Source: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml



For more information, as well as the pictures of this barbaric act, please see the website.

Now for the questions of the debate:

1. What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?

2. What can be done to prevent further atrocities?

3. After seeing this, Abu Graib, Fallujah and many other sad events; does the claim that US, UK and their allies do not have the capacity to effectively do peacekeeping have validity?

4. What does this say about the War on Terror/War for Oil debate?

What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?
Well clearly it can't be seen as a positive.

I would note that it may not necessarily speak for the mindset of the majority of UK troops.

We have seen such abuses from several nations over the years, it is a problem that needs to be considered carefully and impartially, not politicized as it almost inevitably will be.

What can be done to prevent further atrocities?
In my opinion, the punishments for these types of actions need to increase. A beating like this calls for at least a ten year sentence.

This is similar to what some with Abu Ghraib offences were sentenced to. But I think it should be a minimum for engaging in wanton violence against prisoners, not a maximum.

If these cases are prosecuted vigorously and tough sentences handed down, I think it would go a long way.

After seeing this, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and many other sad events; does the claim that US, UK and their allies do not have the capacity to effectively do peacekeeping have validity?
I'd have to say no. The fact is the US and UK are hardly the only nations whose troops have engaged in the mistreatment of prisoners in peacekeeping operations.

There were the notable incidents involving Canada and Belgium in Somalia as well as others.

This is not a measure of the capacity of these militaries as a whole, but the depravity of a few.

What does this say about the War on Terror/War for Oil debate?
...not much. The "War for Oil" theory remains a fiction. The invasion of Iraq has not improved the security of US/ UK oil sources one iota.

Quite the opposite in fact.

What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?

This event reminds us once again that humans are imperfect. Be it spirituality, humanitarianism, or politics, we see again that nothing is incorruptable.

What can be done to prevent further atrocities?

First things first. An investigation to be sure that the beatings weren't warranted. Then punishment for the beatings needs to be handed down swiftly if it is shown that the soldiers were in the wrong. once that's taken care of we can start to place more responsibility for peoples actions on the head of their superiors in the field. Superiors often need to understand that under fire and in attempts to save their lives and maintain order they will be given carte-blanc in the way of leniency, and likewise they need to know that for other situations involving reckless abandone they will be held accountable.

[B]After seeing this, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and many other sad events; does the claim that US, UK and their allies do not have the capacity to effectively do peacekeeping have validity?

No. Not at all. Every country has its' problems on peace-keeping missions and I haev always given other countries the benefit of the doubt because they are young men and women in stressful positions and the lines of right and wrong can become gray, not just for them but for the reporters too. One must always wonder when reading about such mishaps; How much was deserved and how much wasn't? In the case of these teen boys, it hardly seems like they deserved this, but then we don't have a source for the story, the article itself or any other details like if they were armed or throwing home-made grenades at the troops before the beatings. As bad as what I said might sound, we are dealing with a culture of people who have been known in the past to strap bombs on 12 year old boys and sing about how glorious they were for blowing themselves up around 20 innocent people.


What does this say about the War on Terror/War for Oil debate?

Nothing. This is the most laughable question thus far. What does any of this have to do with oil??? When I saw the thread I immediatley knew it was a poly to condemn our troops over seas but this question only proved that theory of mine to be accurate. This debate question is an overt ploy to discuss something completely off topic, and I resent that you would use the (supposed) antics of six men to bring down tthe whole cause. I say supposed because as of yet we don't even have an article, source or whole story.

Well, I'll have to disagree, for the most part, with the posters so far. There is absolutely no comparison between this event and Abu Ghraib. At Abu Ghraib, for the most part, unarmed and confined persons were being beaten and subjected to indignity and photographed. In this case, which even this egregiously biased article indicates, the protesters were armed, and had even lobbed a grenade which exploded within the British military base. Force was justified. In fact, deadly force was justified. The fact that not a shot (apparently, unless I'm missing something) was fired is evidence of extremely good training on the British side.

Perhaps I am confused. This does not match at all with the account provided in the link.

Is their dispute as to its accuracy?

It does match the account provided in the link. My phraseology puts it into a different perspective. From the link:

The "cowardly" beating took place after an assault on the base with a grenade. The "cowardly" soldiers confronted demonstrators armed with stones, sticks, shovels, and grenades. And never fired a shot.

