Our Brave Boys? Or Murdering Thugs?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for thought
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the gutter
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the gutter
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
- 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
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Last edited by Maple 01; 23rd May 2005 at 23:43.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, how about some free and unbiased reporting then?
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..........
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.
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.
Last edited by Maple 01; 23rd May 2005 at 23:17.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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………
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………
Last edited by Maple 01; 24th May 2005 at 00:24.