Our Brave Boys? Or Murdering Thugs?

[BEagle]

I am frankly appalled by this report in the Sunday Times today. If true, those who perpetrated the crime should be shot:

Regimental commander in probe over death of Iraqi detainee
Reorted by Michael Smith

The commander of a British unit that fought in Iraq is among a number of officers under investigation following the death of an Iraqi prisoner. The man died while in the custody of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR) in southern Iraq in 2003.

The Ministry of Defence said last night that an investigation into the running of the chain of command of the QLR, then led by Lieutenant- Colonel Jorge Mendonca, had been passed to the Army Prosecuting Authority. The authority will decide if any officers should be charged in connection with the death. It is not clear if Mendonca will face prosecution.

The dead man, Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel employee, was one of nine men arrested by the QLR in a hotel in Basra on September 13, 2003. An International Committee of the Red Cross report said the men were “made to kneel, face and hands against the ground, as if in a prayer position. The soldiers stamped on the back of the neck of those raising their head.

“The suspects were taken to Al-Hakimiya, a former office used by the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi secret police) in Basra and then beaten severely by coalition forces personnel.”

Mousa, who was married with two children, died following this, the report said. “Prior to his death, his co-arrestees heard him screaming and asking for assistance.”

Mousa’s death certificate said the cause of death was “cardio-respiratory arrest-asphyxia”, but it added that an eyewitness description of the body spoke of “broken ribs and skin lesions on the face consistent with beatings”.

At least one member of the QLR has told the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (SIB) that junior officers were aware of ill-treatment of prisoners but unable to do anything about it.

A number of rank and file soldiers involved in the detention of Mousa are expected to be charged with various offences relating to his death.

Sources close to the regiment said Mendonca, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his time in Iraq, had brought the incidents to the notice of the authorities in the first place.

“He has done as much as anyone could,” one said. “He is a very good man and seen as a high-flyer. The minute he heard about the death of the prisoner, he called the SIB.”

[KENNYR]

Forgive me Beagle if I dont shed a tear for the deceased prisoner, for some reason I cant get the image of the beheading videos out of my mind. There is no excuse for what happened to the Iraqi prisoner but what else do the barbarians understand?

[exleckie]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm,

Okay, it was a story in a respected paper.

Journalists can be wrong and so can everyone else.

I shall reserve judgement on this, til the facts are released.

However, I do find a certain irony with the fact that a brutal dictator who is known to have killed 1000's (plus) is contemplating sueing ( is that how it's spelt?) a well known tabloid for showing him in his jockeys.

How sad has the law become??????:ugh:

[effortless]

Forgive me Beagle if I dont shed a tear for the deceased prisoner, for some reason I cant get the image of the beheading videos out of my mind. There is no excuse for what happened to the Iraqi prisoner but what else do the barbarians understand?

So when I talk to my Iraqi friend about these beheadings should I be surprised if he says:

Forgive me Effortless if I dont shed a tear for the deceased prisoner, for some reason I cant get the image of the tortured prisoners out of my mind. There is no excuse for what happened but what else do the barbarians understand?

[BEagle]

Humiliation of prisoners (even that worthless piece of $hit Saddam) and torture of captives are levels to which the UK's Armed Forces should never sink.

At least, that's what I always believed.

[Al-Berr]

I think most of us on this forum know of the levels to which the UK's Armed Forces (for that read ARMY!) sank to after capturing Basrah Airfield. How the press didn't pick up on it and heads didn't roll I will never understand.

[Engineer]

Ah the beauty of conflict where certain people decide to be judge jury and executioner and are given the opportunity to act out inner desires.

It will be written and talked about for years to come, people will discuss endlessly why it is allowed to happens but the true outcome will be no change

[Runaway Gun]

Basrah airfield?

[timex]

I think most of us on this forum know of the levels to which the UK's Armed Forces (for that read ARMY!) sank to after capturing Basrah Airfield. How the press didn't pick up on it and heads didn't roll I will never understand.


Were you there? Were you actually fighting in the takeover of Basrah Airfield, did you see this stuff, or is it handed down info.. If you were'nt there don't be so quick to judge.

If you did see it why haven't you done anything about it.

[jayteeto]

Well, the press will know now you d**k. If you had something to say, say it to the correct authorities and dont try and have a trial here. No excuse for treating prisoners badly KennyR, that lowers you to their level.

[sparkie]

Interesting replies so far...

Having survived Gulf War 1 amonst other confrontations over my lengthy service career, its always easy to condemn out of hand any alleged injustices, mistreatment of prisoners or brutality without knowing the real facts

Did anyone watch the movie of TV last night called Rules of Engagement? I know its several years old but it raised some interesting issues.

I remember when I was in Cyprus during the mid 60's and EOKA terrorists were purported to be making attempts to attack military bases, we were issued with a nice ROE card, written in English and Greek. (Can still remember Halt/Stamata) Quite frankly it was a joke, the end result being, dont shoot until the b*ggers are smacking you over the head.

but I digress


I totally abhor any mistreatment of any indivudual but lets face it, many of us have been there when the decision to act has to be made in a split second.

If the story from the Sunday Times is true, then I have no doubt that in this very politically correct world we live in, someone will take the appropriate action.

Interestingly in the same paper today there is an article about the rocket attack on the Herc, that ended in tragedy. Try asking the family and relatives of the aircrew lost how they feel, kinda brings things into focus.


The problem in defence is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower




:confused:

[Runaway Gun]

Chutley, maybe when real interrogation is taking place, the 'bad guys' don't refrain as much as the Monkey boys.

At least during an exercise you can tell yourself "they're not really going to cut off my balls".

[BEagle]

CAREFUL, GUYS!

OSA...

[Darth Nigel]

I think you are confusing two things, sparkie.

There's the snap decision that you have to make "when a big 'airy Russian comes at you, with a gun in one 'and and an 'alf-eaten baby in the other" as a small arms instructor once expressed it to young Darth while at RMAS. That's when the RoE may get a little stretched, and frankly that's probably OK to err on the side of caution and shoot the bugger, unless of course the bugger is driving an Italian journalist.

But once you've captured them, there are certain expectations, and you can't really talk about the "heat of the moment" unless there's an escape attempt or some other mayhem going on. Beating the crap out of helpless prisoners is ineffective as an interrogation technique, and is morally wrong.

It's not a matter of shedding a tear for the poor prisoner. It is a matter of allowing even those we are fighting the appropriate due process. One of the things that is being lost right now with all the Spam-inspired terror-hysteria is the concept of due process, and the inescapable fact that some/maybe many of those incarcerated in these camps may well be moderately innocent.

Especially in conflict in built up areas (or whatever the current jargon is for house-to-house fighting where you're not sure who might be against you), there's a tendency to sweep up everybody and his dog and throw 'em in the pokey. That works quite well, as long as you have some way of processing out the ones who are not of interest. Over here in the US, there is a tacit (and in some cases explicit) assumption that anyone who has been picked up by the forces of might, right and justice is guilty of something. And any suggestion to the contrary is "supporting terrorism" or "disrespecting the troops" or "being anti-American."

But from Magna Carta onward, including such things as habeus corpus and the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the correct and useful treatment and interrogation and (in some cases) release of prisoners has been hammered out. And to step back from that is disgusting. I'd like to think we are better than that.


(noted on preview): So in Interrogation training, how many of you were killed and maimed by your interrogators?

[ZH875]

If the enemy is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, then treat them under those rules, if they are not a signatory, then treat them iaw the 10 commandments - do unto others, before they do you.

[pr00ne]

Sorry, BEagle is right here. If this is true then it's wrong, no argument, no excuse, no rationalising, it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, it's just plain wrong.

[jindabyne]

BEagle & prOOne are spot on - absolutely NO excuses

(BTW - off thread, but put a post re-Puddy on WATN, and can't believe there are no takers? Wholigan?)

[16 blades]

it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, it's just plain wrong.

Says who, Pr00ne? If, as you claim, it is nothing to do with the geneva 'tie your arms behind your back' convention, then who is to say it's wrong?

I do not condone the beating of a defenceless prisoner, but something is not 'wrong' just because YOU say it is, Pr00ne. Can I suggest you stop trying to fight wars from the comfort of your armchair and get out there and see just what the troops have to put up with, before passing judgement in a case you know nothing about?

The terrorists are winning the war, because they do not respect the Geneva Convention or any other form of common decency. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in war, only winners and losers. We believe (however tentatively) that our cause is generally just, that we are in the right. So do they. They believe that they have the right to slaughter innocent women and children in their 'struggle', simply because they are not muslims, or the wrong type of muslim. So who is right?

The answer is both of us, and none of us, or any combination of the above, depending on your point of view. If we continue to straightjacket ourselves with a 50-year-old set of rules, written long before any concept of trans-national global terrorism existed, we will lose.

As I stated above, I do NOT condone the beating of a defenceless prisoner (if indeed that is what happened - we seem to only have the word of one, probably local, witness based on the information I have seen so far) - however, when facing an enemy that lurks in the shadows, does not have the balls to show itself openly, and is virtually indistinguishable from the locals who just want to get on with their lives, we sometimes need the leeway to bring some pressure to bear in order to achieve the objective and save lives (in this case, both ours AND theirs). The present ROE and constraints do not allow for this, and when it is done out of urgent necessity, we are lambasted in the press, the muslim world gets hold of it and the situation is inflamed further.

I do not want gangland-style beatings, or anything else that is unnecessarily cruel, but I have no problem with causing stress, embarrasment, inconvenience, insult, fear - even a little pain if necessary, in order to gather vital, life-saving intelligence. All of the above has been used to good effect since time immemoriam, yet it is now considered 'bad'.

We will not win this war without getting a bit 'down and dirty' when necessary - and sometimes it IS necessary. You cannot fight a war by 'asking nicely' - if you could, we wouldn't need to carry guns!

16B

[walter kennedy]

Sadly, I fear that those involved may have been influenced by the attitude and behavior of US personnel. If there is anything positive to come out of this it is surely a requirement for other governments in the coalition to make it a condition of their active participation that standards of treatment of those in custody are acceptable to all parties.
There are other issues of concern about American behavior (friendly fire, direct shooting of journalists, and use of excessive firepower causing unacceptable collateral damage to name a few) but this one is pervasive. Lets us be frank (for the sake of the many victims in awful situations) – the Americans have a long history of downright barbaric treatment of detainees – from the Rhine camps (at the end of WW2) to the containers in Afghanistan (remember them?) – episodes that make Guantanamo Bay seem like Butlins.

If UK personnel are to support them in future, working closely with them, then the US must lift its game.

[Gainesy]

Sparkie,
Twas Halt/Stamata/Durr.
Or did you just shoot the Turks?:)

[Sunfish]

Very simple guys, you shoot unarmed or wounded prisoners you are lowering yourself to the same level as your enemies.

Furthermore, it means that the unit concerned has cr@p discipline, at least in my humble opinion as a former lowly Lt.

Furthermore, for those of you who fly over that area, do you think your chances of surviving as a prisoner are enhanced or retarded by OUR treatment of prisoners?

Be very careful who you talk to about this stuff and don't expect any Australians to join in. One guy almost got Court Martialled for kicking a dead body in East Timor a few years ago. they take it very seriously down here.

[FJJP]

I believe the fundamental cause of the mess the Coalition is in, is that there was no plan or infrastructure ready to deploy when the Forces 'won' the war. The Coalition was supposed to make Iraq a place for the people to go about their daily lives free of tyranny, terror and oppression; instead, we are largely seen as an occupying force.

What should have happened was that Iraq should have been flooded with units designed to win the hearts and minds - vast numbers of engineers equipped to quickly restore essential utilities such as water, electricity and sewage; part of that force should have been large numbers of specialists to police the towns and villages, including personnel trained in proper and effective people and prisoner handling and interrogation. Had we done that right at the beginning, more of the ordinary Iraqi in the street would have been right on-side and working with us to expose individuals and groups that threaten the aims of the operation.

Instead, they got a muddle of planning, where winning the hearts and minds disappeared amongst the need to set priorities within the limited resources available; those who waited expectantly for the 'liberators' to make their lives easier were sorely disappointed and rapidly disillusioned, a perfect formula for non-cooperation.

Add to that the propaganda effect of the few relatively insignificant incidents that the Allied authorities and media blew out of all proportion, and the whole situation descended into a quagmire perfect for exploitation by the 'anti' brigade. They are the added dimension that is very effectively disrupting the transition to self-determination for the Iraqi people.

It is still not too late to rectify the situation, but it will call for a vast effort in manpower, materiel and money to get things right for the individual in the street throughout the country.

And it is fundamentally wrong for civilised people to mis-treat captives, no matter what they are accused of having done...

[pongopilot]

The mistreating of prisoners is wrong, no matter what has happened in any war. This is just a way of the REMF's to prove how "tough" they are and to have something to talk about when getting home. The REMF's will be sH1tting themselves when being put in the front to face the real enemy.

[ORAC]

Col Tim Collins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1490057,00.html)

[pr00ne]

16 blades,

Sorry but it is just wrong.

