The Killing of Baha Mousa


by David Webb

I’m sick of reading of investigations reaching the conclusion our soldiers have been brutal abroad. Do these judges even understand the environment the soldiers are operating in? That if they don’t extract information quickly from detainees, large numbers of lives will be lost? The idea that you should just sit down and have a cup of tea with an Arab detainee and see if he wants to give information makes it impossible to conduct a military operation at all. You need to understand the local culture – and the language they speak is brutality. I person couldn’t care less about the death of Baha Mousa – he must have had some information he was trying not to give as he wouldn’t have been detained in the first place – and I particularly don’t want to see soldiers and officers hauled over the coals for having to operate according to Iraqi standards in Iraq. The
inquiry is a disgrace.

About these ads

20 responses to “The Killing of Baha Mousa

  1. The ‘investigations’ by the leftists, into the actions of soldiers sent into wars by the leftists are a bad joke.

    It is quite clear that it is purely an exercise in developing some fake moral superiority by denouncing the very soldiers that they sent to fight in an ill planned and stupid war. The Leftists were war mongers and now they condemn the soldiers. Contemptible and vile hypocrisy and moral crapulence. Whch pretty much sums up the leftists in their entirety.

  2. Since when is it only “Leftists” who object to torture?

    “…he must have had some information he was trying not to give as he wouldn’t have been detained in the first place…” Wow. For a minute I thought I was reading a Nancy Grace transcript. You really think anyone detained by people in uniform must be guilty of something, or they wouldn’t be detained?

    You know that over two-thirds of the people detained at Guantanamo — “the worst of the worst,” in Dick Cheney’s phrase — were eventually released because they were picked up in a broad sweep and there was no evidence they’d done anything wrong? The so-called “recidivism” many of the released detainees are accused of actually consists of violating their agreement — as a condition of release — of not publicly revealing the details of their wrongful detention and torture.

  3. “That if they don’t extract information quickly from detainees, large numbers of lives will be lost?”

    Implication: The end justifies the means.

    A surprising and disappointing thing to see on a libertarian website.

  4. This fellow was detained by British soldiers for some reason. It can’t have been nothing: we are talking about the British Army here – we neither have the time, nor the food supply, nor the inclination to simply sweep up everyone into a barbed-wire-enclosure preparatory to interrogation.

    Soldiers of leftist (such as Stalin’s Nazi USSR) regimes (another one was the Third Reich, more scientifically Nazileftist even than Stalin, who merely drenched the road he passed in blood, perhaps even more indiscriminately than Hitler’s Nazileftists) are far, far less fastidious about the treatment of detainees than the British are. Most Soviet divisions, and also SS ones, would routinely massacre whole villages if some bright spark (worthy probably of a Darwin Award) made a sotto-voce snide comment while everyone was being rounded up. Poles, in villages, were particularly bad at failing to avoid doing this – muttering something apposite but inflammatory that would get up the invaders’ noses, thus needlessly triggering immediate mass slaughter of themselves and everyone around them.

    Now then:-

    (1) I have not read the enquiry, because I’m not so far a party to it nor likely to be, and perhaps they have not finished it yet.

    (2) You people might need to be told something about soldiers, and how they behave in war or under stress.

    3) British soldiers, even under labour, have been trained NOT to behave like what I said in para 2 above. this is an “Army Thing” and is nothing to do with the politicos, supposedly their political masters, who I’m sure would not give a fuck either way if the soldiers did behave like disgusting lefty thugs – anyway it makes more squaddies for their london-lefty-lawyer friends to sue.

    (3) Those soldiers trained in interrogation know how to look for body-language signs. Signs that the fellow may know “more than he is letting on”. How do you think the CID know or suspect who to charge (most of the time)? It’s the same skill.

    (4) This Musa fellow probably said something, probably rude, and probably under his breath (see “Polish villagers”, above) which aroused suspicion. Then, he probably tried to backtrack, and his minders, probably tired, irritated and scared, had a pop at him.

