http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706148.stm
It's an embarrassement to the integrity of the British nation as a whole. I hope they're all caught and made to spend an awful long time in an Arab prison.
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706148.stm
It's an embarrassement to the integrity of the British nation as a whole. I hope they're all caught and made to spend an awful long time in an Arab prison.
Isn't it interesting how the Islamic followers around the world ask us to not associate them with the violent protestors of the past few weeks. Yet they associate these stupid soldiers with the rest of Britain? The word hypocritical comes to mind
Regardless of the accusations of hypocrisy, I always felt that we Brits held some form of higher moral ground.
How wrong can you be!
Of all the things I've seen you post - this one blew me away.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Do you really, really think a "national" origin leads to higher moral ground? That smacks of prejudice...
People are people everywhere - when are we all going to finally realize that there are bad and good folks in every circle. No one group has a higher moral ground - a born right? How arrogant.
What's really disturbing is that it usually takes a press report for things like this to make it to the surface.
It may seem that way, but I feel there is a modicom of evidence set out before the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
We, in the UK, pride our armed forces on a moral existence.
Unlike US forces, unless absolutely necesary, we don't wear full combat gear when dealing with women and children - a lesson well learnt in Northern Ireland.
We keep, unlike the rest of the coalition forces, our guns pointing at the ground. We don't 'scope-out' everyone out of a military uniform as a potential target.
You may call this stupid? we've lost 100 soldiers, a lot of other people have lost a lot more.
Call it ignorant if you want: the Iraqi council in Basra refused to criticise the British forces declaring that "for the good they've done, they can't be held to account on the basis of a few rotten apples"
This is what a working relationship is all about. I sympathise with the local councils, but what these UK soldiers have done is inexcusable; it is an abuse of power.
This news report, in your words, has blown me away. Call it prejudice (a very easy word to band around these days - and effective to the ill-informed reader -good spin ,though :thumb: ) if you like. Call it what ever you want.
At the end of the day the facts speak for themselves.
Ok - wait a second - you totally misunderstood me...
Let's do this again - it was only this one single sentence - this one single thought that you posted that blew me away...
Of all the things I've seen you post - this one blew me away.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Do you really, really think a "national" origin leads to higher moral ground? That smacks of prejudice...
People are people everywhere - when are we all going to finally realize that there are bad and good folks in every circle. No one group has a higher moral ground - a born right? How arrogant.
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Sorry. I misread your reply.
I used the wrong words. A better, and more accurate way of putting it, is that the "UK forces have a culture that is less prone to these acts than others"
:sick:
Perhaps, but it only takes a few idiots to undermine the good the rest of the British army has done in Basra. These soldiers should go to prison for a very long time
Harumph, young nations these days have no respect! Whipper Snappers! Learn to respect your elders and betters! (please note, my tongue is firmly in my cheek ;) )Quote:
Of all the things I've seen you post - this one blew me away.
Do you really, really think a "national" origin leads to higher moral ground? That smacks of prejudice...
People are people everywhere - when are we all going to finally realize that there are bad and good folks in every circle. No one group has a higher moral ground - a born right? How arrogant.
I'm not that surprised by these reports. I do agree that our troops are excellently trained for working in a 'civilian' enviroment (not sure that's the right word but you know what I mean) but any police action that goes on this long throws up a few psychotic idiots (I'd like to use stronger language but the board would forbid it.) I'm afraid to say that our troops are as capable of this sort of thing as any other nations, the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland is sadly littered with examples.
Every armed force is prone to excess and abuse. There is not one army today or in history that has clean hands.
...maybe the salvation army - but the brass section look shifty to me.
Before I start, I'm not having a go at you specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I find the phrase "Respect your elders" to be one of the most insulting. It generalises everyone younger than 30 as hooligans and trouble-makers. It also assumes that everyone above the age of 30 are angels and pillars of society.
I will respect those who have earned my respect regardless of age, gender or race. Anyone who I do not know I will be polite to but I will not respect them as I do not know them as respect engenders trust and that is something I do not give to just anybody.
Anyway...
as for these soldiers, perhaps they are simply becoming drunk on their own power over these civilians? (and bear in mind these pictures were taken over two years ago. A lot has changed since then)
As I am nearly 32, you should I understand that I DEMAND your respect. :eek: :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
The only way to command respect from others is not to demand it.
