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

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 09:20

Sleepy said:
Yeah cos protesters with banners are really scary and beat people up ... wait ... hang on: There was no violence at that legal march. Yep Squaddies beating up random Iraqi's (sp) = Peaceful protesters, with their oh so scary placards, marching in a legal demo.

Death threats arent legal

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 10:30

cleanbluesky said:
Death threats arent legal

Is a placard being carried by a protest marcher a death threat or a piece of political rhetoric?

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 10:31

Doh! edit not quote.

VIRII · 15 Feb 2006 at 10:35

Sleepy said:
Is a placard being carried by a protest marcher a death threat or a piece of political rhetoric?

Incitement is not legal and those placards were incitement.

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 10:47

VIRII said:
Incitement is not legal and those placards were incitement.

A death threat is not an incitement

Tom0 · 15 Feb 2006 at 10:50

2 Years old? Propaganda.

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 10:56

Tom0 said:
2 Years old? Propaganda.

IF somethings 2 years old it may be history but it doesn't make it either false or twisted.

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 11:45

Sleepy said:
Is a placard being carried by a protest marcher a death threat or a piece of political rhetoric?

I don't think that Labour has ever literally promised to kill the opposition

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 11:50

I wonder what will happen in this case since the teens admitted that they were attacking the military base with rocks...

If that is the case then I can see why the soldiers took the actions that they did.

theleg · 15 Feb 2006 at 11:51

Sleepy said:
A death threat is not an incitement

Kill all those who insult islam...Is that not incitement?

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:12

Balddog said:
Kill all those who insult islam...Is that not incitement?

Its a legal difference between threatening to kill John Smith and inciting another to kill John smith and/or someone. Different offences.

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:17

cleanbluesky said:
I don't think that Labour has ever literally promised to kill the opposition

Maybe not, but unless there's a realistic and imminent threat (language based on SCOTUS 1st Ammendment rulings) then IMHO it should be allowed.

theleg · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:23

Sleepy said:
Its a legal difference between threatening to kill John Smith and inciting another to kill John smith and/or someone. Different offences.

'Kill all those who insult islam' is not a death threat, it is incitement...If it were a death threat it would be 'I will kill all those who insult Islam'..The wording is clearly an imperative.

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:34

Sleepy said:
Maybe not, but unless there's a realistic and imminent threat (language based on SCOTUS 1st Ammendment rulings) then IMHO it should be allowed.

I think there is reason to believe that such threats were sincere, although whether they were imminent depends on what timeframe you would wish to use...

Do you think it would be okay to tell someone that you are going to kill them on an indefinite timescale or perhaps that you intend to kill them over a period of time?

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:54

cleanbluesky said:
I wonder what will happen in this case since the teens admitted that they were attacking the military base with rocks...

If that is the case then I can see why the soldiers took the actions that they did.

Yes we all understand why the soldiers did it, but that doesn't justify it. Would you support it if the police beat up every person they arrested? Something being understandable and being right are not automatically the same thing.

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:56

dirtydog said:
Yes we all understand why the soldiers did it, but that doesn't justify it. Would you support it if the police beat up every person they arrested? Something being understandable and being right are not automatically the same thing.

You don't see the logic of non-lethal discipline of people who attack your military base - or how an anaolgy between soldiers and police is innapropriate

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 12:58

There's another video, this time of more US abuse at Abu Ghraib from 2003

BBCi
n Australian TV channel has broadcast previously unpublished images showing apparent US abuse of prisoners in Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail in 2003.

The images shown on SBS television were from the same source as those that caused an outcry around the world and led to several US troops being jailed.

The new images show "homicide, torture and sexual humiliation", SBS said.

The SBS web site appears to have collapsed under the strain

Borris · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:03

cleanbluesky said:
You don't see the logic of non-lethal discipline of people who attack your military base - or how an anaolgy between soldiers and police is innapropriate

Discipline is what you dish out in schools.

It is what you do to your own children.

As an occupying force, it is not part of your remit.

Unless, of course, we've now moved on with our reasoning for being in Iraq, and it's all about teaching them a lesson.

Overlag · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:12

dirtydog said:
Yes we all understand why the soldiers did it, but that doesn't justify it. Would you support it if the police beat up every person they arrested? Something being understandable and being right are not automatically the same thing.

i would support it. Right now, the UK is so SOFT that kids are now learning that they cant do ANYTHING wrong, when they learn from this age that no one can touch you, they will always have that attitude.

I remember there being outcry when spanish police beat some english football thugs... Why? In spain they Punish thugs, and the spainish respect each other and they respect the law.

Here, no one cares because the police do nothing.

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:15

I knew someone would say that :/ You'll support it till the police beat you up for speeding or littering anyway.