British soldiers beat Iraqi kids

[metadigital]

Canada doesn't have troops in Iraq, do they? I haven't seen em any of the coalition statistics.

 

On that note, the local Iraqi leadership in Basra want the 550 Danes out after the Muhammed Drawings crisis, surely they feel a silly cartoon is worth more than rebuilding their country. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Might just be support troops. The Australians have a bunch of soldiers, all in support positions, except for a platoon or two of SAS running amok in the wilderness ... no casualties: only the poor troops trying to keep order are in a duckshoot.

I think you're trying too hard to exonerate the soldiers, Walsingham.  If this had happened in the US, those soldiers would be jailed.

 

At any case, this can only lead to worsening relations between the civilian populace of Iraq and the occupation.  I tend to agree from their point of view: if we were there for the purpose of "liberation," why do we disobey the wants of the population?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Soldiers aren't police. Different remit. Different purpose.

[LoneWolf16]

Why does it seem to me that those idiots got what they deserved? They don't even seem all that young, we're talking 15 and up here. If you're dumb enough to approach a group of armed soldiers and whip things at them, then you deserve the consequences, whatever they may be......well, short of death.

 

2 cents.

[Laozi]

Who among you has not wanted to beat a child?

[Commissar]

Throwing rocks, being dangerously obnoxious, that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that I could name a dozen instances in which a barrage of rocks is also accompanied by the tossing of some form of explosive device, be it a Molotov ****tail or something far more sophisticated.

[Nartwak]

That's different.

[Lucius]

Anyone who's tried C&C Generals know that Angry Mobs throw molotow ****tails. Please learn.

[jaguars4ever]

What are you talking about, everybody knows that movie. 4th one if I'm correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not a Planet of the Apes reference....but a nod to one of the greatest chimpcapades to have graced these boards.

[Moose]

Anyone who's tried C&C Generals know that Angry Mobs throw molotow ****tails. Please learn. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes and nuclear bombs only have about 1/4 mile blast radius.

[Lucius]

Correct. About time you got a clue.

[Moose]

To be honest those kids got off so lightly. Imagine if the thread title had been:

 

"British soldiers touch up Iraqi kids, video and so forth"

[Azarkon]

Soldiers aren't police. Different remit. Different purpose.

 

Which is part of the problem. Soldiers have the permit to harm and kill civilians if necessary in a war (such as if they suspect the civilians are terrorists), but where do you draw the limits of that permit? A different set of laws governing the military does not make what it commits any less atrocious in the eyes of the population. To them, it's only a matter of semantics, and at any case, demonstrates why the occupation is unwelcome.

[Walsingham]

I think you're trying too hard to exonerate the soldiers, Walsingham.  If this had happened in the US, those soldiers would be jailed.

 

At any case, this can only lead to worsening relations between the civilian populace of Iraq and the occupation.  I tend to agree from their point of view: if we were there for the purpose of "liberation," why do we disobey the wants of the population?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Woah there, proud beauty! I posted the fething video to start with! I'm not exonerating them. I'm exploring both sides of the argument.

 

I don't agree that the soldiers would be jailed in the US. I don't want to state the bleeding obvious, but even Abu Ghraib has warranted barely a wrist-slap to those implicated.

[astr0creep]

Soldiers aren't police. Different remit. Different purpose.

 

Which is part of the problem. Soldiers have the permit to harm and kill civilians if necessary in a war (such as if they suspect the civilians are terrorists), but where do you draw the limits of that permit? A different set of laws governing the military does not make what it commits any less atrocious in the eyes of the population. To them, it's only a matter of semantics, and at any case, demonstrates why the occupation is unwelcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please educate me if I am mistaken here.

 

Soldiers forfeit their citizenship when they enroll in the army. They have no more rights, they have privileges. They have no more responsibilities, they have orders.

 

If the order is to blow up a schoolbus full of handicap children because a wheelchair could be conceiling a bomb, they will blow up that schoolbus before it reaches any allied facility. Period.

 

Those kids were pestering them and they have the order to eliminate any potential threat from the enemy. What if one of those enemy children were throwing grenades?

 

Imo, those kids got off easy. They could've been executed and the only thing that prevented that was the soldiers' brainwashed but still lightly active conscience.

