Brits Beat Up Kids

varwnos said:
@Winner:
-They are teenagers,which means that they are not thugs, for the very simple reason that they havent formed a final basic personality. There is good reason why we have different sentences in courts for teenagers, pre-adolescents and adults, and it is due to the fact that they are different from each other in very real ways.

If your favourite hobby in the age of 14 is throwing stones at people, you're lost cause. They throw stones when they're ten, they shoot at you when they're twenty.

You know, the basic thing when dealing with children is, that any wrong action is followed by punishment. If they threw stones and no punishment followed, they'd be just encouraged to do more serious things.

-I do not understand why you glorify the brittish soldier; but as it is obvious they are just ordinary people who are soldiers. Obviously from the video they are not the most self-controlled individuals, and infact they should have been a lot more self-controlled if they were sent to a warzone.

I don't glorify them, but I can understand their behaviour. Being contantly assaulted, even by teenagers, that must be horribly frustrating.

-Why do you have to devalue human life so much? You should think that there is no reason one should form the opinnion that either intellectually or ethically (for want of a better word; what i mean is "goodness" of character) those teenagers are inferior to the brittish soldiers who are beating them up. Obviously they are not terrorists, and we dont know more about them. But even had they been involved in some disorganised militia (probably of their own making, like teenagers there would be likely to do) this just means that they hate the foreign soldiers in their land, which is to be expected.

They may hate them, right, nobody is asking them to love the occupants. But if they attack them, they must be punished. They can speak of a great luck, that they haven't got killed. If the occupants were not as humane as Americans or Brits are, they would have been killed for this.

-Think about what the effect is of supporting violence like that in the video. You are supporting failed soldiers, and giving them the right to continue acting in failed ways. Police brutality and use of excessive force is a crime, why should it be not a crime in the army? Afterall Iraq is an US police state atm, so the soldiers there should act exactly like policemen. If its too hard for them to maintain order without becomming warthugs then they should get the hell out in my view.

Well, our police is much more brutal in dealing with protestors. Watch a footage from any big action against violent demonstrations in Europe.

-Think about the legacy of such violence. Why should any of those teenagers not hate the brittish/americans even more now? Maybe this beating would make him become a terrorist when otherwise he might have not become one? Who knows, perhaps he will become a terrorist indeed, and in a few years will blow up your house. Think that all people have feelings, and if you leave them no way out they can/will resort to very violent means themselves, for the simple reason that they want to be able to live with themselves, and being traumatised like that will not easily go away, especially when the rest of their life is probably miserable due to the occupation and chaos in their country.

They can hardly hate them more. I can very well argue, that if they let them slide this time, they would be more brutal in the future. Now, they at least know, that throwing stones at soldiers brings some very unpleasant implications. Maybe now they'll think twice before attacking them again.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
I hope so. But that has nothing to do with it. When your eyes are open for enough time, you cant help but learn.
Agreed. :)

Bozo Erectus said:
WW2? Would you rather have fought it in France, or in your hometown?
Was there evidence the Nazis were going to invade the US? Was it inevitable that the Germans would have conquered "the world" without our intervention?

Bozo Erectus said:
Ah yes, that omnipresent fallacy rears its ugly head once again. Its every man for himself huh? Why that would seem desirable I have no idea, but anyway, its a delusion. If one day youre unfortunate enough to watch (I dont mean on TV) 3000 people die, because some ____ers thought they were infidels, you'll know who 'we' are, and who 'they' are.
Fallacy, eh? All I know is that I am me. I am only an American because I live here. People blowing up buildings (in my home city) is still not enough to give me and "us & them" mentallity. People putting others people in catagories perpetuates the cycle. I chose not to perpetuate the cycle. If you want to think in steriotypes go right ahead.

Note : I don't deny I make quick assumptions based on clothing, age, build, attitude, grammer, writing/speaking style, etc. but I don't fool myself into thinking it is reality.

