NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, usually you people are much quicker on picking up the news.

Anyways, I think by now you've seen the tape. Those boys were not 18, they were kids.
And they were kicked and beaten with sticks, with some delightful commentary from the cameraman (that was actually the sickest part about it).

What do you say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4705482.stm
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/armyvideo.shtml (Here's the vid - it's shocking, although probably not gory enough to get me kicked off...I would hope)

The cameraman sounds like he's either lost his bloody mind or is having an orgasm of biblical proportions.

The cameraman sounds like he's either lost his bloody mind or is having an orgasm of biblical proportions.
The news said that it's suspected that he's their superior officer.

The news said that it's suspected that he's their superior officer.
Sorry, I didn't read the article.

Still, why would the officer record images that would reflect badly on him and his unit? To me, it doesn't make sense.

Yeah he seriously does sound like he's blowing his load or something in the middle of that.

Sorry, I didn't read the article.
That was on SBS World News tonight. I don't think it would be on the BBC.
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127271&region=3

Still, why would the officer record images that would reflect badly on him and his unit? To me, it doesn't make sense.
Apparently the tape first showed up at a British barracks somewhere in Europe. Maybe they thought it was funny or something.

That was on SBS World News tonight. I don't think it would be on the BBC.
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127271&region=3


Apparently the tape first showed up at a British barracks somewhere in Europe. Maybe they thought it was funny or something.

If anything, troops, especially senior officers, should worry about any personal media getting out. I mean, look what happened at Abu Garib.

This is so reminiscint of Bloody Sunday to me.... :(

This is so reminiscent of Bloody Sunday to me.... :(

Except with less orgasm, no?

I just had a read through the SBS text and seen that it doesn't actually say "their commanding officer", it just says "a corporal".

Is Corporal a high rank? Doesn't sound like it...

Except with less orgasm, no?

I thought they had learned something from all those years of brutality. Clearly not.

I'm not going to laud the British Army as being the 'nobler' one in Iraq anymore.

Heads should (and hopefully will) roll for this.

I just had a read through the SBS text and seen that it doesn't actually say "their commanding officer", it just says "a corporal".

Is Corporal a high rank? Doesn't sound like it...

low rank enlisted, not even an NCO

low rank enlisted, not even an NCO
Thanks.

Well, that sorts that out. I still wonder where their officer was though.

In every national army there will be disgusting violence espescially in a country that has insurgents harrassing the armies trying to keep the peace, hatred within these armies will grow until it takes them over the edge. Which obviously doesnt excuse this extreme act of violence but whether it's caught on camera or not, it will always be there.

In every national army there will be disgusting violence espescially in a country that has insurgents harrassing the armies trying to keep the peace, hatred within these armies will grow until it takes them over the edge. Which obviously doesnt excuse this extreme act of violence but whether it's caught on camera or not, it will always be there.

That's something they should have thinked about BEFORE invading Irak, isn't it ?

what was the camera man on?

To be honest it sounds like the voice was added over the top, Its damn crisp. Plus its pretty much exactly what the papers want to write about.

But I love conspiracies.

That's something they should have thinked about BEFORE invading Irak, isn't it ?

Btw, I remind you that according to the Geneva Convention, that was signed by both USA and UK, the security and well-being of citizen of occupied land is under the full responsibility of the occupying power, and that any failure in it is a WAR CRIME.

Once again, before invading a sovereign country, they could have thinked about the consequences... but thinking is probably asking too much to them. So they could have listened to the warnings of those who did think. Oh no, wait, warning them about the shit they are about to create and be driven into is betraying them... well, I give up, in front of that much irrationality.

what was the camera man on?

To be honest it sounds like the voice was added over the top, Its damn crisp. Plus its pretty much exactly what the papers want to write about.
I don't think it was so much 'what was he on?' as 'what was he doing with his free hand?'. He was enjoying that far too much.

Agree with you about the voice-over. Does sound kinda dubbed in to me.

The last time this came up, they were discovered to be fakes rather fast.

The last time this came up, they were discovered to be fakes rather fast.

The editor said on the news yesterday that they'd been confirmed by military specialists and people inside the MoD

The editor said on the news yesterday that they'd been confirmed by military specialists and people inside the MoD

The fact that this was first reported by the NOTW still makes me rather doubtful

*shifts uncomfortably* I rather enjoyed it.

Oh, not because they're Iraqi.

Because they are teen punk hooligans who got caught and received a quite thorough ass-beating. I'd be just as happy if they were American punks getting beaten by policemen. As...ahem...rare as that may be. :p

I guess it's just the barbarian in me.

P.S.: Yeah, I suspect the cameraman might have fondling himself as he filmed it. Overly enthusiastic.

If this stuff is real, then it is a great shame. I had used to think that the British army's training and discipline made them less likely to do this sort of thing than the Americans, but obviously it does not stop it happening.

Still, i've never being a big supporter of the military - it's just a pity when some soilders give us a bad name.

Yes I agree it is wrong and action should be taken, and although it is not defence it should vbe remembered that this film took place after a similar riot/protest ended in the death of a number of British MPs.

The actions were harsh and wrong, but when the same faces stone you again and again and there is nothing you are 'allowed' to do about you too may react in a very inapropriate manner. As I say action should be taken against the individuals, but we should also look at how the man on the street is allowed to react.

Take the men being stoned and petrol bombed as the tried to evacuate and armoured car. They did not open fire, stone me and try and burn me to death and you would get bloody well shot.

So yet again the actions were wrong but take it in context.

That's something they should have thinked about BEFORE invading Irak, isn't it ?There are many reasons for being against the invasion & continued occupation. This is just one.

And LG, attitudes like that is the very reason some of us are perfectly willing to do time, if it means we'll get a chance to beat a couple of dirty little coppers to a pulp.

You reap what you sow.

A movie were teens are brutally beaten and the important thing is to beep all the curses? Seriosuly, what effects kids more, seeing a guy getting kicked hard in the arse or hearing someone say "fuck"?

And LG, attitudes like that is the very reason some of us are perfectly willing to do time, if it means we'll get a chance to beat a couple of dirty little coppers to a pulp.

You reap what you sow.
And it was an attitude like that which made the "dirty little coppers" willing to beat your faces in in the first place. You're reaping what you've sown.

And it is good to see that I'm not the only one who thought the voice sounded like someone lifted it from a cheap porno and then dubbed it in. Especially the bit about "naughty little boys", who the Hell says that in a non-sexual/non-parental context?

There are many reasons for being against the invasion & continued occupation. This is just one.

And LG, attitudes like that is the very reason some of us are perfectly willing to do time, if it means we'll get a chance to beat a couple of dirty little coppers to a pulp.

You reap what you sow.

You don't think I'd laugh just as hard if some policemen who deserved a beating got a beating? I'd probably laugh harder.

Of course, if you touch my wife, your corpse won't be identifiable. But I think that goes without saying. :)

Britain needs to get back to basics and start being more selective about whom it recruits again. The nation is going into serious societal decline.