You are way our of order if you attempt to defend this sort of thing.

[effortless]

Well Jack Bauer, the problem is that you aren't always right as to whose head you chop off or torture. So many non coms and downright unlucky people get caught up in events. Every innocent person you hurt gives a whole family of resentment to act as a recruiting sergeant to the "insurgents". I do understand the anger and righteous indignation that makes us lash out. I've done it myself and I'm not even a soldier. But this is what military discipline is supposed to obviate. Iraq is not Stalingrad and US and UK soldiers are not being forced to fight at gunpoint by NKVD or Gestapo thugs.

Iraq is a civilised cultured society which has endured thirty years of dictatorship, injustice and war. Look where it finds its self now. If we had been "liberated" from a dictatorship and found ourselves being treated in this way how would we respond? I really must watch "Red Dawn" to see what the Yanks would have done.

Look, in the end, in the interests of "victory" we must be better than the people we fight or we simply either will not win or have to kill and destroy such a large area of the Middle East as to demoralise totally the entire region. We managed it in Germany by saturation bombing and leaving five hundred thousand US troops in addition to French, English and Russians to police the place for years after. Never mind the dead we left behind.

I would contend that the man who really won that war was General George Marshal who very early on in the war started planning for the rebuilding of Europe.

Learn the lessons of the past or just suffer the mistakes.

[Jerry Can]

It is wrong. It doesn't matter how they behave, we cannot stoop to their levels.

[PileUp Officer]

If the enemy is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, then treat them under those rules, if they are not a signatory, then treat them iaw the 10 commandments - do unto others, before they do you.

Indeed, Thou shalt not kill.

[pr00ne]

PileUp Officer,

Nor covet thy neighbours ass.

[Icarusthesecond]

Hang on a sec.

The article states that prisoners were mistreated - bad. I don't agree with it.

To say there are no excuses is not right though. Unless one was there (and I was not as I suspect most on this thread were not), it must be impossible to judge the emotions that go through ones mind.

As an ex Inf instructor, we train soldiers, some of which have less intelligence than some of the readers of this thread, to KILL. We also train them that comrades are important. Imagine how these soldiers must have felt when they saw a friend or brother killed or wounded. I for one am not surprised that these things happen.

But to put the CO on trial over the actions of a few of his 500 soldiers is ludicrous. Is the section commander, Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Brigade Commander etc etc etc all the way up to Buff himself also getting charged??? I think not.

Why ruin another good mans life and career just to satisfy those who don't understand close combat. It's time the Army stood up and told it like it is.

Let us not forget that before the holier than though preach too much, aircrew have done and do the same. What about the US Apache pilot who famously hunts down a lone person (assumed to be a soldier) on Infrared with the 30 mm and keeps going until he moves no more. - this is aircrew, educated people!

Rant over - Shell scrape being dug

[The Helpful Stacker]

The mistreating of prisoners is wrong, no matter what has happened in any war. This is just a way of the REMF's to prove how "tough" they are and to have something to talk about when getting home. The REMF's will be sH1tting themselves when being put in the front to face the real enemy.

What a load of twaddle.

Most of the documented incidents of brutality towards prisoners carried out in Iraq have been made by personnel from the 'teeth arms', which has been one of the attempted defences made by the perpetrators. "Oh, we have to fight these people and when forced to act as prison guards its inevitable that we are going to take out our frustrations on them", etc.

BTW, I'd be very interested to know (as would those in charge I guess) where exactly 'the front' is in Iraq at the moment and also who 'the real enemy' are. Do they wear a uniform and where abouts are their MOB's? What are their likely lines of advance and what ground do 'the real enemy' hold at the mo?

[Dave Martin]

16 Blades,

Please bare in mind, when we are talking about prisoners being beaten to death, and soldiers finding themselves in a difficult conflict, we are talking about two totally different things.

I find it more than a little disturbing when I see the deaths in custody written away with a brief "I do not condone", followed by line after line saying how "our boys" should be allowed to get on with the job.

In a court of law, a defendent's guilty plea will not be taken seriously if they go on to complain about how hard done by they are. Your general attitude seems to be more than a little dismissive of the deaths in custody, prefering to focus on the diffiulties our troops face.

Accept what has happened in this awful situation. Don't find ways to excuse it or explain it away.

[Navaleye]

I find myself agreeing with Pr00ne and BEagle. Prisoners held under military jurisidiction should be treated humanely, while awaiting trial. I have no problem with these guys being sent trial and if found guilty being shot, but it's not for your average grunt to make those types of decisions.

[BEagle]

And, Navaleye, if anyone thinks otherwise, they should NOT be serving in the UK Armed Forces.

The CO of any regiment which permits such atrocities should be obliged to resign. Period. No excuses.

[TurbineTooHot]

Right,

1. I am of the opinion that prisoners should be treated farily and justly, and according to the conventions that we helped create. We must strive to maintain civilised standards as an example.

2. Many of the prisoners subject to the alledged abuse are prisoners because there are alledgedly involved in the insurgency, taking the lives of allied troops.

3. There is a fine line between a bit of roughing up (fair enough) and flagrant abuse (unacceptable). This is sometimes easily crossed when you or one of your mates has just been shot at.

4. We seem all too willing to demonise the ALLEDGED perpetrators of this "abuse," without knowing all the facts.

My question is this. Why does the media, and hence the general public, seem to side with the enemy in this conflict?

[pr00ne]

TurbineTooHot,

Whose siding with the enemy? Not tolerating flagrant abuses of human rights or a belief in decent standards of civilised behaviour is NOT siding with the enemy.

There have been numerous outright condemnations of kidnappings, beheadings and bombings from almost everywhere.

When you strut around the world claiming that you are a force for good you have to be as clean and untainted by this sort of thing as possible I am afraid, and rightly so.

[Darth Nigel]

TTH, it is part of an old tradition.

"England expects that every man will do his duty"

Now we can extrapolate this to the more PC, more global world. But it is very important especially in times of crisis to ensure that the armed forces in harm's way do their duty. Part of that military duty includes caring for prisoners according to the various conventions and laws, military and civil. I agree that it is very easy to resort to violence against a helpless opponent, but that is at the very least a failure of command. An officer is responsible for the conduct of the troops under that officer's command, at all levels of command.

As we in Britain and the US have civilian oversight of the military, it is also important to watch the watchers.

And the media reports this because it is sensational, and will generate good numbers (papers sold, news reports watched) from both the luvvies ("oh my god, the soldiers are animals") to the knuckle-draggers ("great to see those wogs getting what they deserve").

[cartoon ranger]

I don't see why the problem should be retsricted to Iraq. Here in cartoon town, some visiting airplane jumpers had the pleasure in beating the crap out of a WAAF a few months ago. Caught on CCTV and everything, yet never made the papers.

If control isn't exercised here then i'm afraid in a war environment you don't stand a chance.

[Dave Martin]

TurbineTooHot,

This is not siding with the enemy. This is important.

In many peoples eyes (and crucually Islamic eyes) we are losing the battle for hearts and minds. Our only justification now for invasion, occupation, death and destruction on a massive scale is that we are bringing something different from Saddam Hussein's regime.

We can't maintain that high ground if our soldiers are resorting to this kind of behaviour.

Unless we can distinguish ourselves from the enemy there is really no hope of winning the war - if there ever was.

The very act of an invasion and apparent occupation already puts US and UK forces on the back foot. If they want the support of the local populace they must uphold the very highest of standards. If these soldiers are indeed guilty as they seem then they have adhered to the worst possible standards, damaged the forces reputation and put their own forces in much greater danger.

Many also believe this kind of event is just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the media really should make a song and dance about this in order to get it in the open and help transparency. Hopefully that will also discourage any other yobs from resorting to the same.

Looking at the numbers arrested by US and UK forces who are then released it seems highly likely that many of these detainees are quite simply picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that results in being beaten to death then what claim do we have over Saddam's regime?

[Maple 01]

Nice 'guilty until proven guilty' post Dave Martin.

As the recent Koran incident proved, it doesn’t matter what the truth is to this story or any similar, the 'Arab street' will jump on any perceived transgression broadcast by a sensationalist media - so think before you transmit, as they used to say. All this whilst conveniently forgetting the transgressions of their fellow Muslims (remember the bit in the Koran about not killing co-religionists?)

So if some army officer is being threatened with court-marshal for a death he supposedly had ‘command authority’ for can we expect to see similar for the Newsweek journalist and his editor for the 14 (conservative estimate) deaths they are responsible for?

Oh no, I forgot, accountability doesn’t work for the press does it?

[ralphmalph]

What a horrible world we all live in!... there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the conflict in Iraq and war in general is wholly unpleasant exercise.

Those of us who are unfortunate enough to experience it first hand and to get up close and personal with the enemy really understand.

I do not condone maltreatment of any prisoners....military law should always be applied strictly.

I have no issue with the rights and wrongs of this thread, what i do have issue with is the presumtion with which many comments here have been made.

If you were there or have served in such an enviroment then I will defer to your own experiences and opinions. I appeal to anyone who reads the papers to pause and think about the wider picture.

sometimes **** happens.........and in fact in Iraq it is happening much more often than anyone would like!!!!

unfortunatly it may have taken place............will have happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen again........its called human nature.

Rant over

[exleckie]

"The first casualty of war is innocence"

Oliver Stone, Platoon.



Makes you think, doesn't it.


Exleckie

[Safeware]

The first casualty of war is innocence

Is the second the truth then?

... or did someone else say that?

sw

[Maple 01]

I think he was talking about his films 'JFK' or 'Platoon'

'The first casualty of a conspirtist director's film is truth'

[exleckie]

Maybe,

But I think Stone had a very valid point.

Perhaps you should watch the film again. It is a very good insight into how conflict can turn against the people who are sent to fight it.

Who is to blame, those who fight or those who do the fighting??????

Think about it.

Exleckie

[Darth Nigel]

Good windup, Maple 01.

The "Sensationalist press" do not have a responsibility for the safe conduct of prisoners in their custody. because they don't have prisoners in their custody.

The armed forces mentioned in the original article, and specifically the commanders thereof have a clearly defined and articulated duty (both under military law and international conventions) to protect the prisoners in their custody. Such prisoners should be treated in a humane manner, pending the outcome of a board of inquiry or other legally-appointed body.
Anyone doing otherwise is breaking military law.
Anyone giving an order to do otherwise is giving an illegal order.
Anyone obeying an order to do otherwise is obeying an illegal order.

And (at least for me) that's the issue.

Now you seem to be of the opinion (and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth) that these suspects/prisoners-of-war/people-as-yet-unconvicted-of-anything are in some way less than entitled to the protection of the law because they look like/share the religion of/live near other people who have committed crimes/acts-of-war. That to me is an indefensible position, and trying to make smoke about "accountability of the press" is irrelevant.

[ralphmalph]

I remember chatting to a very pleasant old gentleman who had fought in the second world war.

he came to the mess for a dinner night and was sharing his experiences with us.......... and of course because he was an older wiser man we were all listening intently and minding our P's and Q's.

I can remember vividly when he talked about the war ending and how he and his platoon went to celebrate in the local town.......

the story went on and he described in detail about the men and the bars they went into..........late in the evening they all went to a 'house of ill repute' many drinks were had...........

he paused for a second and then said......

"and all of a sudden all my men started raping all the women!"

He said that as a 20yr old officer he could do very little to stop the rampage!!!!

was a real eye opener for me i'll tell you!!!!

funny how people change over the years.....not!

[exleckie]

Ralphmalph,

Maybe you will understand then.

Darth and Maple,

To understand the horrors of war you have to understand it from all points of view.

I didn't at first but after a very rude awakening, I had no choice.

I know that there is banter involved but the reality of what we see can be very awakening.

Still, Platoon is a cracking film, propoganda or not.

Exleckie

[16 blades]

I strongly suggest that all the pinko armchair generals stop quoting regulations and 'laws' that we, who actually DO the job, are well aware of, get out of their cosy, far-from-the-front-line, human-rights-upholstered armchairs and go and see just what the situation on the ground in Iraq is actually like, before passing judgement on these individuals, whom you all presume to be guilty before any trial has even commenced. Consider the following:

- It would appear (from what I have heard so far) that the accusations against these men are based upon the evidence of a solitary, uncorroborated witness; an Iraqi, I'm led to believe, who may well have an axe to grind, and possibly a financial incentive, thanks to tw@ts like Phil Shiner (We've all heard of ambulance-chasing lawyers before - who would have ever thought we would see a TANK-chasing lawyer???)

- The injuries he sustained could have been the result of his resisting arrest, or attempting to fight his way out of the situation - or they could have been sustained in fighting before his arrest. There is no way to be sure (except for the one, aforementioned, uncorroborated witness).

Let's cast our minds back to the UN prior to the invasion. The pinkos were stating that 'not enough evidence' had been presented to justify invasion and the removal of Saddam. Post-facto, the self-same pinkos have been bleating endlessly about the 'lack of evidence' found of WMD or WMD programmes, using same to justify their anti-war stance. This despite 17 DOCUMENTED violations of UNSC resolutions, and plenty of circumstantial evidence that WMD existed BEFORE the invasion.