Mrs. P appears to be answering you as I type this, but concerning the egregious bias in the article, one only has to view the photos on the sidebar.
Photo number 5 is captioned: VICIOUS: Helmeted soldier headbutts trapped Prisoner 1
The editor makes no mention of the rioter behind the soldier in question, with his arm on the soldiers back, clearly shoving him toward his compatriot.

Photo number six, captioned: BULLIES: Troops dwarf victim
Though we can clearly see that the 'victim' is bending forward at the waist.

And photo number seven, captioned: BRUTE FORCE: Squad pile into prisoner on ground
Maybe 'piling on' in Turkish means standing around the prisoner as he is detained on the ground.

Sorry, but in my estimation, News of the World comes off like Weekly World News. For the uninitiated, that means National Enquirer reputability.

Mrs Pigpen brings up the most important fact. The British soldiers were clearly within their rights to use deadly force if they wished to. That they didn't shows unbelievable restraint, not vicious brutality.

It is this par of the account whose accuracy I was especially interested in.

The question is whether these guys were resisting or whether they had been essentially captured.

One would wonder then, how the News of the World cameraman got his footage from 'behind the high walls of a secluded army compound'.
The way the article is written and the photos captioned, I'm going to have to see some corroboration before I believe it to be credible.

I concur mrs Pigpen. In fact I made similar comments about the veracity of the story and whether or not we had recieved the whole story.

As a side not when I read the first post I could find no article to go with it. It now appears at the top of the post. Probably glitch I hope. I'd hate to think I was that blind.

I just watched the film on Sky news... It doesn't look good for the soldiers involved.

Not much I think... if anything I think this demonstrates how the daily conditions of war will wear people down until they eventually adapt to their environment. No human being on Earth can sustain that level of violence and animosity without reacting to the provocation.

The thing is, this sort of thing does happen in war and instead of always making such a big fuss about it, surely its more important that we address the reasons why soldiers act this way instead of expecting them to act any differently whilst leaving them to bear the brunt of dubious foreign policies.
It can't be any mystery after so many years of events like this one, that human beings in a continuing combat environment will eventually break and react in anger.

What does it mean when we put our soldiers into the line of fire, but punishe them when they react to it? Is there any one in the world who could retain objectivity under such conditions? I don't think I could.


Developing an understanding as to how far you can rely on soldiers under stressful conditions might be good idea.

Another might be to not expect soldiers to bear all the burdens of dubious foreign policy...


Is there any nation on Earth who could do a better job?


Nothing what so ever.

2. What can be done to prevent further atrocities?
If soldiers are found guilty of committing war crimes, then they should get a taste of their own medicine. The scumbags who committed the atrocities at Abu Graib should be publicly beaten by Arab people.

Have to go with the soldiers on this one as well- the fact that they didn't ice them right off the pop shows remarkable restraint and decorum. I have the utmost respect for those soldiers- had it been me, probably would have waxed 'em and not even tried to capture them.

Here's a more objective news story about this incident.

Link

The British government is taking this very seriously, so I don't think we can just dismiss it.



1. I'm sure that the vast majority of British troops are highly skilled professionals. The problem is that coalition forces have to be perfect to avoid very bad publicity.

2. People who are guilty of abuses should face the full penalty of the legal system. I cannot support the kind of thing suggested (perhaps not seriously) by skeeterses. An eye for an eye never works.

3. and 4. As regretable as this incident may be, I don't this it has much to do with either of these larger issues.

The news coverage here in the UK currently indicates that this video was shot by a serving soldier in the same unit as the soldiers doing the beating (hence the "supportive" commentary). The video was disributed in military circles, and was shown recently to a group of British soldiers stationed in Germany (some of whom had also served in Iraq).

One of these soldiers was so disgusted at the behaviour shown in the clip (including the mutilation of an Iraqi corpse, which hasn't been shown anywhere because it's too graphic) that he or she (the identity has been kept secret) that he or she handed a copy of the tape to the News of the World.

After the controversy caused when faked photos of British soldiers abusing Iraqii prisoners were printed in the Mirror newspaper here, News of the World journalists didn't publish details of this straight away, instead doing some of their own investigating to find out if the tape was genuinely of serving British soldiers in Iraq. They did so, and broke the story yesterday.

Part of the prep work involved notifiying the Royal Military Police, whose investigations have already begun, to the point where today's radio news has announced that a man has been arrested in connection with the case, though no further details have yet been released (we don't know who he is, where he was arrested, whether he was directly involved, or even if he is or was a serving soldier).

So the UK Military and Government certainly think that this story has some veracity. Quite how bad it is for those involved dpends on the outcome of the current investigation.

