[Imc-uk-features] Hiding Comment 180335, was: Re: Anti-Imperial Editorial Guideline?

[Chris]

Hi

On Tue 04-Sep-2007 at 12:55:16PM +0100, Ben wrote:
> 
> I don't think that it deserves to be rehidden as it
> makes completely valid points

Well, I don't agree.

So, some thoughts on the comment, which can be read in
full here:

  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380152.html?c=all#c180335

> The actual situation
> 03.09.2007 15:53
> 
> As much as I'm sure the some IMC reader would love to
> think the UK forces in Basra have suffered some sort of
> defeat the reality is very different.

This is the governments line:

  As they left, Gordon Brown and senior officers denied it
  was a retreat. 
  
But as this Guardian article continues:  

  But for many it was a defeat all the
  same. Among them the residents of Basra who tired
  quickly of the British presence.

  "We are pleased that the Iraqi army are now taking over
  the situation. We as an Iraqi people reject occupation.
  We reject colonialism. We want our freedom," one
  resident Rudha Muter told the Associated Press.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2161949,00.html

It's clear that it's a military defeat for the UK forces.  

> In real terms the British policy from the start in
> Basra has been the route the US should have taken.

Blaming the US is the line the tories are taking:

  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380337.html

This sentance is clearly in *support* of the UK
intervention in Iraq, I don't see how anyone could read it
any other way.

> The UK has spent time and money training Iraqi froces to
> replace them on a road by road, town by town, province
> by province basis and this has enabled a gradual
> reduction in forces and in general far more local
> stability when compared to the US controlled areas.

Contrast the above paragraph with this, again from the
Guardian aticle referenced above:

  Professional women, professors and doctors would
  describe how their lives had become ever more grim.
  Those who had never worn a headscarf in their careers
  were now going veiled in the street, women students were
  being bullied and intimidated. All this in a city that
  was considered a relatively cosmopolitan outpost in
  Saddam's Iraq.

  Other outspoken members of civil society learned to shut
  up or flee or risk the bullet - local journalists and
  judges, the heads of local NGOs. Where there was
  resistance to the creeping influence of the militia,
  hospital directors, administrators and staff were
  killed.

> The Brirish Army has completed this training pretty much
> on the timeline and with minimal casualities in military
> terms.

The above paragraph essentially says the same thing as
Con Coughlin:

  By taking the decision to withdraw the British Army's
  last remaining battle group from Basra's city centre,
  coalition commanders have concluded that local Iraqi
  forces, which have undergone intensive training by
  British specialists, are now in a position to take
  control of the city centre.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/04/wiraq204.xml

If you don't remember who this "journalist" is then check
out these articles:

- Con Coughlin, the Daily Telegraph & the ongoing business
  of conning the British
  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/357870.html

- The journalist who broke the 45 minute WMD story strikes
  again
  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/361101.html

- Daily Telegraph political editor investigated over
  misleading articles
  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358164.html

> Finaly the comments by the poster 'Danny' illustrate
> such a complete and utter lack of understanding of not
> only the current situation in the Southern Iraqi area
> but also control of supply lines in a military
> environment he really should not contribute. 

Is this what people agree with, that Danny "should not
contribute"?

Do people agree that only professional soldiers should be
allowed to comment on military matters on UK IMC -- this
is what the above nonsense implies!

> UK and US air superiority is absolute, the insurgents
> have no attack capability against massed armour and to
> suggest that the US Army could not leave Iraq anytime it
> wanted with no more than very minimal probis just
> fanciful.

I don't believe this and find it hard to belive that other
IMC admins do... it reads like pentagon pr!

Chris

-- 
Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World