Yet every time an accusation is levelled at the coalition, however flimsy the evidence, the self-same, self-righteous, self-indulgent, self-interested lefty pinkos are the FIRST to publically and vocally condemn the coalition forces outright, without any regard to any form of due process.

Many here have expressed a desire for us to set an example in our values and demonstrate that our conduct is beyond reproach, by giving exemplary regard to laws, conventions and due process. Would those who profess to hold these higher values and exhort those in constant danger to uphold these values internationally in their name, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - START PRACTISING WHAT YOU F**CKING WELL PREACH

16B

[exleckie]

16B

Crikey, that was VV strong

But well said.


Exleckie

[ralphmalph]

Hear Hear 16B,
It is all too obvious that there are many people on this thread/site who have no idea what real war is all
about!
.......many may have read a book........been in the military years ago .........or just belive that they are right and that is that!

Sad to think i come in here occasionally and browse the topics....

there are far too many people here who spend alot......no far too much time living in this world.....when perhaps to step outside somwhere hot and dusty might do them some good!

[Darth Nigel]

16B,
You are right. I apologise for being a cnut, and worse, an arm-chair ex-mil cnut.

Well said, that man. In a less-than-ideal world, I would buy you several beers for that one (or one small rum).

Darth.

[16 blades]

Darth,

Most gracious of you - mine's a spicy & coke!

I actually thought your last post was fair and accurate in the main - certainly not cnut-ish.

I too offer an apology if my post came across as rather vitriolic to those who hold opposing points of view - I am, after all, one of the most prolific exponents of free speech on these fora. Mayhap I too should consider practising what I preach occasionally.

My post wasn't intended as a 'shut the f**k up' - more as an expression of my strength of feeling on this particular issue, which runs particularly deep.

16B

[Maple 01]

The "Sensationalist press" do not have a responsibility for the safe conduct of prisoners in their custody. because they don't have prisoners in their custody.

They have a responsibility to report accurately, not rumour or speculation, and when they do pass off rumour and speculation as news and the result is that people die, then they are responsible for those deaths. Newsweek have admitted as much, now it's just a case of getting the rest to sign-up to honest reporting - that or get them to stick to D-list Celeb chaseing. You see my point? Everyone is accountable to the press, 'our' man is guilty until proven so - or it's a whitewash, the press however is accountable to no-one and never pay for their actions.

And yes, I fear you are putting words into my mouth

Firstly the bloke hasn't been convicted yet, so while I can see and accept what you're saying about maltreatment of prisoners as a general concept, you seem to be pre-judging the individual

Secondly, If you imagine the Arab world views the goings on in Iraq dispassionately, weighs up the available facts and makes an informed decision you're mistaken, any carelessly reported incident can and will be blown out of all proportion for political ends and people end up dieing.

Same goes for agenderised reporting, an example being the Italian journalist that reported 'US forces fired 300-400 rounds at the car she was being driven to freedom in'

a. She had a strong anti-coalition stance before the whole incident – biased source anyone?

b. Have you ever seen a car where 300-400 5.56mm rounds gone into it? Much left?
The car being shipped to the inquest looked fairly intact to me…..


Did the Italian people question her story? No, Did the Italian government come under pressure to withdraw troops? Yes.

If you're saying the press arn't sensationalist and not only after the 'shock-horror stuff why are there never any 'good news' stories from OIF or OEF in the mainstream media? too dull? Not sending the 'right' message?

[Sunfish]

Gee 16Blades, don't hold back.

Now you and Icarus the second with the greatest of respect.

The Colonel who taught me military law for first appointment explained two things.

1. There is a doctrine in military law called "condonation" which I cannot believe some of you have not also been taught. It simply states that if a more senior officer is aware of a breach of military law by a junior and does nothing to punish it himself, then that officer is guilty of condoning the offence and can be charged as if he committed it himself. The junior officer cannot be charged once his senior has condoned it, as far as i am aware.

The reason the CO has been charged can only be that there is reliable and solid evidence that the Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., etc involved,

(a) knew about the alleged offence and did nothing about it.

(b) The CO learned about the offence and did nothing about it. It should be stating the bleedin obvious to you that noone is going to put a CO on the block without very serious evidence to back it up.

2. With respect to other acts, such as rape, looting etc. Under certain circumstances, an officer may be required to use his weapon to enforce discipline and military law.

Killing or abusing prisoners is wrong, anywhere, anytime. Please get that through your head. This is not to say mistakes aren't made in battle, nor that there isn't the occasional mercy killing either, but that is a different category of situation. Once a prisoner is taken there are strict rules of behaviour that must be followed because it is LAW.

[Dave Martin]

Easy tiger, the original post on this thread is worthy of some rational discussion. If you can’t cope with views counter to your own perhaps this isn’t the best place to loiter, and perhaps the military isn’t the best place to be either. This is a discussion I enjoy, no need to ruin it by flying off the handle like that.

Now, from an ex-infantry, tree-hugger, pinko, liberal, I have to take a little exception to this notion that one must have served to have any idea of the realities of war or Iraq. As I’m sure most would agree, joining the army at age 17 doesn’t exactly expose you to an intellectual environment of discussion, varied viewpoints on the political spectrum, or complex debate on the history or power politics that dictate your daily life. You do what they say in a highly structured, organised environment. Now working with some of the worlds foremost experts on the region, I doubt anyone of them would agree with the idea that they a) must have been in the military, b) their lack of military experience makes them incapable of deciding the morality of beating prisoners to death, or c) this lack of experience similarly makes them incapable of understanding the situation on the ground in Iraq.

As much as I value my military experience, a lot of people I served with are stuck in this mindset and it gets them nowhere in civilian life. The sooner civilian and military alike dispense with this notion of having “being there and know it all”, the better off we’ll all be. In the military you take the rough with the smooth – revered as a hero one minute, demonised the next. Not too dissimilar from civilian life. Likewise, I’m sure many if not most of the folks who use these forums may well have an experience of aeronautics and service life that extends no further than a homoerotic fascination with “Top Gun”. Sadly, behind the cloak of anonymity, one right-wing flow of indignation at apparent attacks on their beloved military doesn’t distinguish the impostor from the genuine article, if you get what I mean.

Anyway, moving right along. We are incredibly selective in which violations of UNSC we chose to take action over now aren’t we, when it concerns Middle Easter/Mediterranean countries. It is especially intriguing that you use these same UNSC resolutions to justify a war – a war that was carried out in flagrant violation of the UNSC majority, and clearly was going to do so from the outset….a point, which in my opinion, makes it a little difficult to then justify on these terms. Yes, Saddam had chemical weapons at one stage. Well, it appears that UN weapons inspectors achieved exactly what they said they would and made damn sure there were none left. In a similar vein, the figures on the effectiveness of the entire GWI bombardment in removing these stockpiles is quite striking when compared with the effectiveness of weapons inspectors – something like 5:95 ratio. If you want to keep pursuing the WMD angle, I have to ask the question: is FOX news network your source of information? If not, I struggle to see how you can keep pushing that line. Your mention of “circumstantial evidence” really pushes the limit that much further. Come’on kids, we’re all big enough to realise WMD wasn’t the real reason for the war.

When it comes to violating these resolutions, we weren’t exactly helping when we used the teams as intelligence gathering units , completely outside their remit. If you want resolutions to be ignored, no better way to do it than use your teams as spies.

I concede though, the language we are using is not allowing just process. Let’s assume these guys are innocent. That would also include avoiding ridiculous claims that the Iraqi accuser must have an axe to grind on this issue, simply because….he’s Iraqi? BUT, I think the thread still remains. If these guys are guilty, is there ANY way this can be condoned? I say no. Period. Rights or wrongs of the WMD claims, left-wing or right-wing, military or non-military. The answer surely must be that simple?

Gotta say, again from my pinko-leftie view: the press pushes the right-wing, pro-military angle every bit as much as they push the left-wing, anti-military angle. In reality they aren\'t much different from society as a whole so it\'s a bit pointless blaming this all on the press.

At the end of the day al they are is conveyers of information. Any conveyence of information carries a "slant" or an "accent". Don\'t think it\'s always against you.

[Maple 01]

exleckie,

Stone clamed Platoon was semi-autobiographical, those that served with him in Vietnam called 'bull****', make a politicised drama if you must, don't try passing it off as 'faction' - he did that with JFK as well and hid behind the old excuse 'it's only a film' when some of his 'revelations' were proved to be false. I'd watch his films as entertainment but that's about it. Problem is too many people believe what's on the screen


Meanwile; back at the subject

At the end of the day [the press]all they are is conveyers of information Any conveyence of information carries a "slant" or an "accent". Don\'t think it\'s always against you.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm, how about some free and unbiased reporting then?

Anyway, moving right along. We are incredibly selective in which violations of UNSC we chose to take action over now aren’t we, when it concerns Middle Easter/Mediterranean countries.

Veiled reference to Israel? Or a problem with UNSCRs 678/687/1441? If the latter it\'s been done to death here, basically 678 and 687 dealt with the cease-fire of 1991. ANY violation of the articles meant that the war was back on. 14 or so violations later..........

[Dave Martin]

Yes, Israel.

By conveyers of information I mean a medium. If there was no press Iris next door wouldn't even know there was a war on.

Naturally, somewhere between the newsagent and the streets of Baghdad it's going to aquire a flavour, but so long as we avoid FOX and the tabloids, wouldn't you agree a copy of the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Torygraph, perhaps chucking in a Spectator and New Statesmen for free, is probably going to give you as good an overview as any other? I would include PPRUNE in that list, but its a little vitriolic for my own liking.

[Darth Nigel]

Ahh, Maple, I see where you're coming from.

I did not mean to give the impression that I had prejudged the man -- I was trying to explain why I (personally) thought the issue of maltreatment of prisoners was important in it's own right, in a Military forum.

And it is a different issue from the veracity of the press, which is a subject which may never end, especially when it gets embroiled into politics.

I think it is fair to say at this point that no-one views the Iraq/Middle East discussion dispassionately, whether in sandy parts of the world or muddy parts.

(now conducting a tactical withdrawal)

[Maple 01]

Dave Martin,

As I understand, it Resolutions of the General Assembly are merely recommendations, these are the ones frequently sited against Israel with which they don't have to comply

Security Council resolutions can also be recommendations, but in the case of Iraq were mandatory, hence the difference in application, generally no stuff gets though concerning Israel though I notice there was a recent UNSCR condemning operations in the Gaza

Strangely enough to give you some idea who runs the General assembly, it refused to condemn attacks on Israel children, but managed to pass a resolution attacking Israel and condemning attacks on Palestinian children – seems the UN General assembly only works one way when it comes to Israel………

[16 blades]

Dave,

A thoughtful, considered and well constructed post. I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with most of the opinions expressed, however.

Some Points Of Information:

I have to take a little exception to this notion that one must have served to have any idea of the realities of war or Iraq.
Please explain how one can gain any idea about the reality of the war in Iraq without having served there.

the morality of beating prisoners to death
Please present your evidence, newspaper reports aside, that this prisoner was beaten to death by his captors.

a lot of people I served with are stuck in this mindset and it gets them nowhere in civilian life
The subjects of this debate are not 'in civilian life' - they are serving soldiers in harms way on a daily basis.

I’m sure many if not most of the folks who use these forums may well have an experience of aeronautics and service life that extends no further than a homoerotic fascination with “Top Gun”. Sadly, behind the cloak of anonymity, one right-wing flow of indignation at apparent attacks on their beloved military doesn’t distinguish the impostor from the genuine article, if you get what I mean.
I get EXACTLY what you mean, Dave. I have been an active contributor to these fora for some time now, and I am sure there are many here who would lend support to my credentials.

When it comes to violating these resolutions, we weren’t exactly helping when we used the teams as intelligence gathering units , completely outside their remit. If you want resolutions to be ignored, no better way to do it than use your teams as spies.
That is EXACTLY what the weapons inspectors WERE. They were there to inspect and report, publicly, on weapons systems that SH's regime wished to keep secret - if that is not espionage, I don't know what is. Again, with the much-vaunted 'due process' in mind, if you have evidence that the inspectors acted outside of their UN-sanctioned remit, please present it.

If these guys are guilty, is there ANY way this can be condoned? I say no.
Our ONE point of agreement. I will add, however - what evidence do YOU have that they are guilty?

the press pushes the right-wing, pro-military angle every bit as much as they push the left-wing, anti-military angle.
On which planet, exactly? Name me ONE british newspaper, besides the Sun, which is consistently pushing a pro-war line. All the rest seem highly critical most of the time.

so long as we avoid FOX and the tabloids, wouldn't you agree a copy of the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Torygraph, perhaps chucking in a Spectator and New Statesmen for free, is probably going to give you as good an overview as any other?
Really? Let's examine:

Guardian - FIERCELY left-wing
Independent - Left wing
Times - Left wing (and Blair-loving)
Telegraph - Blatant and consistent pro-Tory bias, regardless of circumstance

...so how does this list give one "as good an overview as any other"?

