WTF has that got to do with anything?!Nintendogamer wrote:
yeh well look at what the US army do at guantanomo bay
well, I guess he was trying to compare human rights violations supposedly happening in gitmo to those on the video. Since both involve soldiers, that's a valid argument.Spark wrote:
WTF has that got to do with anything?!Nintendogamer wrote:
yeh well look at what the US army do at guantanomo bay
I don't think wether he is a soldier himself or has served over there is relevant to the discussion. Just like you, he is entitled to his opinion.Horseman 77 wrote:
Maybe some really smart people like you should go over there and " show everyone how its done ".{RS}Diamonddog wrote:
Im British myself. This is pretty bad. OMG The camera man was a nutcase. Im not really suprised, the type of people who join the army in Britain are people who have issues just like the ones in the video. These are the type of people who go out drinking on the weekend just for getting into fights. Im not saying all British soldiers are like this but i bet alot of them are. They should be kicked out of the army and punished and have it put on their permanent records "beat up little kids in irak and got a thrill out of it". Beating up little kids is not what being a soldier is about. I was glad to see their superior come in and break it up at the end. If i was their i probally would have done the same. Maybe these people were raped and beaten by their dads when they were kids. Pikeys and Losers.
You could do a much better job. Becuase you know " what being a soldier is all about ".
Unless maybe ( they ) were not the losers in this case.
I don't get it. What is it with you guys and homosexuality ? And why would you want to bring that up in a discussion about a possible human rights violation by british coalition forces in Iraq ?Major_Spittle wrote:
I'm not homophobic, I am just accustom that being called gay is a huge insult to a person. That is obviously not the case with you, you don't seem to mind being called gay at all. In fact it sounds like you hang out with guys that kiss each other.{RS}Diamonddog wrote:
No i would fight a war if every man was needed if the enemy was huge like the nazis were. I would'nt take part in a small war because i dont wanna die. Yea i dont wanna die. i wanna make love to beutiful women, get drunk and have fun with my friends and stand up for whats rite, like not beating up little kids. And look down on idiots like you who think that it is rite. Im no coward and if you ever see me in a fight i wont be running. Props to you for not backing down to bullies. But why the fuck are you supporting unproffesional soldiers who are "bullies" in this video. Im also not gay but i have friends who are and people can do whatever the fuck they want with their own lives. And you reak of homophobia from your comments calling me gay. You can flame on buddy im just here for the conversation.Major_Spittle wrote:
"I'd fight a war if a thought it was worth fighting for, and if every man was needed"....Gee your brave, you state right there that you would fight for something worth fighting for ONLY IF other people couldn't get it done without you. You obviously are the last person willing to fight for what is right.
I was never "beat" by my father, but I have gotten beaten because I would not back down to bullies. I would never fear (to the degree you obviously do) being beat like those kids were, now or when I was that age.
You sir are a coward. I bet you tuck it between your legs and prance around the room for your boyfriend while he tosses flowers at you.
I guess you grew up in one of the places where two boys kissen wasn't considered wrong. Are you sure your not from San Francisco???
TheMajorBummer wrote:
What has Guantanamo-bay to do with British soldiers..... ?
B.Schuss wrote:
well, I guess he was trying to compare human rights violations supposedly happening in gitmo to those on the video. Since both involve soldiers, that's a valid argument.
Still, gitmo has nothing to do with the specific topic at hand, that's true.
As I have said before, I think it is VERY relevant to the discussion. Folks at home passing judgement without understanding the circumstances should think again. I still haven't heard a reasonable alternative for the actions those soldiers have taken. Anyone who is being critical should offer up what they would have done in the same situation.B.Schuss wrote:
I don't think wether he is a soldier himself or has served over there is relevant to the discussion.
Oh, I agree that it is difficult for people outside the military or those who haven't been there to get a full understanding of what is happening down there, but in the end, that will be the majority of the nation.whittsend wrote:
As I have said before, I think it is VERY relevant to the discussion. Folks at home passing judgement without understanding the circumstances should think again. I still haven't heard a reasonable alternative for the actions those soldiers have taken. Anyone who is being critical should offer up what they would have done in the same situation.B.Schuss wrote:
I don't think wether he is a soldier himself or has served over there is relevant to the discussion.
So if I say I suspect you of being a terrorist, I can abuse and no-one will feel the need to speak out? I doubt that. Yet again I'm forced to post that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights violations occur when:Mike_J wrote:
This is insane. People defending suspected and confirmed terrorists because we're (and apparently our allies) are abusing them.
