New Iraq torture claims

[BlackArab]

With all this coming out, does anyone still believe we were justified in going in?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3675723.stm

[lukesh]

Originally posted by BlackArab
With all this coming out, does anyone still believe we were justified in going in?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3675723.stm what a question that is. I believe that 99% of American and British troops are doing us proud. The very small minority are making a mock for us and giving us a very bad name.

[Blagsta]

WILL YOU STOP MAKING FIGURES UP!

Jesus!

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Blagsta
WILL YOU STOP MAKING FIGURES UP!

Jesus! lol

[Aladdin]

If the images are genuine (the army now claims those pictures couldn't have been taken in Iraq as some of the weapons and trucks shown have not been sent there) then it is a disgusting and vile act.

You just have to wonder how often these kind 'incidents' happen... I fear they are far more common that they would have us believe.

At least Saddam didn't pretend to be a champion of freedom and human rights, unlike Iraq's 'liberators'.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
WILL YOU STOP MAKING FIGURES UP!

Jesus!

He (I hope its a he) lol, did say I beleive so figures arent really needed are they :p

[Kermit]

All soldiers are scum.

In the other thread I said about how the British are as bad as the Americans, and Jim V said the same.

How surprising that Bliar thinks that it's "exceptional". Ask most black people who've been in the army and they'll say it's not. Ask the soldiers at Deepcut or Marne Barracks if it is and they'll say it's not.

This is what happens when you give people who crave power and violence the legal right to administer it. And there appear to be very few soldiers who go into the Army for altruistic reasons, so it happens more and more.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Aladdin
You just have to wonder how often these kind 'incidents' happen... I fear they are far more common that they would have us believe.

You read Private Eye. MoD violence and bullying is in Paul Foot's section every week.

Take that amount and quadruple it.

[Clandestine]

An army of occupation is by definition an act of violence and violation against another land and people. That its composite members should be found expressing that innate violence in more particular fashion is neither "out of chracter" nor "isolated" from the violence respresented daily by the occupation itself.

European powers learned this lesson the hard way during the Colonial Era, but obviously our modern day conquistadors feel they missed some golden age and need to plunge us and the globe back into that morass.

[dantheman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3677311.stm

I hope the pics are fakes, I would like to continue in my belief that British soliders are professional and trust worthy.

[Clandestine]

Whilst it may seem admirable to wish our armed services to represent the sort of honour we are repeatedly sold, dan, the truth is that they have long been the playthings of the Military Industrial Complex and its lust for rampant profiteering at any cost.

For this reason conflicts are predicted, provoked or otherwise fomented in order to provide ongoing justifications for endless increases in government military expenditure.

That we have now seen Washington moving rapidly ahead with a vision of the world which demands neo-colonial expansionistic militancy only further supports the argument in favour of concerted effort to oppose all foreign ventures on our part and return to legitimate national (and only national) defence.

This lengthy article might hopefully give you some insight into the real interests at stake, not only in this current quagmire, but in those past and those yet in the planning.

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/micr/companies.html#Figure4

As for Iraq itself, you might be further interested to note that the corporate face of warfare is itself contributing directly to the brutality and criminality on the ground in the sense that the US, if not the UK also, has certainly turned increasingly to private military contractors (aka grossly overpaid private mercenaries) to bolster the ranks of official national military forces. These mercenaries are gung ho war junkies (most with prior military service) who are neither accountable to Congress nor to any official military oversight.

Note also that these mercs are profiting heavily whilst many of our official servicemen and certainly many of our veterans are forced to live off of food stamps thanks to budget cuts.

Many of these private mercs work closely on the ground with their CIA counterparts expressly for the purpose of being unaccountable and highly expendible. Given that the very same sort of mercenary contigency gave rise to an active slave trade (for additional profit) in Bosnia (see DynCorp) it's little surprise to see further examples of gross human rights violations in our other theatres of combat.

Its time that a serious public and judicial enquiry were launched against the MIC and its lurid network of corporate opportunists. I for one oppose the use of my tax dollars to fund mercenaries with itchy trigger fingers and sadistic tendencies who remain largely conspicuous to the public at large.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Bombings_bring_052103.htm

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_7101.shtml


"The grave menace to the peace of the world is due in no small measure to the uncontrolled activities of the manufacturers and merchants of engines of destruction."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1934

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense...so that security and liberty may prosper together."
- Dwight Eisenhower, January 1961

[lukesh]

and NEVER say that the troops are like what Saddam did. you can't compare.

[crossfire]

i can dig up a list of U.S backed oppresive dictatorships if you want..

[byny]

Originally posted by lukesh
and NEVER say that the troops are like what Saddam did. you can't compare.

Well....surely it doesn't matter how many people you torture. If you torture just one it's just as bad!
Each soldier is a reflection of the Army and if they do shit like this it reflects badly on the whole organisation.

How anyone can even defend this type of thing is beyond me!

[lukesh]

Originally posted by byny
Well....surely it doesn't matter how many people you torture. If you torture just one it's just as bad!
Each soldier is a reflection of the Army and if they do shit like this it reflects badly on the whole organisation.

How anyone can even defend this type of thing is beyond me! our troops are will never be like that saddam and guess what them pictures could be fake. they are closly examining them. and another thing see how the anti war paper gets hold of them, if they are fake they should be sued.

[Whowhere]

Does this mean Blair might get tried for war attrocities???
God I hope so.


But I have been reading about this, and there are a lot of errors in the photos.
The rifle used to hit the "Iraqi" isn't scratched nor does it show signs of wear. Like it just came from a factory and not a desert.

The soldier's boots. Any soldier or cadet will tell you that is NOT how British personnel tie their boots up.

Where are the rank insignia on the soldier's uniform?

The Soldier's uniform jacket isn't standard issue. Soldiers are only allowed to roll their sleeves up if the jacket is camoflauged on both sides. This mans jacket is white on the inside.

Why are the soldier's ammo pouches open? Soldiers, are VERY disciplined and wouldn't leave their ammo pouches open where someone could steal from them, or something could fall out.

Why aren't the pictures in colour?
Yet at the same time, why are the black and white images similar in quality to professional photos?

In addition, why is there no blurring? If this man really was given a beating why is there no movement blurring on the images?

Why isn't the Iraqi covered in bruises? The Mirror alleges that the man suffered hours of torment

Why isn't the Iraqi doubling up in pain?

Why isn't the Iraqi's t-shirt dirty, again he suffered hours of torment.

Why is there an Iraqi national flag on his t-shirt, when the Iraqi is supposedly a Shia Muslim. Shia Muslims HATE the flag and what it represents.


Compare these pictures to the ones taken by the Americans. The American pictures are grainy, show movement blurring and also show faces. If there really was someone on "the inside" then surely they would try and reveal the identity of one of the abusers?

[lukesh]

some good points there.

[Clandestine]

If you go back to my previous post Whowhere and note the links youll perhaps discover that those directly involved are private military contractors and not rank and file soldiers which would go to explain the discrepencies in uniform or other material aspects contained in the photos.

To simply deny that our armed forces are incapable of such atoricty though flies in the face of innumerable documented accounts of brutality at the hands of our boys (Just do some deeper research into the extent of the brutality visited upon civilian villages by our special forces during the Vietnam conflict and go from there).

Fact is we have military training facilities which specifically teach methodologies of torture and other such savagery, so to insist our forces incapable is to simply live in denial of reality.

Lukesh, go to Iraq and tell those who have managed to survive such acts that it was all made up. Im sure theyll be glad to know it was all a bad dream. :rolleyes:

[Whowhere]

Who are private military contractors?
The "British" in the photos, or the Americans?

And don't you mean mercenaries?

[Skive]

Originally posted by Clandestine
youll perhaps discover that those directly involved are private military contractors and not rank and file soldiers which would go to explain the discrepencies in uniform or other material aspects contained in the photos.

It only explains some of the discrepencies.

I'm sure there are soldiers on all sides that have behaved with this sort of cruelty (it happens in war) but in my mind there is no doubt that these pics are staged.

[Clandestine]

Just as there is no doubt in my mind (from the weight of innumerable similar atrocities committed by our forces in past conflicts) that these photos are genuine.

[Skive]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Just as there is no doubt in my mind (from the weight of innumerable similar atrocities committed by our forces in past conflicts) that these photos are genuine.

So you are more prepared to base the validity of these photo's on past history rather than the actual images they contain? I don't see how past atrocities have anything to do with these photo's unless the same soldiers may be involved.

How do you care to explain these points anyway?

-Any experienced soldier's boots need to be laced horizontally so that the laces can be cut and the boot removed with ease incase of injury. And any experienced soldier would not leave ammo pouches open.

-Why are the photo's so clear and in black and white as if taken by a professional photographer- yet no faces are shown?

-In addition, why is there no blurring? If this man really was given a beating why is there no movement blurring on the images? The images appear amzingly static.

-Why isn't the Iraqi covered in sweat, dirt, or bruises if he'd been beaten so badly and why isn't the Iraqi doubling up in pain?

-Why is there an Iraqi national flag on his t-shirt, when the Iraqi is supposedly a Shia Muslim. Shia Muslims HATE the flag and what it represents.


I think Clandenstine, that you've disragarded the facts and let your hate for the war cloud your judgement. You've been too quick to make up you mind that these pics are true, and been far too gullable.

I do beleive that there has been atrocities commited by our forces in this war - I don't beleive that this is one though.

[Faith]

Originally posted by Kermit
All soldiers are scum.