Bozo Erectus said:
Thats what you think, Narz me lad;)
So if you're such an expert at predicting human trends and behavior why haven't you made billions in the stock market? ;)

Bozo Erectus said:
It means if you want to know the future, all you need to do is learn about the past.
Nope, wrong. There are always chaotic factors. Even an impartial computer could never predict the future based on the past. You can, of course, make predictions but there is no accounting for human tenacity and ingenuity. :)

Bozo Erectus said:
But what happens if the other side has plenty of men willing to fight? Oh yeah I forgot, theres no such thing as another side:crazyeye:
When people stop giving the "other side" reasons to fight why would they fight. If I'm living in a small city that's never invaded any other city or nation, does not horde wealth, lives simply without pissing anyone off and is completely sustainable (not needing oil, guns, tobacco, chocolate, diamonds, plastic coffee mugs from any other nation) who will have a reason to mess with me? Jealous people perhaps, but do you really think that would be motavation enough to organize against me. I doubt it. And if a few individuals with nothing better to do did attack me. Well then I'd just have to subdue them. First with force. Then I would help them heal their hate. Not thru Jesus or Scientology or Prozac but simply but realizing the effects of their hate. They would then be converted and become one of my key intelligence men. Mingling among the people of the outer world and reporting and/or converting those who would do my people harm. Eventually the whole outer world will either - (A) destroy it (as you suggested) or (B) learn how to live without self-destruction (and of course war is ultimately self-destruction no matter who the "them" are. Either way, I'd be safely out of the way (safe nuclear winter). Like the Risk player who watches from Australia while the other players duke it out on the Greenland/Canada border. Eventually, the players will forget Australia even exists. :)

Anyway, what's the point of being upset about war if you can't do anything about it. If you think it can't be stopped you might as well be out there fighting the not-so-good fight yourself.

The dreamers are the saviors of the world. :)
 
shahreevar said:
sigh, what's in da pipe chico?? really, i'd like to know.:rolleyes: :coffee:

Now now Timmy, it wouldn't be too responsible of me to teach a child how to smoke. :lol: Isn't it your bed time?
 
Meh, **** happens during a war.. at least they didt electrode their testicles...
 
And the lesson is: Don't throw rocks at soldiers.

I don't think they would have gotten away with a mere beating in Saddam's days... :rolleyes:
 
well, the new people in power claim to be morally superior to saddam. and yes it is exactly what they would get in saddam days.

and the real lesson is: dont beat little kids up. grown ups everywhere will be disgusted by it, and youll go to jail.
 
slozenger said:
Meh, **** happens during a war.. at least they didt electrode their testicles...


what war? did you miss the huge "mission accomplished" banner, with bush landing on the carrier pretending to be flying the plane thing?
 
Jawz II said:
well, the new people in power claim to be morally superior to saddam. and yes it is exactly what they would get in saddam days.

and the real lesson is: dont beat little kids up. grown ups everywhere will be disgusted by it, and youll go to jail.

Well, not quite and thats quite an assumption on your part. Chances are that they would have been taken to a remote location, beatenl, raped, then doused with water and had their genitalia hooked up to an electrical device.

Bottom line, that headline was pretty misleading..."BRUTAL" to me equates a lot more than getting whacked with a stick.
 
yeah, youre still on ignore.

i have just one thing to say, thank god the people in charge arent like certain sad sacks i know. yet.
 
My view is that if one thinks that a little violence, or a little torture, are just fine, or are just fine if the violent/torturer person is in condition X (X being in this case a soldier who may/may have not been at risk by some kids, but later on was at no risk at all while beating them up) then that person has reasons to be of such a view, which are related to his own not entirely healthy view of violence.
Those kids may very well become hugely effected in their life by this beating. Had some foreign soldiers beaten you up while occupying your country how would you feel? I do not see why some people can never put themselves in the place of the other person.
In my opinnion no violence solves anything, and it is only acceptable when in self-defense. Those soldiers are ofcourse in no way in self-defense. Those soldiers have become miniature Usa's, and are as much at threat by those kids as the Usa was by Saddam. In both cases Iraq and the miniatures of Iraq (the kids) got a beating which helps nothing.
 
Jawz II said:
what war? did you miss the huge "mission accomplished" banner, with bush landing on the carrier pretending to be flying the plane thing?

That sign was to celebrate the capture of Baghdad. Notice it said "mission" not "war" accomplished.

