The Beatings In Iraq (Headline In Todays News Of The World)

[Saveus]

Soldiers can not and should not up hold the law. They simply arent educated to do that. What we saw was disgusting and inhuman. Acts such as these were the "reason" America invaded Iraq in the first place.
Dont understand how you can justify that, but I guess british soldiers havent the most glorious past. Lets have a look shall we:

i garantee they deserved an ass kicking, the soldiers who did it will most likely get in trouble. was it worth the kicks n shit FUCK YA

 

[noblok]

I can't add much to this discussion, most of what I think has already been said by Jeriraa, Tohtori and Spook. I think it was wrong to hit them after they had them under control already. I know that if it was me being beaten it would only fuel my anger, while being put in a cell/my parents telling me that I was wrong might've made me stop.

I also find the "soldiers are good guys" argument very weak. I know that at least one of the people who supports the first point has called all policemen "scum", but all soldiers are of course infallible. Soldiers are human, they make mistakes too. Soldiers can 'snap' as well, but this shouldn't be excused, just because of the situation they're in.

Then the other argument: "you would've done the same in that situation." This is plain silly, firstly you don't know if I would've done the same and neither do I. Secondly: what does what I would've done in that situation have to do with it being right or wrong? I'm not infallible either, it is possible that I may make the same mistake when put in the same situation, but it's still a mistake.

We probably don't have full knowledge on the situation, but extra evidence can, in my opinion, not justify their acts. It may make them more understandable, but not justified.

 

[Demon2k3]

another point in that they are 100 to 10. the soldiers are armed with machineguns+kevlar+other protection. the civiliasn just stones and bricks from what i saw.

What is the point of bringing 3 people in and beating them? It doesn't make sense to me, Violnce gives birth to violence in most cases doen't it.

It is hard to see how many that fails to see this. from my point of wiev there are almost an diplomatic solution to all problems, some can only be solved with violence but that's very rare and when an situation gets out of hand. Those beating don't serve any cause from what i see.

 

[Righthandof]

What is the point of bringing 3 people in and beating them? It doesn't make sense to me, Violnce gives birth to violence in most cases doen't it.

yep, i can hardly imagine those guys that got punished say "well, ok, im sorry, i wont be protesting from now on.".. it just doesnt work like that, they more likely will commit a suicide kill with 40 kgs of dynamite attached to their body to finish off 6-7 soldiers...

perhaps beating those 3 guys in front of the crowd would at least make sense - might frighten away everyone.. but in a backyard ffs. idiotish.

 

[liloe]

They were throwing rocks at the soliders, thats hardly unarmed.
For those of you saying they're only kids. If they're old enough to play in big-boy riots and throw rocks, they're old enough to deal with the consequences imo.

The problem is, that kids are like clay. You can form them however you want with the right methods and these kids got formed to take part in the riots. Can you blame them for having parents/leaders/etc. who encourage such things? Of cause everyone has some kind of good sense aswell, but with lots and lots of encouraging you can make people think stuff they'd never thought before. That is exactly why we have a law to deal with children like these. They are not 100% consient of what acts they commit most of the time. What if their parents/leader/etc. had told them that british soldiers are super nice and deserve presents? Do you think they would throw rocks right now?

Kids often think they're the big boys already and try to behave like it without even realizing how they're being abused by others. Look at all the countries that use child soldiers. Do you think these children want to fight for something? I guess they want to play like all normal children. Have fun, meet friends, grow up in piece but some worthless adults make their life a living hell. Can we hold these children responsible for everything they do?

 

[Amanita]

The problem with right and wrong is that the definition of it is "in the eyes of the beholder", so subjective that no one is ever going to agree on a definition.

So yes... beating up people is *wrong* but I can still understand why they would do it without going into the white zone of thinking they're *right*.

 

[Chap]

You call me clueless? That's rich.

Well if you're so smart go get the dictionary from your dad's bookshelf and look up what the word "sarcasm" means.

