Say again? You've lost me there.Originally Posted by Pummy
I didnt play any race card.
i didnt mention anything about anyone agreeing or disagreeing with anything.
i suggest YOU stop seeking ulterior motives in what i say, and take my words as they are written.
I simply said, and i'll put this in the plainest and clearest English i can: most of the people who read Gem's and Bikey's posts are too fukkin stupid to understand what they have said.
Bikey's post puts things into context.
You cannot analyse one incident without looking at causation, short term, long term, whatever.
I would suggest that a large part of the English population is probably too dim to understand the situation. There is nothing to say that Gem and Bikey don't fall into that category as well as to me, their post seems very one sided - they don't appear to have considered a different angle.
I changed my thread as I read your post wrong, apologies.
I have commented both theoretically and only factually on what I know - I don't think I can say the same for several other people in this thread.
Where KAS said that most people are too stupid to understand the points made. Most will not see that point of view, or form their own based on facts irrespective of it agreeing or disagreeing with the points made.
we'd be here all day if that was the case and still not reach an agreeable conclusion or probably even argue using all the facts.
hence why, everyone knows the rough context, but are focussing on this particular situation. I don't think anyone disagrees that the government was wrong.
It's daft anyway, I've stated my opinion - hopefully others will consider this thread and make an informed opinion based on as much fact as they can learn.
I agree with the above, and we do indeed live in a daft country when it comes to media hype surrounding pretty much, well... everything.
The biggest problem I had with those videos of the Iraqis being beaten was the somewhat homo erotic commentary laid over the top. I think it was fairly obvious something had sparked the beatings, but they were no way near as sick as the tool who was filming it.
I've got a couple of mates who are in the army, but I do sometimes have reservations about some of the people it seems to attract. I would not have been surprised in the slightest if the **** dribbling over the stuff he was filming was simultaenously cracking one out with his other hand.
The whole iraq thing is just one big horrible mess, anyway. We shouldn't be there, there seems to be no end to it all on the horizon and its just another example of the stupid world we live in.
my view??
look at it this way, given the oportunity, the iraqi guys would shoot and kill the soldiers, face it, if a soldier got caught by the people, he would be beaten to death...
but the soldiers got them guys for a reason and in my eyes although the soldiers shouldnt have beaten them they did but lets be honest, youd get more of a beating than that if you told a boncer of a club he was a ****....
its a litlle beating, noting more...
further to the points you have raised:
"Exactly, no one knows what really happened but everyone jumps on the bandwagon and goes against the British Soldiers. I think your opinion would differ massively if that was your boyfriend the little sods were firing upon...! Please see both sides of the argument, we don't know what actually happened."
I hope I did not come across as putting my argument in an unbiased manner, I genuenly mean that we cannot tell why the whole thing started and who started it as all we have to go on is the video, therefore I personally cannot blame the British Soldiers nor the Iraqi Youths as for stirring up trouble in this case.
Those 'LITTLE SODS' were not firing anything mate as they had no guns.
If someone I knew was part of the army ocaurse I would feel concerned for them seeing that there is trouble where they are based but again I would not be able to put my hand on my heart and be able to say who started the whole incident in that video just based on that video alone.
(A minor point but I would not have a boyfriend amongst the British Soldiers as I am not a girl nor am I homosexual)
Do you really think that being arrested is going to "show them they mean business?" This isn't London, this is Iraq Gem. Be realistic. Your suggestions would do diddly squat.
may be you should have paid more attention to the paragraph that followed on mate. The army have autonomy over the grounds which they base themselves on, this means where ever they step foot, therefore they could have kept their captures in arrest and have them face a tribunal or court of justice, whichever would have been relevant in that case.
reminder:
Since the army arrested them those kids are now under arrest so in effect they are prisoners fo the war. Therefore it is not ethical nor is it legal to torture them, i.e. by beating them. If the soldiers felt strongly that the kids breached the point of misconduct where just a warning to them is no longer suitable they could have kept them under arrest and took them to a tribunal or better yet took them to the Iraqi court and make sure they were punished by their own law, this would have also enforced their intent of bringing peace to the Iraqi land.
So are you informing me that if I fire a gun at someone and then stop, and they beat me for it, then what they're doing is illegal? Don't be so naive. War time changes things and these people are subjected to a great deal of stress.
It is true that war subjects people to a great deal of stress but this still does not justify their actions. The rules are clear cut mate and lets put them into context: youths throwing stones, soldiers disperse crowd and capture a handful of youths and make arrest, is there a need to beat them as well? NO
Their aim was to stop them throwing stones and disperse crowd, both of which were accomplished.
Actually, that's wrong. As I've already said, lawyers all over the world agree that whilst it's immoral, what America is doing with prisoners at Guantanamo is totally legal.
Your comment is therefore incorrect, to the best of my knowledge Iraq and those particular individuals don't sign up to the Geneva Convention and so it's irrelevant. They are not legally prisoners of war in this instance from my "scarce knowledge" and so I go by what the world's top lawyers say.
Actually you are wrong:
Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Ref: The UN Convention Against Torture
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
I suggest you read the facts instead of basing your argoments on what other people who claim to be experts.
And your point of that Iraq has not signed up to this convention does not mean any country who has signed up to this convention have the legal right not to obide by this convention in any country which has not signed up to it.
Like I've said any army has autonomy over the land it stands on, therefore any army who is representing its country are goverened by the laws of their own country and any other international laws their country is part of no matter where on Earth they stand on.
Yes, everyone does know the rough context, but forget it when it comes to things like this.
The soldiers should not have been there in the first place, they have caused more shiit than they have fixed.
Yes, they have removed a dictator, but they havent made the situation any better in doing so - so what was the point. Prevention of a non-existant "nuclear/chemical" threat?? Oh yeah, how about vast oil fields.
The people of Iraq know this better than anyone in this country. And they are the ones who have to live with foreign "dictatorship".
Remember my joke about "Being British" i posted up a few days ago?
It seems like our boys can do no wrong...
What if the situation was reversed like Bikey mentioned?
What if the UN, or, more appropriately, two superpowers fabricated evidence so that they could invade the UK, and throw its corrupt leader out of power for their own interest, at the risk of their own people's (ie. soldiers') lives??
How would you react to that? How would you react to 10+ years of warfare, loved ones being killed, and foreigners parading around your home with big guns like they own the place???
I'll fukkin tell you. There would be civil unrest, there would be people getting killed, soldiers and civilians alike, and both would be to blame. British terrorist organizations would surface, making the situation worse. Young scallies would be bottling/kniving/ shooting. There's hella gangs in manchester, and plenty in other big cities, all strapped, all with automatic weapons, what do you think they would do??
But it would be the people who decided to invade who created all the shiit in the first place, would it not? Maybe not instigated, but definately created.
Jimma, I know for a fact you wouldn't sit there letting it all happen around you, neither would Lumox, and neither would I.
But we would all react to it in different ways.
If we dont look at it in context, and from both points of view, i may as well say "i hope every single foriegn soldier in iraq gets what is coming to them, and quik."
Last edited by KAS; 16th February 2006 at 16:42.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote