New and shocking footage of British troops torturing Iraqis...

[i know nothing]

Who gets shot/beat and do you think it's acceptable?

Rioters get shot. Not at all.

 

[Sleepy]

Man held over Iraq abuse claims

BBCi
Military police have arrested a man after pictures allegedly showing UK troops abusing Iraqi civilians were published in a UK newspaper.

The Ministry of Defence said the man was detained on Sunday evening, after the News of the World carried images it said came from a video taken in 2004.

The MoD would not say if the man was a soldier or where he had been held, adding the probe was at an early stage.

 

[@if ®afiq]

We tolerate the behaviour and attitudes of 'foreign ambassadors' that have found their way to our country. Why should we tolerate what they do, yet expect everyone we identify with the rigid constructions that we place on behaviour?

What do you mean by "foreign ambassadors"? If, what they do is outside of the law then they should be rightfully punished for it. If it is not against the law and you wich it to be so - then there are ways to go about doing this. This is the beauty of a civilised society.

It also suggests that there may have been a strategic reason for what happened rather than mere cheap thrills.

As I said before, brutality by occupying forces can have only one outcome - to galvanise and radicalise those that are being occupied. Are you suggesting that this is some sort of scare tactic??

The video looks like soldiers hurting people. If this concept is new to you, I suggest you examine what an army does. The context of the attack was unclear, and quite possibly innapropriate - but the context cannot be determined from the video alone.

No need to make such childish comments.

I think the video is about as clear cut as you can get. You see the initial action and the reaction, there's no scope for much else.

 

[dirtydog]

But as has been said, the title means nothing... it just happens to be given to the people who tend to be the most irritating.

But I was given the title once.. and I'm not irritating am I (that's rhetorical )

 

[Borris]

We tolerate the behaviour and attitudes of 'foreign ambassadors' that have found their way to our country. Why should we tolerate what they do, yet expect everyone we identify with the rigid constructions that we place on behaviour?

How is that in any way relevant to the actions of UK troops in a foreign land?

It also suggests that there may have been a strategic reason for what happeed rather than mere cheap thrills.

I may have missed any discussions on this in the mire that this thread has become.

The video looks like soldiers hurting people. If this concept is new to you, I suggest you examine what an army does.

An army is subject to rules of engagement, which determine levels of force to be used, at what time, and against whom. There is no remit for indiscriminate violence. Perhas you ought to examine what a modern, well governed army does, rather than relying on a antiquated notion that armies are merely organised groups of goons.

The context of the attack was unclear, and quite possibly innapropriate - but the context cannot be determined from the video alone.

Undoubtedly - I imagine the context is more important than the footage itself.

Suffice it to say, on it's own, the video paints poor picture, at the very least of those involved.


[Edit]

Once all is said and done - it's not the first time that the NOTW has published sensationalist stories to discredit the army, and this one may yet turn out to be fake too.

 

[cleanbluesky]

What do you mean by "foreign ambassadors"? If, what they do is outside of the law then they should be rightfully punished for it. If it is not against the law and you wich it to be so - then there are ways to go about doing this. This is the beauty of a civilised society.

I wish it had worked this way the weekend before last. There is an attitude amongst the white affluent middle-classes that behaviour that would be considered innapropriate if exhibited by an English person would be tolerated in someone who is 'obviously foreign'.

As I said before, brutality by occupying forces can have only one outcome - to galvanise and radicalise those that are being occupied. Are you suggesting that this is some sort of scare tactic??

Recieving a beating is one of the most simple form of conditioning going. You seem to have a very simple world-view, not all Iraqis are insurgents and this may have been unrelated (I certainly hope terrorists are not recruiting gangs of teenagers, because they would be like feeding lambs to wolves)... this may have been a gang of thieves who were pestering the local Iraqis - we dont know. Punishment does not always make those who are punished more resolute, but I will conceed that it CAN have that effect.

No need to make such childish comments.

I think that my comment illustrated an important point that it is innapropriate to express surprise that people who are hired and trained for violence are, in fact, seen committing violence.

I think the video is about as clear cut as you can get. You see the initial action and the reaction, there's no scope for much else.

Define 'clear cut' and perhaps I'll agree with you. We have no idea of the background of this tape. Wars aren't fought with harsh language. I know that you wish to have a certain impression of our forces, that you wish to think of Iraqis as "insurgents fighting the cruel invasion forces" but would your attitude not change if the soldiers were trying to trying to teach the teens a lesson because they had been stealing from regular Iraqis?

 

[VIRII]

There's only 1 way to settle this is little arguement.....

A DANCE OFF!!

LOL I don't dance. Period. You'll often find me at the front of a Damned gig though.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

I dont see what other context it could be really? You have a guy filming the beatings of Iraqis. It doesnt matter what they were caught for, throwing stones or grenades. I am almost positive that beatings like the one described are not authorized in the military and that soldiers are taught not to beat and film captured Iraqis.

I myself have gone through training on how to handle prisoners and I am unlikely to have to deal with them. I can only imagine what army folk have to go through.

IMO, the video is a bunch of immature soldiers who are not ready for any responsibility beyond flipping burgers. They should be punished and treated as though it were some yobs beating up a homeless person, maybe harsher because of their position.

As for those who say it happened 2 years ago, different times, doesnt matter now. It would matter now if it was Iraqis beating UK soldiers. You lot would be up in arms mashing away at the keyboard.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Undoubtedly - I imagine the context is more important than the footage itself.