Ok you will all hate me for this comment but, is it not normal to see violence in a war zone?? is it not normal to see british and american troops taking beatings from Iraqi's?? So why then is a beating with sticks that didn't even look to severe taking into such a proportion?? You read about troops getting shot and dieing everyday, same for both sides of teh conflicts and yet the beating that some kids took comes above that, this is a fu**ing farce!! It is war violence is expected!! Now yes i believe that it is wrong to beat the kids, but they are in a war zone adn they are trying to keep the peace, say those kids came out screaming stuff like "Saddam is the only rightful leader, kill the american/British invaders" or similar to that, what would you do, you have to neutralize threats when in the armed forces, if a threat is caused by guys shouting slogans that will cause fighting or consequences that put troops in danger, i think a little beating is a light let off!!

Ok you will all hate me for this comment but, is it not normal to see violence in a war zone?? is it not normal to see british and american troops taking beatings from Iraqi's?? So why then is a beating with sticks that didn't even look to severe taking into such a proportion?? You read about troops getting shot and dieing everyday, same for both sides of teh conflicts and yet the beating that some kids took comes above that, this is a fu**ing farce!! It is war violence is expected!! Now yes i believe that it is wrong to beat the kids, but they are in a war zone adn they are trying to keep the peace, say those kids came out screaming stuff like "Saddam is the only rightful leader, kill the american/British invaders" or similar to that, what would you do, you have to neutralize threats when in the armed forces, if a threat is caused by guys shouting slogans that will cause fighting or consequences that put troops in danger, i think a little beating is a light let off!!
Although I don't agree with you 100%, you have many valid points. Furthermore, are 18 year olds really children? By 18 you are considered an adult.

I thought they had learned something from all those years of brutality. Clearly not.

I'm not going to laud the British Army as being the 'nobler' one in Iraq anymore.

Heads should (and hopefully will) roll for this.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/stealing.jpg

That's something they should have thinked about BEFORE invading Irak, isn't it ?
It would have been so much easier to keep the piece if certain "friends" of the U.S. weren't more interested in keeping the Oil for Food program profitable for them than actually making the world a better place.

Please thank your noble leader, Mr Chirac for his lack of balls.

Please thank your noble leader, Mr Chirac for his lack of balls.
Or rather, a high brains to balls proportion. He is not popular in France, and neither was the war in Iraq. Participating in it could have rung the death knell of his political career, and indebted France needlessly, angering millions of French. I don't think Chirac is that stupid.

Let me just say this. The guy with the camera sounds like he isnt all there in the head. But the Iraqi kids got what they deserved.

Here's what I learned (in Kindergarten)

If you don't want your ass beat, don't throw rocks at people. If you throw rocks at people, they will most likely beat your ass.

Quit being so goddamn bleeding heart over EVERYTHING the military does, for fucks sake. It's not like they put them on their knees and executed them. They just gave them a well deserved beating.

I would have done worse, if I was working in 100 degree heat, with 80lbs of equipment on, trying to make Iraq a better place for the people, only to have some little bastard throw a fucking rock at me. Serves the little bastards right.

you crazy Brits...

Or rather, a high brains to balls proportion. He is not popular in France, and neither was the war in Iraq. Participating in it could have rung the death knell of his political career, and indebted France needlessly, angering millions of French. I don't think Chirac is that stupid.
Typical French politician, doing what will help his poll numbers, instaed of just doing whats right. :rolleyes:

Typical French politician, doing what will help his poll numbers, instaed of just doing whats right. :rolleyes:
Plunging his country further into debt? Don't be silly... Louis XIV fought war upon war, winning most, losing some. What did he end up with? His heirs being beheaded and the institution he exemplified being put to rest, due to unsurmountable war debts. France is in no condition right now just to simply enter wars.

To be honest, if this had happened in Britain and some kids had thrown a grenade at an army base and then stoned the soldiers when they came out, and the soldiers let them off with a short beating, people would be praising them as models of restraint.

low rank enlisted, not even an NCO

weeelll... actually a corporal IS an NCO... but only a fairly low ranked one.
[source] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commissioned_officer)

To be honest, if this had happened in Britain and some kids had thrown a grenade at an army base and then stoned the soldiers when they came out, and the soldiers let them off with a short beating, people would be praising them as models of restraint.

It's a war zone. I remember a friend who was on "peacekeeping" duty in Kosovo had orders NEVER to fire his weapon.

He and his fellow soldiers were attacked by Serbs who were armed with bricks and nail-studded planks. Since the "rules" said that you can't really defend yourself since you can't shoot, they got their asses beat on a regular basis by Serb civilians.

My friend lost an eye to being hit by a brick. Tell you what, for all of you who think that being pelted with rocks is harmless, funny, and nothing to worry about, you stand there and let me throw a few bricks at you.

I guarantee you won't be laughing after you get hit.

It's a war zone. I remember a friend who was on "peacekeeping" duty in Kosovo had orders NEVER to fire his weapon.

He and his fellow soldiers were attacked by Serbs who were armed with bricks and nail-studded planks. Since the "rules" said that you can't really defend yourself since you can't shoot, they got their asses beat on a regular basis by Serb civilians.

My friend lost an eye to being hit by a brick. Tell you what, for all of you who think that being pelted with rocks is harmless, funny, and nothing to worry about, you stand there and let me throw a few bricks at you.

I guarantee you won't be laughing after you get hit.
*Stands up and applauds*

No shit! It's about time people quit sticking up for the ASSHOLES throwing rocks at our soldiers. I saw a cop in full riot gear get knocked out cold by a rock, and last I heard, he still gets headaches 3 years later.

They should have beat them harder. *nods*

It's a war zone. I remember a friend who was on "peacekeeping" duty in Kosovo had orders NEVER to fire his weapon.

He and his fellow soldiers were attacked by Serbs who were armed with bricks and nail-studded planks. Since the "rules" said that you can't really defend yourself since you can't shoot, they got their asses beat on a regular basis by Serb civilians.

My friend lost an eye to being hit by a brick. Tell you what, for all of you who think that being pelted with rocks is harmless, funny, and nothing to worry about, you stand there and let me throw a few bricks at you.

I guarantee you won't be laughing after you get hit.

Are you condoning the action of the British troops then? If it was 'ok' and 'right' to beat the minors, why drag them behind a wall so no one could see them?

Seems to me like they knew full well that they were doing something that goes against army regulations and discipline.

As for those who say 'Oh, its a war zone'; I thought the war was declared over a long time ago. So much for attempting to win hearts and minds.

And for those who doubt the veracity of it.... what? You think the News of the World paid a large group of 'darkies' to protest somewhere in deserty England, and then paid actors to dress up in British uniforms and beat the living bejaysus out of them? Grow up.

It's a war zone. I remember a friend who was on "peacekeeping" duty in Kosovo had orders NEVER to fire his weapon.

He and his fellow soldiers were attacked by Serbs who were armed with bricks and nail-studded planks. Since the "rules" said that you can't really defend yourself since you can't shoot, they got their asses beat on a regular basis by Serb civilians.

My friend lost an eye to being hit by a brick. Tell you what, for all of you who think that being pelted with rocks is harmless, funny, and nothing to worry about, you stand there and let me throw a few bricks at you.