And why the (double) mention of FOX News in the negative? It is not only the ONLY right-leaning major network in the US (AND UK for that matter, since it is broadcast here), it also allows the 'other side' airtime to express their views.

We are incredibly selective in which violations of UNSC we chose to take action over now aren’t we, when it concerns Middle Easter/Mediterranean countries.
Your obvious reference to Israel is noted. This link:

www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

...will take you to a list of UN Resolutions passed against Israel between 1955 - 1992. Notice that the majority are 'condemnations' of actions that have already taken place. Some 'urge' Israel to take a particular course of action, others 'demand' that it does so. NOT ONE of them ORDERS Israel to take any specific action, with defined consequences for non-compliance. Israel, therefore, has arguably never been in 'Material Breach' of a SINGLE UNSC resolution. I am aware that this may be regarded as semantic trickery by some - so be it.

Food for thought.

16B

[Cambridge Crash]

I have spent many months researching the Malayan Emergency, which stretched from 1945 until the 'peace treaty' (instrument of capitulation) of 1989. I have also spent many days with former Special Branch Officers in the UK, Malaysia and Singapore. None of the agent handlers claimed to have used violent means to turn guerillas ('CTs'); in fact, ASP Leong Chee Woh was able to interrogate couriers and persuade them to become agents, then release them on their travels without the guerilla leaders noticing them missing for those few hours. Violence, as Chee Woh says, was unproductive. Unfailingly kind handling was a sucessful strategy - in stark contrast with Army units operating in the peninsula that were competative in getting 'kills'. The former editor of the Daily Worker was even recruited by MI5 to turn 'stubborn' insurgents - he was able to persuade them that revolutionary communist dialectic was flawed; to fill the void he also converted a number of them to Catholicism.

In the mid 1960s the the FCO expressed grave concern about the use by the SAS of Dyak 'head-hunters' during the Konfrontasi when success was measured in the number of heads brought back. Again, in contrast the Director of Special Branch in Kuching personally ran a number of agents simply by persuading them that a better life could be had by cooperating with the authorities and accepting the payments for information. Unfortunately, he also lost several agents to the Dyak/SAS combination because these freebooting units would not clear their activities with the Director of Intelligence, ie, Hd of Special Branch.

The insurgency campaigns in Malaya/Malaysia were succesful because of a joint civil/military doctrine under civil control - and before I get accused of getting my history wrong, General Templer was appointed in 1952 as the Civil High Commissioner, ably supported by a reformed civil service in Malaya. Regrettably, military administration in 'post-conflict areas' is very, very rarely sucessful. In spite of what those in the military may think, the skills to run a counter-insurgency campaign are quite different from those need to fight an 'open' conflict.

This was recognised by the US State Department; in the Jan/Feb issue of Foreign Affairs, there is a call for 'London' to assist in establishing a civilian Special Branch in Iraq, based on the Malaya - and Northern Ireland - experience.

Let's allow the military to do the war-fighting, but also imbue them with the robust skills of peace-making, knowing that these skills will be needed in Phase IV ops. Our joint experience from the Balkans should have taught us that...

CC

[Sunfish]

CC, amen! Studied similar stuff and heard similar stories. Somtimes people had to remind the Indonesians to take their guns back with them!

[ORAC]

Every injustice committed against one individual is, in the end, experienced by humanity as a whole.
Peter Kropotkin (Prisons and Their Moral Influence on Prisoners)

[effortless]

OK forget humanity. Examine your goals. Do you want to leave Iraq with dignity and some sense of victory or do you want to be bogged down for the next thirty years then leave with your tail between your legs a la Vietnam? If you want the former then you have to get the population on your side. This is not done by offering them martyrs.

It is what, forty years since we left Aden? We are still hated in Crater. I sit in the pub with a couple of Argyles who have not got over what they did. Though admittedly one of them wishes he was still doing it but he is totally bolo. Unless you kill most of the population, all wars end in negotiation. If you have acted honourably then negotiation is easier.

[Icarusthesecond]

To answer Beagles question:

They are brave boys and not murdering thugs.

I have to say that I am getting pis*ed off with people who try and link warfighting from 10000 feet and war fighting face to face. You think that all of those chaps on the ground want to be there?

Accept that war is nasty, accept that war is unpleasant and accept that things happen in war that ordinarily would not happen. Accept it and move on. It has happened in the past, it happens now and guess what – will happen in the future.

Punishing the boss is not the answer. The Stash at Odiham didn’t get Courts Martialled because a pis*sed up Flt Lt couldn’t keep it zipped did he? Different level granted but the principle of responsibility for those under your command is the same!

Lord knows that the chaps on the ground have it hard enough what with going out on patrol with sub standard kit and the fear of being blown up, not to mention legal action if they screw up. Now they have to deal with Beagle and the other two-winged master race whose most dangerous mission was asking the receptionist for more tonic in their lovely snugly hotel room or sending their washing forward.

Sorry to speak out against the father of PPRune but really, the press and the politicians pick away at the Armed Forces, we don’t need to do it ourselves.

Now, I know that the loyal followers and other who don’t have a clue but do have a large opinion (on most things) will be queuing at the door to beat me down. But I am wearing my body armour, helmet and even a cricket box and so I can say – well done boys, I am proud of you. I wouldn’t like to have done what you had to.

Now looking for patriotic flag to wave.

[BillHicksRules]

ZH,

"If the enemy is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, then treat them under those rules, if they are not a signatory, then treat them iaw the 10 commandments - do unto others, before they do you."

Is this an example of do what you like and justify it later?

Both the US and the UK are signatories of the GC, end of story.

It does not matter if they happen to fight someone who is not. The US and UK must abide by the GC.

For those like 16B who claim that the GC acts like a straitjacket on the actions of US/UK forces, I would say, GOOD!!!

The actions that are outlawed by the GC are banned for good reasons.

Already the US is attempting to re-write the GC with the "enemy combatant" title and then claiming they can do what they like to them.

Careful reading of the GC shows that there is no category of prisoner or combatant that it is acceptable to treat in this manner.

To the incidents at hand I do feel that they are isolated incidents involving bad apples. They exist in all forces. It has been the truth since time began.

As to the culpability of officers as opposed to squaddies, I feel that if the officers knowingly fail to discipline said offenders fully then said officers should be dealt with as condoning the actions a la Sunfish's post.

Cheers

BHR

[stiknruda]

I don't condone any violence against prisoners but I am big enough to understand that isolated incidents will occur, presumably as a form of retaliation for acts committed or stress at being in theatre and a commensurate but limited breakdown of discipline.

I like a few other posters am aware that it has happened since time immemoriam and that it will always happen when there is conflict in our world.

Wasn't it Churchill during the Boer war who implied that truth is the first casualty of war?

My point of view - is that sensitive issues, such as alleged abuses, when made public serve no good whatsoever. We the occupiers feel very guilty and wring our hands publically. The natives get very pissed off, rightly so but all that the knowledge does is inflame further acts of terrorism and the whole circus descends further into lawlessness.

I am not for one second suggesting that the commanders turn a blind eye to atrocities, I feel that they should stamp them out at every opportunity. What I do propose is a blanket press ban on the reporting of this type of allegation.

The result - we'd not worry about it, we might suspect that it happen in limited occurences but that it was being managed and perpetrators disciplined. The Iraqis/Afghanis would not be made aware of it by sensational headlines although they too might suspect that it could be occuring and tension all round would reduce. For the guys in the field, well I believe that they know what is right and what is wrong and trial by media is not something else that they need to contend with.

Just my 2 dinars worth.


Stik

[SASless]

Does not the Genevea Accords (Convention) actually work to outlaw the exact groups the "insurgents and terrorists" represent? Does not the living outside those accords then bar the outlaws from expecting such "gentle" treatment? If one wears uniforms and display unique badges....engage in "legal" combat actions....fair dinkum...treat them as required by the GC....otherwise....in my narrow assed view....do them in any way possible and treat them like the scum they are.

Explain to me please someone....why I should worry about how tight the handcuffs are on someone that will participate in the bombing of a school full of children? For all of you that moan about how we lose our moral rightousness by thumping a prisoner.....why is it the "bad" guys don't lose theirs by their vile tactics? In a comparison of wrong and evil....I dare say the "bad" guys in this affair are the terrorists and insurgents.....and they reap what they sow.

Where was the hollering about the beheadings then....and where is it now,when our brain dead friends get so worked up over Saddam being seen on the front page of the newspaper wearing only his y-fronts?

Spare me.....we are fighting some truly evil people here.

God Bless the troops that are doing the fighting.....if they break some eggs making this omelet.....I for one stand ready to forgive them their sins.

The Press needs to remember they are Brits and Yanks first....reporters second.....they keep on and they will be targets (and justifiably so in my book).

[16 blades]

A law or treaty becomes useless when one party is not a signatory, or chooses to ignore it. Remember, the various Geneva Conventions were enacted around 1948, 57 years ago.

At this time, supra-national terrorism hadn't even been imagined, let alone taken place. What use is a treaty, notionally designed to ensure that conflict does not get out of hand, which doesn't even take into account the current biggest threat to world security?

It's also worth noting that at the time the convention was enacted, homosexuality was still illegal in Britain, and we still owned most of the Empire. Why are the 'progressives' not demanding 'progress' in this area, I wonder??

Crash, I am sure you are aware of this, but Arab / Islamic culture is VERY different to Malayan culture. To show TOO much mercy, restraint or kindness to an enemy is seen as a major weakness and invites further attack. Arab culture respects only a show of strength from 'infidels'.

Happytruckin, shall I present a list of atrocities committed by their side, to compare and contrast? I'm sure I don't need to...

16B

[ZH875]

SASless :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

Gets my vote

[sparkie]

Gainesy

Sorry I do remember that but was not including the Turks as I dont think they were involved with EOKA.


Enjoying this thread its quite amazing to read the cross section of opinions and thoughts on this subject.

Perhaps in the end Edwin Starr has the right words

War..huuh..what is it good for....absolutely nothing



best bent wire always best .- .-.

:ok:

[M609]

2. It could make us lose the war (because it provides propaganda to our enemies, turns moderate Arab opinion against us and undermines support at home)

Very nicely put HT!

Sadly some don't get that part of 'war against terror'

[Cambridge Crash]

16 B

The Malayan Emergency was overwhelmingly perpetrated by young Chinese ideologues; indeed this was a weakness in that the Malay population was not persuaded to join the anti-Imperialist revolutionary struggle.

It was a brutal and vicious struggle, but I agree at a lower intensity than Iraq, however, it prevailed because of efficient civil administration and the development of an effective intelligence organisation. The term 'Hearts and Minds' developed by Gen Briggs during the campaign was a key element. Those of the Min Yuen (Mass Executive) who gave up supporting the insurgents were rewarded - land, schools, etc. This tapped into cultural norms of the Chinese population and compounded defections.....but, the campaign took 12 years to come to an end. Excesses by British troops reversed the progress; indeed the unnecessary slaughter of Chinese villagers in 1949 by our kilted bretheren caused the flow of intelligence to dry up for many years in that state. The PRO, by the way, still retains the files on the investigation.

I think that most posters can understand, though not condone, actions that take place in the heat of battle, but as M609 has observed, the GWOT is largely about public opinion. The British and Malay government were sucessful in Malaya because they did not act in the way the communist leaders had predicted. It may be trite, but it is also true - the hardest battle is to win the peace...

CC, Baling, Malaysia

[16 blades]

2. It could make us lose the war (because it provides propaganda to our enemies, turns moderate Arab opinion against us and undermines support at home)

Moderate Arab opinion is ALREADY against us, and always has been, long before any so-called 'atrocities' were committed. Moderate Arab opinion is, and always will be, against us, by simple virtue of the fact that we are not muslims (read what the Q'oran has to say about 'infidels' if you do not believe me). What an Arab (an Arab leader in particular) says in public and believes in his heart are very often entirely different.

I refer you back to what I said earlier about fundamentally misunderstanding Arab-Islamic culture.

Don't misunderstand me - I am not advocating 'gloves off' when it comes to prisoner interrogation - but we NEED the leeway to apply pressure to achieve the aim. The GC does NOT give us the leeway required, being 57 years out of date. It needs reviewing. I do not consider 'roughing up' (NOT 'beating up'), intimidation, sleep deprivation, 'white noise', humiliation, stress positions, or similar techniques, to be 'torture' - they have all been used for years and found to be effective.

Here is the problem - interrogators 'rough up' a suspect, deprive him of sleep, make him stand/sit in stress positions, subject him to white noise, etc etc. Western newspaper gets hold of it and carries the headline "Prisoners tortured at Al-****hole". The Arab world equates 'torture' to the kind of techniques employed by their own leaders and governments (electric shock, boiling alive etc) - from here on out, it DOES NOT MATTER what you say or do, or who is court-martialled for any offence. The Arab world will read it as "coalition cutting off peoples bollocks and jabbing electrodes up their arses". The report may not even be TRUE (as some have not been) - that is immaterial to them as well.

