MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
For me disturbing at the least.
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7935679.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7935679.stm[/url]
Do they not have a right to protest?
They do have a right to protest, but bear in mind its just a very small minority of people, so its nothing to make a fuss of...
I would suspect that in the black and white world of the press however will blow it all out of proportion.
Too tired for this one, I'm off to watch South Park!
Right to protest yes. But I thought inflammatory plackards etc, were a no-no these days. I mean, kicking off a protest like that at such an event is somewhat stupid. Were it not for the fuzz I reckon they would probably had a bit of a kicking. More likely this bunch of idiots knew the fuzz would protect them.
Pity the soldiers didn't open fire on them.
It was quite funny that they decided to stage this protest in "lootin" of all places.
I was really angry when I first heard about this. But then I thought about it, and if it wasn't mostly muslims who were protesting I don't think I'd have a problem about it at all.
So I think it's best I ignore it.
Pity the soldiers didn't open fire on them.
British service personnel have died and still are dying to uphold their right to freedom of expression. Although your comment may be in jest its hardly a suitable one given the parties involved.
Whilst the opinion of the protesters is not one I share I stand by their right to make it heard.
Of course I don't believe their protest was aimed at the correct target but then again, due to the unique way New Labour view the right to protest, they can't very well go having a protest at the workplace of those who ultimately make the decisions over where and when to deploy British troops.
The irony though is that in countries that feature as hardline a set of Islamic beliefs as these protesters seemed to have they would very likely have been imprisoned or very possibly executed for making such a protest against the forces of the state.
Ho hum.
Yes I think its pretty disturbing that the people peacefully protesting get threatened, moved away and some of them arrested.
I watched this and have often wondered about how to continue protesting aginst the war.
What is the best way to try and educate the public about the fact that it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners. (Seymor Hersh, the journalist who revealed the initial photos, and has watched all the videos, has been touring the US lecturing on what he saw on video but that was not reported in the press.)
How do you protest about the effects of depleted uranium on unborn children?
How do you protest about the white phosphor that was used to decimate Falluja?
The government have done quite well on the propaganda side, and members of the public are outraged as they see our boys fighting against Saddam Hussein, who was a torturer. But he used to be our tyrant some years ago, and of course there are British and American troops stationed around the world in countries where the tyrants there still torture, but they are our tyrants and serve the interests of our governments, so our boys are not called into action against those ones.
So yeah, I still very much want to protest, but that particular protest I feel did not have much effect in reaching the people it needed to reach.
Would I have joined in? Probably not.
For clarity I do not see our troops as muderers. My problem is with a very small number of people calling the shots at the top. I have joined many an anti war demo in support of our troops, i.e. trying to prevent them having to go into illegal wars in the first place.
I still need to find ways to protest against those who are guilty at the very top, and try and find peaceful ways to fight the propaganda too so that people can really understand the message of the truth seeking genuine protesters.
still are dying to uphold their right to freedom of expression
what bollocks, up holding our right to cheap oil you mean.
Anyway better stood at the side of a road lobbing insults than lobbing bombs and I expect thats one thing the armed forces and I would agree one.
was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoner
Come on now... where's the facts for this particular allegation? The Insider?
No-one held a gun to those soldiers heads (excuse the pun) and forced them to sign up where they knew that they might end up fighting abroad. It's a job and they do it for money.
They're not heroes for me.
Totally surprising that they have a parade when they return, perfectly right to demonstrate.
The F'ing protestors should shut the F up. I've met many soldiers going to and coming from Iraq at Hounslow Barracks and they are just regular guys and gals doing their job. Coming back means being alive, celebrate this. Go and bore politicians with your moronic ideas, cheer the people who survived hell.
For once I agree with simon.
I am not aware of the torture cases he reports and they seems a bit extreme to me though.
I agree with Napalm too.
And the war in Irak was NEVER about freedom. Cheap oil it is.
Psyche
The Guardian and The Telegraph, plus Seymour Hersche.
"[i]What is the best way to try and educate the public about the fact that it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners. [/i]"
Proof?
