Org Mobile Site
Thread: British Troops Beat up Iraqis
There are two sides to this particular issue.
1) Why the delay in bringing to justice these guys? Is it only because it was publically leaked.
2) Are these guys now going to be made scapegoats for the problems with the military high command.
Ultimately the British military high command have shown a lack of leadership. If they had that quality they would not have waited until it became a PR issue to move on the issue.
Prole what would you expect the sentence be for a uniformed fighter in Afgahnistan killing an American POW be?
1) Why the delay in bringing to justice these guys? Is it only because it was publically leaked.
2) Are these guys now going to be made scapegoats for the problems with the military high command.
Ultimately the British military high command have shown a lack of leadership. If they had that quality they would not have waited until it became a PR issue to move on the issue.
Prole what would you expect the sentence be for a uniformed fighter in Afgahnistan killing an American POW be?
Originally Posted by Redleg:
The United States is conducting occupation duties in Iraq. Which requires the soldiers to act as policemen. It happened in German and Japan after WW2 also. The difference in the situations is that German and Japan did not have an active resistance to the occupation.
There was a resistance movement in Europe for some months after the war, that began as a "nobody co-operate with the Allies" effort in the closing weeks of the fighting. Japan was remarkably free of such resistance -- though a nearly successful coup was made by hardliners intent on continuing the war despite atomic weaponry.The United States is conducting occupation duties in Iraq. Which requires the soldiers to act as policemen. It happened in German and Japan after WW2 also. The difference in the situations is that German and Japan did not have an active resistance to the occupation.
Tribesman: What is your answer to the Iraq war? What is your plan?
Ah , for that you will have to go back to find "President Tribesmans" inaugral address .
Though that won't work now , the situation is too far gone and there is no way the US population would swallow it , or be able to afford it .
even though it's pretty disgraceful to release someone from a headlock so you can get in a good headbutt.
Come on Prole , you have to release them otherwise the headbutt don't work
Ah , for that you will have to go back to find "President Tribesmans" inaugral address .
Though that won't work now , the situation is too far gone and there is no way the US population would swallow it , or be able to afford it .
even though it's pretty disgraceful to release someone from a headlock so you can get in a good headbutt.
Come on Prole , you have to release them otherwise the headbutt don't work
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Prole what would you expect the sentence be for a uniformed fighter in Afgahnistan killing an American POW be?
By 'uniformed fighter' do you mean insurgent or an American soldier? I'm confused because if you meant the former, it wouldn't be covered under UCMJ. Prole what would you expect the sentence be for a uniformed fighter in Afgahnistan killing an American POW be?
I just wanted to point out that even though you were giving an overly simplistic percentage to make a point, you may not be aware of just how often the military (US, anyway) metes out justice upon it's own for many of these problems. They just don't happen to send out each case in a detailed fashion to the NOTW.
If an Afgah or Iraqi killed an American soldier that was a POW what would you expect the sentence range be? 5, 10, 15 years?
Did these guys die? Were they POWs? What was happening beforehand? The video dosent really provide much in the way of evidince (as to circumstancs) I mean if you are going to riot in front of a group of Marines in a war zone which is already unstable. I mean come on do you really excepect them to take it
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
If an Afgah or Iraqi killed an American soldier that was a POW what would you expect the sentence range be? 5, 10, 15 years?
I don't know. Neither Afgahns nor Iraqis are subject to the UCMJ. Redleg might be able to tell you, but I'm having trouble understanding the relevance.If an Afgah or Iraqi killed an American soldier that was a POW what would you expect the sentence range be? 5, 10, 15 years?
Essentially what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Scenarios.
Iraqi police detain and beat up British soldiers. In that instance information was forthcomming and the reaction by the British High Command was to send in a company to look extract the men.
British soldiers beat up Iraqi protestors. In that instance information to the media was suppressed and the reaction by the British High Command was to forget about it until information was leaked.
====
I have this vague notion that justice is supposed to be equivalent for all.
I also have this vague idea that honour is being consistent in word and deed.
And that leadership is doing something rather being told to do it.
The BHC is not doing well in any of these 3 IMDHO.
Scenarios.
Iraqi police detain and beat up British soldiers. In that instance information was forthcomming and the reaction by the British High Command was to send in a company to look extract the men.
