Cardiff University hosted an evening with controversial speaker Ibrahim Mousawi, the editor of Hezbollah’s newspaper, in a World Against War event last week.
The event, which had been criticised beforehand by local media reports, saw leaders of social movements in the Middle East and Britain come together to discuss the occupation of Iraq.
Chris Nineham, from the Stop the War Coalition, Hassan Juma’a, the President of Iraqi Oil Workers’ Union, and Prof. Justin Lewis, from Cardiff University School of Journalism, also spoke to an audience of over 200 people.
Held in the Law Building on Monday March 3, the speakers called for a complete end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as urging for opposition to be voiced concerning any attack against Iran.
The speakers also discussed the broader struggle against war around the world and against continuing threats from the US administration.
But the event had been submerged in negative media attention due to Mousawi’s attendance, focusing on how he had been previously dubbed “a spokesman for terrorists”.
In a national tour of the World Against War movement, which culminates in a worldwide day of protest, Mousawi left a trail of media upset in many of the towns he visited.
One newspaper in Liverpool wrote: “A Middle East activist accused of defending the murder of women and children is coming to Liverpool.”
The Conservative Party, including leader David Cameron, has tried and failed to have Mousawi banned from Britain, saying that he is a “vicious anti-semite” and a supporter of terrorism.
But Mousawi, who is banned from both France and Ireland, has denied that he is anti-semitic.
He said: “People have the right to live in peace and without fear of their homes being invaded.
“We must all denounce war and we must all fight together to stop the killing.”
He also made direct reference to the terrorist label imposed on him by government and media opposition, urging his audience to “make up their own minds” and research him.
Dr Paul Mason, from Cardiff University School of Journalism, was critical of the event’s bad press.
He said: “Had any of these people bothered to attend, they would have witnessed a moving, human account of what happens when a super-power chooses to invade your country on the spurious grounds of ‘regime change’.”
Dr Mason also stressed that journalists had misinterpreted Mousawi’s visit.
He said: “This wasn’t a call to arms, or a rallying cry for the psychotic and murderous, but two first-hand accounts of America’s and Israel’s brutal actions in Iraq and Lebanon. There’s your terrorism.”
One of the organisers, Max Pettigrew, a PhD student at Cardiff University, was impressed with the turnout at the evening.
Speaking to gair rhydd he said: “The rally indicated how many people want an end to the wars on people in the Middle East and an end to the war on our minds in the UK.”
He urged students to “keep active on campus” and to attend the upcoming anti-war demonstration in London on March 15.
The rally will form part of a global day of protests and marks the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
For more information visit www.stopwar.org.uk.
1. Jonathan Bird
Any one heard of Terry Wait or John Mccarthy. So why the quotes around Terrorist? Hezbullah is a criminal organistion which has killed Jews in Argentian as well as Israel. They have produced a Television Dramatization of infamous The protolcols of elders of zion. Full of stomuch turning blood libel. Also during the Lebanon war delibrately targeted Civilians and used residentiual areas to launch those same rockets. Oh I’m sorry “That legitimate resistance” only the Jewish State or the west, commits war crimes.How can “peace” organisation promote Mousawi? Not of course am accussing anybody of being anti-semitic. However look at the Lawrence report on Racial discrimination and the house of commons report on anti-semitism. Sorry I have go now I’m think I’m going to be sick.
2. ratslinger
Didn’t you know Jonathan – in the eyes of the PC loony lefty academic mediocrities of this world and university any muslim who kills a jew, or anyone else actually (christian, atheist, women who’s been raped), is not a terrorist but an oppressed freedom fighter; any jew who defends his country, (and israel is the only democracy in the middle-east and the only country that respects individual human rights), is a terrorist. This must be true because the BBC and the British media and all those academics say it’s true.
Do we never learn in the UK? This anti-semite terrorist has been banned by france and many countries – and yet the multiculturalist Islamophiliac maniacs at UK universities invite him to incite violence! No wonder 15% of british muslims support their brothers blowing themselves up on the underground! This man should be arrested for inciting violence 0- and all students and academic staff who organised this should be arrested for aiding and abetting terrorism.
3. Jon
Sounds like it is Cardiff’s own “Irving and Griffin” debacle.
Someone’s terrorist is someone else’s freedom fighter. The world in general just needs to have an epiphany and realise that killing each other isn’t the way forward.
As for the first post, it is quite possibly the worst use of grammar I have seen on here. Fortunately though, you can just about understand the point he is trying to make.
4. chris
Ratslinger, I am sure you’re a nice guy but since you not going vote for me ever in a month of Sundays, you’re rabid, racist, stupid, arrogant and a member of the BNP. We know who you are, we’re not thick.
To everyone else, Cardiff Welsh Republicans will be live as of 10 am Monday 10th March at http://www.freewebs.com/cardiffwelshrepublicans
but if want to watch what I am on about then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpnszmBejmY and let the facts, not racism and ignorance speak against Ratboy ( and don’t lend him any money- he’ll buy a nail bomb and blow up The Kings Cross).
5. Mark
I find sad irony in having a Hezbollah spokesman giving a speech in an event designed to ‘stop war’. Hezbollah would like nothing better than the destruction of Israel and can rightly be seen within the wider spectrum of international Islamic terrorism that share ideological aims.
Further to the points in the original article having limited number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq under the behest of the democratically elected parliaments of these respective nations an not under the behest of an American or British military governor is, by definition, emphatically not occupation. Allied forces in these nations are attempting to build a future for the peoples that inhabit these lands, increasingly it look likes we may very well fail in this effort, especially in Iraq, where it look likely that Iran is poised to exert greater influence when Allied forces leave Iraq. We certainly made mistakes, we certainly did not have an adequate plan for post-Saddam Iraq, we certainly failed the Iraqi people in this regard and for that we should be eternally apologetic but we certainly should not be apologetic for removing a tyrant from power whatever the pretext and whatever the ultimate result.
The problem with NATO/Western security policy is not, as people like Chris would think in that it is too imperialistic, it is that it is not imperialistic enough. When conditions are prevailing, both strategic and political, quasi-Imperial strategy can do vast amounts of good. In Kosovo we stopped the genocide of the Muslim Albanians by the Serbs, in Sierra Leon we stabilised a whole country gripped by civil war without a handful of troops and in Afghanistan we have given at least some light to a people who have known nothing but darkness for generations.
Imperialist interventionism should not be seen in a bad light-especially when one considers all the good that can be attributed to it- but, alas, the Iraqi debacle has insured that future American, British and European leaders are going to be reluctant to commit any significant amount of forces for any signifying period to any ‘hot spot’ even when their aims and activities would be unquestionably selfish and humanitarian simply because of the cost, both fiscal and human, and political negativity associated with such endeavours. Take Dafar and Zimbabwe, two areas where, probably for a relatively small amount of political, fiscal and military effort, a American-EU force, supported by local allied units and nations, could easily prevent genocide, economic meltdown and complete national collapse.
Calling for an end to war, death and destruction is a noble aim for sure, however one would have hoped that an academic (even one from the School of Journalism) that it is one of the greatest paradoxes that not only if one wishes for peace one must prepare for war one must also be prepared to go to war in order to preserve peaceful society. By that measure one might ask why the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ does not have a sister organisation decided to opposite but ultimately similar peaceable aims calling for war to bring about the overthrow the many undemocratic and oppressive dictatorial regimes that exist the world over.
6. Abdul-Azim
I love the fact that this discussion is already sliding towards sweeping genralisations about Muslims and Islam, even though most Muslims on that night were in CF10 at the first event of the Islamic Societies Islam Awareness Week.
7. Mark
America isn’t a dictatorial regime Chris, don’t be stupid, it shows immense ignorance to compare a liberal democracy like to the US to countries like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Sudan etc.
8. ratslinger
Oh chris – I do worry fo yoiu, i realy do.
You call anyone who disagrees with you a BNP member – thereby exhibiting the paucity of yr argument.
I reaaly can’t be bothered to debate with communist/fascist people like you – when u grow up you’ll see that the people on this mb are quite savvy really.
yours
rats
9. Mark
Incidentally, Chris, are you still going to be running as a (Welsh) Nationalist and Socialist in these elections? Unusually for you haven’t mentioned any of your policies on these boards, are they more or less the same as last year? Are you hoping to poll more than 104 votes this time round?
10. Llewellyn JOnes
Jonathan Bird makes a series of factually incorrect claims and clearly reveals that he doesn’t know shit about Middle Eastern history or politics – so ashame that he feels qualified to comment.