If the report is TRUE - Mass protests throughout the Arab world, lives lost, increase in attacks on our troops.

If the report is UNTRUE - Mass protests throughout the Arab world, lives lost, increase in attacks on our troops.

Regardless of the accuracy of the report, what good comes of it, for us OR them? ZERO.

You cannot reason with the unreasonable. These terrorists are not driven by money, politics, regional power or any of the 'traditional' motivators. You cannot negotiate with them. Their aim is to destroy western society, and Israel, and set up a worldwide fundamentalist Islamic government to enslave us all. They will kill us, our colleagues, our friends, our neighbours, our wives and our children, in cold blood and in some of the most horrible ways imaginable given half the chance, and film it and broadcast it across the world. They are indistinguishable from the ordinary citizens of Arab / Islamic countries, who just want to get on with their lives.

We CANNOT win this war by being 'nice' to them. We will NEVER win the hearts and minds of Islamic terrorists. If causing them some temporary discomfort gives us the intelligence we need to fight this war, and the GC prevents us from doing that, we need to look at the GC again very carefully. After all, after 57 years, I think it's due a review, don't you?

16B

[BEagle]

16B, after much consideration, I conclude your last post to be complete and utter nonsense.

What on earth is to be gained by 'roughing up' or 'intimidating' prisoners? Apart from guaranteeing sullen resentment, that is?

[Sunfish]

!6 Blades, now I will simply assume that you are Airforce and have NO IDEA what or why the rules are what they are.

I'm still stuck with the OSA and this is a public forum, so I cannot and will not quote chapter and verse.

The rules for handling prisoners are clear, they are to be removed, with their posessions as quickly as possible for debrief, as this is the most efficient way of getting information of immediate tactical value from them.

There is no point in interrogating for long term information by roughing them up because the battle situation will have changed by the time you have that information. You may in time wheedle out some order of battle information.

Secondly, as others have alluded to, the only way of winning this war is to get Arab opinion on our side, so either you are saying the war is unwinnable, or you are advocating tactics that will make it unwinnable.

As for "applying pressure" to achieve the aim. You are simply demonstrating why you are unfit to be a member of any military force, if in fact you are one at all. Military law does not allow it. Civil Law does not allow it. Expereince and common sense indicates that the information provided is not, and never has been reliable, accurate, or timely. Do you even understand the definition of "reliable" and "accurate" in a military intelligence context? Obviously not!

Furthermore, you have conveniently ignored my post explaining to you the doctrine of condonation and why there must already be an ironclad case to Court Martial a CO no less, so I assume you simply have never been taught military law and therefore you are a troll.

Furthermore your comments about not being "nice" to the enemy and rewriting the Geneva convention are as contemptible as you are. I do not believe you are military at all, and if you are, then you are a pathetic excuse for a service person who does not deserve to wear the uniform of any country.

Finally there is the question of discipline which you have conveniently ignored. I won't try and explain to you what this means in a military context since you obviously have no %^$%#$ idea.

I could go on, if you are indeed RAF (which I doubt), you are a disgrace.

[Stax]

The minority who are stupid enough to illtreat prisoners, be they US or UK need to think about those who come after them.

The press love to sensationalise this type of story (and I have no idea if it is true or blown out of proportion since Soldier magazine/the RAF/Navy news or Defence magazine are not daily papers and therefore cannot balance the hype in the mirror/telegraph etc)

Those troops who allow themselves to get in the spotlight make it more and more dangerous for the guys who replace them and only ensure that the average civvy, who has no military background and can't even imagine what it's like to have a weapon pointed at you, can sit at the breakfast table and say "tut tut, glad those nasty soldiers don't live here"

It is hard but we need to get a grip and that has to come from the top down! Officers and SNCO's need to have a proper grip on young, scared, full of adrenaline Toms, until that day I fear this will happen again.

[SASless]

I think the balance here is simple....one photo of Saddam in his undies...and the Arab world takes offense. Hundreds of suicide bombings....murders of hundreds of people by death squads....and not a peep out of the Arab world. Their news media show full videotapes of terrorists beheading hogtied victims but refuse to show Saddam in his undies because it is offensive.

If you cannot see the mindset we are up against then you need to get your spectacles checked. Pardon me if I fail to equate someone getting his butt whacked with a broomstick and a hostage getting his head hacked off on TV.

Since most of you here are serving in the military....do you recall how the Iraqi's treated our POW's during Gulf One? Did you hear any outrage from the Arab world over that? I guess the Geneva Convention did not apply to the Iraqi military?

When I begin to hear the "moderate" Muslims taking exception to terrorist acts then I will be more inclined to consider our "mistreatment" of them to be more of an issue.

The mistreatment handed out is relatively mild and limited in scope considering the numbers of people involved. Only because our press is so quick to air our dirty laundry in public is it such an issue. If our (the American and British) media was as dedicated to depicting the bombings and murders as the evil they are then maybe the world's opinions could be influenced in a postive manner.

Instead of spending hours and hours of broadcast time on bombings and showing the horrorific results....they show a quick blast of video....quickly tell you the body count and move on the horrors of Al Grahab or some other "horrible" act by our side.

I have a close friend who was a supervisor of interrogators in Gitmo.....and have had several discussions with him about what was going on down there. We both agreed the "hard line" was not the way to obtain good results but rather the "soft line" was the preferred method. The US Navy SEALS used the soft line during the Vietnam War and were very successful in obtaining useful and timely intelligence for the conduct of follow-up operations.

Excesses have occurred....and they serve up grist for the propaganda mill used by the Terrorists. In my opinion however, we need to cease our hand wringing over it and move on. These excesses fall far short of the murder, torture, and other evils being done by our enemies. War is not a perfect science and mistakes will be made.

I refuse to hang those on my side while the enemy are doing what they are. I might suggest as Disreali said one time...."The British Navy did not change until we shot a few Admirals." (or words to that effect)

[SASless]

How many times do we see some terrorist group video broadcast "Death to Infidels" or some such rhetoric after they show a beheading, murder, or car bomb attack? If we continue to do things as shown by the following article from Reuters....we are doomed to defeat as a culture and society. (In my view)

ROME (Reuters) - A judge has ordered best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in a recent book.

The decision angered Italy's justice minister but delighted Muslim activists, who accused Fallaci of inciting religious hatred in her 2004 work "La Forza della Ragione" (The Force of Reason).

Fallaci lives in New York and has regularly provoked the wrath of Muslims with her outspoken criticism of Islam following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.

In "La Forza della Ragione," Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."

State prosecutors originally dismissed accusations of defamation from an Italian Muslim organization, and said Fallaci should not stand trial because she was merely exercising her right to freedom of speech.

But a preliminary judge in the northern Italian city of Bergamo, Armando Grasso, rejected the prosecutors advice at a hearing on Tuesday and said Fallaci should be indicted.

Grasso's ruling homed in on 18 sentences in the book, saying some of Fallaci's words were "without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith."

:mad:

[Roghead]

Interesting discussion, bringing out the extremes of opinion, as ever. I had the privilege and pleasure of living and working with Middle Eastern Muslims whilst training the young officers of Oman several years ago. This was before the world had really woken up to evils of fanatical fundamentalism,(Muslim or otherwise) although it most certainly existed. One benefit of "being there" was that the differences in attitudes to just about everything twixt the Arab Muslim world and the Rest was so incredibly obvious and strong. For those who have not experienced it first hand it is absolutely impossible to give a balanced argument on anything which involves ME Muslims.
I see nothing which has changed or softened this "mindset" (to quote previous contributors) in fact it is abundantly clear that the situation is now far worse.
Why?
I could but will refrain from giving my reasons but will say that the indisciplined, out of control press and media coverage has much blame to shoulder (I sadly miss the "D" notices of old). Consequently I cannot support Beags et al, and whilst 16Blades et al may not be holding the high moral ground, their opinions and attitudes are IMHO more likely to reduce the scourge of fundalmentalism.
So, back to my armchair and whisky and quiet life.

[stuk]

Beags old chap,
For many years you recollections and comments have kept us amused and indeed informed with many a wise word. However the very title of the thread lowers it to the basest form of tabloid journalism and you got the rabid responses you so deserved. Of course all British soldiers are NOT Thugs or Murderers. What a stupid thing to ask! There are some who have done illegal acts, probably some that are doing so right now and almost certainly some that will do so in the future. Hopefully these people will be found out and the full weight of the law thrown at them.
In today’s paper is an article about a man driving his car over the speed limit along a dual carriageway and killing a lad crossing the road at a green light on a controlled crossing. By the way I hope all the louts on the thread about speed cameras noted that the chap thought he was capable of driving his car at those speeds and that he could decide the speed limit. Back to thread. Does this make all male car drivers murderers?
All the usual drivel about what can you expect from thicky loutish low intelligence squaddies who smashed up Basra has been aired. Was it only a couple of weeks ago we were all lauding the soldier who was invested with the VC at the palace? Anyone remember Kipling and “It’s Tommy this and Tommy that”? All the rubbish about the squaddies wrecking Basra and pouring cement down the drains. A close family member of mine was in the armoured column that went in and took the airfield and surrounds. He would like to have a word with someone who can tell him the FACTS about this story and a quiet word with those who know nothing but happily repeat it. Have any of you, other than watching Saving Private Ryan any concept of what a battle is like. Shells, mortars and bullets everywhere from both sides. They did not need to wreck the place it was a consequence of the battle!!!!!! They had been in tents with no showers, toilets or anything for weeks so the last thing they would do is wreck running water facilities. It’s the same rubbish rumour as flushing Korans down the toilet but unbelievably spread and given credence by the RAF who were not even there.
No-one on this site has any idea what went on with the prisoners and they should wait until the court has decided. How many writing on this site have any experience of being there under attack day after day, week after week.
Imagine you went into the village where those RMP where killed and you found someone who had murdered your friends. Imagine you are in a bar in North London, which as usual is bedecked with Irish Tricolours. You are in the Royal Signals and it’s the day after two of your best friends have been kicked, punched and beaten to death by a savage mob in Belfast. A man comes in and cheers at the news on the TV (Yes it does happen!) and says he was involved. You and your mates then see him outside on his own. What to do next - Discuss.
Of course you should go to PC Plod and report him but you don’t.
I would however leave you with a task. Watch the last few minutes of the film – A Few Good Men. The wonderful lawyer thinks he finds out the truth but as Jack Nicholson so eloquently tells him he hasn’t because can’t stand the truth. You have bred young men into killing machines that follow orders, risk their lives to win battles and it’s Jack’s job to keep them that way. That is why they win VCs and do all the dirty work whilst others sit warm by their fireplaces in their homes in Blighty pontificating or relaxing in the mess with a G and T after a hard days flying. They are not policeman and they do as they are trained and follow the example of their leaders both Officers and NCOs who are equally culpable.

[BEagle]

Feeling better now?

Lowering yourself to the level of the gutter has no place in the UK Armed Forces. As others have said, prisoner handling must be left to professionals, not to the unqualified 'grunt wiv gun'.

And of course I used a tabloidesque subject title in order to stimulate response.

[The Helpful Stacker]

It’s the same rubbish rumour as flushing Korans down the toilet but unbelievably spread and given credence by the RAF who were not even there.

Stuk - I doff my hat to you.

Unfortunately previously the closest many in the RAF got to 'the action' was a hotel in Italy whilst a few of us kept our heads down in such delightful locations as Kiseljak, Gornji Vakuf or dodged the dead cows floating around the Ploce death camp. Obviously they worked just as hard as us lot in Bosnia after all you don't get a medal for going out for pasta and Grappa then popping down the beach for a swim. Oh sorry, they did.

Things are changing now though, a few of those folk who previously took a Samsonite suitcase on 'Ops' are now starting to take this whole 'being in the military thing' a bit serious. It was amazing how much attention was being paid to what was being taught but the Regt lads on an IRT course I recently did. Perhaps the realisation that Iraq is slightly more iffy than Italy has kicked in eh?

Now I didn't write this to try and impress with sandbag tales but its apparent from threads such as RAF becoming Army (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1904495#post1904495) that some folk don't realise what being a uniformed member of the Armed Forces could entail, namely doing something a bit dangerous (or boring) occasionally. Perhaps those who struggle with the concept of a military career being something that has certain risks could exit stage left and become a civil servant. God knows there are enough disgruntled ex-service personnel in the CS already, a few more wouldn't hurt.

:mad:

[BEagle]

I guess its Lowest Common Denominator versus Highest Common Factor at work here?

[Sunfish]

Beagle, its the old "The ends justify the means" argument dressed up in new clothes.

However this deeply flawed theory was comprehensively demolished by about 1850.

The simple reason is that human beings are not "means" to an end, they are an end in themselves. Here endeth the philosphy lesson.


The tragedy is that the few who do abuse and torture are besmirching themselves with the same foul slime that our enemy is covered with.