"[i]For clarity I do not see our troops as muderers.[/i]"
No, merely as paedophilic sadists.
You know the sad thing? a bunch of totally innocent Asian lads probably got their heads kicked in that night as a result of those few protesters actions.
It's a job and they do it for money.
It's a job and they do it out of [i]duty[/i].
There are plenty of easier jobs for money.
I'm no big fan of the war(s) and to look at it just didn't look like any other anti-war protest. The sentiment reminded me of the Vietnam anti-war protests - but strangely a world apart and this one looked under-pinned on religion / culture.
"what bollocks, up holding our right to cheap oil you mean."
"And the war in Irak was NEVER about freedom. Cheap oil it is."
errrrrrr...............
get your facts right, what happens to the oil prices when countries with oil start squabbling?
You have the right to peacfull protest, hurling abuse is not peacefull, so you get arrested. I protested against the war, i didnt get arrested, and i didn't tell my neighbour he was going to hell.
SimonRalli, convenient that he doesn't show these video's and the press doesn't report them? Maybe im blinkered bu surely if said video existed it would be on the internet, which lets face it, has no boundaries for decency. I'm not saying that torture didnt take place, and i dont condone it. But bear in mind if you'd seen your friends nearly killed, and their dying bodies dragged through the streets behind a 4x4 while people stamp the life out of them. How exactly would you react when you caught them? I cant say for sure i'd not beat 7 shades of shit out of them to get information as to the whareabouts of those involved.
Simon,
i've just had a look on the guardian website and I couldn't find anything that stated it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners.
Could you provide a guardian link, or at least clarify what you believe the word policy means.
As far as I know it was American troops (and some British intelligence officers who were witnesses) in the prisons not British troops. That is why I specifically said I was not in protest against their actions. There is only so many ways of saying I am not anti troops so wont say any more here as I really tried hard to say I am against the atrocities being comitted and want to play a part in bringing those to an end. I don't have a solution and I don't know what the best way to protest is.
what did The Who say 'We won't get fooled again"
Somehow, each new generation do!
I may not support the war but I do support our troops - they were not protestors, they were a bunch of rabid animals!
Of course the war in Iraq was about oil. any other view is misguided.
I don't blame the squaddies personally but it stinks. since 1990 millions of Iraqis have been killed, extremism flourishes, disease rates and child death rates have soared, Al Quiada had no presence in Iraq before the war - it stinks to high heaven.
Anyway back to the original question was the protest wrong?
Most definitely. You have a right to protest in this country but you also have a responsibity to determine when and where is appropriate.
This bunch of Muslim idiots get as much sympathy from me as these bunch of Christian idiots [url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church [/url].
What is the best way to try and educate the public about the fact that it was British and American policy not just to torture male Iraqis, but to rape and torture the children of women in front of the women prisoners. (Seymor Hersh, the journalist who revealed the initial photos, and has watched all the videos, has been touring the US lecturing on what he saw on video but that was not reported in the press.)
Simon are you able to substantiate this with links etc? You mention the Guardian, do you have any more detail?
To say it was UK and US "policy" to torture and rape children is beyond the pale unless you can provide some proof.
So Simon you've picked up a little snippet of unsubstantiated gossip and posted it on an internet forum as fact? Ever heard of Chinese whispers?
One idiot makes a statement based on an unproven rumour.
Another idiot exagerates and passes it on and so on.
Eventually it is enshrined in truth and a good reason for a greater idiot to go out and kill someone.
[i]I don't blame the squaddies.....[/i]
And thats the point - I doubt many of our service men and women signed up so that they could secure oil, I think the vast majority did it to serve their country. Thats why I feel disgusted at these so called protestors / trouble-causers, whatever you want to call them.
Going off on a tangent about the reasons for going to war isn't really the point of this thread.
For once, I find myself fully agreeing with a Labour minister (I know, scary isn't it)
Justice Minister and Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik;
"If these people want an Islamic state as they profess my advice is to go to an Islamic country. Britain is multi-faith and we are proud of that fact as indeed we are of our soldiers."