Not all soldiers are scum at all. Have you been out there and seen what they have to do? Have you seen how all soldiers behave? :rolleyes:

I thought you were quite intelligent until that comment.

[Clandestine]

You are free to believe as you will. The greater weight of scrutiny stands against you on this. Moreover, given the similar vehement denials of documented atrocities in Vietnam and many examples of outright wartime lies and propaganda from the Pentagon to attempt to hide these truths from the public, once again the weight of historic evidence suggests it is all too likely.

Add to this the fact that the past decade has seen an inordinately increasing reliance upon unaccountable miltiary contractors (aka mercenaries), who make up a sizeable percentage of the forces arrayed in both Afghanistan and Iraq, such brutality is even more plausible.

As mentioned previously, one can easily point to the active sex slave trade carried out by DynCorp contract forces in Bosnia as indication of the extent to which brutality and criminality becomes commonplace (especially in contexts such as Iraq where many servicement have seen their tours of duty extended indefinitely). Frustration breeds contempt and so does prolonged occupation (especially one which was precipitate from the very start by lies and false promises).

In the end analysis though, it matters not what you nor I think of such evidence but rather the image it presents to an Arab world already critical of our long running foreign policy duplicities.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Kermit
All soldiers are scum.

i hope thats tongue in cheek.
i have half a dozen mates in the forces ranging from spud peeler to officers.
i aint allowed to say much about them but the women and children they have rescued from utter despair and the tears they have shed at some of the horrors they have wittnessed makes them fine fucking men i my eyes.
kermit you wouldn't have the bottle to say that to their faces.
should an enemy ever come to our shores it aint the likes of fucking lawyers who will have to save us.
courage and bravery are concepts you wouldn't understand. will probably never need.
...and probably will never muster if needed.

[Dear Wendy]

Who would have thought, I can relate to moroccan roll.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Who would have thought, I can relate to moroccan roll. that made me laugh! it's not the first time we have been in agreement you know.

[Dear Wendy]

No, but it's so far apart that I have forgotten the last time :p

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
No, but it's so far apart that I have forgotten the last time :p me too ...i was dreading you asking me to give you a link as proof!

[groovechampion]

Originally posted by Clandestine
those directly involved are private military contractors and not rank and file soldiers which would go to explain the discrepencies in uniform or other material aspects contained in the photos.



No it doesn't. No private contractors, security personnel or 'mercenaries' are allowed to wear imitation British army uniforms. They certainly wouldnt have an SA80 either, theyd probably be armed with an H&K or some other commercially available weapon.

All the clues point towards the British army photos being faked.

[Dear Wendy]

It's true.
My friend wouldn't give me his jumper as he said, it was illegal according to army rules.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I think they should stop quarrelling over whether these particular photographs were falsified, and be more concerned with the fact this sort of thing DOES go on, and something should be done about it.

[Whowhere]

Wether the pictures are false or not is entirely relevant.
If the pictures are genuine, then we need to find out who was involved.
However it has become highly likely that pictures aren't genuine.
Reasons for which we have been through. What we now need to find out is WHY the pictures were staged, and who did them....poorly.

[groovechampion]

Originally posted by rainbow brite
I think they should stop quarrelling over whether these particular photographs were falsified, and be more concerned with the fact this sort of thing DOES go on, and something should be done about it.

It does matter whether they were falsified. It could well be that there is no torture/abuse committed by British troops, they might not have to be tarred with the same brush as the Americans.

Having said that, although it seems likely that their is abuse of prisoners in the American sector it is certainly just a tiny minority of the tens of thousands of troops out there. Its terrible but it doesnt mean that the US military as a whole has done wrong.

There are more than a hundred thousand soldiers out there, there are bound to be a few bad eggs within that figure. Imagine a town of 100 000 people - there will always be a few nutcases and evil people in a group of people so large, same goes for the army.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by rainbow brite
I think they should stop quarrelling over whether these particular photographs were falsified, and be more concerned with the fact this sort of thing DOES go on, and something should be done about it.

I think we need to look at both aspects, rather than to focus on just one or the other.

Yes, torture happens. I find it distateful but I also appreciate that sometimes it is the only way to get vital information. You can forget the Geneva Convention because, let's face it, no-one actually pays that close attention to it. Never has, never will.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't monitor what happens when we capture people and that this should mean that anything is tolerated. For me, the investigations into this should be to see if this was "necessary" rather than gratuitous...

As for the pictures, they are very important because of their impact. Most people seem to agree that this would/could lead to an increase in attacks on British soldiers. Not the act itself, but the fact that there are pictures. Just as it has done for many here, it will also highlight to the Iraqis that this happens, and the details. Imagine our response if the victims had been Brits, look at our response to the abuse which American workers have been subjected...

Now if these pictures are proved to be false, then that increase hatred will have been for little reason...

It's a tough one to argue, I know, but the printing of these pictures means more than the fact that it happens...