For example, Terry Waite and John McCarthy were never kidnapped by Hezbollah – but I guess all Muslim and Arab groups are the same to him. Indeed, the tactic of kidnapping Westerners is not one generally associated with Hezbollah. I should mentioned incidentally that thousands of Lebanese citizens, many of them captured as children, are held illegally in Israeli dungeons never having stood trial or been convicted of any offense.
Hezbollah have never carried out operations in Argentina but have restricted their operations to Lebanon and Israel – they were a national liberation movement born out of 20 years of military occupation which saw the Israeli army kill Lebanese by the thousands and carry out some pretty horible massacres, Israel still illegally occupies part of Lebanese territory. The Argentinian claim is an old piece of crock, interestingly the Argentinian government itself denies it, the only people who claim that Hezbollah have killed Argentine citizens are . . . the Israeli government, but they have never produced a shred of evidence and it would be completely at odds with Hezbollah’s politics.
As to deliberately targetting civilians, I think Jonathan will find that is the policy of British and American Governments with the majority dead in Iraq and Afghanistan civilians.
But once again this claim is false. Hezbollah did kill Israeli civilians during the 2006 war, but evidence collected by Israeli human rights groups found that every single rocket fired by Hezbollah landed in the vicinity of an Israeli Military Base (this information has been largely suppressed due to media in Israel being censored by the military)
We cannot easily know what Hezbollah is trying to hit because Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories, and military installations near or inside civilian communities. If a Hezbollah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should we count that as an attack on civilians or on a military site?
To give an example of Israeli censorship, I refer to an article by Jonathan Cook, a Brit journalist based in israel:
“Israel’s military censor is preventing foreign journalists based in Israel, myself included, from discussing where Hezbollah rockets are landing, and what they may be aimed at. Under the censorship rules, it is impossible to mention any issue that touches on Israeli security or defense matters: the location of military installations, for example, cannot be divulged. It is arguable whether it would actually be possible to report a Hezbollah strike that hit a military site inside Israel.
I therefore have to tread carefully in what I say next, relying on information that is already publicly available, but which at least challenges the simplistic view that Hezbollah is firing rockets either indiscriminately or willfully to kill civilians. I draw on two pieces of coverage provided by BBC World.
On Tuesday, the BBC’s Katya Adler reported from the northern community of Kiryat Shmona, which has taken the heaviest pounding from Hezbollah rockets and from which many of the local residents have fled over the past month. As she stood on a central street describing the difficult conditions under which the remaining families were living, she had to shout over the rhythmic bark of what sounded like an Israeli tank close by firing into Lebanon. She made no mention of what was doing the firing – and given the censorship laws, my assumption is she cannot. But it does raise the question of how much of a civilian target Kiryat Shmona really is. “
11. Llewellyn JOnes
As an attendee of the event, I have to say the most powerful and moving testimony came from the Iraqi Trade Union Leader who represents hundreds of thousands of oil workers in the south of Iraq.
He described eloquently how the US, UK, Western Oil companies and the IMF and World Bank were trying to force through a change in Iraqi law that would see control of Iraq’s oil pass from the Iraqi state into the hands of Western multinationals like Shell and BP.
Iraqi people have not accepted this lying down and their have been massive demonstrations and strikes, illegal strikes because Britain and America and their puppet government have retained Saddams anti-strike laws.
Finally supporters of the war have to get to grips with a few facts: 1) every single opinion poll has shown the overwhelming majority of Iraqis outside of Kurdistan want Britain and America out of their country – with over half supporting military attacks against our troops 2) The majority of British soldiers want out, don’t take my word for it, the Head of the British Army has even publicly said that we are part of the problem not the solution
Mark makes some hillarious comments like “we should not be apolegetic for removing a tyrant for power” er . . . a tyrant that was the creation of Britain and America. Mark are you not aware that the Ba’ath party came to power backed by the West in a CIA backed coup? Are you not aware that the West armed Saddam for years? Are you not aware that when Saddam gassed the Kurds, Britain and America not only sold him the gas but vetoed the UN from taking action.
Your mention of Kosovo is hillarious, actually the genocide started after the Western intervention! You probably also don’t know that when the UN intervened in Rwanda it was to give cover to those who were carrying out the genocide
The anti-war movement believes that regime change comes from below. Who got rid of Ceacescu in Romania? Who toppled the Shah of Iran who had an even worst secret police than Iraq? Who got rid of Apartheid in South Africa? It was the people of those countries given solidarity by the West.