The real lesson here is to get your facts straight before going to war. But when in war, learn to self preserve. Those kids are so dumb. If New York City were captured by Russia or China, let's just say Darwin will take care of the idiots that go out and throw rocks at people with guns. I mean seriously, I think those kids have a right to be mad, but throwing rocks at people who can nail you with a slug from a mile away? No thanks. If those kids were smart, they would pick up their AK47 and go out and ambush soldiers.
 
Which is the smart play after all. Being an insurgent is ultimately a loser's game.

I guess the VC and 1980s era Taliban didn't get that memo (along with numerous others).
 
Speedo said:
I guess the VC and 1980s era Taliban didn't get that memo (along with numerous others).

North Vietmese were not insurgents.. they had a standing army. The U.S. never took control of NV so they were not fighting as insurgents, but they fight a guerrila war.
 
varwnos said:
In my opinnion no violence solves anything, and it is only acceptable when in self-defense. Those soldiers are ofcourse in no way in self-defense. Those soldiers have become miniature Usa's, and are as much at threat by those kids as the Usa was by Saddam. In both cases Iraq and the miniatures of Iraq (the kids) got a beating which helps nothing.
They were having rocks and grenades thrown at them. Fighting back against that isn't self defense? Tell me something, if you were walking down a street in a city in your home country, and a band of thugs walked around the corner and started throwing rocks and explosives at you, wouldn't you be justified in defending yourself? If you shot one of them dead in order to defend your life, would that not be justified?

As I see the facts presented so far, these kids have themselves to blame for bringing this upon themselves. And before anyone again trots out that tired old "Well what if someone was occupying America, wouldn't you attack them" argument, that doesn't apply here. If America was ruled by a tyrannical dictator that was slaughtered Americans by the hundreds of thousands I would gladly greet anyone, French, Chinese or German who brought him down as long as they tried to set up a self-governing American nation again, like we are trying to do in Iraq. And you can bet that if I decided to oppose occupying soldiers I would do a more lethal job of it than throwing rocks - and if I got caught I would have only myself to blame for being punished.
 
Its seems that the culture in CFC OT use current events as a medium to assert an agenda to try to outwitt others into submission.We got alot of ego's in here who wants to be the[pimp]

Well,i already did my damage in a couple of post ago.:lol:

Here is the news of date on what the policy makers in Britian is gonna do to these British troops.:)

British military police make arrest in probe over Iraq abuse videos 23 minutes ago



LONDON (AFP) - British military police have made an arrest during a probe into video footage apparently showing British troops abusing civilians in Iraq, a case that has stirred fears of a backlash from Muslims.

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman told AFP that the arrest was made on Sunday "in conjunction with this investigation" but declined to say where it took place or confirm whether the person was a serving soldier.

But BBC television news reported on Monday night that the person arrested was indeed a soldier -- Corporal Martin Webster from the 1st Battalion The Light Infantry.

The BBC stressed that it was not clear whether he was being held as a witness or a perpetrator.

The channel also aired footage, said to be have been filmed moments before the alleged abuse, showing the regiment coming under mortar fire.

A 2004 BBC interview with Webster was also shown, in which he talked about filming events during his tour of duty, describing how locals were "really, really accepting" at first but "the last month was absolutely hell".

Riots occurred during the day and firefights at night, he said, revealing that the area became known among troops as "the Wild West".

The Royal Military Police investigation into the "extremely serious allegations" is at very early stage, according to the MoD spokesman.

The MoD has also ordered an "urgent investigation" into the footage, which has been aired on television worldwide since the News of the World weekly broke the story on Sunday and published photo stills from the video.

In the pictures, troops appear dragging four young Iraqi civilians off a street and into an army compound, where they are punched, kicked and hit with batons.

The video -- thought to have been made in 2004 during street riots in southern Iraq, where British forces are concentrated -- is said to show a minute's worth of the attack, with 42 blows counted.

The tabloid News of the World said the scenes were filmed by a corporal who can be heard egging on his colleagues -- described by the mass-circulation tabloid as "a rogue squad of British soldiers".

Defence sources quoted by The Times newspaper said all British units in Iraq had been put on alert because of serious concern that the pictures could provoke a backlash against troops there.