. . . . but, of course. Or enforce such behaviour from another individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishGuy
You only have 9000 troops there compared to 153,000 US troops. And most of the British troops are in southern Iraq. We've lost 2268. The loss percentages are approximately the same ~0.1482 US vs 0.112 UK. Then consider where the majority of troops are based.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Bull. Any good soldier does - its survival training 101.Quote:
We don't 'scope-out' everyone out of a military uniform as a potential target.
At the end of the day, you portray your beliefs as facts - as usual.
Don't pretend you know the mindset of the British soldier.
The so called 'soft aproach' is popular here too, we call it the 'Dutch aproach' (we love ourselves). It's highly naive though. Since the Americans have (as said) a much greater number of troops deployed they will have more soldiers in highly dangerous areas. Obviously news broadcasts will concentrate on the 'action'.
Yep, I bet you own a hoodie and hang round shopping centres looking shifty don't you? (My tongue has now proceeded so far into my cheekthat it's burst out the other side and is currently heading off for a night on the tiles) :bigyello:Quote:
It generalises everyone younger than 30 as hooligans and trouble-makers.
Thats a third more US than UK which I'd call pretty significant. I really wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to how much is attributable to the theatre of operations and how much to the difference in approach though.Quote:
~0.1482 US vs 0.112 UK
Did you notice that Yrfwy said everyone OUT of uniform - i.e. those who at least appear to be civilian. I'm assuming by 'scoping-out' he was referring to actually sighting at someone down the barrel and this is something British soldiers are very definitely trained not to do unless they're in an actual combat situation - mind you, I was under the impression that all coalition forces do the same in that specific regard but I can't claim I know for sure.Quote:
Bull. Any good soldier does - its survival training 101
You guys are comparing two armys that train each other. Both armys are trained to fight the same way using the same tactics using similar weapons by similar people. Been that way since WWI and will be that way until we are no longer on the same side.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Yrfwy's general underlying claim is the British military enforces superior morality whereas the US military does not. He then claims this is a major contributor for the UK's smaller losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I guess if the American military just learned to offer the insurgents tea parties before they ignited roadside bombs, less soldiers would die - as result of karma.
I'm going to once again go on record stating that the arrogant belief that the national origin of the British military makes them any different then any other group in Iraq is a prejudice attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Those attitudes are at the very basic center of why the world cannot get it's head on straight and stop the insane treatment of your fellow man.
People are people - those wanting to control through terrorism, or through dictatorships are no different then the bully on some school bus in London pushing down the little boy next to him.
Power goes to peoples heads - especially people with little minds. British soldiers beating and kicking local youths - that's third grade antics with machine guns - nice combination. Little minds are everywhere - Britain - USA - Iraq - everywhere...
First off, sorry, the percentages were posted improperly....Quote:
Thats a third more US than UK which I'd call pretty significant
US deaths : 0.015 (rounded up)
UK deaths : 0.011 (rounded down)
Secondly, I don't think a 0.4% higher rate of death is pretty significant.
The great majority of enemy combatents have been out of uniform since weeks (if not days/hours) after the initial invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
OK points well made.
One thing I'd argue, though, is that given that my father, and two of brothers all serve in the forces, and that I've written (VB5!) software for the military, I'd just like to add that we don't just talk about what the weather's like.
And before you decide that what I have to say is a belief, and not fact, make sure that what you say follows the same convention.
I love this. This is great; bring out the teenage mathematics. On this basis, we have lost 100 men, two of them were killed by American friendly fire which means our loss rate to American friendly fire is running at 2% which is greater than the rate of which our men are being killed by the enemy as you quoted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Now this is a FACT - 2/100 = 2%, right? - not a BELIEF. There is an error in there but the casual reader will not spot it, and because of the error I don't see American friendly fire incidents as being particularly significant (this time around)
Boy, you can have some fun with mathematics and it's subsequent spin, huh?
Yes I do own a number of hoodies and go shopping on a regular basis. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
:ehh: I think you need to study maths again. 0.3% does not equate to a thirdQuote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
His name is yrywddfa :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Ask yourself this...who is more likely to attack a soldier without provocation. A man talking with the soldier face to face calmly. Or a man talking to the barrel of a gun the soldier is pointing at them for no reason?