Hmm, disregarding human rights, blaming unholy forces for the behaviour of resistance fighters... nice. So you see the war as a holy crusade and the mass slaughter of anyone opposed to American occupation as the only conceivable solution, as they will never change otherwise?Mike_J wrote:
First off, these "insurgents" ARE pyscho!! They are irrational, illogical, and waaay beyond any chance of changing for the good. Point of no return brain washed. I think it is safe to say that they are demonically possessed.
nice job at taking everything out of context. apparently to you the criteria for fitting a suspected terrorist is extremely weak. ya know when a haji fires upon us, we're gonna chase him down, and if we don't kill him and he's unlucky enough to be caught, wouldn't you think he's an insurgent? i'd like to pretend to you that i wouldn't lose control and beat the shit outta one had he killed a buddy, but i'd be lying. we've been playing by the rules that "they don't teach in Texas" quite often. it is rare for them to be harshly mistreated. unfortunately, a reservist went and made the entire US military look like baby killers. you seem like you enjoy thriving on that as does the media. if it were up to me, i'd fight fire with fire and treat prisoners the same way they treat ours.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
So if I say I suspect you of being a terrorist, I can abuse and no-one will feel the need to speak out? I doubt that. Yet again I'm forced to post that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights violations occur when:Mike_J wrote:
This is insane. People defending suspected and confirmed terrorists because we're (and apparently our allies) are abusing them.
# Cruel or unusual punishment is used on a person (such as torture or execution). (Article 5)
# Punishments are dealt arbitrarily or unilaterally, without a proper and fair trial. (Article 11)
Do they not teach that in school at Texas?Hmm, disregarding human rights, blaming unholy forces for the behaviour of resistance fighters... nice. So you see the war as a holy crusade and the mass slaughter of anyone opposed to American occupation as the only conceivable solution, as they will never change otherwise?Mike_J wrote:
First off, these "insurgents" ARE pyscho!! They are irrational, illogical, and waaay beyond any chance of changing for the good. Point of no return brain washed. I think it is safe to say that they are demonically possessed.
wise words from a veteranMike_J wrote:
nice job at taking everything out of context. apparently to you the criteria for fitting a suspected terrorist is extremely weak. ya know when a haji fires upon us, we're gonna chase him down, and if we don't kill him and he's unlucky enough to be caught, wouldn't you think he's an insurgent? i'd like to pretend to you that i wouldn't lose control and beat the shit outta one had he killed a buddy, but i'd be lying. we've been playing by the rules that "they don't teach in Texas" quite often. it is rare for them to be harshly mistreated. unfortunately, a reservist went and made the entire US military look like baby killers. you seem like you enjoy thriving on that as does the media. if it were up to me, i'd fight fire with fire and treat prisoners the same way they treat ours.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
So if I say I suspect you of being a terrorist, I can abuse and no-one will feel the need to speak out? I doubt that. Yet again I'm forced to post that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights violations occur when:Mike_J wrote:
This is insane. People defending suspected and confirmed terrorists because we're (and apparently our allies) are abusing them.
# Cruel or unusual punishment is used on a person (such as torture or execution). (Article 5)
# Punishments are dealt arbitrarily or unilaterally, without a proper and fair trial. (Article 11)
Do they not teach that in school at Texas?Hmm, disregarding human rights, blaming unholy forces for the behaviour of resistance fighters... nice. So you see the war as a holy crusade and the mass slaughter of anyone opposed to American occupation as the only conceivable solution, as they will never change otherwise?Mike_J wrote:
First off, these "insurgents" ARE pyscho!! They are irrational, illogical, and waaay beyond any chance of changing for the good. Point of no return brain washed. I think it is safe to say that they are demonically possessed.
as for disregarding human rights and me "blaming unholy forces," you'll never know until you see for yourself. really enjoyed how you band wagoned with the "anyone opposed to American occupation" should be slaughtered. i didn't know righteousness and decency was unique solely to religion. i'm not even christian btw. i just think we should fight these scum which consist largely of former criminals and try to make the planet a safer place. if you could change them for the better without them having to be killed, by all means please do.
I agree.JahManRed wrote:
I would agree that the british are better than the americans at this kind of peace keeping. They learned the trade they practice in Iraq here in my country, Northern Ireland. They used the same tactics. Beating people and being nasty to the locals and treating us like some kind of huge army trainning camp. For every man they beat, tourtured or killed, 4more joinned the IRA. I remember an ex RUC (police) man telling me how he witnessed soilders of 16 years old shouting orders and spitting & urinating on & beating a 65 year old man. That guys son 6months later blew up an army check point killing 3 soilders and 1 RUC man and himself.
The typical English Squaddy is in my experence 85% of the time an idiot.
I agree that its a tricky situation and hard to police. But the British and the Americans need to hold their hands up to the fact that they united the three seperate countires, all with their own forms of Islam into one country Iraq, to make it easier for them to control after the 1st & 2nd world wars. They installed their own Monarch dictatorship who was over thrown by Sadams predecesser.
Now if the west had just left the middle east alone and not united countries who obviously don't get on to make things easier for ourselves, millions of people wouldnt be dead.
Thats why it makes me ill when I hear and read about how we the west are so noble helping out this messed up country. WE MESSED IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WE STILL ARE MESSING IT UP.
You are entitled to an opinion, but I don't think you are entitled to judge. If these people were ever tried, I would be very upset if it were by a civilian court. ONLY a military court could supply people who could possibly understand the situation these soldiers were in. The comments of various 'never-be-a-soldier' types here confirm my take on the matter.B.Schuss wrote:
Oh, I agree that it is difficult for people outside the military or those who haven't been there to get a full understanding of what is happening down there, but in the end, that will be the majority of the nation.
Compared to the rest of the population, the military is small in numbers.
That means that most of us will have to form an opinion without having been there. What do you expect us to do ? shut up and say nothing until some of the guys in the military tell us what we are supposed to think about the situation ? Wether we have been there or not, we are entitled to our opinion.
I doubt it. These people know very well what non-lethal ammunition is, and what it does. They also know that it won't stop a military attack. Carrying that stuff around instead of lethal rounds would be perceived as weakness, and invite attack. You must remember, and this has been mentioned several times, that doing anything that would lower military capability (i.e. deadly capability) will be percieved as weakness, and will eventually lead to an attack.B.Schuss wrote:
Now, back to topic at hand. As far as the video is concerned, I don't know what technical/tactical capabilities the soldiers had. In classical riot control, police would use a variety of tactics to disperse the crowd. Those would include tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets. Nothing of that was used. The reason is quite simple. The soldiers have to do full-scale military operations and peacekeeping/policing at the same time. You don't bring water cannons to a warzone. Nevertheless, they could have used teargas and/or rubber bullets, and the "learning effect" on the part of the kids would have been just as deep.
They also use live rounds very effectively, when they know that the kiddie stuff isn't going to leave the impression they want to leave.B.Schuss wrote:
The Israelis have quite some experience in riot control in warzones, and they use teargas and rubber bullets very effectively over there.
As noted above, dispersing the crowd isn't the priority here. The priority is to react in a way that discourages further (possibly more deadly) attacks.B.Schuss wrote:
Now, I am not suggesting I have the perfect solution here. But what I do believe is that the use of teargas or rubber bullets to disperse the crowd ( which didn't seem that large after all ) would have looked way more professional than what we see on the tape.
I am sorry, but what is my opinion worth if I am not allowed to draw conclusions from it or to judge on it ? If I see something that I consider wrong, don't you think I should speak out against it ? We all make judgements based on our opinions. That's what people do. You judge me on the basis of the opinion you have formed on me. Wether that is a reflection of the truth is not relevant as far as your opinion is concerned, because it is just that, your opinion.whittsend wrote:
You are entitled to an opinion, but I don't think you are entitled to judge. If these people were ever tried, I would be very upset if it were by a civilian court. ONLY a military court could supply people who could possibly understand the situation these soldiers were in. The comments of various 'never-be-a-soldier' types here confirm my take on the matter.
Well, I certainly did not suggest that the soldiers patroling there should carry rubber bullets and teargas instead of their regular equipment. I would have thought it would rather be an addition to their regular weapons, just in case they'd be faced with a situation where the use of deadly force would not be an option. It may well be that the decision they made was the best decision they thought they could make at that particular moment with regard to the equipment they had at their disposal. I am not denying that.whittsend wrote:
I doubt it. These people know very well what non-lethal ammunition is, and what it does. They also know that it won't stop a military attack. Carrying that stuff around instead of lethal rounds would be perceived as weakness, and invite attack. You must remember, and this has been mentioned several times, that doing anything that would lower military capability (i.e. deadly capability) will be percieved as weakness, and will eventually lead to an attack.
well, here is where we seem to differ. I saw a bunch of kids throwing rocks at british soldiers. You only seem to see future Al'Quaeda or insurgent members that need to be taught a lesson. What makes you think the "reaction" they got from the british soldiers wouldn't motivate them to become insurgents later ? Don't you think it is possible that such action might actually encourage kids to join the insurgents in the first place ?whittsend wrote:
As noted above, dispersing the crowd isn't the priority here. The priority is to react in a way that discourages further (possibly more deadly) attacks.
I am referring to legal judgements, not personal judgements.B.Schuss wrote:
I am sorry, but what is my opinion worth if I am not allowed to draw conclusions from it or to judge on it ? If I see something that I consider wrong, don't you think I should speak out against it ? We all make judgements based on our opinions. That's what people do. You judge me on the basis of the opinion you have formed on me. Wether that is a reflection of the truth is not relevant as far as your opinion is concerned, because it is just that, your opinion.whittsend wrote:
You are entitled to an opinion, but I don't think you are entitled to judge. If these people were ever tried, I would be very upset if it were by a civilian court. ONLY a military court could supply people who could possibly understand the situation these soldiers were in. The comments of various 'never-be-a-soldier' types here confirm my take on the matter.
That combat load just gets heavier and heavier, and now you want them to carry two different kinds of ammunition, one lethal and one not? It is not practical to carry two full combat loads on a regular basis; but even if it were, which one should they carry loaded? Chew on that for a minute, and you begin to see the problems with it. Also, if you are suggesting they carry half a load of lethal, and half a load of non-lethal, understand you just halved their endurance in a firefight.B.Schuss wrote:
Well, I certainly did not suggest that the soldiers patroling there should carry rubber bullets and teargas instead of their regular equipment. I would have thought it would rather be an addition to their regular weapons, just in case they'd be faced with a situation where the use of deadly force would not be an option. It may well be that the decision they made was the best decision they thought they could make at that particular moment with regard to the equipment they had at their disposal. I am not denying that.
But I still think it was wrong. Treating children like that will just spark more fear and hatred, but not respect.
I didn't say that. What you are failing to see is that, whatever happens, the insurgents, whether they are actively involved or not, are watching. They make their plans based on what they see, and they are most effective when they can find a 'soft' target. The easiest way to discern a soft target, is by its reaction (or lack thereof) to adversity.B.Schuss wrote:
well, here is where we seem to differ. I saw a bunch of kids throwing rocks at british soldiers. You only seem to see future Al'Quaeda or insurgent members that need to be taught a lesson.
What makes you think they won't anyway? They are already throwing rocks, so you will forgive me if I don't get a warm fuzzy from them. Not terribly concerned that they were out cheering with placards welcoming the British heroes when they were suddenly attacked for no reason. That clearly isn't what is happening here. These people, for better or worse, have already chosen a side.B.Schuss wrote:
What makes you think the "reaction" they got from the british soldiers wouldn't motivate them to become insurgents later ? Don't you think it is possible that such action might actually encourage kids to join the insurgents in the first place ?
I agree. In fact, the Iraqi police have other things to do than provide law enforcement.B.Schuss wrote:
I think the problem here is that there is no clear distinction between regular police work ( conducted by Iraqi police enforcing iraqi laws ) and military operations against armed insurgents and terrorists ( conducted by coalition troops ). The reason for that is of course that there is no working government in iraq right now, and I don't know what state the legal and judiciary systems are in. My guess would be that iraqi police have other things to do than provide riot control.
And that is precisely why I say civilians should not be able to judge a case like this (in a legal sense). Your value system is not applicable.B.Schuss wrote:
I realize that the country is in a transition phase and that one cannot compare riot control here in "peaceful" europe to what is happening in iraq. But that doesn't change the fact that according to my value system, beating handcuffed detainees with sticks is just wrong, especially when they are kids.
There may very well be, but unfortunately, I believe it would require a fivefold increase in the number of troops on the ground.B.Schuss wrote:
There has got to be another way, a better way, and I hold those who claim to be on the "good" side in this conflict to higher moral and ethical standards. That's all I am saying.
Yes, They were very rude !Nintendogamer wrote:
yeh well look at what the US army do at guantanomo bay
well I for one am all for letiing you guys get in and handle Iran. show us all how its done !Spark wrote:
I agree.JahManRed wrote:
I would agree that the british are better than the americans at this kind of peace keeping..
In the early years of the war, the British were quite popular with the Iraqi locals.
Not like the Americans, who shot a group of civilians because they couldn't hear them.