Britain took part in the US-led invasion that toppled Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 2003 and has maintained more than 8,000 troops in the south of the country as part of efforts to restore security and build democracy in Iraq.

Britain also backed the US-led war in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks and recently decided to deploy thousands more troops there as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation expansion aimed at stabilising the nation.

Analysts warned that the footage would bolster a feeling among Muslims that they are vulnerable to abuse and could fuel rage spectacularly demonstrated by the reaction to caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in European newspapers.

Britain has until now avoided much of the fallout as most news organisations here have refrained from carrying the caricatures, first published in Denmark in September 2005 and reprinted throughout Europe.
I guess the west is doing a great job on the image war,by way of the media,to win the heart of the Arab world.:rolleyes:
 
North Vietmese were not insurgents.. they had a standing army. The U.S. never took control of NV so they were not fighting as insurgents, but they fight a guerrila war.

NVA != VC

10 chars
 
Speedo said:
I guess the VC and 1980s era Taliban didn't get that memo (along with numerous others).

I stand by my statement. If the US had supported the effort in Vietnam instead of pulling out, do you think the VC would have won militarily? No.

If the Soviets had not gone bankrupt would they have lost Afghanistan? Probably not.

It comes down to a battle of wills, not military might. The weak willed lose. Our play in this current conflict is not to be weak willed if we want to win.

Anyway, there are two things that burn me up about this issue. First, in talking with my boss about it, he says he routinely saw Iraqi police beat the crap out of kids like this. His chosen phrase was that they would "punt" them by kicking them around. Secondly, this took place like two years ago....why does it just surface now?
 
general_kill said:
North Vietmese were not insurgents.. they had a standing army. The U.S. never took control of NV so they were not fighting as insurgents, but they fight a guerrila war.

insurgency = guerilla warfare (as speedo mentioned)
belive it or not, the US propaganda machine (or pchylogical warfare division or whatever its called), did their best to get the media to call NVA sappers "terrorists", certain (mostly american) right wing media did. most of the worlds press didnt buy it.



let me ask all you "they had it coming" people something, and i dont expect an honest answer.

how would you feel if the kids being beaten were english/american and the soldiers were iraqis. i know how you would feel, youd be outraged. but since they are iraqis, you arent. thats called "racism".

you can lie to yourself but you cant lie to me, thats what that is.
 
Elrohir said:
They were having rocks and grenades thrown at them. Fighting back against that isn't self defense? Tell me something, if you were walking down a street in a city in your home country, and a band of thugs walked around the corner and started throwing rocks and explosives at you, wouldn't you be justified in defending yourself? If you shot one of them dead in order to defend your life, would that not be justified?.

you call people dragging kids away and beating them, 2 adults on every kid, self defense? dose it look like the soldiers were defending themselves against something? i think you mustve been watching some other video, you should see the one were talking about.


Elrohir said:
As I see the facts presented so far, these kids have themselves to blame for bringing this upon themselves. And before anyone again trots out that tired old "Well what if someone was occupying America, wouldn't you attack them" argument, that doesn't apply here. If America was ruled by a tyrannical dictator that was slaughtered Americans by the hundreds of thousands I would gladly greet anyone, French, Chinese or German who brought him down as long as they tried to set up a self-governing American nation again, like we are trying to do in Iraq. And you can bet that if I decided to oppose occupying soldiers I would do a more lethal job of it than throwing rocks - and if I got caught I would have only myself to blame for being punished.

so its kids fault they didnt have AKs instead of rocks? i bet next time they will.
 
CartesianFart said:
Its seems that the culture in CFC OT use current events as a medium to assert an agenda to try to outwitt others into submission.We got alot of ego's in here who wants to be the[pimp]

I agree. I've agreed with arguments from both sides and disagreed with them as well. Seems to me that in situations like this moderate voices get drowned out.

All I would say is that I find it ridiculous that the 'Newspaper' who reveled in showing, in graphic detail, the violence done to Iraqi's during the war is now disgusted by a physical beating. What's the diffence between Iraqi's, 'innocent' or not, being beaten up by a gang of soliders and Iraqi's, 'innocent' or not being bombed to bits in 'Shock & Awe'?
 
Top Bottom