British soldiers beat up Iraqi protestors. In that instance information to the media was suppressed and the reaction by the British High Command was to forget about it until information was leaked.
====
I have this vague notion that justice is supposed to be equivalent for all.
I also have this vague idea that honour is being consistent in word and deed.
And that leadership is doing something rather being told to do it.
The BHC is not doing well in any of these 3 IMDHO.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Tribesman: What is your answer to the Iraq war? What is your plan?
Ah , for that you will have to go back to find "President Tribesmans" inaugral address .
Though that won't work now , the situation is too far gone and there is no way the US population would swallow it , or be able to afford it .
Common man. It is totally within your right to question the management of this conflict. But I am curious what you prefer to see done? Yes we are there so "not going in to begin with" isn't really fair. (not that you said that. I am just pre-empting.) What would you do if you were in charge right now?Tribesman: What is your answer to the Iraq war? What is your plan?
Ah , for that you will have to go back to find "President Tribesmans" inaugral address .
Though that won't work now , the situation is too far gone and there is no way the US population would swallow it , or be able to afford it .
Originally Posted by Redleg:
The United States is conducting occupation duties in Iraq. Which requires the soldiers to act as policemen. It happened in German and Japan after WW2 also. The difference in the situations is that German and Japan did not have an active resistance to the occupation.
This and WW2 are hard to compare. The times have changed, and the very nature of this war is very different. There was little resistance in Germany/Japan because they were tired of fighting a war for over half a decade that stretched their resources to the breaking point. After the Allies finally won, every that could fight already has. The reasons for the Germans and Japanese for entering armed conflict is very different from the Muslims as well. Why do I say Muslims and not Iraqis/Syrians/Iranis/Saudis? Because none of them are uniformed and fighting for any of their governments. It is harder to identify friend from foe, ethnic differences aside.The United States is conducting occupation duties in Iraq. Which requires the soldiers to act as policemen. It happened in German and Japan after WW2 also. The difference in the situations is that German and Japan did not have an active resistance to the occupation.
Now about that video... it failed to show completelywhat happened. Why were those kids there? What did they do? What happened after? None of these are shown by this 2-year old video that is obviously leaked for political reasons. In the US, only things that don't "present a clear and present threat" are protected by the constitution. Perhaps these journalists should care more for the lives of their nation's soldiers and citizens abroad than for simply stirring up more violence so they can have another story to tell.
British high command can hardly be to blame for this. Here we have guys from 18-21 years old on police duty. They are trained to be soldiers and fighters. Killers even. But when you have a bunch of Iraqi kids protesting, you are bound to have some pretty angry soldiers. If you plan on demonstrating in the middle of a war zone, expect some swift retribution.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
If an Afgah or Iraqi killed an American soldier that was a POW what would you expect the sentence range be? 5, 10, 15 years?
Since the Iraqi insurgents have killed captives - I think you have your answer. If an Afgah or Iraqi killed an American soldier that was a POW what would you expect the sentence range be? 5, 10, 15 years?
Nothing happens until they are caught by the opposing force. We all know what happen to German officers that ordered the slaughter of American POW's during the Battle of the Buldge. Several were hanged for war crimes, several were given life sentences, and others were given several years depending upon their actions.
Now if your asking if the current sentences being given to American servicemen convicted of killing a POW in captivity. (There was a recent one involving a senior Iraqi General who was killed during intergation by a Warrant Officer. You can look up the sentence, it was light in my opinion, but I don't have the details of the trail record.)
The UCMJ like all laws deals with intent of the action, when passing sentence.
Originally Posted by makkyo:
This and WW2 are hard to compare. The times have changed, and the very nature of this war is very different. There was little resistance in Germany/Japan because they were tired of fighting a war for over half a decade that stretched their resources to the breaking point. After the Allies finally won, every that could fight already has. The reasons for the Germans and Japanese for entering armed conflict is very different from the Muslims as well. Why do I say Muslims and not Iraqis/Syrians/Iranis/Saudis? Because none of them are uniformed and fighting for any of their governments. It is harder to identify friend from foe, ethnic differences aside.
I think you missed the intent of the post.This and WW2 are hard to compare. The times have changed, and the very nature of this war is very different. There was little resistance in Germany/Japan because they were tired of fighting a war for over half a decade that stretched their resources to the breaking point. After the Allies finally won, every that could fight already has. The reasons for the Germans and Japanese for entering armed conflict is very different from the Muslims as well. Why do I say Muslims and not Iraqis/Syrians/Iranis/Saudis? Because none of them are uniformed and fighting for any of their governments. It is harder to identify friend from foe, ethnic differences aside.
