May 31, 2006



so what we need is for everyone to shut up and let them kill everyone. it would be much better that we heard after the fact that "our boys" had massacred six million or more.

im sorry David but your position on issues like this is becoming untenable. why cant you just admit that it is a disgrace for soldiers to commit acts of terror and that they should be put in the docks as soon as possible. and as for the quagmire. would you like to inform everyone of how many iraqi soldiers are dying on a daily basis? so that a full picture of the conflict is presented.

pathetic. especially how you wait for other bloggers to tackle the issue and you can then "Control V" their opinions without having to think about it yourself.



From the tone of this post, you seem to be in favour of censorship of reporting from Iraq and perhaps even commentary on it from London and elsewhere.

Are you?

David Vance

I am in favour of reporting ALL the news from Iraq, I have detailed many stories that the MSM don't run. They are biased, they are the enemy within and I stand by my post.


I'm no trendy liberal leftie but, putting the question of 'censorship during hostilities' to one side for a moment, there remains one over-arching problem with your clear position on our involvment in Iraq. It is: What precisely is its purpose?

Just ask yourself a simple question: How would you respond to an Arab army invasion of your country for the purpose of "making the world safe for Islam", or whatever the current reciprocal justifaction for our presence has morphed into.

The fact is Iraq is none of our damned business and the sooner we, and the US stop sticking our patronising, holier-than-thou oars in wherever it seems to suit our current vision of the world and how it ought to be, the better

David Vance

Rubbish. Iraq was a centre for international terrorism. Saddam was paying the Pallies 30k a head for their suicide bombing. He was a threat to every country and it was RIGHT to liberate Iraq.


Imagine if you would, David, that it was your family and friends that had been murdered by rogue US troops while they were on a trip to Iraq (to wave ‘Go Yanks’ placards?). Do you think you'd ...

A.) Sit back and think - 'ah sure, the greater good is being served and it's an acceptable loss'

B.) Join the nearest Al-Quida movement

C.) *Insert other reaction here*



If it is true that US marines entered the homes of innocent Iraq families and slaughtered everyone in there , men women and children, then yes the media damn well ought to make a huge fuss about it. It isn't at all good enough to adopt a shrug of the shoulders "oh well bad things happen
let's just carry on " attitude, and complain that the media shouldn't make a big fuss about it.

If this event happened it's a disgusting act of cowardly terrorism and a stain on everything the US supposedly went into Iraq for and to blame the messenger for delivering the shameful message is completely inexcusable.


Colm, hear hear!

David Vance


IF any illegal act was carried out, the guilty will be prosecuted. However, has the media provided insight into the nature of what was going on in Haditha, and if not, why not? Isn't CONTEXT relevant?

And as for liberals jumping up and down about "massacres" - one word - Jenin. Wait for ALL the facts.


'Isn't CONTEXT relevant?'

What possible context could exist that would excuse the execution of children?

Take your time – this is going to be interesting. David, if you ever got into power what colour shirts should we purchase?



In my comment I have carefully used the word if, because I do not want to jump to conclusions or presume guilt that hasn't yet been verified, but I will say that if it happened , context is irrelevent. Nothing but nothing remotely justifies or mitigates aiming a gun cold bloodedly at children and killing them.


Why don't we all just wait until the investigation is actually over and see how the chips fall? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I'm with David. I wish the MSM would report all the news. Not just news that they know will stir up controversy. It is so good that there are other sources of information out there to know what else is happening all around the world, not just the MSM reporting.

David Vance


The uberliberal MSM wants us out of Iraq, they didn't want us to go in. They are fighting a war of headline attrition and the net effect is to wear down our morale. Well, as you rightly point out, we don't have to listen to their defeatist mantra because there are MANY other resources to visit.


I'm sorry David and Alice but you are both blinding yourselves to the news that you don't want to hear. It seems to me that you have taken an attitude of wanting to close your eyes and deciding only to open them when something 'nice' comes into view as far as Iraq is concerned.