To put it in very simple terms for people who can only count to 16, two wrongs don't make a right.

Some of you might like to find a copy of the "Manual of Field Security" and read it.

[Maple 01]

The argument seems to be that if anyone disagrees with BEags and his supporters they must be blood thirsty knuckle dragging savages - not so

Sunfish points us to the Manual of Field Security, perhaps he’s forgotten the advice given to interrogators about ‘rough handling’ captives, keeping them off balance, segregating them etc all SOP in the 1980s and 90s, all legal (we were assured at the time).

I'd direct him to the Geneva Convention (1949) where he could see that those who happen to get caught bearing arms whilst in civilian clothing are outside its protection and can even be executed for their activities

Now before this is jumped on as another example of the barbarity of the western military I'm not advocating summary execution, however, those that chose to bear arms against the legal governments of Iraq and Afghanistan should consider themselves fortunate that they still alive after capture and are well treated rather than running for compo for hurt feelings and injuries sustained (not talking the big prisoner abuses here - separate issue IMO) We have seen the treatment metered out to our guys – remember the coppers? Remember the drivers dragged from their vehicles, disarmed and murdered by the side of the road? Let's not blur who's who

To get back to BEags title for this topic – seems a little close to the ‘baby killer’ thing used against the returning Vietnam vets – strange coming from a man that would have had no qualms about dropping ‘instant sunshine’ on Boris’s finest. This isn’t meant as a personal attack BEags, but consider your stand on the war from the word go and ponder the point that your views may be coloured by them – how did you feel when you heard another IRA man had been ‘slotted’? ‘Good, there’s another one gone’ or ‘they’ve violated his basic human rights?’

[16 blades]

Gentlemen,

I am the first to admit that some of my views, as expressed here, lean towards a particular extreme. However, Sunfish, that is ALL I was doing - expressing an opinion, on a thread with (by BEagle's admission) an emotive title designed to stir debate.

Your offensive and downright rude personal attack on me was totally unwarranted. If you dislike my views, please attack THEM, not ME personally. I can assure you that I am exactly who I claim to be (a currently serving Hercules pilot), and that in recent years I have served several tours in several, diverse operational theatres. Your attack was downright insulting, and little else.

I presume from your profile and some parts of your posts that you are now retired from the Armed Forces. I would point out to you that the war being fought now is quite unlike any we have encountered before - you may not appreciate this since you haven't been there (I'm presuming - I do not know how long you served, in what capacity or when you left - feel free to enlighten me, if you can lay off the insults). Coalition troops are subject to scrutiny by both the media and the tank-chasing lawyers as never before. How long is it going to be before a young, inexperienced soldier dies because he hesitated in pulling the trigger, wondering whether or not his actions are going to land him in prison on his return home?

I am well aware of my obligations under the various Geneva Conventions, as well as those under military law, thank you - my length of service runs into double digits so please do not patronise simply because you do not agree with my views. I was not advocating acting outside of the various constraints that govern us - I was suggesting that since those constraints are over half a century old, designed for a different time and a different world, we should seek to review them as a matter of urgency.

In terms of intelligence-gathering from interrogation - the main interest ought to lie with obtaining longer-term information, future plans, weapons sources, whereabouts & movements of leaders, etc. Immediate 'battlefield' intelligence is of little use when the 'battle' was a roadside IED and lasted all of 0.25 seconds. So the aim of applying long-term pressure to a detainee is, in my mind, a sound one.

It appears that the most vociferous critics on the subject at hand are those who left the forces some time ago, have never served in Iraq as it is now, and have the luxury of being able to stand outside the tent merrily pissing in, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to experience what those of us still serving must.

Roghead, spot on, just the sentiment I was trying to convey earlier - except you did it with greater eloquence than I can muster. You are correct, I do NOT hold the moral high ground, nor do I aim to. IMHO NEITHER side can hold the moral high ground in war - consider the view that a hypothetical, completely impartial person may take - we say THEY are evil murderers; they say that WE are. Who holds the moral high ground is entirely dependent on your point of view - to the hypothetical impartial observer, NEITHER side does.

Stuk, I too doff my cap to you. I think I said earlier on this thread that judgement needs to be reserved until the FACTS of this case emerge - sadly, in the eyes of the Arab world, the damage has already been done, by premature, irresponsible and politically-motivated journalism.

Happytruckin,
By moderate Arab opinion I meant the many Arab governments who allow the UK and US to put military bases on their soil and fly aircraft through their airspace.
I think you'll find they are being rewarded / cajoled / compensated for their co-operation (usually with large sums of aid cash), rather than doing it for more altruistic motives. Almost all Arab states would rather not be involved in this at all, were they given a choice.

Maple 01 agree with your points - unfortunately once we HAVE captured them (ie they have surrendered or been overpowered), the Geneva Convention III (1948 I think) on the treatment of PWs is the treaty that takes precedence, and it is much more restrictive. However, this convention was designed to deal with uniformed or readily identifyable members of a force acting on behalf of a sovereign nation - currently terrorists do not fit into ANY of the defined categories of PWs - they are not 'non-combatant civilians', nor are they 'levees-en-masse' because they are an organised force bearing arms and carrying out planned attacks. Another good reason, IMHO, to review the conventions.

Sunfish,
The simple reason is that human beings are not "means" to an end, they are an end in themselves.
two wrongs don't make a right.
Says who, exactly? You seem to deal an awful lot in moral absolutes - from where exactly do you derive this moral authority? Or is it simply a case of 'I'm better than them, therefore I must be right?'

You seem to see alot of this in black and white - I see many shades of grey in these matters, with more shades emerging every day as this war progresses. I do not imagine for a second that we will ever agree on this issue.

War is, by its nature, a dirty, nasty process in which there are no prizes for coming second. I sincerely hope that, sometime in the future, people are not standing up and saying "Well, at least we kept the moral high ground!" - as Al-Qa'ida-delivered nuclear devices vapourise the major cities of the West.

16B

[Sunfish]

I apologise 16 Blades, I get hot under the collar when I hear these opinions because the behaviour of the people concerned is a very serious matter which prejudices the success of the war.

As some others have alluded to, quite correctly in my opinion, we have to create the conditions in Iraq where Arabs have the option of "Just saying No" to insurgency. There self esteem is already damaged and they resent us. We make it worse for ourselves by making it more difficult for them to support our activities.

That is why it is imperative that we treat them well as prisoners and avoid playing into the hands of fundamentalist propagandists. That is why Al Grhaib, Guantanamo, torture and so on our counter productive. They give the Arabs more reasons to hate us, which makes it more difficult to win.

As for my point about condonation, the CO is on trial for it, and the evidence must be pretty substantial to take such a step.

I agree and understand Maple, however to paraphrase Mrs Beeton: "First catch your insurgent". We have no way of knowing at the time whether the people we have stopped are insurgents or not, and every innocent bloke who gets roughened up is going to sing long and loud to his friends and family back home about his treatment. I'm a fan of the old kill em with kindness routine.

As for the "ends justify the means" argument. This relates to philosophy before the enlightenment in about 1700 or so. Humans were supposed to be on earth to do God's will, whatever that was. The Jesuits pushed the "ends" argument on the basis that whatever they did was for a very good end - the glory of God, therefore everything was all right, no matter how twisted the means were.

With the enlightenment came humanism which basically said that human affairs can be perfected by the application of scientific methods, replacing the old mysticism of the Church. Humanism proposes that we can determine the truth ourselves by scientific method and argument We are thus free creatures and therefore not "means" that can be utilised to achieve "ends".

Then of course there is the utilitarianist use of the argument that says that one or more persons can be sacrificed to save 3000 people. This is the torturing the terrorist with the knowledge of the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

Unfortunately this falls down as well since the" means" we are talking about - torture, are in the immediate present, and the "ends" are in the future and may never be achieved. Often the "ends" are not what the Government states they are anyway.

It also falls down on the basis of what is the justification. Is it OK to torture one person to death in the hope of saving 3000? How about torturing ten to death including two innocents?

Exactly who is going to do the ghastly mathematics about torturing ten people witha probability of 80% that two of them are innocent and a probability of 50% that we can save 100 people? Sorry Sunshine, nobody gets to make such decisions.


Then of course their is the expereince of the entire 20th century that demonstrates that no government can be trusted with such powers for any reason because they lie to their own people.

[TurbineTooHot]

How long is it going to be before a young, inexperienced soldier dies because he hesitated in pulling the trigger, wondering whether or not his actions are going to land him in prison on his return home?


Better to be judged by twelve, than buried by six.


I have to admit though, reading all of the arguments herein, that the coalition needs to sort out its direction.

All comes down to hearts and minds.

Give the insurgents nowhere to go but alienating them with the locals. Make them the bad guys in the eyes of the arab world.

This is not an easy task, but this is where the effort really needs to be put in.

TTH

[Dave Martin]

Wow, I really am shocked by some of the replies on here.

While we still look at Islam and the Middle East as a monolithic evil, all that is really portrayed is our ignorance.

16 Blades, my earlier reference to FOX was based on substance, not alignment. I don't look at it as a news source, any more than the Sun or the Sport are. This isn't due to the political angle it stirkes, rather the format of the news - it is Orwelian and little different in form from Nazi or Soviet propaganda. I can happily obsorb right-wing news as much as left-wing if it is "fair and balanced". Fox aint. Sadly much, maybe most, of Amercan outlook on the world is gleaned from this visual source.

Really can't stomach reading this any more, but it is enlightening. The obvious conclusion drawn is, we (the US and UK) have lost this war and will continue to do so while those that hold the levers of power think in these terms. We will continue to be hated and continue to be the target of vengeance, not just from Islam, but from the growing number of people who see our "western ways" as no longer carrying any appeal. We have little or no morale high ground to shout from. This is a porblem far more endemic than a couple of soldiers possibly beating prisoners to death, but this just happens to be one of the examples that floats to the surface for western eyes.

Our own ignorance and manipulation is no less than that of the fools making murder in Iraq.

[SASless]

Turbine Too Hot...

Al-Jaserra (sic) shows all of the beheadings in full length...repeatedly.....and refuses to show Saddam in his undies.

Just how do we counter that kind of propaganda and media coverage of events?

If the average Muslim finds that to be acceptable coverage and conduct by those fighting the Coalition Forces....just how are we to sway their opinion?

If those who call themselves Muslim/Islamic/Followers of Mohammed, or whatever.....accept the preaching of hate, killing, and bombing of those that are not members of their religious persuasion....just how are we to deal with that part of the world's population?

I dare say....throwing an arm over your chest and babbling Allah Akhbar....just is not going to work.

The old saying about "Hearts and Minds" was oft times modified by those actually fighting the bad guys to a more realistic version....that is ...."If you have them by the ghoolies....their hearts and minds will follow!"

Maybe that is where we are going wrong...we are stuck in the middle of the two approaches....the soft and cuddly....and the grab'em by the tender bits.....and that is why the situation is so slow to improve.

For those who do not like the FOX News....I would suggest you critically review CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. CBS has a proven track record of false reporting, to wit Dan Blater and Mary Mapes. ABC has a Canadian reading the news....we know they are anything but moderates up north. NBC is lost in the wilderness trying anything to boost ratings. We do not call CNN the Clinton News Network out of pure jest.

Our mass media are losing ratings....FOX is gaining. I wonder why that is if they are so off the mark? The New York Times and all the other major newspapers are losing circulation....must be fish sales are falling too.

Internet Bloggers , Talk Radio, and Fox News are taking over in this country.....is it to do with their false reporting...or the fact they are more balanced (operative word...."more") than the other mass media outlets that have a plain and proven liberal anti-american bias?

The mass media management do not consider Bloggers to be journalists....wonder why that is? Since when do you have to have a university degree in Journalism to be a news reporter? If your product is superior....will not it succeed against the inferior product? Bloggers are taking over. Look at the success of the Drudge Report. Talk radio has taken the country by storm....not just conservative commentators but also liberal shows as well. At least the American people are not being spoon fed by a few media outlets that are for all intents and purposes, mere clones of one another as to content and slant.

Our constitution safeguards the Press....but it also states that the Press is supposed to be the purveyor of "truth".....the real...actual....honest by God Truth....not the truth as they wish it to be. We are having a crisis within this country in that regard. Again....Dan Blater is case in point....and Newsweek Magazine followed by the LA Times and NY Times.

Rome fell from within....as have most "civilizations"....the Western World best awake to what is going on around us.

[Jackonicko]

SASless,

You can't judge the quality or accuracy of journalism by ratings or circulation. The majority are ignorant, boorish, and ill-educated, and the most popular TV programmes and newspapers are popular because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. If Fox or the Sun say something, it's a pretty clear indicator that it's wrong, not that it's right.

I'd also point out that Americans probably don't understand hearts and minds, because they've never been any good at winning them. Contrast the different approaches of the Brits in Malaya and your lot in Vietnam. The British forces have traditionally done very well in counter insurgency ops, by contrast, by carefully combining decisive and pretty uncompromising force against the enemy with a much more fluffy approach to their communities.