Originally Posted by :
British high command can hardly be to blame for this. Here we have guys from 18-21 years old on police duty. They are trained to be soldiers and fighters. Killers even. But when you have a bunch of Iraqi kids protesting, you are bound to have some pretty angry soldiers. If you plan on demonstrating in the middle of a war zone, expect some swift retribution.
Soldiers in the British Army just like the American Army have officers and NCO's over them. The question of leadership is valid in my opinion.British high command can hardly be to blame for this. Here we have guys from 18-21 years old on police duty. They are trained to be soldiers and fighters. Killers even. But when you have a bunch of Iraqi kids protesting, you are bound to have some pretty angry soldiers. If you plan on demonstrating in the middle of a war zone, expect some swift retribution.
Originally Posted by Redleg:
Soldiers in the British Army just like the American Army have officers and NCO's over them. The question of leadership is valid in my opinion.
Then do the armed forces not have the right to teach these rioters a lesson? Are they out of line for excersizing their authority during an invasion? I think these guys got what they deserved, though the commentary is a little.... Soldiers in the British Army just like the American Army have officers and NCO's over them. The question of leadership is valid in my opinion.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
I have this vague notion that justice is supposed to be equivalent for all.
I can't speak on anything BHC, but you must also have a vague notion about discretion. Just because it isn't in the fishwraps doesn't mean it's being ignored by the higher-ups.I have this vague notion that justice is supposed to be equivalent for all.
Good point, Prole!
In our mediated world, it is easy to assume that only if it is being reported on is anything being done about it.
Perhaps no charges were proferred until the vid was made public, which might be cause for some concern if it was officially suppressed, but I haven't seen info on that.
Even then, the basic value of Prole's comment would still be valid.
In our mediated world, it is easy to assume that only if it is being reported on is anything being done about it.
Perhaps no charges were proferred until the vid was made public, which might be cause for some concern if it was officially suppressed, but I haven't seen info on that.
Even then, the basic value of Prole's comment would still be valid.
Originally Posted by makkyo:
Then do the armed forces not have the right to teach these rioters a lesson? Are they out of line for excersizing their authority during an invasion? I think these guys got what they deserved, though the commentary is a little....
Well according to the UCMJ that is applied to the servicemen and women in the United States Military their actions (The soldiers doing the beating) are punishable. Then do the armed forces not have the right to teach these rioters a lesson? Are they out of line for excersizing their authority during an invasion? I think these guys got what they deserved, though the commentary is a little....
The video shows that the beatings were not done to quell the riot, which would be one method of stopping a riot, and therefor one could argue that the soldiers were only doing their mission - with proper military bearing and violence to bring about a successful conclusion in a quick manner.
But the video shows something else now doesn't?
Originally Posted by Proletariat:
I can't speak on anything BHC, but you must also have a vague notion about discretion. Just because it isn't in the fishwraps doesn't mean it's being ignored by the higher-ups.
I thought a basic tenant of justice was to be seen to be done... not just discretly done so as not to embarass the very leadership that are responsible for creating the situation. Discretion in this case is not justice it is coverup with a sweetener. Discretion is for occassions when the enemy may find out ones plans of warfare, it is not the correct term for covering up crimes. I can't speak on anything BHC, but you must also have a vague notion about discretion. Just because it isn't in the fishwraps doesn't mean it's being ignored by the higher-ups.
And 2 years after the fact?
Why isn't the command doing its own investigations and/or prosecutions without the heat of publicity. Again it shows a basic lack of leadership when they need others to tell them what to do. Lacking leadership ability is not what I assume is a model officer.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Discretion in this case is not justice it is coverup with a sweetener. Discretion is for occassions when the enemy may find out ones plans of warfare, it is not the correct term for covering up crimes.
Of course, Pape. Ideally justice would be transparent, but I'm sure you can appreciate the concern. You might as well have the BHC and Pentagon make propaganda videos for the insurgents if you're going to release every incident to the press. It's just fanning the flames unnecessarily.Discretion in this case is not justice it is coverup with a sweetener. Discretion is for occassions when the enemy may find out ones plans of warfare, it is not the correct term for covering up crimes.