1. What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?

It depends. The video shown, and the News of the World story (I get it delivered every Sunday), has a clear cut between the footage of the youths throwing assorted missiles (including at least one grenade) and the footage of the four youths being beaten up by British soldiers.

It is not even clear whether the two passages of film took place on the same day, let alone consecutively, so while the beatings may well a comparatively restrained response to direct attack, they could just as easily be as brutal as they appear to be - there's nothing in the video to directly link the four being beaten up to the crowd throing stuff.

My point isn't to assume the worst (though even in the best-case scenario, this represents a serious lapse of discipline and will almost certainly result in courts martial for those involved), but that on the evidence made public so far, we can't really conclude anything much, other than four Iraqis got beaten up by rather more than four squaddies.

That said, I would say that it indicates, if nothing else, that the lessons in peacekeeping that the British Army learned in Northern Ireland (where, at their peak, hostilities were such that they were generating almost the same rate of British casualties as in Iraq) have been forgotten.

I'm a little angry and more than a little ashamed that my countrymen did this. Though since they swear loyalty to the queen and not to the British people, I don't feel all that responsible.

2. What can be done to prevent further atrocities?

It remains to be seen just how atrocious this event actually was. I think I'll wait until after the investigation before I make a judgement.

However, I disagree with those posters who say that this unhappy event is less reprehensible than Abu Graib.

No matter how proud someone is, beating the bejesus out of them is going to be more painful than humiliating them. One of the kids being beaten was lying unconscious face down in a pool of his own blood - something that could quite conceivably lead to permanent brain damage or even death (and on the evidence as presneted, he could well be dead for all we know).

Being naked with a bag on your head while Lynndie England laughs at you is a fun day out by comparison.

3. After seeing this, Abu Graib, Fallujah and many other sad events; does the claim that US, UK and their allies do not have the capacity to effectively do peacekeeping have validity?

Hmm. I'm in two minds. I do wonder whether peacekeeping is intrinsically harder than war-making - I suspect it is, if only because it places demands for restraint even in the face of hostility that war-making sweeps away.

But on the other hand, I wonder whether a similar beating carried out by Iraqi security forces - under Saddam OR in the new-and-imptoved democratic Iraq after British and American troops have pulled out - or any other Middle Eastern military (including Israel's) would ever see the light of day, let alone result in investigations and courts martial. As this attack almost certainly will, and as Abu Graib did.

4. What does this say about the War on Terror/War for Oil debate?

Nothing about the War for Oil; I'm dubious that such a thing exists (yet).

And on the War on Terror, that's it's a half-baked idea. Terrorism is a crime, and as well as military responses to it, you need the kind of diligent police-style investigation and men-on-the-ground intelligence work that the coalition has been slow to put in place.

Soldiers, by their training, are the most disciplined people on the planet. They don't do actions like that when they know they're being taped (there are exceptions) or when they know it's standard and non-prosecutable. These actions are condoned until they hit the airwaves. That's why you have war criminals like Bliar saying it's reprehensible, it's unBritish...ALL BUNK! This happens all the time in Iraq and it's de facto policy to beat and humiliate the Iraqi people. And the younger the better apparently. Listen to the guttural croaking of a laugh. E-V-I-L.


Let's test this. The children, no, your children were throwing the invading Chinese Army. You know, the Chinese Army that invaded the US because they felt threatened by the only nation to use nuclear weapons on another nation. So China invaded the US and your kids were beaten by the Chinese soldiers working under the guise of the "Chinese Provisional Government" based in the Red Zone in Washington D.C.

Or look at it this way. You're a young kid, say 20 years old, far from home. You may or may not agree with the politicians who sent you there, but you're there, and some teenagers are trying to kill you. What do you do? You can let yourself be killed, kill those trying to kill you, or subdue them without killing them. Of those three options, I think they chose the best one possible.

To answer the questions:

1. Depending on who tells the story, I think it could speak very highly of the troops. Otherwise we might be talking about a bunch of dead teenagers...

2. No atrocities have taken place. Abu Graib was horrible, but not an atrocity.

3. Peacekeeping is a very difficult and long process. There are bound to be setbacks, but judging by the good job already done in difficult circumstances, I wouldn't be worried.

4. Not sure that it has any bearing on the debate on the war. The actions of the individuals on the ground are a completely separate issue than the decision of the people who sent them to war. Even in a completely just war, individuals on the ground can make bad decisions. That wouldn't change the morality of the war.

