British Troops Follow the U$ Example

[Intifada]

The Ministry of Defence has launched an investigation into allegations that British soldiers have been pictured torturing an Iraqi prisoner.
The photographs, obtained by the Daily Mirror newspaper, show a suspected thief being beaten and urinated on.

The UK's most senior soldier, General Sir Mike Jackson, said if guilty, the men were not fit to wear the uniform.

Earlier, the UK Government said it was "appalled" by pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused by US troops.

Tony Blair's official spokesman said the way naked prisoners were tormented by troops directly contravened all the US-led coalition's policy.

He stressed the abuse by a few soldiers at the Abu Ghraib jail was not representative of coalition troops.

But Labour MP John McDonnell instead argued the coalition's occupation of Iraq was being discredited.

The latest pictures were handed over by British soldiers who claimed a rogue element in the British army was responsible for abusing prisoners and civilians.

It is alleged during his 8-hour ordeal he was threatened with execution, his jaw broken and his teeth smashed.

Sir Michael Jackson, chief of the general staff, said: "If proven, not only is such appalling conduct clearly unlawful but also contravenes the British Army's high standards of conduct.

"The allegations are already under investigation.

"Again, if proven, the perpetrators are not fit to wear the Queen's uniform and they have besmirched the Army's good name and conduct."

'Regrettable'

A US military investigation has recommended disciplinary action against several of its officers for the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Brigadier General Janice Karpinski is among seven officers being investigated following claims that soldiers under their command mistreated detainees.

The officers have already been suspended from duty.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "The US army spokesman has said this morning that he is appalled, that those responsible have let their fellow soldiers down, and those are views that we would associate the UK Government with."

He added: "This is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are in Iraq, and they should not judge the actions of the coalition as a whole on the actions of a few.

"But it is regrettable, to say the least."

from the bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3675215.stm)

[Invader Zim]

Yes a most disturbing revelation. However already I have seen that this has been used to brand the entire british forces with the same shit, dispite the fact that it was other troops who grassed the sick bastards up. Which kind of goes to contradicting that idea.

But very disturbing.

[DaCuBaN]

...just as happened to american forces.

It's a tragedy that the people who are out there simply following orders and doing the best they can in a dreadful position are tarred like this. The yanquis deserve more respect in this case as well, much as I hate to say it.

[cubist]

i hope its true, i obviously think its fucking horrible but i hope they get fucked for this

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 11:45 PM
Yes a most disturbing revelation. However already I have seen that this has been used to brand the entire british forces with the same shit, dispite the fact that it was other troops who grassed the sick bastards up. Which kind of goes to contradicting that idea.

But very disturbing.
Comon ihateeveryone , branding entire groups of people is only allowed with groups from the US.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:41 PM
i hope its true, i obviously think its fucking horrible but i hope they get fucked for this
Translation: Even though I think this kind of thing is terrible It is ok to torture people if it can make the US and England look bad.


Gotta love them peace loving commies :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Thes few incidents of coalition troops abusing their power are very unfortunate. However, they are isolated incidents perpetuated by a few senseless individuals, and not representative of the vast majorty of responsible and benevolent coalition soldiers.

[The Feral Underclass]

The pictures are fakes.

Guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1208623,00.html)

[cubist]

absoluetly i am not avin a go at the occupation forces, they ar ejust puppets and most serve with integrity and honour of what they believe they believe, i just think that its high time the shit that war brings is iradicated and this is shit,

[lucid]

I also love how Saddams can torture his people for years with only an occasionall small right up in the back of the paper.

[Intifada]

from amnesty international:


On 14 May, two US armed vehicles broke through the perimeter wall of the home of Sa'adi Suleiman Ibrahim al-'Ubaydi in Ramadi. Soldiers beat him with rifle butts and then shot him dead as he tried to flee.


Qays Mohammad Abd al-Karim al-Salman, a businessman with Danish citizenship, returned to Iraq 10 days before his arrest by the US army on 6 May. He alleged he was forced to lie down on the road, then taken to the Holding Centre at Baghdad Airport where he was held for 33 days on suspicion of murder before being released without charge. He was denied contact with the outside world and ill-treated.



Abdallah Khudhran al-Shamran, a Saudi Arabian national, was arrested in al-Rutba in early April 2003 by US and allied Iraqi forces while travelling from Syria to Baghdad. On reaching an unknown site, he said he was beaten, given electric shocks, suspended by his legs, had his penis tied and was subjected to sleep deprivation. He was held there for four days before being transferred to a camp hospital in Um Qasr. He was then interrogated and released without money or passport. He approached a British soldier, whereupon he was taken to another place of detention, then transferred to a military field hospital and again interrogated and tortured. This time torture methods reportedly included prolonged exposure in the sun, being locked in a container, and being threatened with execution.


Eight Iraqis arrested on 14 September by British soldiers from the British military base Camp Steven in Basra were reportedly tortured. The men all worked for a hotel in Basra where weapons were reported to have been found. Baha' al-Maliki, the hotel's receptionist, died in custody three days later; his body was reportedly severely bruised and covered in blood. Kefah Taha was admitted to hospital in critical condition, suffering renal failure and severe bruising.