I guarantee you won't be laughing after you get hit.
I'm not sure whether I was being clear with my post. I was trying to say that the British soldiers were somewhat justified in the way they acted, and that this story would have been presented in a much more positive light if it had happened in Britain.

Yes I agree it is wrong and action should be taken, and although it is not defence it should vbe remembered that this film took place after a similar riot/protest ended in the death of a number of British MPs.

The actions were harsh and wrong, but when the same faces stone you again and again and there is nothing you are 'allowed' to do about you too may react in a very inapropriate manner. As I say action should be taken against the individuals, but we should also look at how the man on the street is allowed to react.

Take the men being stoned and petrol bombed as the tried to evacuate and armoured car. They did not open fire, stone me and try and burn me to death and you would get bloody well shot.

So yet again the actions were wrong but take it in context.

I don't think that anyone should have filmed it or been standing on the sidelines cheering it on, but for pity's sake: they were being assaulted and kicked the crap out of their attackers.

I don't think that anyone should have filmed it ..Why not?

I'm not sure whether I was being clear with my post. I was trying to say that the British soldiers were somewhat justified in the way they acted, and that this story would have been presented in a much more positive light if it had happened in Britain.

Even Northern Ireland?

Why not?
Only stupid people film themselves doing stupid things, or doing things they know will inflame others.

You know, like you shouldn't shoot a helpless woman in the head on television after making her beg and plead for her life.

Some things, if done, are better left unfilmed and unrecorded.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/stealing.jpg

Actually, I'm more amazed that the bike didn't collapse under his weight. It doesn't look all that sturdy.

Why not?

Because of all the people masturbating to how wonderful it is that these kids got beaten. The reason it apparently was filmed was for enjoyment and amusement -- not to document abuse, although it certainly is likely to be used that way now.

By 18 you are considered an adult.Looking at the tape..They are more like 14.. or even 12 years old

Are you condoning the action of the British troops then? If it was 'ok' and 'right' to beat the minors, why drag them behind a wall so no one could see them?
18 is no longer a minor. They were majors!
. . . or something . . .
And for those who doubt the veracity of it.... what? You think the News of the World paid a large group of 'darkies' to protest somewhere in deserty England, and then paid actors to dress up in British uniforms and beat the living bejaysus out of them? Grow up.
If I had the money, and the time, I'd do it. One hell of a prank to tell the other guys about when you're retired and you get a fair bit of fame/boosted readership in the process.

Looking at the tape..They are more like 14.. or even 12 years old
Even so, they were extremely provocative.

Actually, I'm more amazed that the bike didn't collapse under his weight. It doesn't look all that sturdy.
See? Evil US troops crushing the bicycles of poor Iraqi children...

I don't think it was so much 'what was he on?' as 'what was he doing with his free hand?'. He was enjoying that far too much.

Agree with you about the voice-over. Does sound kinda dubbed in to me.

That is my thought exactly. He doesn't even sound that British, more like an American trying to do a British accent. Maybe some guy on the internet got hold of it and put his voice in.

Because of all the people masturbating to how wonderful it is that these kids got beaten.You should ban all Videotaping of any Cop or Soldier beating a civilian [/sarcasm]

no more AbuGhrabass, No more California Brownie Incidents, No more New Orleans Beatings..

No more scandals.

Even Northern Ireland?
That's a tricky one. I don't know how the News of the World would have played that. On the one hand they would be aiming to sensationally link it to Bloody Sunday, on the other hand NI is practically on the NotW's doorstep so they probably wouldn't have been so cavalier about it.
I was mostly referring to a hypothetical incident on mainland britain where the whole incident would have probably have run under the headline "Yobs attack Army Base". But it's become so fashionable to take digs at the troops in Iraq, it's an unpopular war so a negative headline will always sell well.

Even so, they were extremely provocative.
I'm sorry but for once I'm agreeing with OD3 on this- there is no way that those who were beaten, remotely looked liked they were 18 or older.

The British were 'famed' for not resorting to this sort of tactic. They were supposed to be the professionals out there. Their credibility has taken a knock.

You should ban all Videotaping of any Cop or Soldier beating a civilian [/sarcasm]

no more AbuGhrabass, No more California Brownie Incidents, No more New Orleans Beatings..

No more scandals.

Don't get snotty when you've managed to completely ignore the rest of my post.

Oh, right. Weren't *you* the one telling people NOT to film police beating civilians?

I'm sorry but for once I'm agreeing with OD3 on this- there is no way that those who were beaten, remotely looked liked they were 18 or older.

The British were 'famed' for not resorting to this sort of tactic. They were supposed to be the professionals out there. Their credibility has taken a knock.
I will agree on the second point. People have been complaining that the professionalism of the British army has been falling; so far I thought little of it other than being idle gossip, though this is somewhat concerning. Not that I don't understand them giving those brats a well needed lesson, but you would expect them to have a bit more self-control.

That's a tricky one. I don't know how the News of the World would have played that. On the one hand they would be aiming to sensationally link it to Bloody Sunday, on the other hand NI is practically on the NotW's doorstep so they probably wouldn't have been so cavalier about it.
I was mostly referring to a hypothetical incident on mainland britain where the whole incident would have probably have run under the headline "Yobs attack Army Base". But it's become so fashionable to take digs at the troops in Iraq, it's an unpopular war so a negative headline will always sell well.

That's avoiding the question: do you think the troops would have been praised for their restraint if they had beaten rioters in Northern Ireland?

Don't get snotty when you've managed to completely ignore the rest of my post.

Oh, right. Weren't *you* the one telling people NOT to film police beating civilians?isnt there a possibility you edited your post... while I was composing mine? (yes.. I am a slow typewriter)

I will agree on the second point. People have been complaining that the professionalism of the British army has been falling; so far I thought little of it other than being idle gossip, though this is somewhat concerning. Not that I don't understand them giving those brats a well needed lesson, but you would expect them to have a bit more self-control.
True; had this been the IDF those kids would have bullets in their skulls. I don't know what the US military would have done...

I am surprised at the British. And its a shame that this would otherwise desecrate the rest of the army, that in fariness to them has tried harder then anyone else to win the 'hearts and minds'.

It just makes it harder for other units out there to deal with the locals now.

That's avoiding the question: do you think the troops would have been praised for their restraint if they had beaten rioters in Northern Ireland?
I think they have been praised for doing such in the past....

Go figure. :rolleyes:

I think they have been praised for doing such in the past....

Go figure. :rolleyes:

Having lived here for thirty-odd years I can remember no such incidents. Maybe I just missed them. If the army in a riot situation are within range of violent rioters to beat them with sticks their operational priority should be to arrest them in co-operation with the police, not just to smack people.

Everyone says they are kids. Read the article. " As the head of the man, aged in his 20s, is lifted to face the lens a soldier sniggers: "He's been a bad mother****er.""

