalent were the 'Tokyo' trials - just do a search on 'Japanese War Crimes'.

Your arguement that the crimes these military and political personnel were accused of were 'acts of war' did not sway the judges.

My point is that if we look at the crimes they were accused and convicted on and applied the same logic to the 'acts of war' committed by the allies discussed above, the allies would also have been as guilty.

Please don't confuse this with condoning the Japanese or Germans - I am rather condemning all war crimes, regardless of who carried them out.

Cheers,
Shafique

History.. especially of wars, is always written by the victors... Only one side of the story could be heard.

Shafique,

What is the definition of "War Crimes'?

And by the way, calling something a "war crime" does not make it so.

Suppose for a minute that you have the authority to prosecute anyone, including America for "war crimes" at the Hague (or any other place where you can cite proper venue and jurisdiction for doing so).

State your case:

Please note, you need proper citations to the definition of "war crimes" - an internationally recognized convention, etc. Not just what you think or what you read, or what someone else told you.

Having found the proper definition of "war crimes" you must marshall the evidence...What proof do you have.

I will "represent" whoever you are accusing (America here).

I'll start with an opening statement:

"May it please the court. In today's world anyone with the ability to use a computer and search the internet is able to make acussations about anything or anyone. During this trial you will find that no evidence exists to convict America of 'war crimes'. I will ask the jury to remember that mere statements and allegations are not evidence. At the end of this thread you will return a verdict of "not guilty".

Thank you, My learned friend Shafique, your case please..."

I wrote wrote:Shafique,

What is the definition of "War Crimes'?

And by the way, calling something a "war crime" does not make it so.

Suppose for a minute that you have the authority to prosecute anyone, including America for "war crimes" at the Hague (or any other place where you can cite proper venue and jurisdiction for doing so).

I think you are mistaking me for my brother who is a lawyer

However, I don't have an issue with answering your questions.

I will take the internationally accepted definitions of war crimes and for simplicity take the terms of reference that were used to prosecute the Germans in Nurenberg and the Japanese in Tokyo.

My contention, my learned friend, is that if we apply these rules to the bombings of civilian areas of Japan by the US, then this would (dare I say 'should') constitute war crimes as per the aforementioned regulations.

I look forward to your arguements.

Cheers,
Shafique

Oh, and 'I wrote' when we finish with 'war crimes' of the USA, perhaps we can move on to the mere acts of international terrorism that were perpetrated in the Far East - here I'm referring to the illegal bombings of Cambodia which Kissenger ordered/agreed to despite not having declared war on them.

I enter Noam Chomsky's book 'Hegemony or Survival' as exhibit 1 for the prosecution.

But for now lets stick with war crimes.

Cheers,
Shafique