British service personnel have died and still are dying to uphold their right to freedom of expression
We have a family member about to go out to Iraq. I talked to him about it because I really wanted to know how the soldiers feel. In truth, he wasn't concerned with freedom and democracy, he wasn't concerned with oil prices. He'd joined the army to fight and he was really pleased and excited that he was going to get a chance to do so. I asked if that was typical. He said it was.
I really like him, he's a nice guy and I hope that he comes home in one piece, physically and mentally. If he does become a casualty however, I won't feel that he's a victim or that he's made some sacrifice for the greater good. He joined up because he wanted to run that risk. He wants to fight, not to crusade.
I hope he comes back, unhurt, with nothing on his conscience to haunt him.
And the war in Irak was NEVER about freedom. Cheap oil it is.
Securing natural resources of strategic value PLUS a slice of democracy for the people of Iraq?
Oh no, silly me. According to the STW Law of Armed Conflict only one reason for going to war may be considered by the braying masses.
I know Menshed and Arji who I worked with in Iraq were quite happy that some of the cash from the oil was going to go Iraqi state coffers rather than Saddam's private account but they were far more happy about being able to actually vote for the chap that decides what that cash is spent on.
BTW, strangely one of the nations most pro-Saddam was France, who's largest oil company had shortly before GW2 started, negotiated a contract to exploit two of Iraq's oil fields with the potential to return profits of $650 billion.
'War for oil' or 'tyrant for oil'? Both seem equally odious but one seems to provide even less long term benefits for the people of Iraq.
He'd joined the army to fight and he was really pleased and excited that he was going to get a chance to do so. I asked if that was typical. He said it was.
And unfortunately, for those who haven't served 'fight' only means 'fight'.
He has trained to do a job, that job is ultimately to fight if required. That doesn't mean that he (and every other member of the Armed Forces) just wants to go out and brass up the first available target (you'd need an A10 to do that), he (I hazard a guess, though an educated one) wants to make use of the skills he learned, but unlike some IT weenie his day job doesn't involve traveling to an office if Slough to fix a printer.
'Fight' to the layman is what you see in town centres on a Saturday night. 'Fight' to a serviceman can mean something much more important. Doing their duty, the ultimate test of all that training that they've carried out over the years, protecting their mates who they are often closer to than their own families, serving 'Queen and Country', earning their pay, something necessary to succeed in the mission and all manner of other things. Things that are important to the individual, that although I've tried to put into words cannot be done so easily, which unfortunately can lead to the layman seeing the dictionary definition.
The WBC make me glad to be atheist!
Ah sorry, I'll stop reading The Telegraph and Guardian then on the web. Thanks for the tip.
Ah sorry, I'll stop reading The Telegraph and Guardian then on the web. Thanks for the tip.
I think your comments were irresponsible unless you have at least identified some sources.
Simon - if you want to make controversial statements you need t be able to back them up
If you want to make controversial statements you need t be able to back them up
TJ - Something which although we occasionally fail to see eye-to-eye I can't often accuse you of failing to do.
As an ex serviceman I always felt a little bit of mental uncertainty about stepping foot into another mans country. Doing the job I was trained to do was never the problem, the nagging doubt that you were not in possesion of the full facts was.
I had some what you might consider nieve notions about why I joined many years ago when I was a teenager. I.e bearing in mind these were the days of the Nuclear threat. I actually thought that if I and many like me put their lives on the line no one would need to press the button. And for want of better words the old 'chicken & egg' thing always played on my mind i.e if there were no more soldiers like me would all wars end, I did'nt think so.
Simon Ralli,
I have not heard of the cases of rape and torture of Iraqi women but I did see the documentary film "Standard Operating Procedure"
This film had proof of torture, sexual crimes and alledged murder against Iraqis by American soldiers (the proof was photographs and videos shot by the American soldiers themselves as kind of "trophies" of their time in Iraq).
There were many other incidents that most would class as torture but were classed by the army inquiry as "standard operating procedure" as a way of pressurising captives to talk.
Whilst I also don't agree with the protestors and the way they made their protest and the target they chose, it is a measure of why our society is better than an islamic state by the fact that they were free to make this protest at all.
ironically, it's had a disproportionate coverage in the tabloid press (the usual ones) which in itself can only breed hatred and bigotry.