That's avoiding the question: do you think the troops would have been praised for their restraint if they had beaten rioters in Northern Ireland?
It's a bit hypothetical as a question. No i don't think they would have been, because obviously that would be likely to inflame local opinions.
I do think that in repeatedly insisting for that that you have somewhat missed my point. I'm not saying that what the soldiers did in the tense situation in Iraq was praiseworthy, as you seem to be trying to imply. What I am saying is that outside of the sensitive situation the soldiers find themselves in, such actions would have been completely unremarkable.

i doubt those kids were 18, but still o no they were hit by sticks that looked like rulers..... that will teach those kids to stop throwing rocks at armed soldiers who cause have done far worst things to them. also the camera man should seek help that was a bit weird, not sure if that was real or someone put it on there so the video would get media attention.

Having lived here for thirty-odd years I can remember no such incidents. Maybe I just missed them. If the army in a riot situation are within range of violent rioters to beat them with sticks their operational priority should be to arrest them in co-operation with the police, not just to smack people.

Well, I meant praise from the MoD themselves immediately after such an incident. As time goes on, such incidents had a tendancy to be 'reviewed'.

What I am saying is that outside of the sensitive situation the soldiers find themselves in, such actions would have been completely unremarkable.

You consider British armed forces hypothetically beating British civilians to be 'completely unremarkable'?

It's appalling of course. But given the overstreaching of the army by tony blair's government, and the culture which the UK's government has fostered, it's not really suprising.

I really blame tony blair more than the individual soldiers. Still, as usual, he'll manage to deflect any blame from his government, and continue attempting to ban things like freedom of expression.

You consider British armed forces hypothetically beating British civilians to be 'completely unremarkable'?
I think British soldiers beating British 'civilians' who had just thrown a grenade at an army base would have unremarkable, yes.

I think British soldiers beating British 'civilians' who had just thrown a grenade at an army base would have unremarkable, yes.

Nice invention of a scenario completely unrelated to the question.

Nice invention of a scenario completely unrelated to the question.
What do you mean, I'm just presenting the scenario as it is presented on the News of the World website. Thre is a series of pictures of the incident in chronological order. The first picture shows an explosion with the words "UNDER FIRE: Grenade hits compound."
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml

What do you mean, I'm just presenting the scenario as it is presented on the News of the World website. Thre is a series of pictures of the incident in chronological order. The first picture shows an explosion with the words "UNDER FIRE: Grenade hits compound."
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml

1)Its the News of the World- they live off sensationalism.

2)The British troops were in riot gear, NOT the usual for a compound under attack you'd agree.

3)The scenario you were asked had nothing to do with British civilians 'throwing grenades' at an Army base. You tried to link the attitude of troops in Northern Ireland to those in Iraq by saying those in Iraq were under grenade attack; ergo, those in Northern Ireland were under the same circumstances and justifued in their reactions.

False linkage.

1)Its the News of the World- they live off sensationalism.

2)The British troops were in riot gear, NOT the usual for a compound under attack you'd agree.

3)The scenario you were asked had nothing to do with British civilians 'throwing grenades' at an Army base. You tried to link the attitude of troops in Northern Ireland to those in Iraq by saying those in Iraq were under grenade attack; ergo, those in Northern Ireland were under the same circumstances and justifued in their reactions.

False linkage.
I didn't bring up the Northern Ireland thing. I think Northern Ireland is very difficult to compare to the Iraq situation and its presentation in the media. And about the NotW and sensationalism surely it would be more in their interest to portray the Iraqi kids as positively as possible, to juxtapose the brutality of the British soldiers. Why show a picture of the grenade if it was unconnected to the incident?

That's something they should have thinked about BEFORE invading Irak, isn't it ?

It was not WRONG to invade, but people expected that when your friends get petrol bombs thrown at there heads and get knocked out by rocks, that things like this would not happen, its a natural human reaction to get seriously pissed off and go over the edge when your under pressure. It happend in WWI and WWII, Vietnam, perhaps every major conflict, its just seen more by the media nowadays.

Its not something that would shock you.

No, im not saying this action was right, and that heads should not roll. But this kind of thing should not be unexpected in any militry situation by ANY country.

2)The British troops were in riot gear, NOT the usual for a compound under attack you'd agree.

OK I just checked the story in the Telegraph and it says: "on the day of the incident the soldiers had been subjected to violent rioting. After a home-made grenade exploded inside their compound a snatch squad of eight men, equipped with riot helmets and batons, was sent outside to grab the ring leaders"

OK I just checked the story in the Telegraph and it says: "on the day of the incident the soldiers had been subjected to violent rioting. After a home-made grenade exploded inside their compound a snatch squad of eight men, equipped with riot helmets and batons, was sent outside to grab the ring leaders"

...not beat the shit out them though.

Edit: And anyway, I don't work for the NotW. Ask them why they displayed a "grenade attack" picture on the top right of the pictures.

This is so reminiscint of Bloody Sunday to me.... :(
Indeed. This is a terrable occurance, not as terrable as what the Americans did in Abu Grab, but still bad.

I'd like to shake the hand of the whistleblower that got this to the media.

I'd like to shake the hand of the whistleblower that got this to the media.
Yeah specialy with how much it could/will cost him or her.

Traditionaly millitary's are not very "nice" to wistleblowers afterwords

Looking at the tape..They are more like 14.. or even 12 years old
Are you saying a 14 or 12 year old could not cause damage??

Although I don't agree with you 100%, you have many valid points. Furthermore, are 18 year olds really children? By 18 you are considered an adult.
I would consider anyone over 16 an adult, from the age that you can cast a stone or inflict damage for a cause you believe in i say you are responsable for your actions and should take the full consequences of an adult.

Are you saying a 14 or 12 year old could not cause damage??
Are you saying its right and proper for a fully grown man (a soldier at that) to gang up with others to beat children?

Indeed. This is a terrable occurance, not as terrable as what the Americans did in Abu Grab, but still bad.
http://static.flickr.com/29/59153364_34e34a8adb_o.jpg

Are you saying its right and proper for a fully grown man (a soldier at that) to gang up with others to beat children?
If the "kids" have caused trouble and may cause more trouble for the troops that put them in danger, e.g. inciting a riot or whatever then yes, beat the crap out of the little bastards!! but a group of fully grown men to beat up 1 child is over the top, 2 to restrain the child to cuff them is fine, but to beat them with numbers like that is too far, but what if it was a man they were beating, would it then be right for them to have a group of men beating 1 man?? why should the "kids" be treated any different from anyone else who creates teh troubles??

Are you saying its right and proper for a fully grown man (a soldier at that) to gang up with others to beat children?

Right and proper?

No.

Entertaining? Yes. :)

It is interesting to read about your opinions of this being a conspiracy. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories myself, and love reading through arguments from both sides to see what really is the most probable one. However, a conspiracy theory needs a motive and an opportunity, and (if possible) evidences, to be valid as a real theory.

The evidences about this movie being a hoax are none-existing, except counting the voice in the video itself as an evidence (as I'll mention below). The only other things that we got are rumours and hearsay. This does however not exclude the conspiracy theory (or any other), since a hush-hush-operation would require removal of any evidence. Also, most "evidence" presented to back up other conspiracy theories, have been proven wrong by (most possibly) third parties with open reports or statements which carefully explains why the evidence probably are fake. For example researchers who have duplicated the circular movements of the UFO-videos by filming a model on a string, and doctors who reject the "scientists" autopsy-methods in the famous alien-autopsy-video. All in all the lack of evidence doesn't speak in anyones favour. It all really comes down to the motive and oppurtunit.

