Our Brave Boys? Or Murdering Thugs?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Preston
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?’
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?’
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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,
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Last edited by Sunfish; 26th May 2005 at 05:55.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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
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
16B
Last edited by 16 blades; 27th May 2005 at 03:23.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dammam
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I am impressed
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
I am impressed
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.
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.