Iraq - is there ANY hope?!?

[Halfnut]

How's this for an idea. Seeing as how the United States still has Saddam Hussein in jail tell the people of Iraq the Western world screwed up! We didn't find any WMD so we sure are sorry! We'll fix it by putting Mr. Hussein and his thugs back in power and when we leave things will be the same as before we came.

That will get their attention!

[PPRuNe Pop]

This thread is an example of a good debate. Then someone comes along who tries to flame it with irrelevant posts and drivel. They are now gone to the sin bin - and so will any others who do the same.

The thread is interesting, keep it that way please gentlemen, and ladies.

PPP

[16 blades]

Gents, let's not turn this excellent and even - handed discussion into a personal slanging match. If you want to do that, just f*****g PM or e-mail each other!

To reflect earlier posts, IMHO 'Democracy' will not work in the ME - they are not a 'nation' (ANY ME nation) as we know it - Arabs particularly, and muslims in genral, tend to align themselves tribally (a concept we do not understand fully in the west) and do not recognise centralised authority the way we do, unless it is enforced upon them (a la Saddam). They also do not respect ANY show of weakness (the 'withdrawal' from Fallujah will be percieved in the Islamic world as such). You do not have to 'win' a battle / war in the eyes of Islam to be seen as a victor; if you merely 'stood up to' a superior force you are a hero - even if you well and truly had your @rse kicked.

I see all the anti-Bush / anti-coalition / anti semetic / anti Israel / pro-European / pro Piers Morgan and his filthy rag / pro 'let's tax the 'rich', hard working people of the world and give their hard earned money to lazy useless f*****s who have never lifted a finger to earn it' / Guardian readers / anti-globsalisation / 'one world, one tribe' / anti 'Racisim' (any white, christian, heterosexual man who speaks up for himself and his own nowadays seems to be slapped down as a racist / homophobe / bigot) / 'liberal' / 'new' enlightened wealth-guilty westerner ...............(in my experience, most of you naysayers and conspiracy theorists will fit into most of the above categories) has already jumped on this particular bandwagon with their 'modern', '21st century', 'enlightened', 'inclusive' views.

My response to these people is...........start from around November 2002; how would you have handled this problem???

This is a difficult situation. The Western world relies on Oil. It is our God. (anyone who thinks otherwise should remember that it only took a handful of Farmers / Truckers to blockade 3 refineries for a few days a couple of years ago and the country (uk) was brought to a virtual standstill).

The rights and wrongs of oil dependence can be debated until the cows come home, but it is a fact. We need oil, and it is not a simple 'attitude adjustment' to switch to a Hydrogen based economy (it takes a considerable amount of energy to electrolyse water to produce Hydrogen; the only way this can be achieved on the required scale would be much more widespread use of nuclear-generated electricity, if CO2 emission targets are to be met) I reaLLY WISH THE TREE-HUGGING BRIGADE WOULD MAKE THEIR MINDS UP ON THIS ISSUE! You don't get 'owt for 'nowt (yorkshire paraphrase of the laws of thermodynamics).

The upshot of all this is that we need the ME on side, at least politically. Muslims in general (and Arabs in particular) respect overt displays of strength and will not forgive displays of 'weakness'. If we apply our own narrow views of diplomacy, 'fairness' and our oh-so-precious concept of 'human rights' we will never earn any respect in the ME and any attempt to stabilise the region will be doomed to failure.

In all the disgust at the pictures that the media have managed to 'produce' over the last few days, consider this: if I had ever been shot down whilst on ops in the ME, and the worst I suffered was to be P****d on whilst some idiot took a photograph, I would have considered myself VERY fortunate indeed! We may think that we hold ourselves to higher standards, but the one thing this furore proves is that human nature is A: Universal; and B: Evil, no matter where you were born or what system we were brought up under. Those who argue 'moral high ground' will always lose because we are as human as 'they' are. There are only ever 2 sides in a conflict; there are no 'goodies' and 'baddies' - there are only winners and losers. No side ever believes that they are in the wrong or we would never fight. Bit deep and philosophical I admit, but I'm in that kind of mood right now I'm afraid!

I apologise if this had turned into a rant, but I havent ranted on here for a while!...........

**All spelling and grammatical errors are induced by recently restored abiility to make my own choices and get p****d if i so choose, having recently returned from sausage-side**

*** Sorry, PPP if my intro now seems irrelevant - started writing this post when original personal slanging match was still here - was intersted in discussion that had preceeded! need to type f a s t e r....!!***

[prospector]

16 blades,
A very good "rant", would appear to have the benefit of a lot of recently aquired local knowledge. Thankyou.