I don't like the countryside alliance as I'm very much anti fox hunting, however I don't think they should be stopped from protesting.
Those that can are already removing any right we have to show what we think about a situation, politcal or not. Whilst I don't agree with the Lutonites method or timing, they're allowed to protest as much as anyone else is.
What concerns me more is the hysteria whipped up by the media - when I first heard it on Radio 1 this morning my immediate thoughts were ones of anger that people from another country could protest about our countrymen putting their lives on the line, purely from the way the story was reported. However, putting it in perspective - were any of the demostrators British born muslims? And even if they weren't, don't they have a right to show that they disagree with what the government is doing?
The British press have a lot to answer for and currently no one is holding them accountable
ironically, it's had a disproportionate coverage in the tabloid press (the usual ones) which in itself can only breed hatred and bigotry.
As disproportionate as the coverage of some oxygen thief who was made famous for being an idiot on national TV in a show watched by idiots and now has cancer?
Call me old fashioned but I'd consider ironic protesters protesting against the wrong people over events (or non-events) in Iraq far more newsworthy than one of many thousands of people who are dying from cancer who happens to have a good PR spinner.
i wouldnt do that, i'd just learn to read newspapers, you can publish anything you hear. So if your mate Dave down the pub says Gordon Brown has a pink cat, then you are perfectly entitled to publish that as a fact, without quoting a source.
The telegraph/guardian probably did publish a story, based on the lecturer you mentioned say so. Resonsible journalism would be reporting that he was saying these things, irresponible journalism would be touting 3rd hand evidence they cant substanciate as fact.
When I get home from work I'll dig out the articles from a number of sources and as yes, I do of course expect to be held to account for any opinions expressed. People are absolutely right to ask for sources.
By supporting freedom of expression political free thought and the right to peacful protest you are held to account when the protesters are saying the things you MOST disagree with.
There is no point allowing people to protest about things you agree with or support you must support those that you disagreee with MOST to have their voice and opportunity to protest and it will always leave a bad taste in the mouth.
That said I think they were targetting the wrong people like attacking a tax man becaue you dont like inheritance tax.
For those doubting that Iraqi soldiers were tortured
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
Simon Ralli's comment though was that it was army policy for this to happen.
Documentary films like "Standard Operating Procedure" tried to show a cover-up had taken place but did not prove this.
A few bad apples in the US army (many of whom are now serving jail sentences) should not be allowed to be seen as representative of the armed forces as a whole who are doing a professional and couragous job in these places.
In the same way a few muslim nutters should not be seen as representative of the wider muslim community.
I don't think anyone doubts what went on in that prison. Neither do I think that any right minded person would condone it. It was totally wrong.
However raping and torturing of children as claimed by Simon? I'm not seeing any evidence.
Back to the OP, let them protest if they want, for me personally, it was the reaction of the public out on that street to those guys protesting that made me swell with pride. Fair cop to the pensioner giving them what for, they don't like it up 'em eh? That and the fact the lads marching past ignored them, professional and disciplined.
"
Coyote - Member
I don't think anyone doubts what went on in that prison. Neither do I think that any right minded person would condone it. It was totally wrong.
However raping and torturing of children as claimed by Simon? I'm not seeing any evidence.
"
+1
I dont condone torture, but accept that it probably goes on. And in some cases is probably sanctioned/ignored form quite high up.
I don't however believe that the US army is institutionaly paediophilic, its a big organisation so probablility says there are some peadophophiles. But to say people high up were acomplices in any way, im failry sure the media would be all over it if any evidence existed.
Ok then..
SimonRalli raises some good points. Shocking, isn't it, to think that 'Our Boys' might be guilty of such things? What, the Glorious British Army, raping a torturing people? Never! Really?
Wake up and smell the coffee. War is evil. I doubt we'll ever hear the full extent of atrocities committed by both sides of that conflict.