Let's be a bit more objective and fair. I'm 20 and I joined the military to defend my country against external attack. Point 1. Some kids are not trying to kill me but instead are throwing rocks against my armor. Point 2. Am I going to "let myself be killed" by kids with rocks? How far will supporters go to justify this? I'd love for YOUR kids to be getting the hell beaten out of them and to see YOUR non-chalant reaction, so laissez faire. With each passing day it's more clear that many people who ought to be considered normal are in fact pressing themselves into immoral people who support the most illegal actions all in the name of "who gives a crap". So sad. So go ahead and keep making up immoral jusstifications for the wanton senseless beatings of CHILDREN. Iraqi children, so's you's most's likelee's don'ts cares much.

If my country was invaded and occupied by foreigners I would go out and probably do the same thing.

Can you explain how you would feel if some other country, say the Chinese or the Russians, decided to "liberate" and "bring democracy" to you and invade and occupy your country. (Also do some grave human rights violations in the process such as Fallujah or Abu Graib or the Bombings of Baghdat)

I think it's easy to sit back in your comfy room behind a computer and blast people who aren't in such a comfortable position.

We saw the same atrocities in Vietnam....and there's a reason. When your friends are dropping like flies because of these "harmless littlel boys" and you're in constant fear for your life. And these harmless children are throwing rocks at you and telling Zharqawi your location and position, you tend to be in a bad mood.

I think I'll refrain from spitting on any troops. Many didn't ask to be there and have absolutely no choice in the matter, so far be it from me to be judgemental while I still have my FREEDOM.

It's war. It's an occupation of people who don't want us there and are killing our troops. What do you expect to happen?

Don't blame the troops, blame the politicians and publc that allow this war to continue.

Well said. A lot of the soldiers did not choose to get involved with this war. They are there, stuck in a bad situation and are trying to make the best out of it. Some of them make mistakes, but it makes no sense to blame them for the mistakes of the politicians.

It's also important to note that while some of the soldiers make mistakes and get so much bad publicity for it, so many others are doing great things; building schools, rebuilding towns, ect.. However, none of that stuff gets to the media, so all people in the US see is the bad stuff.

I could, but it would be offtopic. To answer this question:

What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?

It would have helped A LOT if you had chosen a less biased source of information for your link, like the one Victoria produced. If this act was commited during the course of subdueing grenade and projectile throwing, shovel weilding violent rioters I think it was appropriate. If this act was commited after the suspects had been detained and inside the facility, I think the force was excessive. We don't know all of the facts yet.

We do, however, know a couple of things. 1) Some of the rioters were armed with explosive devices, as well as actively throwing them along with other projectiles. 2)The soldiers subdued this violent mob using nonlethal force.

I personally think that says a LOT more about the discipline of the British troops as a whole than the single home video. Would the Turkish soldiers have handled a violent, grenade throwing mob more cordially? Judging by the history with the Kurds I think not. Would the Chinese (as Truthmarch brought up) have handled it better? Well, they slaughtered thousands of peaceful protestors in Tiananmen square, some mushed to human paste under their tanks...so if they treat their own Chinese protestors that way I doubt that a violent non-Chinese mob would receive better treatment. Would the US have handled it this well? I'd like to think so, but honestly I'm not sure. Personally, I think they handled it better than any other military in the world which employs human beings and not programmed cyborgs could have.

The extend people will go to justify what we would call severe child abuse had it occured to white people on Main Street is reprehensible. Sorry but it never impresses me when someone tells me that a kid with no explosives deserves getting the crap kicked out of them. What will be the justifications when the forthcoming US cases of sodomy on Iraqi children evidence is released?

But you're not being fair and objective, by any stretch of the imagination. You bandy about the term 'children' when it's convenient, as many *activist* minded people do. But when people throw explosive devices at troops, they are no longer children, they are combatants. These 'children' know full well the implications of their actions, thus making them adults, in my eyes.
As for non-chalant, laissez faire reactions, you employ the same level of discourse when you state: This happens all the time in Iraq and it's de facto policy to beat and humiliate the Iraqi people. And the younger the better apparently.
Of course I haven't seen you prove this, I only hear the same talking points and the same script. The same outrage where facts are disconnected from logic and reality.

You continually employ the tactic of trying to link individual or small unit tactical actions with strategic policy. There is no correlation to be made using that model in this debate. The bottom line is this, no matter what actions occurred to bring allied soldiers into Iraq, they did not and will not sacrifice the right of self defense when attacked. If you disagree with the policy of our occupation of Iraq, then fight against it....more power to you. But don't expend synapse function making absurd allegations like the one I quoted above. It's the easy and lazy argument, but bereft of reason.