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the same right to resist occupation as the people of Italy, France and Greece in the 1940s.
12. Llewellyn JOnes
As an attendee of the event, I have to say the most powerful and moving testimony came from the Iraqi Trade Union Leader who represents hundreds of thousands of oil workers in the south of Iraq.
He described eloquently how the US, UK, Western Oil companies and the IMF and World Bank were trying to force through a change in Iraqi law that would see control of Iraq’s oil pass from the Iraqi state into the hands of Western multinationals like Shell and BP.
Iraqi people have not accepted this lying down and their have been massive demonstrations and strikes, illegal strikes because Britain and America and their puppet government have retained Saddams anti-strike laws.
Finally supporters of the war have to get to grips with a few facts: 1) every single opinion poll has shown the overwhelming majority of Iraqis outside of Kurdistan want Britain and America out of their country – with over half supporting military attacks against our troops 2) The majority of British soldiers want out, don’t take my word for it, the Head of the British Army has even publicly said that we are part of the problem not the solution
Mark makes some hillarious comments like “we should not be apolegetic for removing a tyrant for power” er . . . a tyrant that was the creation of Britain and America. Mark are you not aware that the Ba’ath party came to power backed by the West in a CIA backed coup? Are you not aware that the West armed Saddam for years? Are you not aware that when Saddam gassed the Kurds, Britain and America not only sold him the gas but vetoed the UN from taking action.
Your mention of Kosovo is hillarious, actually the genocide started after the Western intervention! You probably also don’t know that when the UN intervened in Rwanda it was to give cover to those who were carrying out the genocide
The anti-war movement believes that regime change comes from below. Who got rid of Ceacescu in Romania? Who toppled the Shah of Iran who had an even worst secret police than Iraq? Who got rid of Apartheid in South Africa? It was the people of those countries given solidarity by organisatinos similar to today’s Stop the War Coalition often in opposition to the British government who supported these opressive regimes to the hilt!
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the same right to resist occupation as the people of Italy, France and Greece in the 1940s.
13. Mark
Of course we want access to the Iraqi oil and have Shell, BP etc start pumping it out, what’s wrong with that? Oil is a strategic and economic necessity, the foundation of the global economy, it seems sensible to get it while we can.
Yes, I’m well aware that most of the Iraqi people don’t want us in Iraq anymore, which is why British forces are limited to a few thousand troops in a single base and the final pull out will come around sooner or later.
The Ba’ath party came to power after they toppled the Iraqi Monarchy, which was supported by us, the CIA didn’t back the Ba’athists and neither Britain or America did until the Iraq-Iran war when it was deemed Iraq was the lesser of two evils. Britain, the US, France and others sold Saddam weapons, certainly, but not biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Regarding Kosovo the genocide did not start because of the NATO action, it was stopped because of it and the Serbian massacres of ethnic Albanians are well documented. Yes, in Rwanda the UN force was a farce but that was because it was mandated not to intervene militarily.
The anti-war movement believes came comes from within? The anti-war movement is a bunch of naïve students who have no grasp of modern geo-politics or political history.
Ceacescu was overthrown at the end of the Cold War because the Kremlin had told the Eastern European Communist Parties that the Red Army would not intervene in their internal affairs. The Soviet Union was banktupt by trying to keep up with the west militarily and bloodied after failing to defeat the US and British backed insuregncy in Afghanistan. The western backed dissident movements certainly played their part, especially in the final death throws of the USSR and the East, but ultimatly the victory in the Cold War can really only be subsribed to western military and economic prowess.
The Shah of Iran? Yes, the Shah was deposed, but the form of extreme, repressive anti-western undemocratic regime that replaced the Shah is hardly any better, don’t you think?
Tell me, Llewellyn, do you think war is always wrong? What about the war to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
War is never easy and never the first choice but sometimes war is a political necessity, don’t you think?
14. Llewellyn Jones
“The Ba’ath party came to power after they toppled the Iraqi Monarchy, which was supported by us”
Oh dear, Mark, you really need to go and read some history before you make such foolish comments! You have made another elementary schoolboy blunder! One wonders why you even bother when you have such a poor grasp of history!