The 'Muslim' crankpots had every right to protest. Appropriate? Well, two were arrested, so that suggests perhaps not. Disrespectful to the returning 'Heroes'? No. We have an entirely volunteer military. I'm sure there have been many heroic acts by many British Troops in the various 'theatres', but as to the British Army as a whole being considered 'heroic', no. They have been used as a weapon of the State, to invade and oppress a foreign nation.
Trouble is, the vast majority of British Muslims are probbly sitting there, watching that, thinking 'What the **** are you doing, you stupid fools!'. Let's just see them as a totally unrepresentative extreme minority, and leave it at that. In the East End, certainly, there has been a backlash against such extremist types; East London Mosque has banned many individuals from holding any meetings there. There have actually been scuuffles there, when xtremists have tried to hijack prayer meetings. again, this response by 'ordinary' Muslims goes unreported. Moderate Muslims don't make for juicy headlines.
Meanwhile, the real Tyrants sit back and count their winnings...
It might seem odd that luton was the sight of this demo, but it does have a very large muslim population and for those that were upset by the war and didnt agree with it was the perfect opportunity to protest
its not like blair and bush are ever gonna parade through the streets of luton
tho cherie did commute there, without paying mind!
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cherie-falls-foul-of-the-law-on-first-day--as-a-judge-728609.html ]as much of a crook as any MP or their wife[/url]
I have no issues with the protest but they should be protesting againt the correct people - the soldiers did not start the war, they are merely pawns in a politcal game.
Well they probably succeeded in getting the BNP a few more recruits
FWIW - I think the squaddies deserve their parade & I - for one - salute & thank them
At last rudeboy is back to explain it to us, in his fully correct and everyone else has wrong way that is so educational. Your coffee don't smell to good to me. Lets change one of your comments a little "They have been ABUSED as a weapon of the State", for a number of crap wars in the last 10 years. Killed by the poor leadership (goverment) of thier own side, shit kit and not enough of the good stuff like food and ammunition but they stick it out. They are not perfect by a long way but I'd rely on them completely to protect me and mine and they would do the same for you no question. I'm proud of them and glad that they are around. The protest was good as a reminder on what we have here, them and others need a voice.
At last rudeboy is back to explain it to us, in his fully correct and everyone else has wrong way that is so educational.
I don't actually get that, mt. I was merely expressing my opinion, as everyone else on here was.
And I agree with you, the military forces have been abused by our wonderful Government.
As for public parades; I don't feel our military forces have actually been used to protect us. In fact, since the start of the War On Terror™, there has been a massive increase in acts of terror committed in our country, and elsewhere. In Britain, mostly by British citizens. I fail to see how securing control of natural resources in some far away land is making things safer here...
I'm not against ceremonies to acknowledge acts of bravery. I just don't think they ought to be conducted in the public arena, especially considering the enormous death toll of soldiers and civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere.
But if you criticise such parades, you are marked as 'unpatriotic', it seems.
I don't feel that British Military involvement in Iraq is serving me, as a British citizen. Too many people are dying. I don't want to see people dying. The British government, and military forces, are ultimately responsible for many of those deaths.
But we've done all this, countless times...
I didnt want to get into this, and its probably only a small minority, but here is some video clips of what shouldn't be happening - I
[url= http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=526_1201479595 ]Iraq war crimes[/url]
[url= http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ba_1181107086 ]Entire family of iraqi girl murdered by US troops[/url]
[url= http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c7e_1181108233 ]Us soldiers murder entire family to r*p* girl then k*ll girl [/url]
I guess this is what they're protesting against!
rudeboy, "ok then. wake up smell the coffee" perhaps it's the style rather than the content.
im not condoning what the protesters are doing or saying, i think its disgusting, and reckon they should be lynched, if we let them live in our country, they should abide by our rules and not complain if out beliefs dont fit in with thiers, but in the same breath;
the troops are doing a job, they chose to do it, and they are beign paid for it.
when i get a parade for coming home from work without being run over by a digger or a piling rig, so should they.
until then, pick up the paycheque and go home at the end of the tour.
i know a soldier, who joined up "for the fighting", and while he comes across as a nice guy and his mates come across as nice enough average british toms, but anyone who has a tattoo on his trigger finger for every enemy hes dropped (they are snipers) needs his head kicking in.
each to thier own, and its not for me to judge, but in my opinion, some people have thier heads wired wrong.
(incidently, you get it in all lines of work i think too, i believe its a very small minority, and would like to believe its more the yanks then the brits, but then again, people join the police purely so they can bash people and not get in trouble.
it happens.
its sick
if we let them live in our country, they should abide by our rules and not complain if out beliefs dont fit in with thiers
Oh dear....
If only Bush senior had supported the Kurds who he had encouraged to rise up in 91 and then finished off Saddam then we would never have had to carry out this ill planned campaign.
I still don't quite understand quite why we're supporting the US in Iraq anyway - or is it because its a bit like Saudi but less troublesome?
My thoughts exactly RudeBoy.
I was asked to provide source information. Here it is.
After their initial claims last week, Mr Blair said any misconduct in British ranks was "exceptional" and limited to a handful of servicemen.
But the two soldiers said the photographs were "just the tip off the iceberg".
They claim troops serving in southern Iraq had swapped hundreds of pictures among themselves. The soldiers, who last night said they stood by "every single word of our story", insisted it was not a hoax and that the Army knew a lot more had happened.
[url] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/soldiers-say-pictures-are-tip-of-the-iceberg-562059.html [/url]
America was braced last night for new allegations of torture in Iraq after military officials said that photographs apparently showing US soldiers beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death and having sex with a female PoW were about to be released.
The officials told the US television network NBC that other images showed soldiers "acting inappropriately with a dead body". A videotape, apparently made by US personnel, is said to show Iraqi guards raping young boys.
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq, issued an order last October giving military intelligence control over almost every aspect of prison conditions at Abu Ghraib with the explicit aim of manipulating the detainees' "emotions and weaknesses", it was reported yesterday.
The memorandum came to light as more details emerged of the extent of detainee abuse. Formal statements by inmates published yesterday describe horrific treatment at the hands of guards, including the rape of a teenage Iraqi boy by an army translator.
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/22/iraq.usa1 [/url]
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it. The speech was first reported in a New York Sun story last week, which was in turn posted on Jim Romenesko's media blog, and now EdCone.com and other blogs are linking to the video. We transcribed the critical section here (it starts at about 1:31:00 into the ACLU video.) At the start of the transcript here, you can see how Hersh was struggling over what he should say:
"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."
[url] http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html [/url]
Have I heard right, that the two arrested were not protestors but in fact arrested for protesting at the protest?
WackoAK
I have no issues with the protest but they should be protesting againt the correct people - the soldiers did not start the war, they are merely pawns in a politcal game.
I think one of the issues is that Labour has made it illegal to protest in the exact location that would get through to the right people.
All this 'we must support our brave boys' stuff is just used as a propaganda tool to get people on side whenever there is a conflict. People who join the army do so out of their own free will. It might be dangerous, but they knew that when they started and are paid relatively well to reflect that.
I have a mate in the army who has served in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, and I would be very sad if he was hurt or killed, but I am not gonna commend him for doing his job any more than he does for me doing mine.
mefinks i worded that wrong rudeboy, im not a BNP terror tubby
They have a right to protest, leave them to it unless they get violent. If they do get violent it simply shows their inability to deal with things in a rational manner and their arguments are destroyed.
Simon
I appreciate the fact that you have provided sources and these where indeed outrages. I would take issue with your assertion that they were policy.
Policy is delibarete plan and whilst it seems to have been the deliberate plan of isolated groups it was not Army/UK or US policy in the larger sense.
Personally I think they were bang out of order to protest like that. The soldiers have been away serving and the large majoirty of people have welcomed them back by having a parade. Any one that reckons that the forces dont deserve a parade because 'they' dont get a parade for doing their jobs needs to grow up. They are paid to do the job fair enough. But I think most of you armchair pilots wouldn't put your arse on the line for the amount of money that they get. In fact the most hazardous thing a majority face at work is boredom.
As some have mentioned if these idiots wanted to protest like that in the islamic states then I dont think that they would be dealt with so gently.
I have the greatest of respect for anyone in the forces and in my humble opinion any one that hasn't served should never criticise and only say Thank You.
I think its a bloody disgrace. It's a shame there was police attendance otherwise they'd have got what they need.
There's a time and a place for protests and it wasn't there.
Amazing how easily people are wound up into a right-wing lynch mob by the tabloids isn't it. How pathetic. 🙁
They can protest but I would like to interview them about their fashion sense.
Is growing beard the new fashion?
What identity do they see themselves in?
🙄
Its amazing how vocal folk can be about the apparent sins of the country which provides a safe environment in which to make such public protests, especially considering the lack of such freedom of protest in states which are run under the same belief system they so crave.
In these times of freedom of speech maybe they should of let the soldiers had theirs with the protesters 😉
Kuco - Member
In these times of freedom of speech maybe they should of let the soldiers had theirs with the protesters
I was most proud of one part of the footage, as the squaddies marched by in perfect step, one of them spared half a second to look across and just shook his head. He may even have tutted.
He did nothing. He, and his comrades in arms, simply walked on by. They didn't rise to it. They didn't care. They knew they had done their job and they knew that they were being cheered home by the country. The actions of a tiny minority of nutters didn't even break their stride.
Glass raised.
The irony is that they protest like mad in the west but would gladly impose their views on the minority in the countries they are supporting ...
I bet they want to change the fashion too ...
😆
From The Independent story
"[i]British soldiers in Iraq swapped hundreds of photographs of civilians being mistreated, according to new claims made in the Daily Mirror[/i]"
The same Daily Mirror from which the low-life Piers Morgan had to resign due to making stories up?
From the Telegraph
The two most horrendous allegations, US soldiers having sex with a POW and Iraqi guards sodomising boys, seem to use the word "apparently". There is no mention of the photos coming to light. The rest of the allegations seem to refer to the Abu Ghraib outrage, of which we are all aware.
From The Guardian
Again more allegations of abuse relating to the Abu Ghraib outrage.
Finally the Salon.com recycles the stuff above but also makes unsubstantiated claims.
Obviously we all know of some of the horrors that took place in Abu Ghraib however nothing in the pieces you reference substantiates your claims that it was policy for British and US troops to rape young boys in front of female POWs.
Obviously not that much is going to be written down. But you have to look at the British and the American's as a single unit.
It is those at the very top I have a problem with, and they acted as one, emphasising their unity.
"Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq, issued an order last October giving military intelligence control over almost every aspect of prison conditions at Abu Ghraib with the explicit aim of manipulating the detainees' "emotions and weaknesses", it was reported yesterday."
And
"Taguba discovered that guards have also videotaped and photographed naked female detainees. The Bush administration has refused to release other photographs of Iraqi women forced at gunpoint to bare their breasts (although it has shown them to Congress) - ostensibly to prevent attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, but in reality, one suspects, to prevent further domestic embarrassment.
Earlier this month it emerged that an Iraqi woman in her 70s had been harnessed and ridden like a donkey at Abu Ghraib and another coalition detention centre after being arrested last July. Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who investigated the case and found it to be true, said, "She was held for about six weeks without charge. During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey."
In Iraq, the existence of photographs of women detainees being abused has provoked revulsion and outrage, but little surprise. Some of the women involved may since have disappeared, according to human rights activists. Professor Huda Shaker al-Nuaimi, a political scientist at Baghdad University who is researching the subject for Amnesty International, says she thinks "Noor" is now dead. "We believe she was raped and that she was pregnant by a US guard. After her release from Abu Ghraib, I went to her house. The neighbours said her family had moved away. I believe she has been killed."
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/iraq.gender [/url]
Compelling new evidence emerged yesterday that torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib prison were either endorsed or encouraged high up the US military chain of command, and that complaints by at least five military policemen assigned to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation were disregarded by their superiors for several months.
[url] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/abu-ghraib-torture-was-approved-at-senior-military-level-732024.html [/url]
New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House.
The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly.
According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident.
"There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."
....you have to look on the British and Americans as a single unit....
Why do you? To make crass generalisations easier?