Upon previewing my post, I see that the race card has been introduced. Because we all know brutality against brown skinned people is justified by the British or US military these days.

How do you know they are children? They looked more like they were teenagers or in their early twenty's to me.

Also, what does this have to do with white people? Are you suggesting Iraqi troops (brown people) act any better?

Also, how are you able to determine these people had not been using grenades? Were you there?

It seems to me that you are in fact making biased, racist, judgements without evidence here.

For the first question I want to say that it doesn't say anything about the discipline of the troops in Iraq, I think that it is a incident, a very bad incident but the majority of the troops don't beat innocent people for nothing.

For the second question I think it is very difficult, you have to think as a soldier being in Iraq and seeing everyday your brothers die. That kind of images are not good for your feelings about the iraqi people. My second statement is that when you can choose between using violence to get information to prevent a terrorist attack or not using violence and the attack will occur, what is your decision?
So this is a very difficult question but I think that it is very bad to beat innocent people and they have to be punished. If they beat somebody in England on the street then they will be punished to. But my opinion is that if you can prevent a terror attack by using violence then you must use violence.

For the third question I think that the US, UK, and other countries are on the right track with peace keeping. (except for these sad incidents) But every country has it's own way of doing it. Some ways are better than others.

For the fourth question, i think it says nothing about the war on terror it is an very sad incident.
Greetings Mupampi

Where did sodomy get introduced here? Let's debate the issue at hand and not turn an issue that we don't even have all the info on and turn it into the raping and pillaging of all the innocent people in Iraq.

This isn't a race thing either. What other options did those soldiers have?

Options. After the first pummelling of the Iraqi child, put some handcuffs on. 42 pummellings on a minute of video. What didn't the video capture? Not much likely since the glee in which the Corporal gutturally croaked the "DIE!!! DIE!!!". So they didn't need to a)continually pummel the helpless Iraqi children b)kick with a steel-toe boot the Iraqi child in the testicles. Defend that.

What other options, indeed... I suppose that when they had these young men in custody, they could have refrained from beating the crap out of them. I suppose that if they had to get physical in order to subdue the young men, that they might not have seemed to enjoy it quite so much.

I don't care for the idea that we can excuse such actions by opining how much worse it could have been. Hey, the Nazis weren't so bad - they killed 6 million, but they could have killed 25 million! The US killing a million people in SE Asia? Hey, we could have killed 100 million! Aren't we grand? Aren't we magnanimous? Sure, Ted Bundy killed people, but he could have boiled them alive and ate their livers, too!

Conservatives, I thought, were the party of personal responsibility. Don't we all make choices? We choose to enter the armed forces. We choose to participate in this war - a soldier can always choose not to go. We choose to abuse our powerful position, or we choose to behave responsibly. I have much sympathy for the soldiers in Iraq. But that does not excuse people committing acts of violence and enjoying it.

As always, the best way to support our troops is to stand vehemently and unwavering against ALL war everywhere.

This incident is different from the prison abuse scandal, however. This was simply a group of soldiers abusing their power. The prison scandal was not some lone nuts - it was a systemic failure of a brutal policy, that was (apparently succesfully) played off as a random, un-called for incident.

Just curious, were these the little children involved?

http://www.mona-lisa.org/charred_bodies.jpg

My analogy to this whole Iraq situation is being a waiter for a boss who treats you like dirt and pays you nothing, and having to wait on a customer who doesn't tip, makes you bring the food back every 10 minutes, and insults you and your service constantly.

Would you not expect that waiter to urinate or spit in the food?

Now for the questions of the debate:

That its better than the discipline of the LAPD? After all, these guys had actually been attacked.

We can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but some folks will consider that to be an atrocity. The way to minimize further atrocities is to deal with atrocities as they happen. All militaries and law enforcement groups commit atrocities, because they are composed of people. Its what the organization does after the atrocities are known that really matters. Is it ignored, rewarded, or punished?

I'm not sure how Fallujah fits into these other examples, but that's neither here nor there. The US and Co. do have the capacity to do peacekeeping, its simply a more challenging task than folks on the outside seem to think.

Nada, zip, zilch.