Suffice it to say, on it's own, the video paints poor picture, at the very least of those involved.


[Edit]

Once all is said and done - it's not the first time that the NOTW has published sensationalist stories to discredit the army, and this one may yet turn out to be fake too.

I agree with all this - which is why it is important to reserve judgement until the facts are revealed

 

[@if ®afiq]

I wish it had worked this way the weekend before last. There is an attitude amongst the white affluent middle-classes that behaviour that would be considered innapropriate if exhibited by an English person would be tolerated in someone who is 'obviously foreign'.

Why not do something about? Write to your local mp or something. Set up an action group if it concerns you that much.

Also, what do you mean by "obviously foreign", are we talking about skin colour, appearance or attitudes?

Recieving a beating is one of the most simple form of conditioning going. You seem to have a very simple world-view, not all Iraqis are insurgents and this may have been unrelated (I certainly hope terrorists are not recruiting gangs of teenagers, because they would be like feeding lambs to wolves)... this may have been a gang of thieves who were pestering the local Iraqis - we dont know. Punishment does not always make those who are punished more resolute, but I will conceed that it CAN have that effect.

My view on the world is not "simple". Maybe a couple of years ago, before using these forums, it was, but it is far from that now.

Regardless of how "simple" you think my view are, punishment by an occupying force willl do far from deter. There are plenty of precedents for it from the last 50 years. Palestine and Vietnam are two that spring to mind.

I think that my comment illustrated an important point that it is innapropriate to express surprise that people who are hired and trained for violence are, in fact, seen committing violence.

Are we talking about the British Armed Forces or some mercenaries?

Define 'clear cut' and perhaps I'll agree with you. We have no idea of the background of this tape. Wars aren't fought with harsh language.

Maybe clear cut was too strong a term for it. But evidently you have a footage of kids throwing stones, followed by the same kids gettings beatings for doing so. It doesn't leave anything plausable like they may have been local thieves etc. Why would theives try and confront the armed forces with stones?

I know that you wish to have a certain impression of our forces, that you wish to think of Iraqis as "insurgents fighting the cruel invasion forces" but would your attitude not change if the soldiers were trying to trying to teach the teens a lesson because they had been stealing from regular Iraqis?

Don't patronise me. Our armed forces are involed in an illegal, immoral war that has cost the live of 250,000+ Iraqi civilians and 3000+ soldiers. The invasion is "cruel".

As for your second comment. No, my attitudes would not change - why would they? They are still unarmed civilians getting a brutal beating from our soldiers. No amount of if's and but's can change that fact.

 

[Freeman]

Hardly a beating is it, i think my mates and i were more rough than that.

They deserve it in my opinion.

 

[Borris]

They deserve it in my opinion.

Could you be kind enough to clarify - "They" being who, and deserving it for what reason?

 

[Freeman]

Could you be kind enough to clarify - "They" being who, and deserving it for what reason?

Iraqis.

And i'd also kick the crap out of them if they were throwing stones at me.

 

[Borris]

Iraqis.

And i'd also kick the crap out of them if they were throwing stones at me.

And there was me thinking that you were being disingenuous.

On the one hand, our troops are out there liberating Iraq from a dictatorial regime, but on the other, we are dishing out beatings in contravention of our own rules.

 

[Lt. Manlove]

And i'd also kick the crap out of them if they were throwing stones at me.

Kick the **** out of anyone if they threw stones at me

 

[VIRII]

Don't patronise me. Our armed forces are involed in an illegal, immoral war that has cost the live of 250,000+ Iraqi civilians and 3000+ soldiers. The invasion is "cruel".

As for your second comment. No, my attitudes would not change - why would they? They are still unarmed civilians getting a brutal beating from our soldiers. No amount of if's and but's can change that fact.

Out of interest - what did you feel about the Taliban running Afghanistan. Did you feel that it was right and just that they were running the place? Or did you oppose their "rule" and were you glad that British soldiers went there to get rid of them?
When the Taliban ran over old peoples legs in tanks for owning a TV was that ok with you?

Would you prefer it if Saddam had been left in charge?

 

[VIRII]

And there was me thinking that you were being disingenuous.

On the one hand, our troops are out there liberating Iraq from a dictatorial regime, but on the other, we are dishing out beatings in contravention of our own rules.

Interesting point of view and in stark contrast to the "don't judge all by the actions of a few" that we see when people run around London calling for beheadings.
Are we judging the entire Army for this or just the people caught doing it?

 

[Visage]

Iraqis.

And i'd also kick the crap out of them if they were throwing stones at me.

I bet you couldnt. You'd crap yer pants and run a mile, ya big jessie.....

 

[Freeman]

I bet you couldnt. You'd crap yer pants and run a mile, ya big jessie.....

As an untrained civillian your damn right, i think i would, i'd be terrified in a situation like that.

But i was talking more as if i were a trained soldier.

Can't think of the word used to describe that....hmmmm >.<

 

[Borris]

Kick the **** out of anyone if they threw stones at me

If you're a private citizen on the street and stones are throne at you, then go for it.

If you're a soldier (or police officer, for arguement's sake), you have guidelines and rules to follow.

I have a story that might be relevant to you - when my old man was attached to the Marines, his unit (or whatever it's called) were stoned in Freetown. The one thing they did not do was retaliate.

As a soldier, you often find yourself between a rock and a hard place, and if you are a good soldier, you will show restraint. If you're a bad soldier, you will kick the crap out of anyone.