You just made the point I was trying to make a tad more subtle... thanks moron.

Well accept my appology then. Its just that the muhammed incident and this one and the first reactions to it made me angry like hell. I try to keep the "go ask you dad", "clueless child" and "immature kids" - comments down to a minimum, but I guess that stuff like this made me jump to cunclusions too fast.

I'm sure those little iraqi shits did something to deserve it.

 

[DocWolfe]

Heres an article that was in the Sun today, written by Andy McNab.

Images of squaddies beating Iraqi rioters hit our TV screens on Sunday - and the "experts" whipped themselves into a fenzy.
But these acts were not crimes. Ourtroops are fighting a war, not attending a tree huggers convention.
The soldiers of A Company, 1st Beattalion the Light Infacntry had been standing up to the rebels and rioters for months on end.
During that time, screaming protesters armed with rifles, grenades, sticks and shovels had repeatedly rushed the tropps' positions.
The crowds were stirred up by extemist followers of rebel Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and they were out for the soldiers' blood.
These men has beeen under constant machine gun fire and rocket-propelled grenade fire without let-up and had already been forced to repel 65 attacks.
Their company commander was later warded a Distiguished Service Order for his exceptional leadership - a medal just one down from the VC.
When we first saw these images on TV, we did not know the facts, but now we do. So let's put the situation into its rightful context.
I have seen the video and these were NOT troops out of control.
They were "snatch squads" sent out to confront rioters who were trying to kill as many British soldiers as possible.
These solldiers were getting on with their job after they has just had a mortar fired at them and a blast bomb thrown into their base.
To precent even more attacks the troops had left what little safety they had inside their base and had gone into the streets to snatch the ringleaders of the riots.
Confronting an angry crowd who would like to kill you is not something you do lightly.
Riots are often used as a "come-on" by the militants to draw troops out into the open.
They aim to make the situation so bad that the troops are forced to take action and break up the riot.
When they move out of the protection of their base, the militants then open fire. I think the troops showed restraint by snatching the rioters and takin them back to the base.
To do that they risked being shot at, fired bombed, and even stoned to death.
The snatch squads could have simply said they thought their lives were in danger and then could have legitimately killed the iraqi troublemakers.
But our troops didn't kill anyone. They went out into the street, risking their own lives, and arrested the ringleaders who wanted to see them dead.
The rest of the video shows the iraqi prisoners being brought to the base and beaten. In my experience both as an infantry soldier and a member of the SAS, these prisoners got off very lightly.
They were still a potential risk to the troops. They still had to be handcuffed to be kept under control and then searched for concealed weapons. Waht I saw in the video was the Iraqis resisting arrest, being put on the ground, handcuffed and searched.
The soldiers weren't beating them in a frenzy. I didn't even see any blood being drawn.
The troops were hitting the rioters with the batons they had been issued with, and in exactly the places they have been taught to hit: the legs and arms.
These are places that infilict the most pain, so that you can gain control over the situation, but result in less injury to the body.
We train and pay these soliders to be aggressive. That way they might stay alive when someone is trying to kill them.
The rioters were lucky they are still alive. If they had been attacking American forces they would have been shot in the street.
You may not agree with what you have seen on TV, but at least try to understand it.

Some light reading for you there, sorry if there are many spelling errors, I couldn't be arsed checking it. Chap I stick by my initial comment, as this article by a national hero confirms what I thought.

 

[Karl]

Its all the Murdoc Press though... they always big things up out of proportion.

 

[Jeriraa]

Heres an article that was in the Sun today, written by Andy McNab.



Some light reading for you there, sorry if there are many spelling errors, I couldn't be arsed checking it. Chap I stick by my initial comment, as this article by a national hero confirms what I thought.

Doesnt change things the slightest. I sum it up for you again since you dont seem to have understood it:

They were combatants. They were arested and thereby prisoners of war. Prisoners of war are to be treated following the human rights convention wich your country too singed.
These soldiers violated their human rights. Therefore a warcrime has been comitted.
Whatever reasons they had to comit that crime do not make it less a crime.