The motive for this theory is quite clear. This could be fabrication by the media (as mentioned) just for selling stories. And it could also be fabrication by "terrorist" groups for creating more hatred against western countries and recruiting. If rumors about this video being shown first in a barracks in europe is true it would speak against the motive, as both groups mentioned would have presented it through the media. However the motive alone is FAR from enough to qualify this conspiration theory, it also needs an opportunity.

The opportunity is lacking completely. This is quite a grand scale video with alot of people being filmed. Orchistrating a video of this scale and keeping that a secret would be just about impossible. Getting hold of all that millitary equipment would also be quite hard. And making a fake video where someone are actually being beaten quite hard would be hard in the terms of recruiting "actors". Who would say YES to that kick in the crotch, risking internal bleeding and sterility?

The only thing that speaches for this movie being fake is the motive. The lack of opportunity totally exludes this movie as being a fake. In simpler terms: I'd MUCH rather believe the theory about the US orchistrating the Muhammed-cartoons than this movie acually being fake. (and no, I don't really believe the US did that)

But could the movie be real, but the voice be an addon?

Yes, there is a possibility for that. Both motive (making an even MORE controversial film) and opportunity (a minimal amount of people being involved) is present. What matters than is the probability of this being true. Would a media or "terrorist" group jeopardize a fully credible movie by making it just a little more controversial. Most probably not. Media groups and especially "terrorist" groups wouldn't wan't to ruin their credibility just to make some extra bucks/recruit some extra men. The long term consequenses would be to severe. Although less serious Medias and tabloids might be tempted by the short time profit the probability of them actually doing that are low.

That said, would it really mattered if the voice against all probability actually WAS fake? Does it really matter anything if you watch the movie with or without sound? What really matters is the actions being performed int he video, not the sound.

In my "professional" opinion the video is real, and the voice in the video is MOST probably real too.

If the "kids" have caused trouble and may cause more trouble for the troops that put them in danger, e.g. inciting a riot or whatever then yes, beat the crap out of the little bastards!! but a group of fully grown men to beat up 1 child is over the top, 2 to restrain the child to cuff them is fine, but to beat them with numbers like that is too far, but what if it was a man they were beating, would it then be right for them to have a group of men beating 1 man?? why should the "kids" be treated any different from anyone else who creates teh troubles??
In this case I don't think 1 man should have been treaded differently

Both would be horrible and should not have happened, the fact that it was a kid made it just that much worse.

If the "kids" have caused trouble and may cause more trouble for the troops that put them in danger, e.g. inciting a riot or whatever then yes, beat the crap out of the little bastards!! but a group of fully grown men to beat up 1 child is over the top, 2 to restrain the child to cuff them is fine, but to beat them with numbers like that is too far, but what if it was a man they were beating, would it then be right for them to have a group of men beating 1 man?? why should the "kids" be treated any different from anyone else who creates teh troubles??
Of course there is a difference- one is bad, the other is terrible.

Because they are children. There is no need for further defence. For the same reason we don't send children off packing to war, we don't abuse them as adults.

In this case I don't think 1 man should have been treaded differently

Both would be horrible and should not have happened, the fact that it was a kid made it just that much worse.
Why if a child does it make it worse, i say if they are there serving their commanders or whoever, to attack the troops they should be treated equally. The beatings may of been wrong and savage but the fact that a child was involved made it all a much sadder affair, that in my mind is bullshit! if it was a man that had started trouble they may of shot him, i think the kids got off lightly.

I'd like to shake the hand of the whistleblower that got this to the media.
I doubt the whistleblower's motives were that honourable. In the iraq war so far the british Army has been almost over-zealous in being seen to be fair in prosecuting alledged abuses, to the extent that, according to an article I was reading the other day that soldiers are becoming totally 'risk-averse' and are becoming reluctant to take any actions for fear of the army hanging them out to dry should anything go wrong. Any talk of the MoD not acting or closing ranks just isn't borne out by the facts. The only reason for publishing this video in so sensational a manner was to sell newspapers. I just wish that they had thought about the effect that this could have on the security of our troops and indeed civilians too in Iraq before they did this.

Of course there is a difference- one is bad, the other is terrible.

Because they are children. There is no need for further defence. For the same reason we don't send children off packing to war, we don't abuse them as adults.
So they are a kid, kids are capable of hate crimes, terrorism, assault and many others, they can also shoot and create huge damage with explosives, to me there is no difference i respect your opinion, if there was no war situation and this happened then i would side with you and be more disgusted but it is war and this happens.

Why if a child does it make it worse, i say if they are there serving their commanders or whoever, to attack the troops they should be treated equally.

What does this mean? :confused:

What does this mean? :confused:
If someone else has sent them out, like here the armies have commanding officers who tells them were to go and what to do, say the people in this film were sent there by someone else and told to do what they did. that is what i mean i just couldnt think of a word appart from commander, sorry.

In this case I don't think 1 man should have been treaded differently

Both would be horrible and should not have happened, the fact that it was a kid made it just that much worse.
It seems to me that a man getting beaten by a Riot Squad for a grenade attack isn't in fact horrible. It's established common sense that if you are present in a riot where stones and home-made grenades are being thrown at soldiers, the least you can expect is a good thrashing. The fact that it was kids doing it and that they didn't do it in situ makes it a lot more murky morally speaking, but i think those kids shouldn't really have been surprised.

So they are a kid, kids are capable of hate crimes, terrorism, assault and many others, they can also shoot and create huge damage with explosives, to me there is no difference i respect your opinion, if there was no war situation and this happened then i would side with you and be more disgusted but it is war and this happens.

I think this brings up a good point, however for me its hard to tell how old the "kids" in the video even were. They certainly looked smaller than the soldiers but that doesnt mean that they were 12-14. Furthermore if they did have sufficient reason to believe that they were attacked by them, then to some extent the beating was justified. I do agree it was a bit on the extreme, however, war is a difficult thing and its sometimes hard to draw the line between whats right and wrong.

If someone else has sent them out, like here the armies have commanding officers who tells them were to go and what to do, say the people in this film were sent there by someone else and told to do what they did. that is what i mean i just couldnt think of a word appart from commander, sorry.

The 'Snatch Squad' was ordered out to capture several people- I SEVERELY doubt it was ordered to beat young males/children/minors while in custody.

The kids were
a)defenceless.
b)restrained and handcuffed
c)posed no further danger to the soldiers or the base
d)begging for mercy

I'm sorry- but if I was an Iraqi and I saw that video- I'd go grab a gun and head for the nearest British checkpoint.

low rank enlisted, not even an NCO


a corporal is an NCO... Non Commissioned Officer....

the lowest rank is Lance Corporal, then Corporal, sarge...etc

I think this brings up a good point, however for me its hard to tell how old the "kids" in the video even were. They certainly looked smaller than the soldiers but that doesnt mean that they were 12-14. Furthermore if they did have sufficient reason to believe that they were attacked by them, then to some extent the beating was justified. I do agree it was a bit on the extreme, however, war is a difficult thing and its sometimes hard to draw the line between whats right and wrong.
Now remember here the troops are wearing heavy gear with bullet proof vest and the such making them look bigger, they have also undergone heavy training and lots of troops are "buffer" than a normal citizen, also the western diet is much more varietized with better nutrients than that of Iraq so it would make sense for the people to be 18ish and appear small due to a change of diet and the training regimes of the army.