The Iraqi Monarchy wasn’t toppled by the Baath Party!!! It was toppled by General Qasseem who was overthrown in a Western backed coup.
General Qaseem, a nationalist General led a military revolt, Qaseem made popular promises of land reform and negotiations for a greater share of the oil wealth. Britain sent troops to neighbouring Jordan. The US sent troops to Lebanon. They were desperate to crush the Qasim government and turned to the Ba’athist Party (which Saddam Hussein was to lead) to spearhead right wing resistance in Iraq.
The CIA backed a Ba’athist coup in 1963. The head of the CIA in the Middle East, James Critchfield, said, “We regarded it as a great victory.”
The CIA even set up a radio station which broadcast the names and addresses of Iraqi trade unionists and socialists to be assassainated by Ba’athist death squads.
Mark what makes you think I’m a pacifist?
“Yes, I’m well aware that most of the Iraqi people don’t want us in Iraq anymore, which is why British forces are limited to a few thousand troops in a single base and the final pull out will come around sooner or later.”
The British army serves no military purpose in Iraq. The British army does not control a single province or city in Iraq, they no longer serve any political or military role in Iraq, they’re not even based at Basra but at some godforsaken airport out of town, they are only there for one reason: To provide political cover for George Bush. But why should any more British soldiers die for that?
“Of course we want access to the Iraqi oil and have Shell, BP etc start pumping it out, what’s wrong with that? Oil is a strategic and economic necessity, the foundation of the global economy, it seems sensible to get it while we can.”
Murdering a million people to get your hands on oil? And you say you supported the war against Hitler – you seem to be singing from the same moral hymnsheet!
The question is who benefits from Iraqi oil? Certainly not the British people where one-in-eight suffer from fuel poverty and more pensioners die as a consequence of fuel poverty in Britain than in Siberia? Our gas and electricity bills are rocketting while your mates in Shell are registering 500% profits!
People in Britain work the longest wages for the worst pay in Europe, it’s the same bastards making us work like slaves who are gourging themselves on the oil of Iraq.
We should also consider that these foreign wars cost billions. With the money spent on the Iraq War, we could build new schools and hospitals, abolish student fees, give our pensioners a decent pension, eradicate child poverty – surely a much better use of resources than enriching the already rich bastards who sit at the top of our society.
Did you know that in Britain almost three-quarters of the wealth is owned by only 10% of the population?
Finally, your claim that Britain and America never supplied Saddam with chemical and biological weapons is laughable, if not a little naive! – the documents that show how the West armed Saddam are in the public domain. Indeed, Donald Rumsfeld (ironically US Secretary of Defence at the time of the invasion) even visited Iraq shortly after the Halabja massacre to bargain to sell Iraq more weapons
15. Mark
I never suggested that Saddam wasn’t seen as ‘one of ours’ in the Cold War, especially in the war against Iran or that he fell out of favour with us with the invasion of Kuwait, so what’s your point?
No, I didn’t suggest you were pacifist merely that if you think change will always come from the people then you’re stark raving bonkers or just plain naive.
The British Army only has a single base, Basra airport, with a few thousand troops and have steadily pulled out of other areas as the Iraqi Army has requested and required them to do so and will pull out of Basra airport when it is convenient to do so. A Brigade size force of British troops in the context of the number of US troops in Iraq and their operations goes pretty much unnoticed by the US press, let alone provide the White House with political coverage.
Yes, it is from the same hymn sheet, the one entitled strategic necessity.
Our entire economy is based upon oil and whilst I would agree with you that we pay too much for fuel it’s far better for the economy to pay to much for fuel than have to fuel to pay for.
The people of British don’t work the longest hours for the worst pay in Europe, we probably do more than Germany, France, Spain etc but we’re far ahead of Eastern EU nations. Which is why, obviously, so many come here to work.
Yes, we could do a lot with the billions spent on the war but, my the same measure, with just a fraction of the NHS budget we could expand and fully equip our armed forces to an unprecedented standard, surely a worthy aim.
I must confess that I did not know that 10% owned 75% of wealth, that’s pretty good, I thought it was more like 5% owning 80% of the wealth, I suppose that’s the growth of the middle class for you.
If you’re so sure that Britain and the US provided NBC material to Saddam as opposed to just conventional weapons and such information is in the public domain then you should have no problem providing a link to such open source material, should you?
16. Emyr Derfel
Chris, stop plugging your website unless you have a specific article you want to refer to.
As an election campaign site, it’s messy. As the homepage for a society or political movement, it’s amateurish and laughable.
17. Jonathan Bird
Llewellyn JOnes says I made an error of Fact, well read the referenced entry and make your own minds up.
the testimony of former hostages indicates almost all the “groups” were actually one group of “a dozen men” came “from various … clans” within the Hezbollah organization.
Many other “groups” claimed responsibility for the kidnappings while Hezbollah denied it, indignantly proclaiming in 1987:
We look with ridicule at the accusations of Hezbollah in connection with the abductions of foreign hostages. We consider that is a provocation and hold America responsible for the results. [28]
Nonetheless Hezbollah, sometimes described as the “umbrella group” of Shia radicalism in Lebanon, is considered by most observers to be the instigator of the crisis.
Analysis of the hostage-crisis in Lebanon yields that Hezbollah was undisputably responsible for the aforementioned abductions of Westerners despite attempts to shield its complicity through the employment of cover-names. Its organisational framework was not only sophisticated an assimilated according to Iranian clerical designs but also closely integrated with several key Iranian institutions which provided it with both necessary weaponry and training to successfully confront self-proclaimed Islamic enemies and invaluable financial support …
Another source claims that with the exceptions of six Iranians, all the hostages appear to have been seized by “groups allied with Iran.” Wright, Robin, Sacred Rage, 2001, p.270
The two main operatives of the hostage taking are reported to be:
Imad Mughniyah, a senior member of the Hezbollah organization, has been described by journalist Robin Wright as the “master terrorist” who organized the campaign.
Husayn Al-Musawi (also spelled Hussayn al-Mussawi) is described by journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker magazine as involved in the kidnappings, and the village of Ras al-Ein, in the Beqaa Valley of East Lebanon as a place were the victims were held.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis
^ Los Angeles Times, 26 November 1989; Independent, 9 October 1991; and Le Figaro, 4 December 1989
^ Wright, Robin, Sacred Rage, 2001, p.270
^ “Talks in Iran Seek to Free Hostages,” New York Times, March 17, 1991, p.18
^ Ranstorp, Hizb’allah in Lebanon, (1997)p.108
18. Llewellyn Jones
To Mark one small point, I actually meant to type that British workers work the longest hours in Western Europe – sorry for the confusion.
Jonathan Bird actually claimed that Terry Waite and Jon McCarthy were kidnapped by Hezbollah – this is factually incorrect and neither Terry or Jon have ever claimed this. His further “evidence” is pretty shakey, all kinds of accusations and smears are thrown around viz the Middle East, but most of the wave of kidnappings of Westerners in that period actually predated the emergence of Hezbollah. Incidentally, the British and American governments we now all know are involved in hostage taking, I mean what is “extraordinary rendition”? What about the various people kidnapped and packed off to Guantanemo Bay or incarcerated without trial in Belmarsh prison.
In Iraq, British soldiers have kidnapped and imprisoned people including children.
Turning to one of Mark’s most hillarious points, he says that the anti-war movement is all naive students.
Well, given that the majority of the population now opposes the war in Iraq, I would suggest that the anti-war constituency is a lot broader than he gives credit for.
One of the bigggest anti-war constituencies is within the armed forces themselves! A group of people who facing war at the sharp-end possibly know more than naive student, Mark, sitting behind his computer!
This discontent displays itself in various forms: an unprecedented number of soldiers have gone AWOL, soldiers have been sent to prison for refusing to serve in Iraq, figures ranging from officers to rank and file soldiers have spoken publicly against the war, senior generals have turned on the government.
One unprecedented movement has been the Military Families against the War: www.mfaw.org.uk – as you may know one of the keynote speakers at the anti-war meeting this thread is about was to be Rose Gentle, a woman, whose son was a British soldier who died aged 19 against the war. It is simply unheard of, in Britain, for the families of serving soliders to protest vocally against the war.
19. Llewellyn Jones
Returning to another of Mark’s evidence, he asks for a link to the evidence that the US and UK armed Iraq with chemical and biological weapons.
He can try this one:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/made-in-the-usa/3025/
And do a google search himself. He also needs to ask himself why the US vetoed action against Saddam after Halabja.