    (5) The problem is wars. Yes, I would have gone into Iraq. I’d have gone in saying that the fucking merdering butcher Saddam was a wicked bugger who was to be reomoved…because he was wicked. It would not matter to me, frankly, whether he was “elected” or not. (He wasn’t.) All Tony Blair had to say was that. the trouble is, he had to get something past a wet nazi western left-leaning media and bureautariat, so he had to lie about WMDs. (Incidentally, the Polish coalition forces found French rockets with chemical woarheads on them. These were dated “April 2003″. The Poles were threatened by the EU that if they grassed up the French, there’d be “no EU for you, boyo”. So the Polish general said “we found no WMDs”.) But as to wars: if you put young men, however well-trained even by the British Army, under great responsibility to behave utterly impeccably while under death-stress, then you will get the odd fellow unaccountably dead, for no apparent lioggable reason.

    (6) The British Police, now, would say: “it was a tragic incident: he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We advise all non-combattants to stay indoors, not throw things at the enemy soldiers, not say anything provocative that can be heard, and co-operate fully with the enemy authorities.” What do you think they’d have said in late 1940 if Hitler’d invaded? Something like that?

  5. Nauseating stuff.

  6. ”(6) The British Police, now, would say: “it was a tragic incident: he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We advise all non-combattants to stay indoors, not throw things at the enemy soldiers, not say anything provocative that can be heard, and co-operate fully with the enemy authorities.” What do you think they’d have said in late 1940 if Hitler’d invaded? Something like that?”

    That is pretty much the advice the British authorities gave to the German people in 1945.

    And it is sickening that the very Leftists who are so fast to send our soldiers into war are so fast to condemn those soldiers, totally ignoring the realities of the sheer brutal reality of warfare.

    And freemarketanticapitalist seems to think this thread is about Guantanamo bay for some strange reason……

  7. I get the feeling that David Webb’s post is not being very well received. Well, that’s life.

    If we totted up the volumes of the relative oceans of blood, and the relative weights of the mountains of sorrow, that have been caused by the doings of soldiers in war over the millennia, then it’s quite clear that the armies of the “West” (such as ours here) are far, far more merciful in their dealings, even under stress, with anyone in the FEBA than any others in all history.

    I’m frankly f***ing sick to death of bastards here in the West, trying to go out of their way to try to indict my country’s soldiers, or even American ones for that matter, for alleged individual acts of brutality (and we still don’t know what heppened here) when the armies of tyrannies and socialist are drenched palpably in innocent blood. they should take out the beam in the enemy’s eye, before trying to take out the mote in ours.

  8. Two wrongs do not make a right. What the armies of tyrants get up to should have no bearing on the standards we expect from ours. We have a professional volunteer army trained to high standards, The standards are there to limit the chances of soldiers descending into barbarity which, as posters on here point out, can happen quite easily in battlefield conditions. However, most soldiers do not indulge in acts of gratuitous violence against civilians and the prosecution of those that do serves as a reminder that we can only keep any kind of moral high ground if we insist on , and apply strict rules of behaviour toward those who are unarmed and in captivity. It maybe that those soldiers who were responsible for torturing and killing that man were just not psychologically fit to work in a war zone. That being the case it’s best to weed them out. If we don’t then we really are no better than Nazis no matter how right our cause might be to make war.It’s one of the reasons we can, to some extent anyway say as David Davis says..’We are more merciful in their dealings’. This isn’t something in the blood of westerners when they are out fighting wars. It is through the acceptance of, and application of certain rules of war. I for one am glad of them.

  9. That last post is not from Anonymous. It is I, daisy. Don’t know what happened there with posting. !

  10. Daisy, what we have here is a massively unbalanced response, with leftists desperate to expose and magnify the most minor lapses of Western soldiers, including faking and lying if necessary, while whitewashing and ignoring far, far worse actions carried out by any enemies.

    It is part of a fundamental hatred and insidious attack on Western culture and civilisation by the leftists.