Prospector

[Ali Barber]

According to the BBC, a Brit mil person has told them:

They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos.

They also believe the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq.

Can't offer any comment, so put it here for what it's worth to see if anyone else can verify these points.

[CatpainCaveman]

Are we seeing Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' being played out here?

That could possibly explain why there probably is very little hope for Iraq at the moment.

[Wiley]

Beagle’s story on Page Two about the KGB’s rather novel reaction to a Russian being kidnapped in Beirut back in the 80’s is worth expanding upon. The full story, as I heard it at least, was that the KGB resident, (or Station Chief in CIA-speak), sent his people out to identify the kidnappers. He then captured one of their male relatives, removed and stuffed his testicles into his mouth and nailed – nailed! – a note to the kidnappers into the man’s chest saying that the same fate would befall each and every male member of the family unless the hostage was returned.

A cab delivered the hostage unharmed to the Russian embassy that same afternoon, and there were no more Russians kidnapped in Beirut.

I’m not for one moment suggesting the Americans do anything even half way as radical as this, but they (or their political leaders) have misjudged the situation and the culture in Iraq terribly. The Arabs respect strength, and if the Coalition had stomped quite hard on the first instance of unacceptable behaviour after the invasion, the vast majority of the Iraqi masses, who are now out on the streets siding with what appears to be ‘the strength’, would have understood – and respected – the new order and kept their heads down. The winning hearts and minds approach was seen as weakness and the politically inspired retreat from Fallujah will be touted by the Arabs as an Arab military victory over the infidel for decades - even centuries - to come.

Democracy in a society not educated nor prepared for it can only result in anarchy. It’s attainable in Iraq, as it is anywhere, but not for some to come. To force it on to them will result in total chaos.

They say that history is written by the victors. They way we’re going, there’s a very good chance it’s going to be written in Arabic.

[mini]

Wiley, some good points there.

These people are completely alien to the concept of "Democracy" as we know it. Democracy is not a linear concept even in the western world. E.G. proportional representation vs one man - one vote vs the US weighted model etc.

What right do we have to impose our values on these people? especially when it seems that we haven't agreed a model amongst ourselves...

Food for thought?

[Roghead]

Thank goodness for the straight forward thinking and talking by both 16 Blades and Wiley.
I spent far too long last night trying to say the same thing without causing offence or upsetting the Western idealists and eventually "lost" my words with a Chateau bottled inspired missed key.
The thread started by asking the question is there any hope for Iraq. The answer, regrettably, is a resounding NO, as long as the fundamentalists have the upper hand. As it's their land,their culture and religion, and their contempt for all ways Western and Christian (and in fact everything else which does not accord to their version of Islam) we, the Coalition have absolutely no right to tell them how to conduct their lives, as long as they remain in their land.
I've spent 3 years living with and training probably the "best" that the ME has to offer and one of the most important things I learned from them is that our soft Western ways are seen as an incredible weakness to them and consequently can, should and will be exploited at every opportunity.
Reference the alleged prisoner abuse pictures-they are not pretty but are the reality of the type of warfare which our troops face. I suffered far, far worse humiliation as an RAF Aircrew Officer undergoing routine Resistance to Interrogation training back in the 70's. Time may have moved on but the atrocities committed by the mainly Islamic terrorists are worse now than ever. Sorry Beags you're wrong IMHO its not time for the Mess pistol, more a case of tightening security WHATEVER IT TAKES.

[Scud-U-Like]

I'll be very surprised if we and the US haven't completely withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas. Post-30th June, I think there will be hastily arranged area 'handovers' to tribal/religious leaders and we'll get the hell out of there. Let's face it, it's already happening in Fallujah.

[SilsoeSid]

Now that it has been placed here as to why the photos appear to be fake, I would like to back up my previous post and say why I think those reasons IMHO don't stand up.

Good comment by Roghead ref the UK RtoI course, and humiliation. There are also reasons why any RtoI training/briefings in a unit can only be given by the course trainers.

I haven't yet seen todays papers, but the reasons from yesterdays papers were given as;

Each scene appears to be static;
As they may be trophy photos, then this would be the case ie posed.

Clean clothes & Iraqi flag T Shirt;
With the type of material of the T shirt, dust doesn't tend to cling to it. (Modern football shirts are made of the same and always look clean unless wet/muddy) Again in a trophy photo this may have been given to prisoner to wear for effect to clarify the prisoners 'side'

Rifle no marks/ scratches;
If these are highly professional infantry soldiers then this would be expected of them, ie to take care of their weapons in such hostile conditions.