Again, I don't know about the British military justice system at all. But there's lots of soldiers who face UCMJ fairly frequently for the stupid things they do, stateside and in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't just assume that since it's not in the papers that the coalition soldiers must be having a bash-o-rama down there.
Btw, I haven't looked much into the story yet, but I think alot of the reason for the delay was because the narrator was showing folks at home the video. Someone saw it and was upset by it and they were the ones who called the newspaper. Most likely the reason why it took two years to come out.
I don't know about anyone else, but the video kind of screams 'Orange' to me.
Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Of course, Pape. Ideally justice would be transparent, but I'm sure you can appreciate the concern. You might as well have the BHC and Pentagon make propaganda videos for the insurgents if you're going to release every incident to the press. It's just fanning the flames unnecessarily.
If the actions of British and US soilders are only inciting more violence maybe they shouldn't be there at all?Of course, Pape. Ideally justice would be transparent, but I'm sure you can appreciate the concern. You might as well have the BHC and Pentagon make propaganda videos for the insurgents if you're going to release every incident to the press. It's just fanning the flames unnecessarily.
Any government (occupying or otherwise) that is forced to resort to coercive force to silence poitical dissent has already lost its legitimacy in my eyes. I've been chased, hit, and tear gased by too many cops (in 2 countries) for doing nothing but standing on public property to believe that this sort of violence is justified.
Here is an eyewitness report from the riot preceeding the video showing soldiers beating rioters.
He does go on to say that he didn't think the Iraqi 'youths' should have been beaten by the soldiers, but then says this.
Originally Posted by :
Ali was negotiating with the demonstrators, but was getting nowhere. When the first stone hit my head we tried to retreat to the car, where the driver was sitting with the engine running and his foot on the pedal.
But we could not get there. Half a dozen rioters had grabbed Teri and an octopus of hostile arms was pulling her into the crowd. She grabbed my wrist. I tried to pull her back, but she was vanishing into the human quicksand. We had no choice but throw ourselves at her assailants, one of whom was trying to smash her skull with a rock.
linkAli was negotiating with the demonstrators, but was getting nowhere. When the first stone hit my head we tried to retreat to the car, where the driver was sitting with the engine running and his foot on the pedal.
But we could not get there. Half a dozen rioters had grabbed Teri and an octopus of hostile arms was pulling her into the crowd. She grabbed my wrist. I tried to pull her back, but she was vanishing into the human quicksand. We had no choice but throw ourselves at her assailants, one of whom was trying to smash her skull with a rock.
He does go on to say that he didn't think the Iraqi 'youths' should have been beaten by the soldiers, but then says this.
Originally Posted by :
It was as unpleasant and dangerous a mob as I had ever seen
It was as unpleasant and dangerous a mob as I had ever seen
Originally Posted by :
The officials admitted that the al-Amarah police — with little training and strong loyalties to the powerful tribe accused of nepotism — had “panicked” and killed about half a dozen protesters, some armed with explosives, blast bombs and grenades.
So no furore if Iraqis are killed by their own police, but all hell breaks loose if a British soldier slaps a kid about for rioting. They are lucky not to have been shot by the sound of it.The officials admitted that the al-Amarah police — with little training and strong loyalties to the powerful tribe accused of nepotism — had “panicked” and killed about half a dozen protesters, some armed with explosives, blast bombs and grenades.
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX:
Any government (occupying or otherwise) that is forced to resort to coercive force to silence poitical dissent has already lost its legitimacy in my eyes.
Well, great for you. Any government (occupying or otherwise) that is forced to resort to coercive force to silence poitical dissent has already lost its legitimacy in my eyes.
My point had nothing to do with whether we should be there or not.
I disagree, if the actions (incidents) of occupying troops are only causing more violence, maybe they should leave. Seems like an obvious connect to me. Why is trying to hide what's happening more logical?
I think a few things have been missed here:
1. Leaking the video will get soldiers killed.
2. They're not marines, they're the first Battalion Light Infantry, they're not elite or super-killing machines.
3. Just because you don't here about it doesn't mean they weren't punished.
4. You assume that High Command knew, soldiers close ranks and protect themselves and eachother.
5. Most soldiers aren't like that and I think this is the first example of the British Army doing something "wrong" rather than just some squady making a bad decision.