You can google Scott Ritter, a weapons inspector and memeber of the US Republican Party.
And numerous other evidence.
Of course, let’s not be so naive as to forget that the United States are no stranger to the use of chemical weapons themselves. Children are still being born deformed in Vietnam from the agent orange dropped on the country by US planes in the 60s and early 70s.
But more recently, evidence has piled up that the US has been using a form of napalm against Iraqis (including civilians):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq
As this article notes, the Minister for Defence under Blair had to write to MPs apologising for saying that America wasn’t using Chemical weapons in Iraq after he discovered that he had been lied to!
20. Mark
That’s it? An article that states that some American companies might have supplied some biological agents that are used to develop defences that the Iraqis used to make offensive weapons? I see no mention of the US Government. The closest Britain comes to culpability for supplying NBC weapons to Iraq in this article is the statement that British companies supplied technology that the Iraqis used to manufacture chemical weapons. No mention of HM Government or the direct sale of chemical weapons to Iraq.
If that’s the best you can then that’s pretty pathetic.
Further to your other points I am well aware that the majority of the British people are against keeping our forces in Iraq but this does not mean that they are part of the ‘anti-war movement’ by the same measure that not everyone who likes animals is a member of Green peace. So I stand by accusation that the anti war movement itself consists of nothing by the usual mass of the great unwashed, naive trendy-lefty students with nothing better to do and die hard socialists like Benn and Galloway who have seemingly failed to notice that the great socialist experiment of the 20th Century ended in ruinous disaster. I’m also well aware that there has been growing discontent within HM Forces over the war, yet, as above, this is not to say they are part of the movement itself but professional soldiers who can see when it makes no strategic sense to stay. Student I may be but I’m certainly more acquainted with the military than you think, having been a reservists and knowing several friends and family members who are in or have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, including one who did not return home.
21. Thomas Carroll
Mark, there is pro-war and anti-war. There is no in between. Either you accept people die for “a cause” or you don’t. You can support British troops being in Iraq or you can be against. There are no half dead soldiers. It’s all or nothing.
22. Mark
Well there is actually, you can be apathetic and not give a sh*t either way, which is what I think the majority of people in this country think. Nonetheless that was not my point, my point was that one could have strong feelings against the war and yet not be a member of the ‘organised’, and I use the term loosely, opposition to the war.
Your second sentence is a bit silly too. You don’t accept or not accept soldiers dying for a cause, you accept or do not accept the cause they are purportedly dying for.
23. Llewellyn
“If that’s the best you can then that’s pretty pathetic.”
This from the guy who claims that the King of Iraq was deposed by the Ba’ath Party when even (non-trendy) historians can confirm the simple fact that the King was deposed by General Qasseem!
Mark you ignore the key point that the US has blocked release of the relevant documents, now why might they want to do that? Fortunately, a member of the Republican Party has a copy of the documents that show clearly that US and UK armed Iraq.
It’s no secret that the UK armed Iraq, indeed this was confirmed by a parliamentary investigation – The Scott Report – under John Major, into the “arms to Iraq” scandal.
“The United Nations and the United States have so far refused to disclose publicly all the companies named by Iraq in U.N. documents as suppliers for its weapons programs. Pitts then sent his consultant, Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector, to Baghdad. Ritter returned with a copy of Iraq’s 1997 weapons declaration to the U.N., which Pitts is now incorporating into his lawsuit. “
But this point from Mark is even more lame, his description of the anti-war movement as the
“usual mass of the great unwashed, naive trendy-lefty students”
It seems having been defeated by logical argument, Mark resorts to ‘cliche’. Having been part of this movement I can safely say that it embraces a fairly representative cross-section of the British public. Incidentally I bath at least once a day.
Out of interest the last anti-war march I attended was headed up by a large number of family members of serving British soldiers. This is unprecedented as their has always been a strong tradition of the families of serving soldiers not taking part in protests as this would be seen as ‘lowering morale’
Incidentally, the government regularly suppresses news stories on Iraq. For example, remember the brief report on BBC2s Newsnight about a dossier that contained the details of discussions between Bush and Blair on bombing Al-Jazeera’s TV studios in Iraq. Now the bombing of a civilian TV station is generally regarded as a ‘war crime’, so this was potentially very damaging. Yet the story suddenly disappeared the next day without a trace. What happened?