Oh, and as yrwyddfa pointed out...2% of UK soldier deaths were due to US soldiers. Interesting that. ;)
No! That's not what I meant. This is inflammatory - and you know it. By virtue of the way the British forces have had to cope with our national security over the last 30 odd years we have found a method that works well. We believe in that method (so I guess we feel that it is a moral way to conduct war) and it has done us lot over here proud.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Perhaps that's a valid conclusion given your previous statement; but because I don't subscribe to your initial thoughts I subsequently cannot agree with this.Quote:
Those attitudes are at the very basic center of why the world cannot get it's head on straight and stop the insane treatment of your fellow man.
I agree entirely :thumb:Quote:
People are people - those wanting to control through terrorism, or through dictatorships are no different then the bully on some school bus in London pushing down the little boy next to him. Power goes to peoples heads - especially people with little minds. British soldiers beating and kicking local youths - that's third grade antics with machine guns - nice combination. Little minds are everywhere - Britain - USA - Iraq - everywhere...
That post was not really directed at you...Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
It was directed at Nemaroller who was going with it...
I'm sorry - I didn't have time to run a statistical analysis for you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
2% killed by friendly fire, 98% killed by enemy or accidents. Then tell me how 2% is higher than deaths by enemy? As a matter of fact, don't tell me. It's totally irrelevant to what you initially stated and only lets you escape down a different path of arguments.Quote:
On this basis, we have lost 100 men, two of them were killed by American friendly fire which means our loss rate to American friendly fire is running at 2% which is greater than the rate of which our men are being killed by the enemy as you quoted above.
I follow by example - although I don't feel the need to introduce logical mathematics in every argument as you have so prominently done in these forums.Quote:
Boy, you can have some fun with mathematics and it's subsequent spin, huh?
BTW, there are three servicemen in my family, and my oldest brother just returned from Iraq.
They keep their guns pointed out at crowds in general because the Iraqi's always invade their personal space (less than 3 ft away) - which is acceptable by local custom, not by Westerners however. So by keeping the guns out and moving side to side, it keeps the locals a safe distance for the benefit of the nervous soldier and the unsuspecting civilian.
Then you were obviously reinforcing my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
And then they wonder why the locals are nervous...
Well, if the man is an insurgent, he is more likely to approach the soldier who doesn't have a gun drawn toward him - easier target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
And a higher percentage due to machinery failures and traffic accidents.Quote:
Oh, and as yrwyddfa pointed out...2% of UK soldier deaths were due to US soldiers. Interesting that. ;)
It's unfortunate, but there's no other clear way to keep civilians from approaching armed soldiers in a manner that doesn't make the soldier feel uncomfortable and subsequently endangering the life of a civilian. The easiest way is for the soldier to keep their guns drawn - and keep the civilians a good 3-5 feet from the soldier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
This way, a civilan knows they're not supposed to come any closer than the length of the gun to the soldier, the soldier has immediate option to act in case a threat arises, and 'please stand back at least 3 feet, i don't like looking at your nostrils' does not get lost in translation.
Iraq's get within two feet of your face since that's how they talk to each other over there - right in your face. Not exactly a safe distance for a soldier.
This doesn't mean soldiers are always pointing guns at a particular person, its just their drawn and held in ready position.
You do know I'm pulling your leg right? I'm parodying the very people you're complaining about.Quote:
Yes I do own a number of hoodies and go shopping on a regular basis. What's your point?
0.1482-0.112=0.0362 difference between the loss rates. 0.0362 is aproximately a third of 0.112 (actually 32.32%) => American causuaty rates are about a third more than UK Casualty rates. Based on the Nemarollers original figures rather than the corrected ones - the corrected one give a 36.36% difference. I stand by my maths. The actual difference in the figures isn't a particularly useful statistic unless it's expressed as a proprtion.Quote:
I think you need to study maths again. 0.3% does not equate to a third
Yeah but my brain goes into spasm when I try to remember the entire spelling :rolleyes:Quote:
His name is yrywddfa
I'm 100% sure that UK troops are trained not to do this, as yrwyddfa said, it's gun down unless the crowd is actually advancing in a hostile manner. I'm quite surprised to learn that the US doesn't follow the same policy.Quote:
They keep their guns pointed out at crowds in general
but that's the problem, if a soldiers in there country he should be sensitive to their customs and cultures, otherwise he's going to come across as an arrogant bully (which is not meant to imply that he neccessarily is)Quote:
which is acceptable by local custom, not by Westerners however
I am no longer prepared to enter a US vs UK argument (edit: in this case) The fact of the matter is that the US and the UK do things differently.