[Jorian Drake]

If the order is to blow up a schoolbus full of handicap children because a wheelchair could be conceiling a bomb, they will blow up that schoolbus before it reaches any allied facility. Period. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly thats the problem <_<

 

Those kids were pestering them and they have the order to eliminate any potential threat from the enemy. What if one of those enemy children were throwing grenades?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They didn't....and they would have done it already if they would have some granades...occupants...Bah ....this reminds me of the '56-s revolution against the Soviets

[astr0creep]

Why are they still occupying anyway?

 

Didn't big B said the war was over 2-3 years ago on that aircraft carrier?

[Walsingham]

Astr0creep, Britain is a signatory to the Bill of Human Rights. According to most interpretations of the Bill a soldier is not exempt from prosecution for being a soldier. He is ultimately responsible. In fact, if I, as a soldier, were to kill ANYONE, even another enemy uniformed combatant the Bill finds me guilty of murder.

 

One reason why the Bill as it stands is unworkable. But that's another story.

 

The War is over. The reason we are still there is, frankily that if we withdrew right now it would precipitate a civil war bloodbath. Ten years of murder and destruction at bare minimum. But of course OUR troops wouldn't be doing it, so our conscience would be clear.

[Azarkon]

I believe the US wants to make Iraq another Japan, but somehow I doubt that's going to be possible unless the US puts in ALOT more money into the area and the actual population becomes less hostile as a result of improving living standards. As it is, the occupation is simply fanning the flames with incidents like these and giving more justification for the global jihad.

 

I don't think the common man cares about the "ideals" of democracy, especially when that democracy precludes the ability to get rid of the occupation - even when the vast majority of the population votes for such.

 

I don't agree that the soldiers would be jailed in the US. I don't want to state the bleeding obvious, but even Abu Ghraib has warranted barely a wrist-slap to those implicated.

 

Well, depends on who leads the prosecution, I suppose. The military commits the equivalent of civilian crimes all the time - sometimes with good justification, sometimes without. The times with we ignore, the times without depends. I'm getting A Few Good Men vibes here, personally.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

Prediction:

 

The US starts pulling out before Nov (off year elections) and basically pull everyone out before the '08 presidential elections. The Shia and Sunnis basically start a civil war. The Kurds take over the northern oil fields with the strong support of the US and Israel and basically make their own nation (which is what they essentially have now). Cheney shoots another guy in the face, but I digress. Turkey may try to invade, but due to said support, will fail. Kurdikstan becomes a 2nd Israel in the Middle East, in both political and military terms.

 

Thats as far as my crystal ball will go.

[astr0creep]

Astr0creep, Britain is a signatory to the Bill of Human Rights. According to most interpretations of the Bill a soldier is not exempt from prosecution for being a soldier. He is ultimately responsible. In fact, if I, as a soldier, were to kill ANYONE, even another enemy uniformed combatant the Bill finds me guilty of murder.

 

One reason why the Bill as it stands is unworkable. But that's another story.

 

The War is over. The reason we are still there is, frankily that if we withdrew right now it would precipitate a civil war bloodbath. Ten years of murder and destruction at bare minimum. But of course OUR troops wouldn't be doing it, so our conscience would be clear. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So Saddam was doing a good job then? People were kept in line. It seems to me the price paid for removing him is way too high.

That is why the country is occupied, because since the harda**ed leader is out, the only way to keep things under "control" is to keep soldiers there.

 

Was Saddam killing thousands a year like this occupation is doing? I think not.

 

And let make one thing clear. I am onlyasking questions here because the subject is interesting to me. I am not taking anyone's side, simply saying what impressions I have of this whole thing.

[Jorian Drake]

Astr0creep, Britain is a signatory to the Bill of Human Rights. According to most interpretations of the Bill a soldier is not exempt from prosecution for being a soldier. He is ultimately responsible. In fact, if I, as a soldier, were to kill ANYONE, even another enemy uniformed combatant the Bill finds me guilty of murder.

 

One reason why the Bill as it stands is unworkable. But that's another story.

 

The War is over. The reason we are still there is, frankily that if we withdrew right now it would precipitate a civil war bloodbath. Ten years of murder and destruction at bare minimum. But of course OUR troops wouldn't be doing it, so our conscience would be clear. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So Saddam was doing a good job then? People were kept in line. It seems to me the price paid for removing him is way too high.