 

[Cemeterygates]

well...wheres the proof of chemical weapons an what not?? which is the reason for invading iraq yes??? there isnt any....its bullshit....an what are theese soldiers gonna go home an boast about?? "im a war hardened soldier i am!! i beat up some kids!!"....wow....such men....an what do u expect the people of iraq to do?? i mean really...c'mon guys..ur country is invaded buy some ***** that have no proof of the reason they their...just some bullshit....an they beat kids up?? u'd agree??? i think not

 

[Benedictine]

well...wheres the proof of chemical weapons an what not?? which is the reason for invading iraq yes??? there isnt any....its bullshit....an what are theese soldiers gonna go home an boast about?? "im a war hardened soldier i am!! i beat up some kids!!"....wow....such men....an what do u expect the people of iraq to do?? i mean really...c'mon guys..ur country is invaded buy some ***** that have no proof of the reason they their...just some bullshit....an they beat kids up?? u'd agree??? i think not

Try telling the gassed Kurds that Saddam never had WMD.

As for soldiers boasting...well those that have been in real combat very rarely even like to talk about their experiences.

There is now a democratically elected theocracy in Iraq, which is crap but its a hell of alot better than the murderous thugs that ran Iraq under Saddam. Think the footage was bad? This is nothing compared to what Saddam used to get up to, and as someone else pointed out, if they had been american troops, those 'kids' would have been shot dead without question.

 

[Chronictank]

Try telling the gassed Kurds that Saddam never had WMD.

As for soldiers boasting...well those that have been in real combat very rarely even like to talk about their experiences.

There is now a democratically elected theocracy in Iraq, which is crap but its a hell of alot better than the murderous thugs that ran Iraq under Saddam. Think the footage was bad? This is nothing compared to what Saddam used to get up to, and as someone else pointed out, if they had been american troops, those 'kids' would have been shot dead without question.

plz dont change the subject, The evidence to go to war was fabricated, end of.
Regardless what you think of Sadaam or his regime there was NO real evidence to go to war with Iraq other than the fact it sits on one of the larger world oil deposits. But thats another topic..

Docwolf all that article says is soldiers should be able to kick the living shit out of people because they feel like it?, if thats the case the soldiers should leave the country as they are not capable of fulfilling the role they have been given there not inciting more violence by using violence.

 

[DocWolfe]

War is violent... and you missed the e off the end of my name.

 

[Benedictine]

plz dont change the subject, The evidence to go to war was fabricated, end of.
Regardless what you think of Sadaam or his regime there was NO real evidence to go to war with Iraq other than the fact it sits on one of the larger world oil deposits. But thats another topic..

Docwolf all that article says is soldiers should be able to kick the living shit out of people because they feel like it?, if thats the case the soldiers should leave the country as they are not capable of fulfilling the role they have been given there not inciting more violence by using violence.

I agree there's no excuse and actually I have never agreed that the war in Iraq was right or justified - but for altogether different reasons.

From day one I have always said that it was wrong simply because it broke one of the principles of war - selection and maintenance of the aim.

In 1940 Hitler did the same - instead of maintaing his selected aim of bombing the RAF into submission and thereby opening up the skies to get air superiority for an invasion, he decided to bomb cities. This gave time for the RAF to recover and win the Battle of Britain.

In 2003 when the war was all about anti-terrorism, Bush and Blair decided to invade Iraq which at that time had zero to do with terrorism. Consequently, they are losing the war on global terrorism - it was so counter-productive that it still astonishes me that they were allowed to get away with it.

However, it was a political decision not a military one. The motivation for it remains to be seen. I really do not think it was about oil (what oil is heading to Europe/US as a result - almost certainly nil.

Probably more to do with finishing his father's war and retribution if you don't believe the WMD idea.

The acid test is whether we invade Iran where there is a clear danger of WMD in an unstable middle-eastern country.