As has been well outlined, I believe that there has always been a moral imperative within the British forces that constrains behaviour.
As I mentioned in my first post, I find the actions of these soldiers who abused their position of authority and power, abhorrent.
As implied by my subsequent posts, I couldn't believe that there were people in Iraq, from Britain, doing this sort of thing.
Naieve, to be sure, but still: it's not in out culture, and it's not in our creed.
Of that I stand accused.
If someone wants to talk of prejudice, or imply xenophobia, then let them. Their posts will always stand up for what they are - as will mine.
Why would you want to do such a thing? For a start it would look very weird you pulling at one of my limbs :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Why? It's not the hard to remember you know. You must get spasms every time you read World Events then...that must hurt :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Ok... let's clear this once and for all. If a soldier is manning a post, and a single civilian starts walking toward them (speaking unrecognizable words), and comes within 3 feet of the soldier - I guarantee both UK and US soldiers bring their guns into ready fire stance - 'not eye through the scope' as yrfwy suggests - there would be no need at that distance for such accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Obviously in a crowd control situation, and depending on the history of the crowd, the standing officer makes the call.
I guarantee this for one single reason - having a gun pointed down at the ground when someone is already within grabbing distance of the gun eliminates any effectiveness the gun would afford.
yes but why let him get to within 3 feet anyway? That's just asking for trouble. I can just as easily talk to him 6-7 feet away
Then you would be 100% wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
You guys really should calm down - if you ain't there - don't act like you know...
I just googled for "military protocol in iraq - rifle up or rifle down?" - not like I believe what I read on the internet ;)
Look at this link:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050117fa_fact
That's a good article :)Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
It shows, to some degree, what I think a lot of us have been thinking. It also shows the other side which is the progressive modernisation of the US army - which can only ever be a remarkably good thing. :thumb:
A side note related to that article...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
The Army sent in a muslim cleric to talk to Sistani since they couldn't get to him themselves. The cleric was promptly executed the same day.
Well, I'm not excited, but thanks. We're not talking about how it is over there, we're talking about the official policy toward civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
As far as the article, this is nothing less than a summary of single views. And the officer down on one knee was actually an early story of 2003 (the article makes it appear it happened recently).
On that note, here are some military blogs:
http://www.adayiniraq.com/
http://www.lt-smash.us/
because I've only two legs of my own. I might get mauled in a horriffic accident and I'm gonna need a spare. Now gimme that limb dammit.Quote:
Why would you want to do such a thing? For a start it would look very weird you pulling at one of my limbs
...and you would be 100% wrong that I'm 100% wrong that I'm 100% sure... or something like that. Did you actually read what I said I was sure about? Namely that UK soldiers are not trained to point their weapons at crowds in general - as in 'Oooh look, there's a crowd of people over there going about their daily business and posing no immediate threat to me, I think I'll point a gun at them and see what happens'. Sorry, but no. UK soldiers definately don't do that and, as I said I'd be very surprised to discover that US soldiers do.Quote:
Then you would be 100% wrong
The reason I'm so sure of this is that a freind of mine (ex marine commando BTW) has recently come back from doing private security work in Iraq. He finished his tour and came back early because he was disgusted that some of the guys he was working with were doing exactly this sort of thing. Thankfully he's found another company to work with that are far more professional and is headed back out there later this year.
I don't disagree with that although I'm not sure where the whole 3 feet thing comes from. I think it's actually a judgement call on the soldiers part when he feels a situation could be threatening.Quote:
Ok... let's clear this once and for all. If a soldier is manning a post, and a single civilian starts walking toward them (speaking unrecognizable words), and comes within 3 feet of the soldier - I guarantee both UK and US soldiers bring their guns into ready fire stance - 'not eye through the scope' as yrfwy suggests - there would be no need at that distance for such accuracy
Yep, excellent article. It also goes to show that elder is often not better which should get a thumbs up from ValleysBoy. :)Quote:
Look at this link: