Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Mrs Figg]

I think I have atrocity fatigue. I keep thinking 'oh no another one' instead of being shocked. Rather like the daily car bombs in the Middle East don't even leave an impression any more. But maybe its better like that after all if I was frightened shocked or sad that's what the terrorists want, if I live in fear they have won. Instead of candle vigils I wish I could see people turning to the only thing which will defeat the terrorists from actually terrorising. humour. During the Blitz the Londoners would make a nice cup of tea, tell a joke and carry on digging themselves out of bombed out houses, they sang rude songs about hitler, they didn't let the bastards get them down. They didn't go weeping round fucking candles. enough with the fucking candles, don't let them see they have made you cry. don't let the fuckers terrify you.

end of rant.

[David H]

My sympathies to all of you over there. These things make a whole Nation hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36550304

[azriel]

I dont get people I really dont. Why kill her ? why hurt her at all ? Poor children having to be told today that mummy isnt coming home tonight

[Eldorion]

Very sad news.

Don't want to make any further comments until some of the rumors about motivation have been either confirmed or denied.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Horrible, tragic and at the moment seemingly senseless- it was a particularly brutal and frenzied execution. Seems to have more the hallmarks of someone who is mentally ill and a lone stalker than anything else- but will have to wait till the police release some more information on the guy before we know anything. No suggestion so far however of it being an ISIS inspired attack however}}}

[Eldorion]

I haven't seen any discussion of ISIS. The rumors so far is that the guy has a history of treatment for mental illness and that he shouted "Britain first" during the attack. Neither are confirmed.

Britain First (the organization, which is essentially a cleaned up version of the BNP) have expressed their condolences and said they're waiting for more information but the video from their leader segued into a rant about the media pretty quickly.

[Mrs Figg]

If there could be said to be a light at the end of this dark and evil tunnel, If this act is by Britain First or a far right immigration hating group it may just make people stop and really think about what is fuelling the UK at the moment which is hatred of immigrants and rampant xenophobia. All the misinformation told by the Daily Mail and Farage lot needs to stop because its tearing us apart. From the idiots on boats shouting at each other the other day to this act of unspeakable barbarity.

[Mrs Figg]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/mood-ugly-mp-dead-jo-cox

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/a-day-of-infamy/

[Mrs Figg]

now I have atrocity fatigue.

The Daily Mail is a scummy newspaper.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{So the guy who killed the MP gave his name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" and the police are investigating possible links to right wing groups such as Britain First- he also appears to have purchased in the past books on how to make your own guns and explosives from a right-wing US group.
Heres a Britain First group in a Muslim butchers in London



(note in the UK the environmental agency is in charge of monitoring slaughter houses, and their figures say that in over 80% of all cases they have investigated animals are stunned prior to having their throats slit, exactly the same as any other slaughterhouse for any other sort of meat. There is no evidence this slaughterhouse was breaking the law.) }}}

[David H]

Not nice people, but I'd hope even they would be horrified by this kind of cold-blooded murder. Over here people are making comparisons to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords a few years ago. Sarah Palin among others had been posting photos of liberal policy makes with bulls eyes on them. That mostly stopped when Gabby was shot, but it seems some people are stirring that pot again.

{{{ he also appears to have purchased in the past books on how to make your own guns and explosives from a right-wing US group.
) }}}

I was wondering if he hadn't used a homemade gun when they talked about him reloading. Improvised guns are about as easy to make as a slingshot. They didn't require a book, even before the internet. {{{Don't ask me... }}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{ Chilcott reports tomorrow- will we finally find out how and when Blair decided we were going to war and if it was even legal? Or will it just be another very expensive whitewash? }}}

[Mrs Figg]

I think he decided he was bff with Bush.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Well Chilcot is in- and its damning.

Heres the BBC round up of just some of the main points-


The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before all peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort

Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003, it said, there was no imminent threat from the then Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, the strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time and the majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring

On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process, UN authority and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders

Judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - or WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified

Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons

Policy on the Iraq invasion was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.


The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory"

The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10's response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear

The UK's actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN's Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community "to uphold the authority of the Security Council". But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions

In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded


There was "little time" to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither "properly identified nor fully exposed" to ministers, resulting in "equipment shortfalls"

Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support

It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps

Delays in providing adequate medium weight protected patrol vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces for reconnaissance and intelligence equipment and helicopters should not have been tolerated



Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate"

The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced



Ok thats a lot I realise- but it boils down to they screwed it up at each and evry stage from the very beginning.

Blair also gave a reply to it that was longer than Chilcot's report- he said he was sorry for stuff blah blah, but in the end what he said boiled down to what he always says- I was right.


For me the most interesting stuff here in terms of holding Blair accountable is the legal basis for the war- Chilcot was not permitted to say of the war was legal or illegal- but he comes as close as he can here to saying that the legal basis was very ropey and dodgy indeed- I can see families of the deceased pursuing that avenue in the courts.

Also given how long Chilcot has been doing this, and all the people he spoke to- how the hell can the reason the legality of the war had a last minute change from illegal without UN backing, to legal without UN backing still, in Chilcots words 'remain unclear'?
Whether the war was legal or not is a central question, as it was at the time of the controversial decision to say it was legal after saying it wasnt.
So for this to remain a mystery is beyond belief.

Also all those who die in service solely because they had no or the wrong, or not appropriate fr the circumstance equipment- its the job of government to proved the armed services with what they need- before sending them into the war zone. Not months, and some cases more than a year later.


More on this to come I am sure,as I sift though more of it and more reports on it}}}

[Eldorion]

Even the summary of the report is more than I'm able to dig into right now but I'm pleased that it wasn't a whitewash. Blair's response was highly disingenuous but that's more or less what I expected from him.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{Its worth it when you find the time Eldo as some of it obviously applies to errors in the planning and aftermath on the US side as much as the UK}}}

[Eldorion]

Yeah, I'm glad that this inquiry was done, but there should have been one in the US as well. I think Obama was trying to avoid accusations of partisanship though (IIRC).

[David H]

Blair also gave a reply to it that was longer than Chilcot's report- he said he was sorry for stuff blah blah, but in the end what he said boiled down to what he always says- I was right.

More or less what Bush and Cheney have always said (except for the "sorry" part... )

[David H]

Yeah, I'm glad that this inquiry was done, but there should have been one in the US as well. I think Obama was trying to avoid accusations of partisanship though (IIRC).

I remember when Obama was preparing to take office in 2008 he had a private meeting with Bush that lasted a couple hours. Until that moment both had been quite free with criticisms of each other, but after that meeting they've gone out of their way to respect each other. It would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall of that meeting.

[halfwise]

It says loads that Obama basically took on 90% of Bush's counter terrorism strategy.

[Pettytyrant101]

[Eldorion]

It says loads that Obama basically took on 90% of Bush's counter terrorism strategy.

Very good point.

Though I'm glad that the 10% difference included more restraint when it came to the prospect of full ground invasion.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{And torture as a generally acceptable US practise}}}

[Eldorion]

{{And torture as a generally acceptable US practise}}}

Well, the Chelsea Manning case shows there's still progress to be made on that front, but certainly Obama's administration has been vastly better than Bush's with regard to torture.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{Just what the fuck is going on with US police and blacks? - some graphic content-}}}