Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am

I have heard it all now - using Wikipedia or the Daily Mail to justify what happened. As has been alluded to that's like using the Widgery report to justify the Bloody Sunday shootings.

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am
And Mr Stirlings point that no-one fights for the UN HMMM! My father represented the UN during the Congo crisis of 1961, one of a hotch-potch of soldiers from non aligned countries that were sent to establish a peace in central Africa. 'Fighting to keep the peace may be a contradiction but so is an army that refuses to defend itself or civilians....as per Srebenica where Dutch UN soldiers basically stood aside when 700 muslim men and boys were massacred. My fathers UN force were told that they could not fire unless fired upon......and then they were fired on. So they fought back to prevent the civilian population they were serving from being wiped out. It ended up in a 5 day continuous siege (no sleep) and was only ended by a brokered ceasefire when Dag Hammerskjold's plane got shot down. My father was then a POW for 5.5 weeks. During that time they were informed by amnesty international that a suspected 'war crime' had been committed against the Kantanganese army by a group of Indian UN personnel where they allegedly captured three of the soldiers (all boy soldiers) that had 'allegedly' killed one of their brothers' breaking their limbs then throwing them off the 4-storey PO building in Elizabethville....leaving them 3 days to die. My father (who was 17 cos he forged his birth certificate) and the 200 or so others that were imprisoned at the time realised that this put them in incredible danger as an atrocity committed by one side is equally likely to be committed by the other - which in the case of the Congo included male rape and cannibalism - THAT'S WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION WAS SET UP. In my fathers case they were told they would be shot dead by firing squad. The leaders of the UN and Amnesty pleaded with the Katangan secession leaders (Moise Tshombie) that it was a rogue element that allegedly committed the war crime and would be dealt with by military tribunal - Tshombie eventually backed down as he wanted future international recognition for his Katangan state. I have researched this conflict and indeed WW1 extensively and have indeed written a book about it, interviewing many of those who were caught up in the active service for the UN, also questioning them about the alleged war crime by the Indian UN personnel...nb.its actually quite difficult to find soldiers who have genuinely been involved in active service as it is estimated that only one in 28 sent off to theatres of war actually engages in combat (it was 1 in 23 in the Korean war)

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am
The answers I received and my point is that a war crime or atrocity puts the soldiers at risk and that is why I question Thatcher's rationale and reason for an alleged atrocity as she put British soldiers lives at more risk and arguably extended the war.

Quote JohnyBoy at 16 Apr 2013 8.51am
When Thatcher was alive it was impossible to bring her to an international court, the UK would just never have allowed it but now that she is dead I think it appropriate that there is an independent judicial review. I am reasonably convinced (85% which is about as sure as you can be in law) that she would be found guilty....and that compensation should be paid to the victims families. Lastly can I just re-iterate that I supported the Falklands war, and was as relieved as anyone when the Falklands were reclaimed, but I will never support a war crime or an atrocity....and although some Holmesdale front or armchair generals may support them I can assure you that any sane soldier sent on active service prays that both sides upholds the Geneva convention.