Fist of all, let's remember that attitude is for the old-pre-911 way of thinking, where the rule of law makes sense. No longer. Anyways, that comment means nothing more than "document them then employ damage control a.k.a. whitewashing". Remember that Chinese soldier who entered that Catholic Church in New England? Entered on orders of the Chinese Provisional Government who themselves take their orders from Beijing? Where he shot that unarmed wounded American in the head amid laughter from the accompanying Chinese soldiers? The Chinese military investigated themselves and found that the wounded unarmed motionless American was actually a threat while being comatose. Finding: killing justified.
Atrocities are never treated seriously when the doers are also the investigators. Let's quit messing with this. We all know by watching the clip that the Brits brutalized unarmed kids with brutal force which was unwarranted. Repeated blows on unarmed kids. D-UH! That's a crime folks. Take off the red-white-and-blue glasses and see those kids as your own. BESIDES, THE CLINCHER FOR ANY SANE PERSON IS THE GUTTURAL CROAKING LAUGHTER WHICH ACCOMPANIES THE CLIP. EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER evil by any standard. "HAHA KILL HIM!!! KILL HIM!!!".

I didn't see the video posted, but for anyone interested it can be viewed here.

After watching the full video, the soldiers chased down the group, brought some of them back, took them behind a wall, and beat the crap out of them. It was unneccessary and those involved should be punished. The people being beaten are no longer violent, and had been subdued.

This is an absolutely un-called for event.

It's been several hours, and I see no rebuttal from the defenders, so I assume that after viewing the actual footage everyone agrees that this was un-called for??

I'd have to say that that is naive at best. If you read back you'll see that despite the obvious beaking of international laws (keep in mind why the US claim to be in Iraq now that the WMD red-herring went the way of the dodo, yes that's right, to bring freedom and western democracy to Iraq i.e. no military beatings on children on the open public streets), the defenders still defend, albeit while painted into a corner. What we as rational human beings must remember is that there are people who will support and defend any and all US-led atrocities no matter where in the world they occur. Like I so rudely (apparently) mentioned before: the future US scandal involving sadism and other evil acts on young Iraqi children. The defenders will be hard pressed then.

Of course, that was the first time anyone provided a link to the video, which you would have if you were actually interested in debate and not hostility that is starting to border on maniacal. I hadn't seen it before, and I agree it doesn't look good. I'm especially curious if they know who took the video. He sounded like he had some profound psychological problems.

Actually, after watching the video it doesn't even come close to something like Rodney King, er, or the black riots that followed which were far worse.

I didn't see any blood and they stopped beating them after a while.

To be honest, I see no atrocity whatsoever. You must live a pretty sheltered life to be offset by this.

First of all, these kids ARE resisting. And just like your local police (check out COPS sometime) they will use force to get you to the ground to cuff you. So you have to understand that to begin with.

Second, for all the people saying "how would you like your kids treated that way". Let me say, if my kid were attacking police officers and acting in such a manner, they'd deserve a wooping as well.

In other words, I'd never send my kids to the local police station to attack police.

My apologies. I didn't think there was someone here who hadn't seen that awful footage by then. I take exception at your insult i.e. maniacal. I do't suppose you'd wish to rise to the occasion and apologize? I have no hostility and those who feel I do are usually the ones who support the US effort in Iraq wholeheartedly. It's not me to blame when people get abused and I state it's wrong. If defending those children who are trod upon
makes me a (!?!) maniac, then fine I accept that description of myself. If stating reality at its most oure makes me a hostile character, then I accept that description.
It's sad how the general population think it's acceptable to beat the heck out of kids just because the mean scary kids were throwing rocks at armed soldiers. And I can't escape the knowledge that some if not all those kids have family members who have suffered under the hands of the US and Britain. THAT I will not ignore. So people like those here will see unruly kids getting what they deserve (!?!), and I see kids who have likely lost a family member to violence at the hands of the illegal occupiers.
If the tables were turned and China had invaded and illegally occupied the USA, while taking orders from Beijing, each and every man and woman and kid here would think it wrong that little American children were getting the hell beat out of them by Chinese soldiers for throwing rocks at the illegal Chinese occupiers who were well known to be torturing Americans in Attica.

If your kid were throwing rocks at the provisional Chinese occupier, would you expect him/her to go unharmed?

This is where I start to get irritated. This is a little aside, but here we go. Here in Michigan, notably the Detroit area, kids (under 18) can do such things with impunity. For some reason bleeding heart folks thing it's okee-dokee for some kid to do violence and theft, because they "suffered some wrong".

So we catch theives red-handed stealing cars, beating old women, etc. etc. but because they are under 18 years old, they skate. Just a little mention on their record when an adult would face a felony.

And to make things worse, adults use children to commit such crimes because they know they will be exempt from prosecution.

Just recently I watched two 16 year old black males attempt to steal my neighbors car. We called the police and they caught both of them. The police let them go to their parents. A week later they TRIED AGAIN! This time they fled and were not caught.

Maybe you need to stop making up fantasies in your head about the chinese invading the US. There should be real penalties EVEN FOR 16 YEAR OLD "children".

I'm sure you could find a reason to justify murder, violence and theft. But that's your problem. We're not the CHinese and we need to defend OUR OWN.

1. What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?
While I was in the US Army we were host to a Royal Artillery Battery for a couple of months. These troops were recently in Northern Ireland. I can say that after that visit I found the British soldiers to be the most rude, viscous, foulmouthed, thugs that I have ever had to be in close association with.

Were they disciplined? Most certainly, they were extremely disciplined, but I would never ever turn my back on them because a punch to one's kidney and chop to the back of one's neck was sure to follow. They actions would have earned any US soldier a Courts Martial in a heart beat. Needless to say they provided a foil for our Marine Security Detachment.

2. What can be done to prevent further atrocities?
Well considering the actions of both sides. There is a huge problem. First off those 'boys' committed a war crime. Combatants out of uniform or distinctive insignia can be killed on sight.

The fact that they weren't says a lot of the discipline of the troops, but so does the subsequent acts. Once captured physical abuse must not continue.

This type of activity is very common in combat. There is no true remedy because once the soldiers are pumped on adrenaline there is not much that can be done.

3. After seeing this, Abu Graib, Fallujah and many other sad events; does the claim that US, UK and their allies do not have the capacity to effectively do peacekeeping have validity?
As others have said Peace Keeping is the most difficult task in the world. Military combat units are neither equipped or trained for this duty. But there is also not enough Military Police that are. Nor could any country afford to have that many MPs either.

4. What does this say about the War on Terror/War for Oil debate?
Not a thing. There are two issues and we are address only one, Peace Keeping and not the more general War on Terror/War for Oil issue.

No no no no no. Nice try. The question should read: If your kid were throwing rocks at the provisional Chinese occupier, would you expect him/her to be mercilessly beaten with clubs and steel-toed boots, while screaming in pain and clearly and unquestioningly subdued? And the answer is still no. But here's an awesome related question. If you or your kids were throwing rocks (or even armed projectiles) at the illegally invaded Chinese occupying army, would you accept being labelled a terrorist to the people of the world? Or would you consider yourself someone who is trying to repel a foreign invader, and invader with a different color skin and customs? Answer truthfully please.

It must go without saying, then, that you are positively distraught with all the atrocities the Hussein regime committed, and are fully behind the effort to free the Iraqi people from his brutal regime? Or is your ire only directed domestically?

*SIGH*. Quite the opposite in fact. While the US was supporting Iraq fully in the 80's I was just as aghast as I am now. People have to know that when people come out swinging with "you support Hussein then?" slogans, that is a clear sign of a lost argument. It never impresses me when people defend their country's actions by trying to convince people that their country's crimes aren't as bad as someone else's country's crimes. Are you saying your measuring stick in reference to what is right and wrong is based on the other sides atrocity count? Pure folly and people know it. It's prefectly acceptable to condemn your country's actions while still supporting it. Easily. Yet people feel affronted which leads them to defend the undefendable i.e. convince people that it's fine to beat unarmed Iraqi children because Hussein killed people, and that's different. I didn't like Hussein's Iraqi actions then, just as I don't like the US' actions now.

Really? The Chinese open-fired on their own people when they were peacefully demonstrating, you don't think they'd retaliate for being attacked....after being blown up and shot at on a regular basis?

It takes all restraint from insulting you, but you really have an anti-west bent that leads you into some delusional conclusions.

Review the tape again. The tactics were not that different than a police officer would implement. The "children" refused to get on the ground and force was used to subdue them. Note that one of the children was left by himself once he was tied.

This is war, it's not tiddly-winks. Sorry if we don't treat the people that behead us and blow us up like visitors at Disneyland.

So in one sentence I'm slightly slandered as 'anti-west' and in the next I'm informed that opinion is based on my ignorance that those shoeless Iraqi children were previously running around beheading westerners and blowing up westerners. Now what is wrong with that comment? I did watch that tape again. And again I saw kids being mercilessly beaten on video with a guttural satanic croaking of a laugh egging them on as if it were some disgusting snuff video previously reserved for the lawless tribes of the world. Again I say it's a shame how deep humans will go to condone such illegal unlawful activity. And while claiming to be bringing western values to Iraq no less.

Well you somehow feel that the Chinese are superior to the British in restraining themselves or even acting in their own best interests by using force. If you're not anti-west, maybe you're pro-China?

Like I said before, it's easy to be the one OUT OF HARMS WAY and making such comments. You can be sancitmonious and rightous when it's not your life on the line, can't you?

Well that's your perrogative. I have no problem with the British soldiers defending themselves.

And I never claimed we were bringing anything but mass hysteria to Iraq. I am 100% against this occupation and would have no problem with pulling stakes today and leaving tomorrow. Until that day comes I REFUSE to harshly judge soldiers that are put in harms way.

You have a problem with it? Take a flight to Iraq and go treat those boys like you feel they should be treated. Maybe you'll end up like Jill Caroll or worse, Nicholas Berg. When they have that sword at your throat, just let them know how much you sympathize with them and tell any soldier that may help you to "just forget about you".

An absolute red-herring designed to try use national loyalties as a weapon. It won't work on someone such as I. Chinese are superior than the British? Pro-China? Wha? Absolute R-H rubbish.

Sorry to have to reverse your position and logic on this issue but I have to ask a question. And this is something of a crossroads which will lay bare your deepest convictions perhaps. Yes it's true it is easy to say things when you are out of harms way. Let me give you two examples of statements made while out of immediate harm's way. One was from me, in which I stated "It's wrong to mercilessly beat unarmed and subdued Iraqi children". Out of harm's way I was. The other is from someone out of harm's way whom you don't know personally, but spend some time defending. He said "'Oh yes, oh yes, you're gonna get it. Naughty little boys. You little f***ers, you little f***. DIE".
Two comments made by people out of harm's way. Now which is the crime against what it means to be human, and which is the crime against humanity in general?

I think the point is being lost with all this talk of our Chinese occupiers, and frankly none of this 'what would you do' scenario building makes any sense.

The people being beaten in this video had been subdued. Even if they were resisting the soldiers, beating them in this fashion is uncalled for. The soldiers are not using necessary force to take the people down to the ground and restraining them. They are beating them. They are kicking them after they are down. They took them behind a wall to do get out of view, and then beat them with sticks, kicked them, and headbutted them.

1. What does this say about the discipline of the troops in Iraq?

Not a whole lot, IMHO. Whenever you have thousands of people in a group, there will always be some that are extreme. If the discipline of the troops, as a whole, was terrible, we would see a lot more of these types of things.

2. What can be done to prevent further atrocities?

When behavior like this is discovered, those responsible need to face consequences. If they get a slap on the wrist, then that tells others that it's okay to act like this, and treat other human beings in this fashion.

3. After seeing this, Abu Graib, Fallujah and many other sad events; does the claim that US, UK and their allies do not have the capacity to effectively do peacekeeping have validity?


No. The people being beaten were rioting. The soldiers stopped them. Then a group of soldiers took things too far. This reflects poorly only on the soldiers in that video, at least to me. This does not reflect poorly on all soldiers currently in Iraq. Almost all of them are doing a fine job, I'm sure. Otherwise we would see and hear about this a lot more than we do. A few bad apples doesn't destroy all of the credibility of the armed forces currently working in difficult situations around the world.

4. What does this say about the War on Terror/War for Oil debate?

??

If quest for Truth is really your philosophy, have you considered that the voice on the tape was added later? I have no link indicating this was the case, but it certainly sounded that way to me, which would then lead to wondering what else on the tape was doctored or left out, for *editorial* purposes.

It also seems a little facetious to be on the march for truth when you have clearly stated your opinion when far from all the facts are known in the case, in particular nothing from the supposed offenders has been heard. Or does Truth March most forcefully when not encumbered by all the facts or any dissenting viewpoints? There have been numerous cases of doctored photos and video released from the Middle East, so to be to quick to rush to judgement on this would clearly not have anything to do with truth in the matter, but would be better characterized as BiasedOpinionRunningAmok.

One point that hasn't gotten any attention yet:

These are combat troops, not civilian law enforcement, and not even Military Police units. The training they receive is different, because as a general rule, their mission is different.

On another matter, yes, "TruthMarch", you have consistently, in this thread and others, demonstrated an intense anti-west bias. Changing your handle from "USIsATerroristState" to "TruthMarch" hasn't gone very far in concealing your bias.