David Vance

Fair and balanced is NOT closing our eyes. It's our minds that are open - the MSM's are closed. It's a quagmire..etc etc etc.

Hugh Green

In short, what is needed is a bit more deference to those above, and a bit more contempt for those below. Sound familiar?


The uberliberal MSM wants us out of Iraq, they didn't want us to go in.

wrong, the majority of UK citizens were against the war. the media is reflecting that sentiment and opinion.
why is there no call to put these terrorists in guantanemo for five years with no fair trial looking likely in the near future? maybe something to with the fact that they are innocent until proven guilty, a right that has been denied to many others. your standing on shaky ground david.

but hey stick to the "blame the left or the MSM or the pacifists", after all it works for you in every other argument.



On the context, it seems that one of the Marines was killed, and the rest responded by shooting four students in a taxi that came to their checkpoint, and then they attacked the houses, killing almost everyone inside. The Pentagon has said there was no gun battle, which was what the soldiers claimed at the time. That's not the mainstream media (whatever that is - does the Murdoch group not count as THE mainstream media, and it supported the war).

This was a massacre, pure and simple. What if British troops had reacted like this every time one of them was killed in NI? You would, I imagine, have been rightly calling for them to be prosecuting, not saying wait and see.

Your quasi-justification of this by reference to practices in WWII sounds a lot like what the Provos said about Bloody Friday - accidents happen in war. I'm sure this isn't what you're saying, but I think you're leaving yourself vulnerable here.

David Vance


I take your point - my point is that ANY illegality carried out by ANY solider should be punished, under due process! But this is WAR and war is not neat, it can't be boxed off - and as you know when it came to WW2 there was no "exit strategy." There was, and this is the point here, a VICTORY strategy and I support such in the war on Islamofascism.


daytripper "so what we need is for everyone to shut up and let them kill everyone. it would be much better that we heard after the fact that "our boys" had massacred six million or more."

Isn't that ridiculous response exactly what DV is criticising.

The criminal actions of a few soldiers are used to discredit the whole military. The MSM falls over itself to find excuses for the criminal actions of yobbish youths in this country, but cuts no slack to young men of the same age enduring the most extreme stress in battle.

daytripper "wrong, the majority of UK citizens were against the war"

No daytripper, you are wrong.

YouGov polling shows that those opposed to the war didn't excede supporters until October 2003 & consistently became a majority only after October 2004.




"The MSM falls over itself to find excuses for the criminal actions of yobbish youths in this country, but cuts no slack to young men of the same age enduring the most extreme stress in battle."

And you have just engaged in exactly the same ridiculous sweeping generalisiations as well as being wrong in your observations. Look at the media's reporting of crime in this country and it is overwhelmingly expressing fury at the softness of the judicial and criminal systems, the complete opposite of what you seem to see. Plus, exactly what 'slack' would you like to see cut for people who can walk into a house and slaughter every defencless person of any age they come across ?


will my first statement is a peice of sarcasm mocking davids position. his criticism is not of the murder of civilians but that someone had the audacity to publish a story about it.

as for the polls, the UGov polls show much more disaproval for war than approval. majority support for the war was often only obtained when people saw that UN had sanctioned it, which they didnt. even those that did support the war still stated that it was more about oil or vengance than WMD.


The comparison with the Second World War is far-fetched. People fought and died there for values, for civilisation - even Christian civilisation as Winston Churchill termed it in his "Battle of Britain" speech. Commercial motivations, reconstruction contracts, forged Niger documents, rich natural resources, US politicians with their own oil tankers, false allegations of links with Sep 11, etc. didn't enter into World War II. To compare the current operation with the second world war is only to expose the depths to which the United States Military has sunk. There's no common denominator at all between the two except anti-anti-Semitism and regime change.


And the Second World War was fought against the German, Japanese and Italian NATIONS. Since this war isn't being fought against the Iraqi Nation and its people, killing of civilians shouldn't be tolerated at all, whether deliberate or supposedly accidental.


it pains me that someone has to point this out adrian. but well done anyway. theyll probably ban your ass.

The comments to this entry are closed.