Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

British soldiers beat Iraqi kids


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#61
Azarkon

Azarkon

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 495 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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.

#62
Walsingham

Walsingham

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 5647 posts
  • Location:The drawing room of Lady Muldoon's residence one morning in early spring
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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! :wacko: 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.

#63
astr0creep

astr0creep

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1464 posts
  • Location:Canada

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.

#64
Jorian Drake

Jorian Drake

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2562 posts
  • Location:1st of the Sector IX.B - Via Crucis

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 :huh: ....this reminds me of the '56-s revolution against the Soviets :wacko:

#65
astr0creep

astr0creep

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1464 posts
  • Location:Canada
Why are they still occupying anyway?

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

#66
Walsingham

Walsingham

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 5647 posts
  • Location:The drawing room of Lady Muldoon's residence one morning in early spring
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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. :thumbsup:

#67
Azarkon

Azarkon

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 495 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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 by Azarkon, 15 February 2006 - 11:08 AM.


#68
kumquatq3

kumquatq3

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3477 posts
  • Location:Bear Country
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.

#69
astr0creep

astr0creep

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1464 posts
  • Location:Canada

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.  :wub:

<{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.

#70
Jorian Drake

Jorian Drake

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2562 posts
  • Location:1st of the Sector IX.B - Via Crucis

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... :wub:

#71
kumquatq3

kumquatq3

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3477 posts
  • Location:Bear Country

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

#72
astr0creep

astr0creep

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1464 posts
  • Location:Canada

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.

#73
SteveThaiBinh

SteveThaiBinh

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 4085 posts
  • Location:Kuwait City
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

...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.

#74
Volourn

Volourn

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 16956 posts
  • Location:North Bay, Ontario, Kanada
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
"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 by Volourn, 15 February 2006 - 12:36 PM.


#75
Jorian Drake

Jorian Drake

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2562 posts
  • Location:1st of the Sector IX.B - Via Crucis

"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:

#76
Commissar

Commissar

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 199 posts

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are, in point of fact, mistaken. Soldiers do not give up their citizenship when enlisting or accepting a commission; they have all the rights of a normal citizen. They have many responsibilities.

Your handicapped wheelchair-bomb example is horrible, and no, anyone who did fire under such circumstances would be subject to a court martial.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

#77
Commissar

Commissar

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 199 posts

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean the guys headed to Leavenworth for the next twenty years?

#78
kumquatq3

kumquatq3

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3477 posts
  • Location:Bear Country

The reality is: Iraqis hate US and english soldier now nearly the same as Saddams men......


Turns out, they hate each other more.

O, and they just LOVE Europe........ :devil:"

So I guess that leaves Iceland and Peru as being OK with the Iraqis

EDIT: For the record, the Kurds do like us. Things are pretty good up there. It's the 2 groups in the south that have issues.

and other nations are disliking USA and UK more and more less becouse of their actions 


Yes, I'm sure France and Russia are pissed they can't sell weapons to Iraq for oil anymore. Turkey is upset the Kurds will get their own country. etc etc

Edited by kumquatq3, 15 February 2006 - 12:52 PM.


#79
Volourn

Volourn

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 16956 posts
  • Location:North Bay, Ontario, Kanada
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
"The reality is: Iraqis hate US and english soldier now nearly the same as Saddams men"

Proof please. I seriosuly doubt Most iraqis literlaly hate the US espicially that much. Dissapointed, angered, etc.; but hate I think not. You seem to forget the insurgency numbers ar every, very low. When Saddam was in power; it was clear the majority hated him.. even many Sunnis hated him. Iraqis seem to be unforim in wnating the US to 8do* better; but full out hate? Doubtful.

"......and other nations are disliking USA and UK more and more less becouse of their actions"

Other nations are irrellevant in this matter for the most part. Only Iraqis matter. In fact, the gretaer Arab world know nothing of what Iraqis want... espicially considering that most Arabs in polls seem to have far diffeirng views on what's occuring in Iraq than iraqis do.

In fact, most Ammerikans polled seem to have a ore pressmesitic view of Iraq than Iraqis do...

#80
Jorian Drake

Jorian Drake

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2562 posts
  • Location:1st of the Sector IX.B - Via Crucis

"The reality is: Iraqis hate US and english soldier now nearly the same as Saddams men"

Proof please. I seriosuly doubt Most iraqis literlaly hate the US espicially that much. Dissapointed, angered, etc.; but hate I think not. You seem to forget the insurgency numbers ar every, very low. When Saddam was in power; it was clear the majority hated him.. even many Sunnis hated him. Iraqis seem to be unforim in wnating the US to 8do* better; but full out hate? Doubtful.

"......and other nations are disliking USA and UK more and more less becouse of their actions"

Other nations are irrellevant in this matter for the most part. Only Iraqis matter. In fact, the gretaer Arab world know nothing of what Iraqis want... espicially considering that most Arabs in polls seem to have far diffeirng views on what's occuring in Iraq than iraqis do.

In fact, most Ammerikans polled seem to have a  ore pressmesitic view of Iraq than Iraqis do...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


1. : proof you want? :devil:

The arabians who dislikes US play propaganda in TV-s to turn ppl against them
The sunni 'wants' a new holy war agains catholics
The affairs of 'soilder beats/mistreats' are more than enough, not even propaganda is needed for the simpe man to hate 'alien, not same culture' people <_<

2. : You could make the chaos in Irak go...but in the time, other nations begin to hate US and UK..tthese two nations could find themselves in a war with other European nations, Russia, China...AND ALL OF THE ARABIAN LEAGUE! :ph34r:

Edited by jorian, 15 February 2006 - 01:06 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users