@LL

you know, I recall David Thewlis flinging the epithet "big girl's blouse" in the movie "Naked" and always thought it was something he (the character, really, though in Leigh's films the lines are rather blurred, particularly when it comes to the creation of the dialogue) just came up with off the top of his head.

Do you like it? Its a good'en isn't it. Its etymology probably extends back to the term used up north in Lancashire and Yorkshire where, "life's hard if you don't weaken," to describe a bloke turning jelly, "Yer a big soft lass what are ya?"
And have you heard of the term, "going pear shaped."?

That's a good one as well. It's an old army expression for losing it. Missions can go "pear shaped" but also individual people due to stress or exhaustion.

So now if you have got a mate that's coming over all dithery whotsit you can say, "get a bloody grip you wuzzy big girl's blouse before you go totally pear shaped."

http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2009/06/30/democratorship/ or click sig

Nebojsa Malic writes:

Brought to You by the International Community

In the sea of lies that have been told in and about the Balkans over the past two decades, perhaps one of the most pernicious is the myth of the "international community" (IC). One might be forgiven for thinking it is a synonym for the United Nations; it isn’t. Though an actual definition has never been offered, the "international community" is supposed to encompass all the countries that value democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – in other words, are loyal to the Empire. It by no means includes the majority of the world’s countries or population. If, say, Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) decide to hold a meeting and coordinate certain efforts, they are not the "international community." Neither is the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

...

Many of my fine friends on the left bought the propaganda on that Clinton war hook, line, and sinker. However, the Clinton war crimes really should be investigated along with the Bush war crimes. (both of them)

We have generations of war crimes. Why not a permanent, well funded, independent prosecutor whose only task is to look at allegations of war crimes? That is one government program that we could really use at this point in time.

Wow, dude that is downright scary man!

RT

www.complete-privacy.tk

In April 2004 four Blackwater mercenaries took a wrong turn in Fallujah, ended up being killed, and their corpses were desecrated. President Bush sent in the First Marine Division, to retaliate. Attached to that force was a platoon commanded by a New Yorker named Lieutenant Ilario Pantano.

Pantano's platoon had been told that there was a "bomb making factory" at a certain address. As they approached that address a car was leaving. His platoon stopped the car, and took the two unarmed occupants into custody.

Pantano, his platoon's medic, and his platoon's radio operator stayed with the two unarmed men. The rest of his platoon searched the compound. They searched their vehicle, and found nothing suspicious.

His platoon, unusually, included a native Arabic speaker -- a Corporal from North Africa who hoped to become an American citizen. He learned from the women left in this multi-household compound that the men were male relatives of theirs.

Eventually his platoon found three AK-47s. (each house-hold in Iraq was allowed one.) When Pantano learned this he set in motion a bizarre chain of events that lead to shooting these two unarmed men 48 times.

Pantano says he decided the two Iraqi men should search their vehicle--a serious violation of the regulations about how to treat prisoners. You can't make them do anything dangerous. He ordered their plastic handcuffs removed--also a violation of regulations.

Then he took two more bizarre steps. He ordered his two men to mount guard, forcing them to look away. And he says he ordered the two Iraqi men "with hand-signals" to search their car. Sanity check here. There is no way even the world's most skilled mime can "use hand-signals" to direct someone to search a car. And what if these two men really were opponents, who had hidden weapons, or a bomb, in the car? In that case he was exposing himself and his men to an attack.

If Pantano really thought there was a compelling reason to breach regulations why didn't he call for his Arabic speaking Corporal to explain to the men what he wanted them to do?

According to a statement Pantano gave to Navy investigators two months afterwards the two men were on their knees, facing into the open car doors. He was standing 10 feet behind them.

The men were talking to one another. Probably because they hadn't understood his hand signals. He didn't know the Arabic word for "shut up", so he told them to "stop". They didn't stop, probably because they didn't understand what he wanted. So he yelled "STOP" at them, which prompted them to suddenly turn to face one another, and keep talking. So he shot them.

According to his statement to Navy investigators, he shot them up, and shot them up, and when his 30 round magazine was empty, he replaced it, and emptied that magazine as well. His statement said he used 80 percent of his bullets to shoot up their corpses, reserving the remainder to shoot up their vehicle.

From his statement--he didn't shoot them 48 times because he panicked. He shot up their corpses 48 times "to send a message". He kept repeating in his statement that he wanted "to send a message". He woke up that day wanting "to send a message". When he briefed his men he told them "to send a message".

After shooting them he scrawled a slogan over their corpses.

He wasn't planning to call the Iraqi morgue, and have the corpses picked up. He wanted the men's neighbors to see the message he sent.

Desecrating corpses and scrawling a slogan over them, and leaving them "to send a message", sounds to me like an act of terrorism. It sounds to me like the message he wanted to send to Iraqi civilians was "be terrified of us".

News of the shooting circulated. The radio operator was the main witness against him.

Back in 2004 no post-mortem had been done on their bodies. The official position was that it was "too dangerous" to go retrieve the bodies for a post-mortem. But, during his article 32 hearing an autopsy report surfaced. Bodies had been dug up, and been examined. These corpses weren't shot in the back. Unfortunately the autopsy report seriously contradicted Pantano's June 2004 statement. Crucially, it said the bodies had only been shot a couple of times -- not the dozens of times Pantano had described.

Pantano's mother is a professional publicist. And practically every news account of the attack was wildly inaccurate. They contradicted Pantano's statment, saying he shot them men when they were "advancing" on him. They reported that he had told the men to "stop" twice, before shooting them -- implying he was telling them to stop "advancing" on him. These news reports avoided his breach of regulations in ordering their handcuffs removed.

The marine who really suffered the most was the whistleblower, his radio operator. Practically every news report implied that he reported Pantano because he was bitter over Pantano demoting him. Pantano had given interviews, trashing the radio operator. The radio operator was threatened with serious official actions because he had broken an order that none of the Marines should talk to the press, and he too had finally given an interview.

The officer presiding over the article 32 hearing -- who was not a lawyer -- recommended that the murder charges should be dropped. He called the shooting "body desecration". He wanted Pantano held accountable for that. Pantano resigned a few months later, with an honorable discharge, and no punishment even for the desecration. He is now a policeman.

It seems to me that something is seriously wrong. It seems to me that he actually confessed to serious war crimes in June 2004. Terrorizing Iraqi civilians "to send a message" is an act of terrorism.

Like Steven Green, who was charged in civilian court, after his discharge, for raping and murdering the Iraqi girl, I think the civilian court system should step in and lay the charges the Marines Corps wouldn't lay.