It seems to me that a man getting beaten by a Riot Squad for a grenade attack isn't in fact horrible. It's established common sense that if you are present in a riot where stones and home-made grenades are being thrown at soldiers, the least you can expect is a good thrashing. The fact that it was kids doing it and that they didn't do it in situ makes it a lot more murky morally speaking, but i think those kids shouldn't really have been surprised.
Yeah cause I always expect to get beat if I got caught in a crowd ... happens all the time.

Here I thought solders were there to keep the peace rather then senslessly beat someone.

Personaly it could be said that they were endangering their and others lives by being too distracted beating this kid.

The 'Snatch Squad' was ordered out to capture several people- I SEVERELY doubt it was ordered to beat young males/children/minors while in custody.

The kids were
a)defenceless.
b)restrained and handcuffed
c)posed no further danger to the soldiers or the base
d)begging for mercy

I'm sorry- but if I was an Iraqi and I saw that video- I'd go grab a gun and head for the nearest British checkpoint.
I was talking about the kids being commanded to go out and cause damage. But yes it would appear to be unfair, and well very "mean" (i cant think of a better word).

The kids were
...
c)posed no further danger to the soldiers or the base

But this is exactly why the position the troops in Iraq are in is so precarious, caught between the violence there and the uncaring attitude of the media back home. As soon as they let those kids go, beating or no, they would have been a further danger to the soldiers or the base.

The cameraman sounds like he's either lost his bloody mind or is having an orgasm of biblical proportions.
What is he, sado-masochistic or something?

Yeah cause I always expect to get beat if I got caught in a crowd ... happens all the time.

Well i don't think they picked people at random. The story indicates that they specifically picked out the people who were most responsible for the violence.

But this is exactly why the position the troops in Iraq are in is so precarious, caught between the violence there and the uncaring attitude of the media back home. As soon as they let those kids go, beating or no, they would have been a further danger to the soldiers or the base.
Then why was it nessisary to take them behind a fence and beat them?

It aparently acomplished nothing other then to satisfy a few solders needs, but the harm it has the potential to cause is much greater

Then why was it nessisary to take them behind a fence and beat them?

It aparently acomplished nothing other then to satisfy a few solders needs, but the harm it has the potential to cause is much greater
I dunno maybe teach them a lesson. It's entirely possible that those kids thought twice before they next attacked an army base. I suppose to the soldier on the ground it would have seemed better than doing nothing. Should they have beaten them: no. But I understand why they did it.

Then why was it nessisary to take them behind a fence and beat them?

It aparently acomplished nothing other then to satisfy a few solders needs, but the harm it has the potential to cause is much greater

But what if the kids returned with golf balls with nails throught them. as has happened in Northern Ireland

But what if the kids returned with golf balls with nails throught them. as has happened in Northern Ireland
What if this beating causes more riots?

What if this beating causes more riots?

So we all do nothing?

What if this beating causes more riots?
What if a seeming lack of response had caused more riots when the kids saw what they could get away with? You really can't win in their situation.

This being a war doesn't excuse the actions made. This was an act of revenge against a group of persons (kids or not, really doesn't matter) which served NO purpose at ALL. If the point was simple to arrest them a beating would by NO means be justified.

Justifing violence made by british or american soldiers while not recognizing the Iraqi peoples right to riot is really a paradox, and a sign of short-sightedness. Going in to Iraq to create democracy, while not respecting the public opinion of the Iraqi people is equally short-sighted.

I'm a bit fascinated (although disgusted) about this way of thinking. Although, to really understand it I'd have to do this :headbang: for a while.

What if this beating causes more riots?
There are so many what if's at this ok, we do not know untill it happens, if it was up to me, all the people that were leading the trouble would have a bullet through the head and that be it done with, the soldiers i see showed compasion by not gunning them down.

There are so many what if's at this ok, we do not know untill it happens, if it was up to me, all the people that were leading the trouble would have a bullet through the head and that be it done with, the soldiers i see showed compasion by not gunning them down.
"its not as bad as..." does not justify what they did do

"its not as bad as..." does not justify what they did do
Im not saying it does, im just saying i think the kids got off light for i know if i was there and had guys throwing stones or grenades or any explosives i would not hesitate to shoot.

"its not as bad as..." does not justify what they did do
Unless you say it's not as bad as chucking a grenade at people and trying to kill them. Then it does go some way to doing that.

Unless you say it's not as bad as chucking a grenade at people and trying to kill them. Then it does go some way to doing that.
Good point.

Unless you say it's not as bad as chucking a grenade at people and trying to kill them. Then it does go some way to doing that.
Nope ... for some reason I expect higher standards from our troupes

Silly me

Briton might not but thats their decision not mine

Now if this had been a case of putting someone down hard that did not want to corporate with an arrest I am all for it, this was not that, this was senseless violence. We are supposed to be better then that (or at least strive for it)

This being a war doesn't excuse the actions made. This was an act of revenge against a group of persons (kids or not, really doesn't matter) which served NO purpose at ALL. If the point was simple to arrest them a beating would by NO means be justified.

Justifing violence made by british or american soldiers while not recognizing the Iraqi peoples right to riot is really a paradox, and a sign of short-sightedness. Going in to Iraq to create democracy, while not respecting the public opinion of the Iraqi people is equally short-sighted.

I'm a bit fascinated (although disgusted) about this way of thinking. Although, to really understand it I'd have to do this :headbang: for a while.

I personally dont know of any nation that allows its citizens the "right to riot" certainly many do allow peaceful protesters, provided they have a permit. Furthermore the beating may be justified, its not like the soldiers are trained to arrest people(to my knowledge) and it might have been necessary to beat them in order for the troops to make the arrest with little danger to themselves from the rioters.

Nope ... for some reason I expect higher standards from our troupes

Silly me

Briton might not but thats their decision not mine

Now if this had been a case of putting someone down hard that did not want to corporate with an arrest I am all for it, this was not that, this was senseless violence. We are supposed to be better then that (or at least strive for it)
I think you've mistaken me with someone who thinks that what they did wasn't wrong.
I merely think that people are ignoring the mitigating circumstances/ blowing it out of proportion.

I think you've mistaken me with someone who thinks that what they did wasn't wrong.
I merely think that people are ignoring the mitigating circumstances/ blowing it out of proportion.
And I think you are confusing me with one that is doing such :p

im confused, did i read that right
BRITISH
not american?
damn, the world is comming to an end

im confused, did i read that right
BRITISH
not american?
damn, the world is comming to an end

Yah, here in the US, tell a soldier to "hit it", and he's thinking about banging Jessica Alba, not beating up kids in the street.