16B,

We certainly need to modify the Geneva Conventions so that terrorists can be dealt with appropriately, but we must ensure that we don't treat anyone picked up as a potential terrorist simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that we are fighting under the British flag, representing Western values of decency and civilisation. If we resort to casual and indiscriminate brutality, surely we are furthering the enemy's aims. Isn't it the case that anyone who beats a prisoner to death isn't one of us, he's a traitor and an enemy to the values we're fighting for, and fighting to spread.

Maple 01,

You can't compare what would have been OK had the Cold War turned hot, with what's OK now, in a peace-keeping/peace enforcement situation, and when public mores are so different. Moreover, while our interrogators might have been happy to disorientate, sleep deprive, segregate and threaten enemy prisoners, it's never been the British way to beat people so badly that they die. That's the kind of treatment the South African Police or East Germans used to mete out.

[sparkie]

16B

As someone who used to be on the 'inside looking out' but is now on the 'outside looking in' I congratulate you on a very sensible and moderate reply.

There is no doubt that ROE's and all that they entail have changed dramatically since I last donned a 'cabbage suit' in earnest. (1991). I sometimes think its all a big media show thesedays and wonder how the hell anyone in the military can possibly make a move without attracting undue attention.

Thankyou for a most interesting viewpoint, made even more poignant coming from someone who has and no doubt is dealing with it on a regular basis





Selcal has a lot to answer for - ask any WOp

[16 blades]

Sunfish,

I thank you for your apology. May I also offer you one, if I offended any of your (or anyone else's in this discussion) sensibilities. I too feel passionately about this issue, albeit at the other end of the spectrum to some here.

I'm afraid I am not a fan of Humanism - I cannot believe in all truth that there is ANY way in which mankind can 'perfect' itself, and the reason this thread is here at all is testament to that - ie a well trained and disciplined soldier from a nation who's laws and values respect human rights and the GC is ALLEGED to have 'lost it' with a prisoner and caused his death - in other words, he is ALLEGEDLY guilty of being.........HUMAN. The capacity for deeds of magnitude evil rests within each and every one of us - it is a fundamental part of our nature and CANNOT be eradicated, by 'scientific' or any other methods. One only needs to look at the manifold conflicts raging around the world at the moment to understand this.

I also believe that we will never 'spread our values' to the Arab / Islamic world as there is little, if any, common ground between our cultures. Many people make the mistake of judging islamic culture with western values - what results is almost always a misrepresentation of the truth.

Happytruckin,

You are correct, and perhaps my 'pinko armchair general' quip was a little hot-headed - please see my apology above. I have, however, been 'outside the wire' on more than one occasion at Basrah and other places, and I can safely say I would NOT wish my primary duties to entail doing this on a daily basis. I have nothing but respect for those who do - hence my heartfelt hesitation to spew right-on, politically-correct condemnation on those who find themselves in difficulty, without prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.

Dave Martin,

It's a bit difficult to condemn a news program when by your own admission:
I don't look at it as a news source
Your assertion that FOX and simliar are taking over the minds of Americans is somewhat wide of the mark - it is but one cable news channel among many, and most of the others, along with most of the powerful printed media in the US, are left-leaning. Whatever your view of FOX, it does one thing extremely well - it holds those on the left to account for their views and deeds, something which virtually none of the other mainstream networks do. It also, as has already been aluded to here, provides a 'balance' to the mainstream liberal media, as well as inviting those with opposing views onto programmes like The O'Reilly Factor to say their piece. I for one enjoy FOX news, but as I'm sure you've guessed, I am a little right-leaning in my views!

16B

[siddrinker]

I've been reading this thread with interest and thought I'd add my tuppence worth.
I did 20 years in the Airforce and every time I had to work with the Army I felt threatened.
They absolutely hated the crabs so God knows what they thought about enemy prisoners.
In the Falklands we had to go about in groups of 4 unless we wanted mugged in the long corridors of 38 facility.
In Cyprus they dropped a slab of concrete on a workmate for no reason apart from the fact that he was a crab.I've got nothing but contempt for our ' Brave boys' image.
Sorry to be so bitter but I'm just saying the way I found things. I'm sure there were some good blokes but I never met them.

[Sunfish]

Turbine and others that are talking about rules of engagement and so on, you are perfectly correct about innocent people getting shot in the heat of battle, but the offences we have been talking about are NOT in the heat of battle.

So special pleading about "better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6" is irrelevant.

The real issue is one of military DISCIPLINE (sorry for shouting). The CO concerned is on trial so there must be overwhelming evidence of his (alleged) guilt. If this behaviour is not nipped in the bud, it may well get worse, culminating in war crimes trials and the inability of certain persons to take foriegn holidays.

Of course, if any of you feel that its not bad being tagged as "Crusaders" by the Arabs and behaving accordingly, then good luck at your eventual trial at the Hague.

[Widger]

BEagle,

As the other Forum is now closed (Not laughed so much in ages) I would like to say thank you for educating my poor common Pikey soul. I shall endeavour to BUFFS on my Movie history.

Regards

:ok:

I am impressed (http://www.fallenjedi.com/sounds/vader011.wav)

[BEagle]

Kushti Bok, Widger!

[SASless]

Jacko dear boy...

Do the names Dan Rather, Jason Blair, Mary Mapes, Newsweek ring a bell with you? None are associated with Fox News. The New York Times owns Newsweek and employed Jason Blair. CBS employ/used to employ Blather and Mapes.

Fox News does in fact hold the Liberals and Left leaning media outlets feet to the fire. That is as it should be.

Under our constitutional guarantees is the freedom of speech.....but it requires a committment to the truth by those so protected which in so many cases now days does not exist.

The shocking thing to me is how the other media outlets herd up around those that get caught lying...Jacko....in case your eyes are getting weak..."LYING"....rather than treating them in the same way they do our military when something happens that falls beyond the standards we expect our troops to maintain.

Those in the media that abuse their special position in our society with immunity from denouncement by their peers....perpetrate a very real crime against those that are in harms's way protecting their lying butts.

I would submit to you and those that take the Higher moral ground in this debate that you are not on the crest of the hill here....you conveniently ignore the "TRUTH" when it suits your political purpose.

The truth of the matter is the conventional media is beyond contempt and it is their very own doing. If they wish to take an editorial view it should be clearly contained within that portion of their product....marked in big bold letters as being "their opinion" and not necessarily based upon the facts of the issue. That is not happening now.....and our democratic way of life is in risk of destruction as a result.

It is the soldiers that give us our freedoms...not the publishers or news presenters.....some in our midst have forgotten that.

[16 blades]

It is the soldiers that give us our freedoms...not the publishers or news presenters.....some in our midst have forgotten that.

SASless, :ok: - couldn't have put that better myself. Sir, I salute you.

16B

[Jackonicko]

Soldiers have won us some of our freedoms, trades unionists and politicians others. No sensible person would deny or diminish that. Soldiers have sometimes safeguarded our freedoms, but have also sometimes been used to help suppress or repress them. King George's redcoats helped repress freedoms in the Colonies, and closer to home (remember Peterloo?).

A free press can, and sometimes does, help to guarantee some of our freedoms, and sometimes helps warn us when they are under threat, or when our freedoms or values are being undermined. No sensible person would deny or diminish that.

As they are being undermined when undisciplined troops, off the leash, kill or beat up innocent civilians or prisoners alike. No sensible person would deny that.

[pr00ne]

SASless/16blades,

Oh come on, please! “…soldiers that give us our freedoms…..?

To most of the population of this planet soldiers bring repression, enslavement, deprivation, exploitation, bereavement, horror, fear, pain, injury, torture and death.

This has been the case down the ages, nowadays soldiers do their political masters bidding, most of which is defending well entrenched self interest and has precious little to do with “giving” freedom to anyone. In bye gone days it was the same only it was the bidding of families who reckoned they had some divine right to rule over the rest of the population rather than politicians that was the soldiers aim.

When soldiers have “given” us our freedoms it usually involved taking away someone else’s or was a Civil War involving a divided population. WW2 was a citizens war like no other and we shall never see its like again.

[SASless]

Proone....


I guess it depends upon which side you are cheering for.

If my feeble memory does not fail me....seems I recall recently seeing Iraqi's dancing in the streets after they voted. Granted some of them had to clean up the remains of their friends and neighbors killed by suicide bombers outside the polling places.

You think the women of Afghanistan might suggest they have new freedom under the democratic government they now enjoy as compared to the Taliban?

What is it Proone....about 50,000,000 people that have a chance to live in freedom now as compared to living under Saddam and the Taliban? That does not count the Lebanese since the Syrians have pulled out....or the Egyptians now that elections are beginning there....or even in Saudi where local elections are beginning....or even Kuwait where the Iraqi's got the boot.

(Snotty closing comment deleted)

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill

[pr00ne]

SASless…………..

Those Iraqis are so grateful for the freedom we brought them that they are killing us on a daily basis and we have to maintain huge standing forces in country to ensure that they stay free and don’t revert to anything we may not like.

Afghanistan? you went in there to free the oppressed Afghan women did you? How come you only did that after 9 11? Didn’t the CIA actually fund and assist the Taliban in ejecting the Russians from Afghanistan? which means that those Afghan women were living in those conditions because of a regime you funded and assisted into power and did nothing to control or criticise until Bin Laden attacked the US.
Try going back to Afghanistan and seeing exactly what has changed and how many women are “free” in “democratic Afghanistan.”

If you are so keen on freedom and democracy why aren’t you going into Syria, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Cuba etc etc etc.

Because freedom had nothing to do with attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan or invading Iraq, they were acts of political self interest, not “soldiers giving anyone freedom.”

[Sunfish]

"Its the soldiers who gave us our freedoms"

Oh please! Both world wars were fought by conscripts and we didn't have to make special pleadings about soldiers not obeying the Geneva Convention on our side!

Anyway....Have a good weekend.

[SASless]

Proone ....

In the words of a US Marine....when asked by a typical liberal news reporter "Why are you fighting in Iraq?" That fine young man merely smiled and said "implementing my government's policies.....we don't make the policy...we just carry it out!"

Do you think for one second the world is devoid of politics? If you cannot accept the fact that politics is and always will be the vehicle by which the world's nations conduct their affairs....then you fail to see reality. This is a time of great conflict in the world....and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Accept it. For sure,you and I cannot change it. I will without reservation tell you that things are not run the way I would like to see them done....but I am only one person as are you.

A very small number of Iraqi's are fighting us....just as did some Germans at the end of WWII....in time they will be defeated.

I did not say we went in to free the women...I said as a result of that action, women are better off today than under the Taliban. Undeniably so....no more football stadium executions for going about uncovered.

Why are we not going into all those other places....rephrase the question....why are you not there? You are the government that opposed the Rhodesian independence. My country turned our backs upon them too....

Simply put, we have our hands full with Iraq currently. Defense cuts during the Clinton years left our military so short-handed that we do not have the necessary force structure to devote more troops to Syria. One might note it is shorter to road march to the Med than load up for an Arabian Gulf departure however.

Any way you figure it....it is the squaddie out there on the ground with the rifle and bayonet, the aircrew, and the sailors that exert the force needed to effect national policy. Politicians talk about it...news people decry it....but the war fighters do it.

Take a wander through some military cemetaries and take note of the price they pay for having the courage to stand up for what they believe in.

We owe them our undying gratitude and solid support. You have a bone to pick...do it with the politicians that put them there....not the guys that do it.

We in the United States are coming to our Memorial Day this weekend....a time when we honour all those that have served and those that were lost. It is right we do so.

Sunfish

Both wars were fought by Conscripts....which two wars are you referring to? Please do enlighten us as to where you came up with that gem.

Significant volunteers in all Western armies during the two World Wars....also there were ample evidence of prisoners being shot out of hand by our side. Ever read the accounts of how the German POW's suffered in PW enclosures at the end of the war. You plainly do not know your history.

Ever hear of the Eagle Squadron....all American pilots conscripted from the USA by the RAF. Yeah, right!

[pr00ne]

SASless.............

Whatever.....

We are dragging this thread off track, I just wanted to remind you that more people fear soldiers than have grateful regard for them.

As to conscripts, in Europe WW1 and WW2 WERE conscript wars fought by nations who mobilised their entire national resources.
How on earth can you claim any different?

[SASless]

Proone

Had to ignore Hundreds of thousands of volunteers....understood the great majority of the troops were in fact conscripts....we had 18 million under arms at one time thus most were not volunteers....but to declare with finality that they were conscript fought wars overstates the facts.

We should also remember we had press censorship in those two wars as well.....and excesses for the home team were not allowed to be aired. Quite a different situation to current practice.

To paint our current crop of troops as less noble...less disciplined...or in any way sub-standard is not a fair statement. As in any war....the vast majority of troops perform excellent service and do not deserve to be tarnished by the few whose conduct falls short of the standard. There have always been excesses in any war....this war is no different but I do not think hanging the few as an example is the right approach to solving the problem either.