Soldiers boots not laced in standard military way;
Never heard of standard military way apart from drill boots. (take a look at any unit and boots will be laced differently).

Webbing left open - in breach of regulations;
Personal standards slipping, happens all the time at one time or another. Never realised it was a regulation per-say, but self pride.

Tactical badges normally worn on right arm would be visible;
Yes they would be if the photos showed the areas where the badges should be, ie upper part of arm. (however on one photo union flag badge is shown to be worn where it should be). In some areas of operation any unit identification is removed as SOP, however not believed to be the case here.

The soldier is not wearing standard headgear of helmet or beret;
Those who have floppie hats tend to wear them, whether on ex in Germany/UK/Canada etc or ops in ME when not on patrol to protect from sun or look 'cool'. (most tend to be cut down for extra old sweat value)

The soldiers hands look very soft - more like an office worker than a squaddie;
The best yet, men care products must be bought more by squaddies than any other male social group, maybe apart from footballers. Immaculate fingernails and general body care is immense in the younger generation these days.

Photographic expert say such photos (digital) would normally be in colour;
Normally, but as there appears to be a 'glow' in the pictures these could be taken using an infrared digital camera. This would also explain the apparent cleanliness of the location.

Just my thoughts and as I said before like most others, I hope they aren't true. However IMHO the reasons given don't stand and besides all of this, the damage has already been done.

If they are faked, I bet we can all guess who did it.

[16 blades]

Yes, that tw@t Piers Morgan and his neo-communist cohorts, no doubt. I cant believe I had the opportunity to punch his lights out once and I didnt take it!

It is rather convenient that the 'prisoners' in the photos appear to be wearing Iraqi football shirts, rather than the kind of clothes one would expect the locals to be wearing. A very clean, brand new looking shirt at that. I also noticed the lack of MND(SE) patches on the desert shirts in the pictures, the lack of sand / dust on the floor / clothes / walls, etc (dust gets EVERYWHERE in theatre), and as already pointed out, the immaculately clean rifle. Even freshly serviced weapons racked up in the armouries over there are nowhere near as clean as that. IMHO those pictures were NOT taken in Iraq.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

If none were sent this time to the gulf with the QLR the fact the pictures clearly show the floor of an old Bedford 4-tonner invalidates any claim to have been taken in theatre. Fakes, too much just doesn't add up.

[Big Unit Specialist]

Hmm, seems to be a bit of propaganda going on here. Without access to the originals and their provenance it's a bit difficult to make any concrete statements but here goes:

SOURCE: Claims to be from "an attacker" and/or his pal - let's see the evidence then. The lack of source information casts immediate doubt on the whole thing. Newspaper, hostile power, Iraqi dissidents, some foolish students/UAS/UOTC bods etc

CONTENT: Pictures look as if they may be staged - that may have been the intent of the troops(?) committing these acts. Consider the "condition" of the victim - looks well fed and take a look at the lower legs and feet (what you can see); there don't appear to be any injuries consistent with the claims made in the article AND they don't look like any Iraqi's legs I've ever seen (no comments please). As for the other inconsistencies such as 4 tonner, boots, uniforms and rifle - one needs access to the originals to make definitive judgements however, if you and your mates had just been kicking seven shades out of someone then some of the effluvia would have ended up on the clothes of those present and there is no evidence of this.

AUDIENCE: This is intended for the public, firstly the UK public and then the rest of the world. Also consider the effect this is having on members of the govt - where would you make cuts or savings if you were in a position to make those judgements having been presented with this "evidence"? Also to be considered are the Iraqi people who will have seen these images on TV and the internet - gain the support of the uncommitted!

MEDIA: Photographic - pictures speak volumes but they can easily be faked or set up/staged. In the current climate of www a picture with or without words attached is a powerful tool in warfare.

EFFECTS: What is the desired effect of these photos? Here's a starter for ten:

Sway public opinion away from support to the war - could be a newspaper thing or others with a vested interest.
Turn those Iraqis in Iraq (or out) who currently support the coalition effort against them.
Maintain the support of the loyal.
Gain the support of the undecided within Iraq.
Get Tommy Atkins and his mates to question the reasons for them being there.

And that is my opinion for the moment - so far it appears to be a propaganda (dirty word) effort by someone as yet unidentified. Furthermore it is having an effect - we are considering it! Personally I hope that I am right because the whole thing if true disgusts me. At the moment it just doesn't add up but the damage has been done - looks like a good campaign to me....

Comments many and varied expected and welcomed.

[soddim]

If nothing else the saga of these photos proves the wisdom of assuming innocence until proof of guilt - and these photos are a long way short of proof.