The British government got a court injunction to suppress the story and our media was too chicken to break the injunction.
Earlier this month, ex-SAS officer, Ben Griffin spoke at the first meeting of the “World Against War” Tour organised by the Stop the War Coalition. He presented a detailed report of evidence he had collected that the British were involved in war crimes, torture and other nasty practises. What happened next? You guessed it! He was immediately served with a court injunction:
“As of 1940hrs 29/02/08 I have been placed under an injunction preventing me from speaking publicly and publishing material gained as a result of my service in UKSF (SAS).
I will be continuing to collect evidence and opinion on British Involvement in extraordinary rendition, torture, secret detentions, extra judicial detention, use of evidence gained through torture, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, breaches of International Law and failure to abide by our obligations as per UN Convention Against Torture. I am carrying on regardless “
Ben Griffin, Former UK Special forces trooper
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&;task=view&id=537&Itemid=1
24. Mark
For the last time I know that Britain, Russia/USSR, France, the US and China armed Iraq with conventional weapons. Yet you have still produce a single piece of evidence that demonstrates that any western government directly supplied Saddam with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons contrary to international law.
Its not surprising that many families of serving HMF personnel take part in protests, we haven’t had such a protracted war since the South East Asia conflicts.
Secondly the TV station was never bombed, so there was no war crime.
Thirdly Special Forces personnel have, since the Andy McNab and other books, a legal responsibility not to talk about what they did during time in the UK Special Forces. It’s a matter of a little something called the Official Secrets Acts, I know, I signed it myself.
Finally I refute your assertion that the organised anti-war movement is a microcosm of British society. It simply isn’t. It’s a bunch of trendy left, die-hard socialists and the usual bunch of students jumping on the protesting bandwagon just because it’s passing by. If, as you suggest, the overwhelming majority of British people, from all walks of life, from all backgrounds were as vehemently opposed to the war as you suggest they are then we’d have had far bigger protests far more often than we’ve had.
Iraq has been a debacle, I’ll grant you that, and the failure rests largely in the Pentagon and to a lesser extent in the MoD for not providing a post-war reconstruction plan of any value. Nonetheless I’m sure you will agree that after Allied troops have left Iraq you would prefer a stable and democratic government to remain in power, correct?
I hope that you will at least acknowledge the utter failure of the anti-war movement which has had zero effect on UK politics. You didn’t stop the war and you haven’t effected operational strategy. In the overall scheme of things you’re a pathetic annoyance, a triviality that failed to achieve anything. You will be forgotten by history my friend, I know for I intend to write it.
25. Llew Jones
“TV station was never bombed, so there was no war crime.”
Oh dear, Mark, you really should give up.
It’s a simple fact that the US “accidentally” bombed a TV studio during the Balkans War and bombed Al-Jazeera in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the final case, they didn’t even claim it was an accident but said that Al-Jazeera was broadcasting enemy propaganda.
Finally, on the evidence – as stated the US has refused to allow publication of the relevant documents – now why might they want to prevent that?
26. Mark
What you originally referred to was a conversation between Bush and Blair over the possibility of bombing Al-Jazeera HQ located in neutral Qatar, which would have been in breech of the rule of law and thus this was never carried out. The bombing of a TV station, especially so when such a station can reasonably be said to be propagating propaganda, in the confines of war is certainly not a war crime and the combing of Al-Jeezera buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan was never hidden by Allied Forces.
In regard to the Balkans I think you’re referring to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, we certainly bombed Serbian TV facilities and it was never claimed we did so accidentally.
Finally, on the point of the lack of evidence regarding Western sales of NBC material to pre 1990 Iraq, if you have no evidence then there is no case to answer, is there?
And you did not answer my question, would you prefer a stable pro-western liberal democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan or see repressive Iranian style regimes instead?
27. John Richardson
‘Imperialist interventionism should not be seen in a bad light-especially when one considers all the good that can be attributed to it…’
ha ha ha!!! I hardly know where to start with this moronic intervention. But, for starters, ‘good for whom’?..
28. Mark
You could ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the people of Sierra Leone or the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo for I start.
29. Mark
You could ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the people of Sierra Leone or the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo for a start.
30. Mark
Bugger, delete the double post please someone.