PDA

View Full Version : Should the Queen be punished for war crimes?



fluffybiscuits
18-06-2012, 04:18 PM
Just reading about this on Indymedia..


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102005


Countless families across Ireland still live with the painful reality of the tragedies, distress and anguish brought to their homes by those forces of which the British monarch is Commander-in Chief.

“During her reign, British forces who have taken oaths of loyalty to Elizabeth Windsor have:

• Implemented internment without trial and perpetrated mass murder against civilian protestors objecting to such human rights abuses
• Tortured, abused and unlawfully detained Irish citizens
• Murdered many innocent unarmed civilians
• Murdered innocent school-children with both lead and plastic bullets
• In conjunction with unionist death squads which Britain trained and armed, conducted a prolonged campaign of murder against men, women and children of all ages from within the nationalist community
• Continued to conceal and obstruct the truth about Britain’s role in the murders of many hundreds of Irish people
• Used the most draconian and repressive laws found anywhere in modern Europe


Under the definition of Wikipedia of war crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Hague_Conventions


Under the Nuremberg Principles, war crimes are different from crimes against peace which is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Because the definition of a state of "war" may be debated, the term "war crime" itself has seen different usage under different systems of international and military law. It has some degree of application outside of what some may consider to be a state of "war", but in areas where conflicts persist enough to constitute social instability.


The decisions made by Tatcher and Blair were the principle executors of war but the queen been leader of the arms forces, is she vicariously liable for the death of many at the behest of armed forces that worked in her name?

The same discussion on facebook turned into a lot of people peddling British sentiment which I dont want here....

fluffybiscuits
19-06-2012, 11:13 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-british-queen-and-60-years-of-war-crimes

The royals have a slick PR machine to enable them to gloss over the war crimes . Does Lizzy know about some of the decisions in advance?

Saoirse go Deo
19-06-2012, 11:15 PM
At the very least she is guilty of moral crimes, if not legal ones,for not speaking out against things when she knew what the craic was.

fluffybiscuits
19-06-2012, 11:26 PM
At the very least she is guilty of moral crimes, if not legal ones,for not speaking out against things when she knew what the craic was.

Well she is head of the armed forces. For a position such as that there has to be some burden of responsibility. They will claim that Blair and Tatcher pull the strings but the queen at the end of the day has to stand up and say when thinks something is wrong.Agree with your point...

riposte
19-06-2012, 11:27 PM
Just reading about this on Indymedia..


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102005





Under the definition of Wikipedia of war crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Hague_Conventions




The decisions made by Tatcher and Blair were the principle executors of war but the queen been leader of the arms forces, is she vicariously liable for the death of many at the behest of armed forces that worked in her name?

The same discussion on facebook turned into a lot of people peddling British sentiment which I dont want here....

Mrs Thatcher didn't like people who dropped their H's .... ask arry.

Apjp
19-06-2012, 11:44 PM
Irish people cheered on the King in 1911 even though the British had starved over half the population just half a century beforehand and we showed our deference last year anyways. This country still sees a 19th century genocide as a potato famine. It doesn't care about a few hundred or thousand Irish deaths or who is to blame.