In February 2004, during a hearing into the death in June 2003 of Najem Sa'doun Hattab at Camp Whitehorse detention centre near Nassiriya, a former US marine testified that it was common practice to kick and punch prisoners who did not cooperate - and even some who did. The marine had been granted immunity from prosecution for his testimony. Najem Sa'doun Hattab, a former Ba'ath Party official, died after he was beaten and choked by a US marine reservist.


Such reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces have been frequent in the past year.

[lucid]

Your right ihateeveryone,

Six examples obviously shows that all 100,000 US soldiers in Iraq are evil people.

Your extreme US hatred makes all of your complaints mute just like know one listens to me when I act like an extreme anti-commie.

[Intifada]

no "lucid", i was just trying to show that these incidents are not "isolated incidents".

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:06 PM
no "lucid", i was just trying to show that these incidents are not "isolated incidents".
Yes they are ihateeveryone. You need to take off your blinders and understand that the media overinflates crap like this all the time. You have shown nothing except that you can dig up trash from your ultra lefty web pages. I doubt you found these Amnesty International links on your own. You are obviously biased and will go to any length to make the US look bad.

[cubist]

lucid you are truely an idiot.

once again you have a deludued belief that we like sadam, communists fucking hate sadam, but america installed sadam or do you forget that,

don't pretend you= and your beloved america are doing the world a favour when your not, you installed him now your cleaning up your mess from then and from the gulf war 1.

*edit*most socialists advocate equality across the board freedom to do and freedom from doing, this includes not supporting iraq,

we may dislike americas politics but it doesn't mean we support other rightwing opprerssive regiems, your deluded by the enemy of our enemy is our friend concept aren't you, our only friends believe in what we believe,

the concept of enemy of our enemy is our friends is certainly one not used by communists and anarchists,

sort your understanding out yeah, before you go making jock like statements which certainly imply your a dumbass sports jock still in high school

[lucid]

Feeling is mutual.

It seems that you are much more likely to support Saddam than to stand behind the US.

We helped him in the past when he was fighting Iran. At the time Iran was a bigger threat. The only one that is deluded is yourself. With your belief of world peace and equality. Your a true idiot if you think that will ever happen. As times change countries have to change with them.

You don't want free and equal. You simply want to have as much as people that work much harder than you have.

I'll stick with my understanding bucko. Chances of success are much higher that way.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:20 PM


once again you have a deludued belief that we like sadam, communists fucking hate sadam, but america installed sadam or do you forget that,

don't pretend you= and your beloved america are doing the world a favour when your not, you installed him now your cleaning up your mess from then and from the gulf war 1.

most socialists advocated all oppressive situations, we all want a free equal world that includes not supporting iraq,

we may dislike americas politics but it doesn't mean we support other rightwing opprerssive regiems, your deluded by the enemy of our enemy is our friend concept aren't you, our only friends believe in what we believe,

the concept of enemy of our enemy is our friends is certainly one not used by communists and anarchists,

sort your understanding out yeah, before you go making jock like statements which certainly imply your a dumbass sports jock still in high school

lucid you are truely an idiot.

No he is not, to the contrary he is one of the few individuals here with any semblance of reasonableness and clarity


once again you have a deludued belief that we like sadam, communists fucking hate sadam, but america installed sadam or do you forget that,

this statement is made often on this subject. It is a moot point that we once enjoyed mutual goals with Saddam. Over 30 years, things change. Heck, things can change in 1 year. Anyone can tell you this. No one forgot that we installed Saddam. It is just not relevant today. If anything, it supports the notion that we needed to take him down



don't pretend you= and your beloved america are doing the world a favour when your not, you installed him now your cleaning up your mess from then and from the gulf war 1.

No one is pretending. We are not as concerned with the notion of "world interests" as we are with American interests specifically, and as an American that is OK with me. My taxes go to US interests, much of it the military, so I expect a return on my investment, and I am gettig one.


most socialists advocated all oppressive situations

finally, one of you actually admit it


we may dislike americas politics but it doesn't mean we support other rightwing opprerssive regiems, your deluded by the enemy of our enemy is our friend concept aren't you, our only friends believe in what we believe,

you mean a left-wing oppressive regime?


the concept of enemy of our enemy is our friends is certainly one not used by communists and anarchists,

anarchists are to stupid to understand the concept of "a concept"


sort your understanding out yeah, before you go making jock like statements which certainly imply your a dumbass sports jock still in high school

Why is a sports-jock considered stupid? This is a typical stereotype, something that I thought only stupid white Americans could perpetuate.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 4 2004, 05:34 PM
anarchists are to stupid to understand the concept of "a concept"
You mean every single anarchist in the whole wide world? :o You must have been busy....