  11. Yes, DD, there is a better case for trying Tony Blair for war crimes than for trying individual soldiers – which is a rather cowardly thing for the Army to allow to happen. Also, the officer, Jorge Mendonca, is a highly respected officer, and I’m sorry to see his career blighted over this Iraqi nobody. The British shouldn’t have been there in the first place. The logical result of getting involved in other people’s cultures is having to behave in ways that would cause the inhabitants of the Cotswolds to choke on their peas. Take Extraordinary Rendition – the US has been reduced to sending people to Arab countries to be tortured by proxy – because such treatment is illegal in the US – but the war on terror requires that some of these people are properly interrogated in a way that would not be accepted in the US. The problem is the war on terror in the first place. But it is easy for civilians, such as the self-satisfied people commenting here, to pronounce from the comfort of their armchairs on the difficult job our soldiers are doing from around the world. Civilians don’t understand the work of the military – take Vietnam, for instance – while the US shouldn’t have been there, to successfully win that war, which was basically a war against the entire Vietnamese population, given the fact the peasants were basically all Viet Cong, would have required the regular massacring of civilians, including whole villages. Eventually the US lacked the stomach to do what was necessary to win.

  12. It is fastinating to see how some people beliefe the government is evil an incompetend in everything it does, but when it comes to the army and wars the government suddenly turns into a genius that can’t do wrong.

    Of course if the army detains someone and tortures him he must be a bad guy. Why? Because it is the army and the amry does not do wrong.

    But enough said. It is useless to argue with socialist arguing in favour of their favorite government program.

  13. Words fail me in the face of some of the fuckwits on here.
    I don’t know what happened but it must certainly be investigated and if any are found guilty of abuse they must certainly be sacked, and if the offence is bad enough jailed as well and bollocks to their fucking careers. (“his career shouldn’t be spoiled over some nobody”–well DJ, let’s hope some copper beats your head in and then some law n’order fan can say the same thing about you).

  14. I agree with Mr Ecks – though I also agree that Tony Blair should be given a fair trial for something and then hanged in public. He got us into these wars. He’s the real villain.

  15. When I’m the Principal Secretary of State for War in the first English-Revolutionary-Liberal-Capitaist administration, I will want soldiers who will behave according the the Geneva Convention (which is not unreasonable) and who will exemplify how to be an Army. We shall need these soldiers, for everyone, with the possible exception of Israel, will be against us and will be arming his/their simbarines (yes I did type simbarines) and air-to-groud-rissoles. I will not be planning even to count on Australia, new Zealand, or even China or Russia, to help us as allies.

    We shall be truly alone. Like in June 1940.

    We shall be a libertarian minimal-statist-administration, a mortal and clear and visible threat to all other governments’ perceptions of their own vulnerable and dangerously-isolated-legitimacy in the face of what our stations will be transmitting. The penalty for listening to our broadcasts, facebook posts and narrowcasts, or our blogs, will slowly but progrssively become death. Just watch.

    If iffy people fall into the hands of my soldiers, and shiftily shift about and try to appear to know less than they might perhaps do, THEN I BLAME SOCIALISM, for having started the un-necessary duel in the first place, between a philosphy that is right and good (liberalism) and one that is so flambently wrong, bad, inverted-logically and unearthly, that it must have been conceived to be deliberately evil on purpose. There is no point in trying to oppose liberalism, because it is right.

    Sorry. It’s time to buzz the tower.

  16. I get really really annoyed, when some kinds of liberals try to be “holier than thou”. I am beginning to be afraid that Boromir was right, if he thought he was strong enough to Take The Ring, and all this f***ing nonsense could have been sorted in five minutes.

  17. Look, the GramscoStaliNazi left means business: it DOES believe everything it says. It does kill, anyone, all the time, everywhere, who is inconvenient, irritating or simply right. Do you people all think that yoiu can, ultimately, defeat it, by reason?

    Do you?

    Do you?

    Pleas do say how.

  18. Sorry: “please” (I was irritated and missed a key.)

  19. From Radley Balko, “The Limited Government, Pro-Life Party”:

    They enthusiastically applaud government executions. And they’re certain government is incompetent, except when it comes to bombing foreigners, torturing Muslims, and killing guilty people, in which cases government is always, 100 percent, how-dare-you-even-ask-questions correct.

  20. I’m not sure that I know quite what fremarketanticapitalist is really trying to say. Except that he seems to be describing some statists who want to bomb foreigners, torture Muslims, kill people he thinks are “guilty”, and who support “government”. I’m sure he can’t be referring to us here.