I take my hat off to the current serving troops who are caught in some very difficult circumstances. Those who wish to point fingers ought to take a moment to consider what it must be like to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The troops are under incredible stress and face a very determined and capable enemy who are fighting in an urban setting. There is no more difficult fight than that.

We have readers who are serving there....who have served there...and who have sons and daughters who also are involved. I also have some feelings for them when they are exposed to the kinds of comments some of the posters have made.

I have said it before....and I will continue to say it....those that try to take the High Moral Ground here....are wrong when they attempt to paint the troops with a big broad brush.

When you have experienced a barrage of RPG's and seen the damage they cause.....or see the results of an IED or car bomb....your perspective of what is kind and gentle will be coloured a bit.

It may not make it right....but I can begin to understand why some of the excesses have occured. That is the point I am trying to make....our troops are human and will as humans are want to do...make mistakes. It just seems they should be the recipients of the same kind of mercy that is being demanded for their enemies.

[ZH875]

Their Brave Boys or Murdering Thugs?

[16 blades]

Oh dear Pr00ne - I knew it was only a matter of time before you stuck your left oar in here.
Try going back to Afghanistan and seeing exactly what has changed and how many women are “free” in “democratic Afghanistan.”
Been to Afghanistan recently, have you? Thought not......
Those Iraqis are so grateful for the freedom we brought them that they are killing us on a daily basis
...or Iraq? Of course you haven't. But don't let that stop you 'telling it like it is' now.

I think you'll find that the majority of strife in Iraq is being caused or stirred up by foreign Islamists, helped along by some of the 'vested interests' you so decry, of the former regime.

Sunfish,
Oh please! Both world wars were fought by conscripts and we didn't have to make special pleadings about soldiers not obeying the Geneva Convention on our side!
er....I'm sure you are aware of when the Geneva Conventions regarding PWs (GCIII and IV) were enacted. Discussions about 'war crimes' committed in WWI and WWII are pointless, since few actual 'war crimes' were committed in either confilct in respect of PW handling - the Hague Convention 1907 contained many get-out clauses which basically allowed a party to a conflict to use almost any means necessary to maintain discipline or extract information, if it was 'militarily necessary'. This was not superceded until GCIII and IV came into force in 1950.

Even under GCIV (mainly concerned with 'protected persons), individuals can forfeit their protected status - Article 5 States that if a person is suspected of being an 'illegal combatant' (basically not wearing a uniform or readily identifyable markings, or not conducting themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war - GCIII Article 5), they forfeit their rights to protected status. Article 42 provides for their internment for as long as they remain a threat to the security of the state or occupying power. The only 'right' that they retain is to be treated humanely, althought 'humanely' does not appear to be defined.

It follows therefore, that an 'illegal combatant' can be interrogated using ANY means, so long as those means are not 'inhumane' - again, this remains undefined, which IMHO only adds weight to my assertion that these Conventions need to be reviewed. This will ultimately be to the benefit of BOTH parties, as captured terrorists will have a legally defined status, rather than the currently ill-defined no-man's land, and there will be a framework defining exactly what we can and cannot do, as in the case of legal combatant PWs. (NOTE: They only have to be SUSPECTED of being an illegal combatant for the above to apply, as stated in GCIV Article 5, not PROVEN to be terrorists).

GCIII Article 42 provides for the use of force and weapons against PWs. It defines such use of weapons as an 'extreme measure', particularly against PWs escaping or attempting to escape. IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE USE OF SUCH FORCE - but does require that it 'shall be preceded by such warnings as are appropriate in the circumstances' - in other words, if a PW is resisting arrest, rebelling or attacking his captors, force CAN be used against them. There also does not appear to be a bar on lethal force, if deemed necessary. Again, none of these protections apply to 'illegal combatants'.

In summary:

1. If a person is not wearing a uniform or readily identifyable marks, OR is not acting within the constraints of the various conventions governing war, they ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PW STATUS OR PROTECTED PERSON STATUS, and are an ILLEGAL COMBATANT. Suspicion of the above, and not unequivocable proof, is all that is required.

2. An illegal combatant can be interned indefinitely by the occupying power as long as they are considered a security risk.

3. The only right an illegal combatant has is to be treated 'humanely' - this term is not explicitly defined.

One more thing to consider, Pr00ne -
To most of the population of this planet soldiers bring repression, enslavement, deprivation, exploitation, bereavement, horror, fear, pain, injury, torture and death.
Exactly what freedoms do you think we would enjoy today were it NOT for these soldiers whom you so readily berate?

16B

[bird99]

I'm loathe to come in at this point because there's too much to say, but I'll blah on anyway.

Dave Martin

Agree wholeheartedly. Those of you who state that FOX presents 'the other side' (was it 'hold their feet to the fire'?) ought to bear in mind that that is the only channel that is normally tuned in for US forces in Iraq and the wider ME region. No problem with one channel being a Rumsfeld fan club site, but when it's all the guys see, then that's a problem.

I am nervous about commenting more widely - I am sp pleased the women of Afghanistan voted but it's not perfect by any means (neither are most democracies - though that's not my argument). Most Iraqis and, incidentally most ME countries, are glad to see the back of Hussein's regime but that does not excuse the mistakes that we have made since the end of Phase 3 (reasons various - needs new thread).

None of this is simple but I believe in treating others as I would want to be treated and, I know it sound trite, but two wrongs don't make a right. Unless we maintain the moral high ground (I hate that phrase - any suggested alternatives?) we are no better than those whose methods we stoop to.

I think I'd better stop now.

[pr00ne]

16 blades,

Actually I HAVE been to Afghanistan, twice in the last eight months, and not in some safe military camp but actually out amongst the locals, for professional reasons, so shove it!

No I haven't been to Iraq but are you REALLY claiming that you have the support of the locals, nearly 700 dead since the elections?

Lastly, I am NOT berating soldiery, just countering the ridiculous statement that soldiers "give" us freedom, they don't!

I am a white male closer to 60 than 50, I think I owe most of my freedoms to those mentioned by Jackonicko in a post further up the page.

[Navaleye]

To most of the population of this planet soldiers bring repression, enslavement, deprivation, exploitation, bereavement, horror, fear, pain, injury, torture and death.

I think the occupants of the Falkland Islands might disagree with you Pr00ne. As far as well trained and disciplined western/european troops are concerned that statement is sheer drivel.

[ZH875]

I am a white male closer to 60 than 50, I think I owe most of my freedoms to those mentioned by Jackonicko in a post further up the page.

In another 30 years people may say

"I am an Iraqi person closer to 60 than 50, I think I owe most of my freedoms to those mentioned by 16Blades and SASless in a post further up the page."

[Jackonicko]

The post 'up the page' said:

"Soldiers have won us some of our freedoms, trades unionists and politicians others."

And:

"A free press can, and sometimes does, help to guarantee some of our freedoms, and sometimes helps warn us when they are under threat, or when our freedoms or values are being undermined."

Is it really so hard to give credit where credit is due? Why the compulsion to credit the military with winning us everything we value?

And why is it so hard to criticise rogue members of the military who mistreat captives and/or civilians, in just the same way that we'd harangue incompetent politicians or irresponsible or unprincipalled members of the press, condemning them robustly while recognising that they are not broadly representative?

Does it really have to be quite so black and white?

[SASless]

Jacko,

Why is it when politicians and press nimrods commit grievous offenses nothing happens to them? When squaddies make mistakes we carry out courtsmartials and send them to prison?

I suggest there is no justice in a system that does not demand equal punishment to those who knowingly commit acts of misconduct.

When our Liberal friends refuse to accept offensive conduct by their trusted colleagues and demand harsh punishment of those offenses....then I will cease my opposition to what is happening to our soldiers.

Equality, justice, and fair play is what I am seeking......empty words to a Liberal....but very real concepts to others.

An example....there was a suicide bombing at a mosque in Pakistan a few days ago.....lots of people killed. Show me anywhere in the Liberal Press/Media where there was any denouncment of that crime and its perpetrators. Where was the Muslim outcry.....but yet unfounded reports of mishandling of a Koran resulted in thousands marching in the streets and burning American flags. Did the Liberal Press/Media take issue with the protesters and state the truth about the situation? Not at all....no where did the press/media (except Fox News) suggest the protesters were wrong to ignore the bombing and raise hell over the unfounded press reports. Despite knowing the sensitivity of the situation...the LA Times and other outlets continue to run the story despite there being not one bit of evidence that the Koran was intentionally defamed.

I would suggest fairness and accrucacy only gets in the way of the Liberal media's quest to cause trouble for the Bush Administration.....no matter the cost to the national interest or that of the Muslims in this world.

That is why I think it is wrong to focus on the Troops and ignore the other transgressors.

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

That statement is NOT drivel, to the vast majority of humanity on this planet it is a daily fact, who mentioned western/european and well disciplined, weren't the SS european and well disciplined?

[Maple 01]

Thanks pr00ne, I just won a fiver there, I wondered how long it would be before the SS came up, however, they were political rather than professional soldiers and I hope you're not comparing Aus/Can/UK/US/NZ forces with Nazi Germany

Mr Blair is on record as saying 'we are a force for world good' any guestions?

[Bigtop]

Interesting that as a serviceman/woman you have to be accountable for yr every action.
How many of our boys & grils have been in the dock for courts martial or enquiries to account for their actions/decisions etc - isn't it time Blair and Bush were called to account for their actions and decisions!

[Maple 01]

Actually I'd settle for a bit more press accountability, it's hard enough for the boys and girls 'on the ground' without the press leaving no turn unstoned.

God (Or Allah) forbid some positive stories could emerge - some papers were very grudging about the recent VC for example, most had an 'however' paragraph tacked on to their 'congratulations'

Bit of an afterthought - all this second-guessing by the media kind of reminds me of the problems guarding stations against the IRA when the guard had a split second to react and the Court of Inquiry had six mouths to work out what he/she should have done.

[ImageGear]

I beg to differ,

It seems to me that politicians, trades unionists and the media decide what the freedoms are, and the military and workers go out and deliver them either actively or by deterrence.

ergo - no military, no freedom.

- and when it all goes pear shaped, the politicians wash their collective hands and hurry up to the other place, the media pontificates, the trade unionists evaporate and the squaddies either perish or go inside.

Rough justice.

Imagegear.

[SASless]

Bird99....one of the reasons FOX is viewed by the troops to a greater extent than the other news groups is they are generally more conservative and more prone to view outlets that support what they are doing.

Some stats on viewing in the USA....

6-1-05 8PM RATINGS

FOXNEWS O'Reilly Factor - 2,268,000 viewers

CNN 25th anniversary special -- 345,000

MSNBC/Countdown with Keith Olbermann - 213,000

[bird99]

SASless

Completely agree - but is it healthy? It might be nice listening to a news channel that blows smoke, but is that all you'd want? If we only had access, on deployment, to a channel that supported us, would that be healthy? Maybe you think it would, but it certainly makes coming home easier, from a war most people don't agree with, if you've seen several sides to the argument.

[SASless]

Bird99,

I guess it all comes down to which news channel blows the most smoke I guess.....or blows the least offensive smoke. Personally, I find FOX to be the best channel...at least they have a sense of humour...Brit Hume does as good an analysis of politics I have heard on the Telly. Tim Russert is good as well with the Jim Lehrer's program being quite good too. O'Reilly is a real breath of fresh air....he will take on causes that the majority of people believe in.

Contrary to what the Liberal media will try to tell you...the majority of Americans are neither conservative nor liberal and fall squarely in the middle. We are seeing a shift in the political makeup of the population....the coasts are more liberal and the interior is more conservative. The majority of the population seems be gathering in the large urban areas and thus by means of the abundance of liberals in those areas, they are able to control many of the states.

An example....Washington State...Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and Spokane are the major cities and are "liberal" voting blocs. The vast preponderance of the state geographically but less populated than those cities....are "conservative". Oregon is the same way....Portland, Salem, and Eugene control that states votes. Nevada....is controlled by Las Vegas and Reno.

This gets us to the Red and Blue states situation....used to be one had to carry the South to win the Presidency....and the Democrats used to do so everytime. No longer...the Republicans are carrying the South....simple answer....Southerners are conservative folks....and the Democratic party has been taken over by the radical left. Years ago, the radical right had control of the Republican party....and it lost elections until more moderates took over. Same is happening to the Democrats.

Long answer to your question....sorry.

FOX is the network of choice of the military (and more and more Americans in general) for a lot of valid reasons. Despite what you suggest....FOX is the most balanced and most fair of the networks. You may not like it...but that is the case. Shall I remind you of CBS and its plainly biased agenda? CNN has long been known as the Clinton News Network....its founder Ted Turner took them to task on their big anniversary recently. The treatment of the news and the content of CBS, ABC, NBC all mirror one another.....FOX is the one that has a broader content than the others.

The war is not as unpopular as you think.....as it drags on...it becomes more unpopular as is always the case. The American people are a lot brighter than our Liberal media think....that is why the Republicans are wining elections and gaining representation in the Congress and within State governments.