As to a lack of leadership in the General Staff, well everybody hates RMP SIB (Royal Military Police, Special Investigation Branch, a.k.a. S*** in bulk). You can't have someone looking over a Squady's shoulder because he will have to do things that civi's can't. If every Iraqi they shoot is a potential terrorist that might kill them, they are in a war zone and you can't sit at home and judge them unless you've been there.
I wouls also point out that three years ago, early 2004, was the time those six RMP TAs got shot. After that that the rules of engagement changed, they stopped worrying about being nice and stated thinking about staying alive.
One of my mates was down the road when those RMPs got shot. The Paras were trying to fight through to them but they failed. They thought it was a religious procession so they moved the Landrovers off the road! Then the news makes it sound like they were sat down having tea! One of that mob grabbed a little girl to use as a human shield, so a para ran the gauntlet a got her, then ran back.
I'm not saying what the guys in the video did was right, far from it. It was petty, brutal and cowardly but you have to understand the anger at the time.
1. Leaking the video will get soldiers killed.
2. They're not marines, they're the first Battalion Light Infantry, they're not elite or super-killing machines.
3. Just because you don't here about it doesn't mean they weren't punished.
4. You assume that High Command knew, soldiers close ranks and protect themselves and eachother.
5. Most soldiers aren't like that and I think this is the first example of the British Army doing something "wrong" rather than just some squady making a bad decision.
As to a lack of leadership in the General Staff, well everybody hates RMP SIB (Royal Military Police, Special Investigation Branch, a.k.a. S*** in bulk). You can't have someone looking over a Squady's shoulder because he will have to do things that civi's can't. If every Iraqi they shoot is a potential terrorist that might kill them, they are in a war zone and you can't sit at home and judge them unless you've been there.
I wouls also point out that three years ago, early 2004, was the time those six RMP TAs got shot. After that that the rules of engagement changed, they stopped worrying about being nice and stated thinking about staying alive.
One of my mates was down the road when those RMPs got shot. The Paras were trying to fight through to them but they failed. They thought it was a religious procession so they moved the Landrovers off the road! Then the news makes it sound like they were sat down having tea! One of that mob grabbed a little girl to use as a human shield, so a para ran the gauntlet a got her, then ran back.
I'm not saying what the guys in the video did was right, far from it. It was petty, brutal and cowardly but you have to understand the anger at the time.
One of my mates was down the road when those RMPs got shot. The Paras were trying to fight through to them but they failed.
Well your mate is bullshitting you , the role of the Paras and their failings that day were clearly shown in the MODs inquiry . They did bugger all to get to the police station because their CO decided it was too dangerous to attempt with the assets he had available .
What your mate is describing is the Paras operation 100 yards away from the police station , that occured before the RMPs had come under attack .
Well your mate is bullshitting you , the role of the Paras and their failings that day were clearly shown in the MODs inquiry . They did bugger all to get to the police station because their CO decided it was too dangerous to attempt with the assets he had available .
What your mate is describing is the Paras operation 100 yards away from the police station , that occured before the RMPs had come under attack .
nm...
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
One of my mates was down the road when those RMPs got shot. The Paras were trying to fight through to them but they failed.
Well your mate is bullshitting you , the role of the Paras and their failings that day were clearly shown in the MODs inquiry . They did bugger all to get to the police station because their CO decided it was too dangerous to attempt with the assets he had available .
What your mate is describing is the Paras operation 100 yards away from the police station , that occured before the RMPs had come under attack .
Yes, because 100 yards down the road was the tail end of the mob. 167 dead Iraqis, IIRC. Given there were only 20-30 of them I'd be inclined to agree with the Ruppert.One of my mates was down the road when those RMPs got shot. The Paras were trying to fight through to them but they failed.
Well your mate is bullshitting you , the role of the Paras and their failings that day were clearly shown in the MODs inquiry . They did bugger all to get to the police station because their CO decided it was too dangerous to attempt with the assets he had available .
What your mate is describing is the Paras operation 100 yards away from the police station , that occured before the RMPs had come under attack .
MOD enquiries are also bullshit.
I'd be inclined to agree with the Ruppert.
Agree with which part of the ruperts statement , the one where he said he didn't know they were there , the one where he said he didn't know they were under attack or the one where he said he didn't know where the police station was ? (all of which were shown as false)
Or just the final one where he said he couldn't do anything .