Here's an example of the typical American meaning. The question is, "if it were Jessica Alba, would you hit it?"

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/regis.jpg

I personally dont know of any nation that allows its citizens the "right to riot" certainly many do allow peaceful protesters, provided they have a permit.
Of course they don't. Leaders who REALLY recognizes the peoples right for a revolution (not necesseraly a violent one) would recognize the peoples right to govern before the NEED for a violent revolution.

Furthermore the beating may be justified, its not like the soldiers are trained to arrest people(to my knowledge)
They're SUPPOSED to be enforcers of the law. That's one of the main excuses why they're in Iraq at all.

and it might have been necessary to beat them in order for the troops to make the arrest with little danger to themselves from the rioters.
Did you even watch the video? They were in full control BEFORE even handcuffing them, and continued to beat them even AFTER they were handcuffed. Of what I saw: Just about the only resistance the kids did, was in forms of self defence, much BECAUSE of the beatings.

I remember a friend of my parents who served in Northern Ireland, where British troops were also condemmed for brutality. As sad as it is to watch, I remember him saying "when you've just gone and cleared up you're friend who has been blown to pieces and put his body parts into a black plastic bag, all you want to do that night is find some Irish kids and kick the crap out of them." As immoral as it perhaps is, I still have to sympathise with the soldiers, especially with the ever increasing pressure of media on them.

I remember a friend of my parents who served in Northern Ireland, where British troops were also condemmed for brutality. As sad as it is to watch, I remember him saying "when you've just gone and cleared up you're friend who has been blown to pieces and put his body parts into a black plastic bag, all you want to do that night is find some Irish kids and kick the crap out of them." As immoral as it perhaps is, I still have to sympathise with the soldiers, especially with the ever increasing pressure of media on them.
Then again what about the kids that might just as well have seen a friend or family member be bombed, shot or arrested? Why doesn't anyone sympathize with them, but rather call them drats who SHOULD be beated up, while ranting on about those poor soldiers for the same reason? What about the fact that these soldiers volunteerely went to Iraq to face that situation, while it was pushed upon the kids, and the Iraqi people in general?

Are you saying a 14 or 12 year old could not cause damage??If you read the Posts... You will see that I am replying to the poster qualifying them (small bodied males being hit on their genitals) as "adults"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10416814&postcount=51

.

Way to win hearts and minds.
If the west thinks it can convince these people we're the civilized ones after crap like this, good luck. The people we send over to represent us shouldn't get away with crap like that just because someone else does worse stuff.

Vietnam

The cameraman sounds like he's either lost his bloody mind or is having an orgasm of biblical proportions.


Dude, I know. What the hell was up with that guy? Seriously, he was like growling at one point in the video

I think they should have either killed the suspects grenading as it was occuring or detained the suspects(as shown in the video) without the senseless violence. Either way a lesson is learned A) you throw grenades at us we kill you or B) you throw grenades at us you get put in prison.

I don't think you need a C) you throw grenades at us we beat you senseless.

I think they should have either killed the suspects grenading as it was occuring or detained the suspects(as shown in the video) without the senseless violence. Either way a lesson is learned A) you throw grenades at us we kill you or B) you throw grenades at us you get put in prison.

I don't think you need a C) you throw grenades at us we beat you senseless.did you see any grenades at the Video?

Maybe their testicles were as big as grenades (after being hit by the military boots).. But I assume that is not the kind of grenades you are talking about..

did you see any grenades at the Video?

According to one of the articles and a couple posts there was a homemade grenade that was thrown into the complex.

According to one of the articles and a couple posts there was a homemade grenade that was thrown into the complex.the posts are hearsay.. The grenade reported (by who??) on the article may be relevant.. If True.

Ok you will all hate me for this comment but, is it not normal to see violence in a war zone?? is it not normal to see british and american troops taking beatings from Iraqi's?? So why then is a beating with sticks that didn't even look to severe taking into such a proportion?? You read about troops getting shot and dieing everyday, same for both sides of teh conflicts and yet the beating that some kids took comes above that, this is a fu**ing farce!! It is war violence is expected!! Now yes i believe that it is wrong to beat the kids, but they are in a war zone adn they are trying to keep the peace, say those kids came out screaming stuff like "Saddam is the only rightful leader, kill the american/British invaders" or similar to that, what would you do, you have to neutralize threats when in the armed forces, if a threat is caused by guys shouting slogans that will cause fighting or consequences that put troops in danger, i think a little beating is a light let off!!

They do worse things than just beatings...they slowly behead people with rusty knives

the posts are hearsay.. The article may be relevant.. If True.

I was mainly using this article http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml
as my soruce for the grenade. You will notice the picture of the grenade exploding.

My point was essentially to eliminate the threat or prosecute, but don't resort to beatings.

They do worse things than just beatings...they slowly behead people with rusty knives
Why rusty, why not blunt?? and can you prove this??

They do worse things than just beatings...they slowly behead people with rusty knives
Which of course makes every thing we do alright as long as it is <= what they do

If we are going to allow that what exactly seperates us from them?

(silly me for holding us to higher standards)

Anyone remember that we attacked them? I mean, US, Britain, etc went in and invaded their country. To any kid that thinks the country was just fine before, or had a family member or friend killed by western troops, their actions-throwing stones, etc-is fully justified. As much as we can't condone suicide bombers and people throwing homemade grenades, they are in effect freedom fighters-not all that much in my mind, but in theirs. So no, I'd have to say these kids didn't deserve what happened to them, and this situation will probably make things worse over there. Even if the British soldiers believed the kids deserved what they got, they should have thought of what could come from their actions. And while some may say "They were angry, etc", aren't soldiers trained to keep cool heads in tricky situations? If they aren't, they need to be.

After hearing about the grenade i'm a lot more understanding about the soilders actions. It wasn't right, but it was certainly understandable. Most people would have probably reacted the same way - what would you do if someone chucked a grenade at you and your friends? Pause and say "Hey there - I respect your right to riot, but kindly ask you not to try to kill us. Now run along scamp"?
Not likely.

The thing is, soilders should be disciplined enough to ignore that urge for natural justice, and have as much restraint as possible when dealing with civilians. I see this incident, the same as much civilian abuse, as a failure of discipline.

omg that was pretty brutal.

I hope they punish those guys the same way in which they were punishing those little kids.

pretty sad to think that this is probably just one incident out of dozens (at least), but the only reason they will do anything about this incident is because someone caught it on tape AND it went out to the media.

omg that was pretty brutal.

I hope they punish those guys the same way in which they were punishing those little kids.

pretty sad to think that this is probably just one incident out of dozens (at least), but the only reason they will do anything about this incident is because someone caught it on tape AND it went out to the media.
I've been beaten at least that bad by German police.

Luckily for them, they were smart enough not to film it.

I've been beaten at least that bad by German police.

Luckily for them, they were smart enough not to film it.

why did they beat you so badly?

where and with what did you get hit?

what injuries did you sustain?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been beaten just as bad by a gang in Azusa, Ca

I was a long haried hippie pacifist that walked by and they were asking what was up and I smiled and said i was just chillin and kept walking.

They started walking behind me and then one guy yelled "Get the skinhead" (WTF!?!?:headbang: )

I didn't feel a thing though and as soon as they were done I flew back up onto my feet before I even knew I was getting up and yelled "what the fuck was that all about?" as they walked away calling me an asshole.

I've been beaten just as bad by a gang in Azusa, Ca

I was a long haried hippie pacifist that walked by and they were asking what was up and I smiled and said i was just chillin and kept walking.

They started walking behind me and then one guy yelled "Get the skinhead" (WTF!?!?:headbang: )

I didn't feel a thing though and as soon as they were done I flew back up onto my feet before I even knew I was getting up and yelled "what the fuck was that all about?" as they walked away calling me an asshole.

Youre such a litttle trouble maker.

why did they beat you so badly?

where and with what did you get hit?

what injuries did you sustain?



Three German police, using something called a "sipo" - a metal handle with a heavy spring and a lead knob on the end. Kicked me, too.

I told policeman #4 that he looked like Himmler's brother after he and his fellow policemen had stopped my car.

I was hit everywhere, and I lay there by the side of the road for about half an hour before I got in the car and went home.

My face looked really good, and I had a few cracked ribs. Nothing to write home about.

I remember a friend of my parents who served in Northern Ireland, where British troops were also condemmed for brutality. As sad as it is to watch, I remember him saying "when you've just gone and cleared up you're friend who has been blown to pieces and put his body parts into a black plastic bag, all you want to do that night is find some Irish kids and kick the crap out of them." As immoral as it perhaps is, I still have to sympathise with the soldiers, especially with the ever increasing pressure of media on them.

Perhaps had their political leaders not allowed a sectarian state to flourish, and their comrades not shot down civillians in cold blood in the street there would have been no conflict in the first place. But thats the typical imperialist reaction - start a mess, then blame the locals.

Three German police, using something called a "sipo" - a metal handle with a heavy spring and a lead knob on the end. Kicked me, too.

I told policeman #4 that he looked like Himmler's brother after he and his fellow policemen had stopped my car.

I was hit everywhere, and I lay there by the side of the road for about half an hour before I got in the car and went home.

My face looked really good, and I had a few cracked ribs. Nothing to write home about.

why would you say such a thing? Glutton for punishment?


Youre such a litttle trouble maker.

Yeah I love to provoke large groupes of people into kicking my ass. Best hobby in the world.

why would you say such a thing? Glutton for punishment?


I swear, he looked just like Himmler, eyeglasses and everything. Pasty little toady looking fellow. And the moustache...

It didn't help that he was in a uniform.

In Germany, the police can and will beat you if they get the urge - and unless you end up dead, the rathaus is going to back them up if you file a complaint.

Seen so many people get beaten first hand during the time I was in Germany it makes the US look like a gentle place.

There's no greater learning experience than getting a thorough ass-kicking. :)

Indeed. This is a terrable occurance, not as terrable as what the Americans did in Abu Grab, but still bad.
I don't think the two are comparable. The British incident was a 'in-the-heat-of-the-moment' type incident where the soldiers are pumped full of adrenalin and being attacked. They over-reacted in a pretty dreadful manner, especially considering it was against teenage boys.
The Abu Grahib incident was thought-out beforehand and done when there was no danger to the guards. They were in full control of themselves at the time and had no excuse for their actions.

It'd be similar to if you were throwing rocks at my house and I bashed you to death in a rage, as opposed to if I carefully and methodically planned going around to your place and killing you later. Both are murder, but the latter is viewed and treated as far worse.

They do worse things than just beatings...they slowly behead people with rusty knives
Why rusty? Is that to make sure they get a nasty infection from the decollation?

Ohh...those nasty muslamics! Is there no level they won't stoop to?

In Germany, the police can and will beat you if they get the urge - and unless you end up dead, the rathaus is going to back them up if you file a complaint.
You should have tried anyways. There is only one time I can remember that a friend of mine got in trouble (he threw a stone, they bashed him), and he got an apology. (Yay! :rolleyes: - I don't like Policemen of any country)

Seen so many people get beaten first hand during the time I was in Germany it makes the US look like a gentle place.
Maybe it was because you're one of them Americans. Cuz I've really never seen anyone get beaten, nor heard of it (except in the above case).

But telling the guy he looked like Himmler was really asking for unfriendly treatment, particularly if you were speaking in an American accent. Pigs don't take kindly to that.

But telling the guy he looked like Himmler was really asking for unfriendly treatment, particularly if you were speaking in an American accent. Pigs don't take kindly to that.

Especially the Polizei, infact any Nazi references are not tolerated!!

Update:
Basra suspends ties to UK troops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711398.stm

The provincial council in Basra, southern Iraq, has suspended relations with UK forces over a video appearing to show troops abusing Iraqi civilians


The council is expected to be sending out letters on Tuesday to the police service and other subordinate organisations in Basra calling for a policy of non-cooperation with British troops.

Update:
Basra suspends ties to UK troops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711398.stm
Would you not be wary of a force that had potential trouble keeping its solders from beating citizens?
I think they may be going to far personally but I have a feeling if they did NOT do this they would have immense social pressures.

omg that was pretty brutal.

I hope they punish those guys the same way in which they were punishing those little kids.

pretty sad to think that this is probably just one incident out of dozens (at least), but the only reason they will do anything about this incident is because someone caught it on tape AND it went out to the media.

Not true, over a hundred claims of abuse made against British soldiers have been investigated by the Ministry of Defence - the overwhelming majority have been found to be baseless. Not that this makes the acts any more condonable when they do occur.

Not true, over a hundred claims of abuse made against British soldiers have been investigated by the Ministry of Defence - the overwhelming majority have been found to be baseless. Not that this makes the acts any more condonable when they do occur.

Source? Or link?

As an afterthought however, it does seem that Muslims seem to object more to beatings administered by non-Muslims than Muslim on Muslim violence.

Kind've shows something resembling a distorted sense of parochial pride.

Source? Or link?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4154700.stm

As an afterthought however, it does seem that Muslims seem to object more to beatings administered by non-Muslims than Muslim on Muslim violence.

Kind've shows something resembling a distorted sense of parochial pride.
Go figure seeing outsiders coming in and beating your fellow country men makes you a bit angry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4154700.stm

Thanks. :)

(It was just for my own personal reading ;) )

the British armed forces are the best in the world if u ask me. RULE BRITANIA!

:sniper: the British armed forces are the best in the world if u ask me. RULE BRITANIA!

I don't think the two are comparable. The British incident was a 'in-the-heat-of-the-moment' type incident where the soldiers are pumped full of adrenalin and being attacked. They over-reacted in a pretty dreadful manner, especially considering it was against teenage boys.
The Abu Grahib incident was thought-out beforehand and done when there was no danger to the guards. They were in full control of themselves at the time and had no excuse for their actions.

It'd be similar to if you were throwing rocks at my house and I bashed you to death in a rage, as opposed to if I carefully and methodically planned going around to your place and killing you later. Both are murder, but the latter is viewed and treated as far worse.

Wouldn't the first incident be manslaughter?