That is why the country is occupied, because since the harda**ed leader is out, the only way to keep things under "control" is to keep soldiers there.

 

Was Saddam killing thousands a year like this occupation is doing? I think not.

 

And let make one thing clear. I am onlyasking questions here because the subject is interesting to me. I am not taking anyone's side, simply saying what impressions I have of this whole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...OIL...PRESTIGE...COLONY...

[kumquatq3]

Was Saddam killing thousands a year like this occupation is doing? I think not.

 

1. Depending on the year, you would be wrong.

 

2. No matter how anti-Bush/US/The White Man anyone here is, I doubt anyone real thinks the soliders want more people to die (other than the people trying to harm them and the British guy filming the beatings).

 

If you want to look at the cause of the killing, maybe take a look at the Iraqis themselves.

 

I don't think it was us who blew up 4 kids walking to school in Iraq today.

 

Link

[astr0creep]

Was Saddam killing thousands a year like this occupation is doing? I think not.

 

1. Depending on the year, you would be wrong.

 

2. No matter how anti-Bush/US/The White Man anyone here is, I doubt anyone real thinks the soliders want more people to die (other than the people trying to harm them and the British guy filming the beatings).

 

If you want to look at the cause of the killing, maybe take a look at the Iraqis themselves.

 

I don't think it was us who blew up 4 kids walking to school in Iraq today.

 

Link

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good point.

[SteveThaiBinh]

...even Abu Ghraib has warranted barely a wrist-slap to those implicated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let alone those actually responsible.

I believe the US wants to make Iraq another Japan, but somehow I doubt that's going to be possible unless the US puts in ALOT more money into the area and the actual population becomes less hostile as a result of improving living standards. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That can never happen now. The US has destroyed its credibility in Iraq. We've seen more horrific videos of the Abu Ghraib abuse emerge today. I doubt the whole US economy could buy peace for Iraq as long as US soldiers remain there.

 

Britain and the US now have a particular problem being in Iraq, and it's not going to go away if we stay there and keep trying to get the job done. We can't. We'll just continue to fail. We need to pull out, but we also need to be clear what we're going to put in our place to make sure the chaos doesn't get worse.

[Volourn]

"So Saddam was doing a good job then? People were kept in line"

 

No, he wasn't. Iraq suffered through many uprisings while under his control. He was doing sucha poor job that he needed to have a double go into public many times. His sons were shot at many timesa as well so yeah he did a piss poor job.

 

 

"That can never happen now. The US has destroyed its credibility in Iraq."

 

Don't speak for Iraqis. You use such harsh language when the facts don't support it. While many Iraqis are dissapointed how things have gone (afterall, they expect it to go perfectly) they are still, of firm believe they ar ebetter off now than before and epxect great things for the future.

 

Their economy is as good as it has been since the early 80s (before the Iran-Iraq war), and while the constant terrorist or insurgent attacks are definitely a huge negative; the country is *slowly* making progress.

 

The Coalition has done many things wrong; but it's also done a lot right that most Media don't report - supplying schools and hospitals, allowing people to vote, etc., etc.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Volourn

[Jorian Drake]

"So Saddam was doing a good job then? People were kept in line"

 

No, he wasn't. Iraq suffered through many uprisings while under his control. He was doing sucha  poor job that he needed to have a double go into public many times. His sons were shot at many timesa as well so yeah he did a piss poor job.

 

 

"That can never happen now. The US has destroyed its credibility in Iraq."

 

Don't speak for Iraqis. You use such harsh language when the facts don't support it. While many Iraqis are dissapointed how things have gone (afterall, they expect it to go perfectly) they are still, of firm believe they ar ebetter off now than before and epxect great things for the future.

 

Their economy is as good as it has been since the early 80s (before the Iran-Iraq war), and while the constant terrorist or insurgent attacks are definitely a huge negative; the country is *slowly* making progress.

 

The Coalition has done many things wrong; but it's also done a lot right that most Media don't report - supplying schools and hospitals, allowing people to vote, etc., etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reality is: Iraqis hate US and english soldier now nearly the same as Saddams men......and other nations are disliking USA and UK more and more less becouse of their actions :ph34r: