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

theleg · 15 Feb 2006 at 15:51

Sleepy said:
I don't believe that there was an actual point of contention in the matter we were discussing.

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

You were saying that there was nothing illegal about the protesters actions :dunno:

Borris · 15 Feb 2006 at 15:53

cleanbluesky said:
BEHAVIOUR CONTROL of the enemy is a fairly useful skill... you seem strangely unfamiliar with the concept of war

I'll type this slowly, just so you can keep up.

Me - referred to this flavour of discipline - ie. Taking a stick to the locals

You - decided that this flavour of discipline was behaviour modification

Me - equated behaviour modification with something you do to stop a puppy peeing on the carpet

You - adopted patronising tone and made a crass assumption as to my level of knowlege, while also referring to the Iraqi public as the enemy, and also suggesting that British squaddies are now in the practice of subduing the very people they are supposed to be on the same side as in order to control them.

Would you like me to repeat that for you sweetpea?

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 16:03

Borris said:
Would you like me to repeat that for you sweetpea?

This aint cybersex, save it for IRC.

I used the world discipline. You said it was innapropriate to compare school discipline to a beating in Iraq. I defined discipline for you, to show you how it could be considered discipline. I explained that behaviour modifiation of the enemy is a sueful tactic (on the basis that once the 'civilians' had attacked the military base they then moved into that catagory) which is something that you have still not addressed, although you did attempt to confuse the issue by suggesting what we saw did not fit in with the concept of 'justice' (despite the fact that I had not suggested it did). I suggested that your attempt to divert my explanation of events into incompatilbe concepts may be because you wish to use the video as a manner of measuring your own values, that the oportunity for condemnnation may be important for you on a moral level - which may have lead you to ignore the fact that the background of the video may change the way in which we understand the events we have seen.

The individuals in the video have claimed that they attacked the military base with stones. THe soldiers attacked the assailants in return. It seems fairly straight-forward to me. I think they could have got a lot worse, given the stupidity of attacking a military base with stones.

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 16:05

Balddog said:
You were saying that there was nothing illegal about the protesters actions :dunno:

Then got into a discussion with VIRII and CBS regarding what was intimidation and what was a death threat.

Borris · 15 Feb 2006 at 16:20

cleanbluesky said:
This aint cybersex, save it for IRC.

No, it isn't cybersex. This is cybersex.

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

cleanbluesky said:
I used the world discipline. You said it was innapropriate to compare school discipline to a beating in Iraq. I defined discipline for you, to show you how it could be considered discipline. I explained that behaviour modifiation of the enemy is a sueful tactic (on the basis that once the 'civilians' had attacked the military base they then moved into that catagory) which is something that you have still not addressed, although you did attempt to confuse the issue by suggesting what we saw did not fit in with the concept of 'justice' (despite the fact that I had not suggested it did). I suggested that your attempt to divert my explanation of events into incompatilbe concepts may be because you wish to use the video as a manner of measuring your own values, that the oportunity for condemnnation may be important for you on a moral level - which may have lead you to ignore the fact that the background of the video may change the way in which we understand the events we have seen.

Now who's projecting? (and missing s p a c e s - [/sarcastic grammar nazi]).

I'll try and avoid becoming bogged down with semantics and missed inferences - I don't consider it to be a soldier's job to dish out beatings either for the purpose of teaching a lesson or controling the cowering populace.

I imagine that there are rules for dealing with mobs / protesters / stone chuckers, and these don't involve taking a stick to them. Which is probably why there have been arrests.

I would also imagine that soldiers in charge of protecting the security of a base are more than equipped to deal with protesters, and probably very capable of using a minimal force approach.

The aggression and force used, as it appears in the film, suggests that the squaddies were not following that particular approach.

cleanbluesky said:
The individuals in the video have claimed that they attacked the military base with stones. THe soldiers attacked the assailants in return. It seems fairly straight-forward to me. I think they could have got a lot worse, given the stupidity of attacking a military base with stones.

We both agreed previously that the context is key, but to suggest that the soldiers' actions (if found to be in direct contravention of ROEs) is excusable because worse could have happened is unconscionable.