[cubist]

urm no hesbola, al'qeada, ba'at party don't come under left wing,

flaming with pointless HATEBUSH MUST HATEBUSH, AND IRAQi LOVERS, and things asuch imply nothing useful can be said by this person, kinda like david beckham can't say anything useful,

and i mis worded it most socialists advocate for the oppressed, DAMN it should thnk more before typing, thanks for noticing i will edit it

[Osman Ghazi]

No he is not, to the contrary he is one of the few individuals here with any semblance of reasonableness and clarity


blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblah

Now I'm on of the few indivuduals with a semblance of reasonableness (not a word) and clarity too.


No one is pretending. We are not as concerned with the notion of "world interests" as we are with American interests specifically, and as an American that is OK with me. My taxes go to US interests, much of it the military, so I expect a return on my investment, and I am gettig one.


At least you finally admit that you couldn't care less who America kills as long as you get a return on your investment. And you wonder why we oppose America.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:49 PM
...just as happened to american forces.

It's a tragedy that the people who are out there simply following orders
"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate defense for war crimes.

Those who gave the orders are more responsible of course, and should not be let off the hook through a cover-up as appears to be happening.

Systematic abuse of prisoners is to be expected as part of an occupation, and all evidence is that the abuse is indeed systematic.

These photos aren't even the first to emerge of torture by British troops, and if they turn out to be false as some are alleging, there's plenty more evidence of similar acts.

Oh, and contrary to the thread title, the British Empire doesn't need any "example" from the U.S. to make it torture wogs. They have plenty of experience of their own doing that.

[Invader Zim]

Well from what I have read in the papers today it seams that the pics are actually fake.

Apparently their are many inconsistancies with the pictures, such as the fact the troops have the wrong equiptment, weapons, and the civillian being beaten has blood on his face mask, yet none on his shirt, their are no actual pictures of troops, or identification. The fact that the guy has just been smacked in the balls by a rifle and doesnt role over screaming.

Seams a little suspect to me.

[NYC4Ever]

Was this the same reaction to the Iraqis that burned and hung Americans from a bridge? Where was the opposition stating that this is not what all Iraqis think and all of the opposition towards Al-Sadr supporters? The bias towards Americans is getting extreme and really dangerous. I mean even if the pics are not fakes it still isnt torture but humiliation, and yes, it should be dealt with and I hope they get the fuckers that are putting our troops in danger. This is the problem today with the media. They abuse free speech and cater to collectivists. Thats how it works is through mob mentality thinking. No one is dismissing or arguing in the defense of the soldiers, yet people can defend any Iraqi action as a victimized act towards the occupation.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 4 2004, 03:52 PM

Now I'm on of the few indivuduals with a semblance of reasonableness (not a word) and clarity too.


from dictionary.com:


reasonableness

\Rea"son*a*ble*ness\, n. Quality of being reasonable.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


reasonableness

n 1: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions" [syn: rationality, reason] 2: goodness of reason and judgment; "the judiciary is built on the reasonableness of judges" 3: the property of being moderate in price; "the store is famous for the reasonableness of its prices" [syn: moderateness, modestness] 4: moderation in expectations; "without greater reasonableness by both parties we will never settle this matter!" 5: the quality of being plausible or acceptable to a reasonable person; "he questioned the tenability of my claims" [syn: tenability, tenableness]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University



Osman, do you usually make claims before you do your research sir?

[lucid]

I love this site!

[Osman Ghazi]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 4 2004, 08:24 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 4 2004, 08:24 PM)
Osman [email protected] 4 2004, 03:52 PM

Now I'm on of the few indivuduals with a semblance of reasonableness (not a word) and clarity too.


from dictionary.com:


reasonableness

\Rea"son*a*ble*ness\, n. Quality of being reasonable.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


reasonableness

n 1: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions" [syn: rationality, reason] 2: goodness of reason and judgment; "the judiciary is built on the reasonableness of judges" 3: the property of being moderate in price; "the store is famous for the reasonableness of its prices" [syn: moderateness, modestness] 4: moderation in expectations; "without greater reasonableness by both parties we will never settle this matter!" 5: the quality of being plausible or acceptable to a reasonable person; "he questioned the tenability of my claims" [syn: tenability, tenableness]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University



Osman, do you usually make claims before you do your research sir? [/b]
Huh, well I stand corrected, I guess. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Lucid is not at all reasonable nor is he particulary clear.

[lucid]

What not clear about "I love this site!"?

[cubist]

It seems that you are much more likely to support Saddam than to stand behind the US.

We helped him in the past when he was fighting Iran. At the time Iran was a bigger threat. The only one that is deluded is yourself. With your belief of world peace and equality. Your a true idiot if you think that will ever happen. As times change countries have to change with them.

You don't want free and equal. You simply want to have as much as people that work much harder than you have.

I'll stick with my understanding bucko. Chances of success are much higher that way.



LMAO, lucid your chance of success supporting what you are is O, nill nothing didly squat, fuck all KAPECHE,


even if america contiues its imperialistic domination it will end the workers unlike you will awaken from there sleep and revolt,

its amazing when you think that in britain if the workers stopped the country would stop, but no one realizes that and just continues in there day being a slave to the wage thinking this is my life, its a mazing how many don't actually no of the alternatives, whats even more amazing are the people like lucid who actually think life is good beeing a wage slave and that the alternatives of equality and state provision are bad.