As for who is spreading this propaganda, look no further than the tabloid publishing the photos.

[SilsoeSid]

Sorry to water your strawberries Vortex, but how do you explain this picture?

Much larger pic can be found at14 Sigs Regt site. I know it's not the same unit, but..........

I say the front vehicle is a Bedford 4 ton and the others in the compound are DAFs.
Recognition features, front mudguards, rear mudguards, cabin structure/size/shape, smaller rear cabin window, fuel tank, front bumper. You can compare the differences in the same photo.
Another thing you may notice is that all the vehicles have covers on the back, which has been said as not being fitted.

The arguments to substantiate that they are fakes don't stand up, IMHO.

I reckon they are trophy photographs, set up for a good story in the NAAFI back home, and it's all gone horribly wrong.

p.s. Kuwait is classed as 'in theatre' and in my brief search for a bedford pic there are many pics of personnel in Iraq and Kuwait with no badges on their uniform at all,bar rank. Not another badge shortage!

I believe man has set foot on the moon, however I can also prove that those photos are faked! HOWZAT!!

[SilsoeSid]

Whats going on?

In todays Daily Express, who have been giving us reasons why these photos are faked, on page 5 is a picture of 'a soldier in Basra'

What struck me was how clean, nay immaculate, his SA80 was, no dirt, no scratches, positively pristine. Also, although we can see the whole of his right arm, despite being told that is where soldiers wear their unit insignia, there are no badges!
Added to that his clean, well manicured hands with slightly limp wrists (see the pic), this picture REALLY looks like an office worker, trust me.

Just struck me as a bit strange that these features in one set of photographs make them fake and with the same features in a different photograph we take as true.
Under the title, "ON GUARD: A British soldier on patrol after a shooting in Basra"
Is he really?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Hey SS slow down. Now, go back and re-read what I actually said not what you thought I said. So for those not listening first time this is what I actually said

“If none were sent this time to the gulf with the QLR”.

They were not 14 Sigs but the QLR and the mirror published the following comment from the the soldier concerned “Soldier A told the Mirror: "It was a four ton truck, I'm not sure what make. We always used that sort of truck when we were on raids as did other units."” Bollox, what soldier does not know what trucks are used by their regiment? As I said the QLR were not using the old bedfords.

Go here for some more detailed explanations of what is wrong. It simply does not add up, too many small, but vital inconsistancies. You moon comment is not valid. The mirror are giving gash responses to valid questions about the pictures. I agree it probably is a posed shot gone wrong to an extent. But I have no doubt the QLR were not beating up Iraqis last year as has been alledged. Those that want to believe these are real will anyway. But lets be honest the tabloids are hardly paragons of truth and justice. We all wail how full of sh1te they are when they write about aviation subjects, why should this story be any more true?

Oh yeah and here is a snap of me on guard duty

[SilsoeSid]

Vortex, your statement was,

If none were sent this time to the gulf with the QLR the fact the pictures clearly show the floor of an old Bedford 4-tonner invalidates any claim to have been taken in theatre. Fakes, too much just doesn't add up.

I would like to take the part of ;
'the pictures clearly show the floor of an old Bedford 4-tonner invalidates any claim to have been taken in theatre. Fakes, too much just doesn't add up'

Well, the picture was (could have been) taken in theatre... does that add up for you?
Its a pic from the 14sigs site to show Bedfords were/are in theatre

Besides my point is this;
I reckon they are trophy photographs, set up for a good story in the NAAFI back home, and it's all gone horribly wrong.Not necessarily QLR

I also would like to point out that the reasons the experts are giving proving them to be fake pictures are not valid reasons as I have mentioned previously. IMHO

Let me do the adding up for you, from your link;

1. Claim: Sources close to the Queen's Lancashire regiment believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq. The rifle would have had a carrying sling attached. Some experts have said they believe it's a replica.

"believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1" And these are experts!
I and others have in the past, been told to remove slings in order for weapons to be carried at the alert without the temptation to relax alertness state of weapon. Perhaps there was another reason the sling wasn't on. The fact this one hasn't doesn't make it a fake photo. A sling is an accessory to the weapon and can be removed for any reason.

2. Claim: The condition of the weapon is "pristine", whereas it would be scuffed and dirty if it had seen action. It also has no cover over the barrel and no identification number on the butt.

"Pristine condition" Look at the photo on page 5 of todays Daily Express of 'a soldier on duty in Basra'. His weapon appears to be in pristine condition.
Barrel covers are again accessories, and heaven forbid this 'soldier' may have lost his!
Butt numbers on SA80s are mostly on the top cover as if on the handle or butt, they get worn off in use, especially in sandy conditions. Refer again to Dailt Express page 5 picture, no butt number visible.

3. Claim: The army doesn't use potato sacks as hoods, but dark room curtains. The hood was too clean and "ironed" for something that would have been crumpled up in someone's pockets.

Its a sandbag that the Army does use. They have been used as hoods, especially if the 'proper' ones aren't available.
Straight from the stores, they do look in an ironed state. Who said they had been in someones pockets?

4. Claim: "Why would the soldier be wearing webbing that is undone? Normally soldiers are very particular about that," said former commander Colonel Bob Stewart. Experts have also said it is unusual for the pouches not to be full.

Because he is a scruffy un-self disciplined individual. (REMF?) Empty before being filled maybe?

5. Claim: The stream of urine does not look authentic. Among the claims are that shadows have been added to the drops of urine, that the wet patch on the hood is fake, and that the droplets are coming from a bottle of water.

Its a still photo. At the correct shutter speed even waterfalls give this effect and will produce shadows. The water bottle thing is possible, even I wouldn't agree to be pi@@ed on for a trophy photo.

6. Claim: The wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq. Some have also said it is too clean.

As previous post. (REMFs?)

7. Claim: Col Stewart threw doubt on the captive's "slightly silky" football shirt, bearing an Iraqi flag. "Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing?" he said. Other analysts have said the shirt would be out of place in the Shia area of Basra.

The type of material tends to stay clean until the wet/muddy stage as mentioned before. Maybe a souvenir shirt fron the NAAFI? Dressing the prisoner to identify him as Iraqi

8. Claim: Soldiers tie laces in a parallel, rather than criss-cross, fashion.

As the article itself says, "soldiers tie laces the way they are most comfortable with". Never known it to be regulation as previously given for reason, apart from when on drill parade.

9. Claim: Soldiers operating in this area wouldn't tuck their trousers into their boots, but would leave them outside with an elasticated bottom to stop sand getting in.

Combat 95 trousers have ties around the bottoms of the legs. MANY soldiers use that method rather that elastics, which by the way, get lost or perish in the conditions.

10. Claim: The shirt would be sweaty, dirty and dishevelled after alleged beatings. There are no bruises or marks on the captured man.

As previous shirt point. Possibly taken at the start of it all, hence the damage hasn't been done yet.

11. Claim: Regiment sources say soldiers wear berets or hard hats, not floppy hats.

Soldiers who have these hats tend to wear them in preference to normal issue hats. I'm sure there's a lot out there! When not actually out on duty/patrol this would be allowed to happen as they offer better protection from sun stroke/sunburn than helmet or beret.

12. Claim: The captive's posture does not suggest he is being tortured. The body would be curled up, legs pulled into the foetal position. "It is not the posture of someone who has suffered pain," said Col Stewart.

Taken at start of 'proceedings' If he's hooded he won't be able to see whats about to happen and therefore won't be able to react. Also hands tied behind back.

13. Claim: Divisional markings should have been visible under the flag on the soldier's left sleeve.

Unit marking right sleeve, union flag on left I believe is the norm. However if you look at any selection of soldiers this differs. The right arm is not shown properly especially where badges should be. I refer you back to todays Daily Express, no badges despite areas where they should be being clearly visible. There's also a badge shortage. In theatres of Ops unit identification is normally a no no. "Only give your No, Rank, Name, DoB", seems to ring a bell. So to wear the badges and then not be able to say which unit you are doesn't make sense.

14. Claim: Experts have questioned the sharp quality of the photos - former Guardian picture editor Eamonn McCabe compares them with the fuzzy, badly composed pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, published last week. The Mirror's pictures are "all too clinical" to be trusted, he said.

A good quality digital camera as opposed to a click and go. Look at, for example, the difference in different peoples photos of the same event/party/mess do/wedding ETc. Point made.

I'm sorry to have to repeat myself in greater depth, but I think this makes it clearer.

So Vortex, does that add up enough for you?

I say again;
The arguments to substantiate that they are fakes don't stand up, IMHO.

I reckon they are trophy photographs, set up for a good story in the NAAFI back home, and it's all gone horribly wrong.

I believe man has set foot on the moon, however I can also prove that those photos are faked! HOWZAT!!

[soddim]

I guess people will believe what they want to believe but the really damaging part of this saga is that the Worlds' press has already published believable stories and, whatever the truth of the matter, those stories will be the ones that influence opinion. If they are untrue the correct story will not sell newspapers and will not be published or read.

What a sad world we live in where all it takes to destroy trust is a tabloid story - never mind about proof.