Had it been for real military/sensible politcal reasons we should have invaded either Saudi/Egypt/Syria/Palestine or any one of the real terrorism supporting countries.

 

[Zede]

Shit happens during a war.

Allied fuck ups during WW2 were numerous, opps sorry we misssed the germans and bombed a peacful village, 2000 dead, eek...soz about that !

The deaths and so called atrocities in Iraq are small fry compared to what could be happening there. Compared to what the coilition gets back from Iraq - approx 1/4 of the worlds oil reservers if my memory serves me, dont expect anything to change there soon.

p.s G.W.B. is Damien Thorn.

 

[Marc]

War isnt nice. Its all very easy to comment on the beatings but we dont know what its like to be a soldier in iraq. It cant be nice constantly worrying if some nutter is gonna blow himself up near u, or pull out an ak and start spraying bullets. Not saying this is an excuse to beat up some iraqi kids, but it may be a contributing factor. Maybe Jaharl can comment? Hes just got back from iraq. *summons Jacob*......

 

[liloe]

plz dont change the subject, The evidence to go to war was fabricated, end of.
Regardless what you think of Sadaam or his regime there was NO real evidence to go to war with Iraq other than the fact it sits on one of the larger world oil deposits. But thats another topic..

Docwolf all that article says is soldiers should be able to kick the living shit out of people because they feel like it?, if thats the case the soldiers should leave the country as they are not capable of fulfilling the role they have been given there not inciting more violence by using violence.

Yes I tend to agree with this. If we'd fight every country with a dictatorship, we wouldn't stop fighting for a single moment. North Korea, Turkmenistan, the new Iran government to some extent and with a little research only I could name more. I do not know what's going on in the heads of people, maybe it was also a prestige war to finish what once was started (the gulf war that is), but whatever the "reason" was, war is war. By going there the countries accept that some of their soldiers will go ott, which is one of the risks you can never get rid of, we have to face that aswell, but there are measurements for treating with such situations.

Now saying that the soldier's HAD to act like this cause it's war after all is a very hypocrite argument, cause in my opinion there wasn't even a justification to start a war there.
So what I see is that we go there, destroy the country a bit, set up an unstable democracy and then we enforce it with brutal force. Wow, that sounds like the perfect ground for peace to me. Of cause you will always have some rebels, but let's make a comparision with Afghanistan. The regime was defeated and a new one voted by the people there. The people there are rather friendly towards Germans, so we (we as in Germany) sent police officers there to train their people. I don't say it's all shiny over there, but at least people seem to accept the solutions more.
What do I want to say with that? If people don't accept our solutions, don't stay there and go away. We don't have to see ourselves as general caretakers for every situation that occurs in this world. We shouldn't feel like if everything should be under our observation, at least that's my opinion.

 

[Benedictine]

Talking about Afghanistan highlights one key difference as to why its all so wrong in Iraq and slightly better in Afghanistan.

People massively underestimate the influence Iran has on Iraq now its no longer a secular country - the Shias in Iran are pretty much running Iraq now - by the consent of a majority of the people - thats why I would say its now a Theocracy not a democracy.

Also as to the west being the world's policmen, there's no one more against this than the military. I joined in the mid 80s when we were still fighting Russians! - not to play out the US/Uk's idea of being the conscience of the free world.

 

[Jarahl]

War isnt nice. Its all very easy to comment on the beatings but we dont know what its like to be a soldier in iraq. It cant be nice constantly worrying if some nutter is gonna blow himself up near u, or pull out an ak and start spraying bullets. Not saying this is an excuse to beat up some iraqi kids, but it may be a contributing factor. Maybe Jaharl can comment? Hes just got back from iraq. *summons Jacob*......