Agree with which part of the ruperts statement , the one where he said he didn't know they were there , the one where he said he didn't know they were under attack or the one where he said he didn't know where the police station was ? (all of which were shown as false)
Or just the final one where he said he couldn't do anything .
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
I think a few things have been missed here:
1. Leaking the video will get soldiers killed.
The blame should not be laid at the media. It should be laid at anyone who kills soldiers, then to those who incite the violence, then the soldiers who did the crime for providing the example that others can use to incite the violence, and then to the command that cannot control its own troops.I think a few things have been missed here:
1. Leaking the video will get soldiers killed.
It is a cop out to blame the media.
Originally Posted by :
2. They're not marines, they're the first Battalion Light Infantry, they're not elite or super-killing machines.
So because they are light infantry they are allowed to do criminal acts?2. They're not marines, they're the first Battalion Light Infantry, they're not elite or super-killing machines.
Originally Posted by :
3. Just because you don't here about it doesn't mean they weren't punished
.3. Just because you don't here about it doesn't mean they weren't punished
These crimes weren't punished until the video was leaked. So why is the media showing more competence then the military in investigating the militaries actions...
Originally Posted by :
4. You assume that High Command knew, soldiers close ranks and protect themselves and eachother.
Oh so instead of lacking leadership they are incompetent because they don't know what their own soldiers are doing.4. You assume that High Command knew, soldiers close ranks and protect themselves and eachother.
Command Fail
Control Fail
Communication Fail... man what a military to be proud of.
Originally Posted by :
5. Most soldiers aren't like that and I think this is the first example of the British Army doing something "wrong" rather than just some squady making a bad decision.
You just stated that the soldiers close ranks. Aiding a crime is a crime in itself. 5. Most soldiers aren't like that and I think this is the first example of the British Army doing something "wrong" rather than just some squady making a bad decision.
Nor is this the first example of the British military doing something wrong and others finding out first... remember the prisoners hanging from forklifts?
Originally Posted by :
As to a lack of leadership in the General Staff, well everybody hates RMP SIB (Royal Military Police, Special Investigation Branch, a.k.a. S*** in bulk). You can't have someone looking over a Squady's shoulder because he will have to do things that civi's can't. If every Iraqi they shoot is a potential terrorist that might kill them, they are in a war zone and you can't sit at home and judge them unless you've been there.
Incorrect on two counts.As to a lack of leadership in the General Staff, well everybody hates RMP SIB (Royal Military Police, Special Investigation Branch, a.k.a. S*** in bulk). You can't have someone looking over a Squady's shoulder because he will have to do things that civi's can't. If every Iraqi they shoot is a potential terrorist that might kill them, they are in a war zone and you can't sit at home and judge them unless you've been there.
1) I don't think the definition of a terrorist stretches to someone only fighting military.
2) Living in a democracy I have the right to judge and vote on what happens. The actions that the military do on my behalf may infact be the very actions that do not save us but endanger us. They military also may go down a path that promotes injustice and vigilante actions, these are not something that I wish to have done on my behalf. If the military want me to honour their achievements that can expect me to get angry with their gross failures.
Originally Posted by :
I'm not saying what the guys in the video did was right, far from it. It was petty, brutal and cowardly but you have to understand the anger at the time.
Three points of failure at least.I'm not saying what the guys in the video did was right, far from it. It was petty, brutal and cowardly but you have to understand the anger at the time.
Improper training for riots.
Improper leadership by the NCO's... kicking prisoners in the nuts not withstanding.
Improper actions by the individuals.
Anger is not a valid excuse for brutality. Anger is a reason for brutality.
Given that the coalition of the willing went in to Iraq to same the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and to win the hearts and minds of the people. Don't you think these squaddies are responsible for the failure of upholding their portion of the main mission?
Of course the PR reason for us being in Iraq is probably not why we are in Iraq. If this was an act of colonialism then the actions of the squaddies would be par for the course...
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall:
1. Leaking the video will get soldiers killed.
1. Leaking the video will get soldiers killed.
And not leaking it will probably get civilians killed because the military won't be held accountable for their actions. It's a war; if someone is going to die I'd rather it be soldiers than civilians.
Further, blaming the media for the reaction to this is just plain silly, the soldiers committed the acts that will likely cause reprisals, not the media.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO