We never lear that we never learn

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by jonwilly, Mar 19, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-only-lesson-we-ever-learn-is-that-we-never-learn-797816.html

    A Long Artical from The Independent. Some quotas below.

    To their monumental hubris, these little men who took us to war five years ago now prove that they have learnt nothing. Anthony Blair – as we should always have called this small town lawyer – should be facing trial for his mendacity. Instead, he now presumes to bring peace to an Arab-Israeli conflict which he has done so much to exacerbate. And now we have the man who changed his mind on the legality of war – and did so on a single sheet of A4 paper – daring to suggest that we should test immigrants for British citizenship. Question 1, I contend, should be: Which blood-soaked British attorney general helped to send 176 British soldiers to their deaths for a lie? Question 2: How did he get away with it?

    For these were the men who had the temerity, the sheer, unadulterated gall, to dress themselves up as Churchill, heroes who would stage a rerun of the Second World War, the BBC dutifully calling the invaders "the Allies" – they did, by the way – and painting Saddam's regime as the Third Reich.

    Of course, when I was at school, our leaders – Attlee, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, or Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy in the United States – had real experience of real war. Not a single Western leader today has any first-hand experience of conflict. When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began, the most prominent European opponent of the war was Jacques Chirac, who fought in the Algerian conflict. But he has now gone. So has Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran but himself duped by Rumsfeld and the CIA.

    Yet one of the terrible ironies of our times is that the most bloodthirsty of American statesmen – Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz – have either never heard a shot fired in anger or have ensured they did not have to fight for their country when they had the chance to do so. No wonder Hollywood titles like "Shock and Awe" appeal to the White House. Movies are their only experience of human conflict; the same goes for Blair and Brown.

    Churchill had to account for the loss of Singapore before a packed House. Brown won't even account for Iraq until the war is over.

    Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.

    Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.

    America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?

    We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.

    And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right.

  2. Another unbiased piece of reportage by a paper known for its journalistic integrity and truth seeking.

    The Independent - it isn't - are you? As the add should have gone
  3. Please be so kind to point out the lies.
  4. You have read your article haven't you? You don't detect a sneer in the voice of the reporter? Where are the facts? - He doesn’t like Blair? That's opinion last time I looked. We've lost Iraq and Afghanistan? - Where is the proof, the methodology that brought him to that conclusion?

    Use of emotive phrases do not make an argument nor does playing the old 'I've been around a long time so I must be right' card. And I like the anti-Jewish dig as well; those pesky Zionists are behind it all! He/she missed out the Military/industrial complex though - must be slipping - No blood for oil?

    So unbiased well thought-out journalism or are they just following the well worn path of pushing the leftist-anti Western dogma that the paper is famous for? I would expect an article like that from Ken Spart from the first year of journalism studies at the Nelson Mandela polytechnic of Slough in The Socialist Worker.

    You wanted the lies?

    Remind me again of the religion of the 9/11 bombers, and their justification, as just one example

    Which Muslim country was under 'occupation' when 9/11 happened?

    A fellow journo said of Fisk

    Go and see your IntO and get your-self clued up about Islamic terrorism rather than swallowing whatever you read in the 'independent' Independent
  5. Seems a bit pompous and a bit short on proper facts, instead churns out the usual stuff about CIA plots and the neo cons. Not sure about "losing" Pakistan. Probably agree with Maple.
  6. and of course no christian has ever set off a bomb deliberately killing civvies has he?

    apart from the occupation of most of palestine?
    and if you ever bother to listen to the islamic radicals and why they seem to hate the west, you find its this occupation that answers -

    anti jewish? "to criticize the israel gov is to be anti-semitic?" honestly?

    the criticism is for WHAT the Israeli gov DO.

    NOT for who they ARE.

    stop playing the race card its worn out and well seen through.
    allways used as a ploy to obfuscate the matter.

    btw i think i can hear your copy of todays daily mail whispering to you.
  7. Dr Stealth,

    I can't be arrsed to get into the Israel (bad) vs Palestine (good) argument that I feel you are trying to kick off. Instead I think that the area of the article that I felt was lazy journalism was the part in bold. Now perhaps you have the exact details of how many of these numbers were killed by Alllied action - but I am pretty sure that most of these were muslims killed by other muslims. If we had not gone into Iraq then I am certain that the numbers would be smaller in that a lot fewer Sunnis would have died but there were thousands of Shiites being killed during Saddam's time. Now is the fact that Sunnis and Shias are blowing each other up outside Mosques in the name of Islam not seem a bit far fetched to be blaming on us in the West and the Palestine issue?

    Anyway last I looked you could find fault with the Independent without being a Daily Mail reader, in the same manner as not everyone who reads the Guardian is a raving lefty. Surely the purpose of the Independent is to encourage readers to not take things at face value - obviously in your view, with the exception of its readers challenging anything published in the paper.

    If you want to have a rant about Israel then feel free to start a new thread.
  8. WHF.

    i honestly wasnt trying to hijack the thread or turn it into a Israeli bash, i was only answering the questions posed and replying to the claim that the criticism of Isreal was anti-semitic.
    i dont think Israel (bad) vs Palestine (good) at all. i know quite well that there are both good and bad on each side. (we all have our moderates thank god)
    i agree with your deduction of the figures, they wernt the point of my post.
    but it doesnt matter whos killing who to be honest, the bottom line is tens of thousands of human lives (iraqi's and occupation troops) have been lost that wouldnt have been if the coalition had not invaded and turned a totalitarian state into a civil war zone.
    say what you like about saddam (he was a murdering cnut i agree) but he only killed those whom he perceived as a threat, and he was contained. he could have been removed slowly, federalising the nation out from under him bit by bit. (inevitable and is what is happening to iraq now). instead of a slow approach of taking over iraqs gov and institutions we 'shock and awed' them to distruction leaving anarchy that has led to the instability today. reasons for invasion have been discussed on other threads and no reason to go into them again here. (WMD on your doorstep in 45mins, links to Al-Q, a chimp wanting a victory to get re-elected ect ect)

    the reason we invaded Iraq was to fight a war on terror, that started when islamic militants attacked the US, militants who claim one reason why they hate the west is because of israeli occupation of Arab land.

    IMHO the war against terror, islamic militancy, the invasion of iraq and the israeli occupation of pal land (plus lots of other issues) are all part of the same ploblem we face. a problem that is not being solved with no endgame in sight.

    Point. that was facetious and unnessacerry of me, please remember your talking to a self confessed smartarrse.

    that reminds me i must pick up my copy of private eye.
  9. Not saying there hasn't been old boy - but the journo who's integrity is in question clearly states no link to Islam - what do you think?

    9/11 was about Palestine? Funny, OBL said it was about the US in Saudi - if he's going to be an apologist for terrorism at least he should have his excuses worked out in advance - dragging in the 'evil Zionists' into every discussion sets level of debate at the 6th form common room level. All he had to do is talk to his mate Binny-Boy

    So Fisk - full of sh!te or unbiased observer attempting to inform?


    Tin foil hats on boys, it’s a Zionist and Neo-Con conspiracy.

    So rather than evaluate the evidence first, make your mind up first, and then re-jig facts to suit – and he complains about the Government doing that!

    And I thought they were there to do factual reporting rather than pursue their own agendas
  10. Dr Stealth,

    Thanks for the measured response.

  11. Must be honest and say I did not considered the artical to be unbiased.
    I did considered it to be a condemnation of the policies followed by the US and UK governments over the last few years.
    Bush and Blur lied about the reasons for the Iraq war and in the Brit system Lieing in Parliament is not done not permitted. It was done and the snake oil salesman has got away with it again while troops lie Bleeding and Broken.
    Yes Maple
    I have read the article. And I do detect a sneer in the voice of the reporter? and in your post.
    Where are the facts? The Facts are all around you just look.
    He doesn’t like Blair?
    No he does not and as you have probably gathered niether do I.