Well if you want my oppinion, War should deffonately be avoided, however sometimes human beings just fights. Its not funny, people can make jokes about it all they want, but untill they've actually been in the situation, they have no idea whats going through your head when bullets and rpgs are flying over your head. War sucks, but nessecary sometimes. This all put together adds an emense loads of presure on soldiers which sometimes makes them snap. One of the biggest threats to us was Improvised Explosive Devices, roadside bombs that the simply iraqi could lay along the road, camo it and then hide amoung the masses of others. Then when we came along, boom. Its never funny not knowing when it goes boom and when it doesnt. However this doesnt justify them beating any innocent whatsoever.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Karl]

Couldnt the 2 leaders of the two opposing sides agree to have a head on head Pac Man competition therfore saving hunderds of thousands of lives??

 

[Jarahl]

When a farmer boy came along shaggin your girlfriend would you settle for a 1v1 in Pac Man?

When someone killed one from your family would you settle for a 1v1 in Pac Man?

When someone invaded your country would you settle for a 1v1 in Pac Man?

If you answer yes to all 3 of these, you are a very peaceful man

 

[DocWolfe]

jesus, you dug this one out of the closet...

 

[Karl]

Farmer Boy = Beaten Up

Family Killer = Deadded

Country Invaders = Defended from

But all of these effect noone else but me and my opponent with the exception of the 3rd which wasn't my choice, they are invading so poo them

But if i was the leader of a country i wouldn't want to send 100,000+ of my people into war and would try to solve it by non violent means. Certainly not to a war with no justification....

And i enjoy a good game of pac man... having wagers on either side just makes it more exciting!!

 

[Marc]

J man. You say that sometime war is necessary. 64,000 dollah question. Being a grunt (no offence intended! you know I loves you x) and having just come back from iraq, do you think the invasion of iraq was justified?

 

[Jarahl]

J man. You say that sometime war is necessary. 64,000 dollah question. Being a grunt (no offence intended! you know I loves you x) and having just come back from iraq, do you think the invasion of iraq was justified?

Well the whole matter is two sided.

Side1) The proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that was claimed to exist, doesnt. So thats deffo a no.

Side2) Saddam and all his loyalists are fucking maniacs. So if we didnt do anything, something would have happend, either yet another war between Iraq and Iran, or Jaish Al Mahdi (JAM) would have taken the country and we'd all be in a world of shit. Im telling you, these fuckers are insane. Im afraid I cant tell any specifiks, cus im sworn to secrecy on these matters

I do think we helped the Iraqi people get rid of a tyrant, but it seems that alot of old thinkings and generally low education just stands in our way of getting Iraq back on our feet. Take the cartoons for an example. I've been talking to the same guy for more than 5 months, helping out the city through him, getting info about bad guys we could arrest etc. After those cartoons who I never even seen while I was down there, he wont talk to me. Thus I cant help out the city/country. Wtf is that all about? Hey im all up for people not offending others, but seriously, if I was piss poor (not wealthy that is) I wouldnt give a damn if the guy helping me thought Jesus was a twat.

If you understand.

 

[tris-]

the only reason they invaded is because of precogs. they got a red ball for sadam hussain and had to stop him murdering everyone. only, no one thought of the minority report...

 

[Udgaardsloke]

How naive can you be? In case you get mocked in the streets I hope you'll think the same way.

"Soldiers don't beat people up for no reason." - Yeah, and psychopaths don't kill people for no reason.

Stop thinking binary.

Also, whatever reason there was: there are rules of engagment in war. If they were civilians this treatment was unapropriate no matter what. If they were combatants (actively engaging the soldiers) this treatment was unapropriate aswell. They were unarmed and should have been considered PoW's. (Go read the rights of PoW's.)

You obviously dont know the pressure these soldiers are under.. I'd say that if these iraqi kids really did something really bad they deserved that slight beating.. How do we know if they deserved it? We don't, cause theres been done some editing and that changes everything.
Rules in war look great on paper, some of them even really do work, but when you get a grenade in your face and you catch the guy who did it, you kinda forget that you cant hit so called 'civillians'. And these soldiers dont even beat these kids big time. If they are big enough to throw grenades they are big enough to take a beating.