We should be slow to condemn British troops for assaulting civilians, apparently...

[Charles RB]

In a total shock, the News Of The World has actually reported on legitimate news that actually happened- specifically, a video showing British troops appearing to be beating Iraqi civilians, which appear to be genuine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713846.stm). The Basra provincial council, and now the Maysan one as well, has severed contact with the British armed forces over this, and are very unhappy. There are a lot of people unhappy, and three Iraqis working for UK forces were kidnapped (and released on the same day) from their homes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4715176.stm). Dr Wahteb Wahteb, a member of the council, has said:

The behaviour of the British soldiers with the civilians is unpleasant and as well, the British Army is not responding to the local government.

Communication is not important - they don't respect the call from the local government.

So. Bad, right? Lots of people justifiably angry about occupying soldiers abusing civilians- as we all should be. Soldiers beating civilians should be condemned, right?


Not according to John Reid, the Defence Secretary. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4729350.stm)

Critics of the behaviour of British troops should be "slow to condemn", Defence Secretary John Reid has said.

The circumstances they fight in are the most difficult in history because their enemy, the terrorist, is unconstrained by morality or law, he told the BBC... He is due to make a speech on Monday in which he will defend the UK's troops.

But he told the BBC in advance an outline of what he would say in the speech at King's College, London.

"We ought to recognise the difficult situation our troops now fight in, far more difficult than any time in history because they face an enemy that is completely unconstrained.

"The international terrorist is not constrained by legality, by morality, by any conventions, Geneva or otherwise.

"Yet our troops are increasingly constrained not just by international law and conventions, the standards we want to keep, but by media scrutiny, by videophones, by mobile phones, by satellite dishes".

Terrorists advocate restricting media freedom while simultaneously exploiting television to demean hostages, he said.

"They will use our freedom as the tool to terrorise our people and we ought to be very slow to condemn our troops fighting in those circumstances".

While it was right to disapprove of abuse, it should be kept in proportion, he said, and out of nearly 100,000 British troops who have served in Iraq, there have only been five sustainable allegations of the mistreatment of civilians.

We should be slow to condemn possible attacks on civilian? Fuck you. That is one of the things soldiers are not meant to do, that it is meant to be illegal for them to do- especially when we're doing it to foreign civilians we're meant to be helping, when the whole stated point is that we're there to help set Iraq up as an independent democracy. Now what part of that means people should be slow to condemn attacks on civilians? That's the sort of thing we were meant to be doing away with.

Hell, I'm not suprised the provincial councils are cutting ties with us, the Basra & Maysan councils are even demanding an immediate handover of powers, and most of British-controlled Iraq is not co-operating w/ British armed forces. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729032.stm) I don't blame them. Beating civilians and allegedly ignoring the civvie authorities is bad enough without the Defence Secretary trying to downplay the situation. Git.

[BlairH]

I have to say I disagree with Mr Reid. UK troops are perhaps the finest infantry soldiers in the world. Discipline should be harsh and uncompromising. These soldiers should be dealt with severely.

[Charles RB]

I have to say I disagree with Mr Reid.

That's because you're not an arsehole.

UK troops are perhaps the finest infantry soldiers in the world. Discipline should be harsh and uncompromising. These soldiers should be dealt with severely.

That's supposed to be what happens in the army, after all.

[Adam Crocker]

"We ought to recognise the difficult situation our troops now fight in, far more difficult than any time in history because they face an enemy that is completely unconstrained.

"The international terrorist is not constrained by legality, by morality, by any conventions, Geneva or otherwise.

More difficult than any time in history how? The Nazis weren't exactly constrained by the factors you mentioned either.

That's because you're not an arsehole.

Well Blair's also not part of a government who participated in the invasion of a foreign country driven by questionable wisdom that was followed by an occupation that is making it look bad for the parties running it.

[AllisterH]

Actually I have no problem with what the British did.

Throw rocks and homemade genades at soldiers, be glad all that happened was that the British did was a beatdown. By the rules of engagement, the Brits were fully in their rights to open fire.

People, soldiers are not trained to be police officers and that's what the problem is, IMHO.

[BlairH]

Well Blair's also not part of a government who participated in the invasion of a foreign country
Yes he is. He's the freakin' Prime Minister!

[Michael P]

Yes he is. He's the freakin' Prime Minister!
He meant you.

[BlairH]

He meant you.

...I know.

[Charles RB]

Actually I have no problem with what the British did.

You have no problem with nine men being arrested after the stone-throwing had been dispursed, and being beaten after they'd been arrested and the threat was over? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711398.stm)

Well, damn. Clearly our police forces have been unfairly restrained over here. We should let them assault people who are already neutralised too, if it's so OK. And damn, we should've let the British troops in Belfast open fire with non-rubber bullets on the civvies during the last riot- well within their rules of engagement, and I bet it would've ended the violence much quicker.

[Cotton]

You have no problem with nine men being arrested after the stone-throwing had been dispursed, and being beaten after they'd been arrested and the threat was over? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711398.stm)

Well, damn. Clearly our police forces have been unfairly restrained over here. We should let them assault people who are already neutralised too, if it's so OK. And damn, we should've let the British troops in Belfast open fire with non-rubber bullets on the civvies during the last riot- well within their rules of engagement, and I bet it would've ended the violence much quicker.

Not that I condone what the soldiers did, but the one part I'd agreed with AllisterH is that soldiers are not trained to be police officers. That's a problem, they are trained to combat enemy soldiers. This is just expected when you have troops occupying someone else's country for a prolonged period of time.


That's supposed to be what happens in the army, after all.

Not in the Chinese Army. Be glad you live in a country where our troops are suppose to respect rules of engagement.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Not that I condone what the soldiers did, but the one part I'd agreed with AllisterH is that soldiers are not trained to be police officers. That's a problem, they are trained to combat enemy soldiers. This is just expected when you have troops occupying someone else's country for a prolonged period of time.


Doesn't matter - even when you subdue an enemy soldier, you're not supposed to start beating them up, (or torture them for that matter).

As for that last part, isn't that exactly why we shouldn't our armies occupying Iraq then?
(especially as it's still unclear wether we're fighting or protecting the Iraqi's.)

[Charles RB]

I'd agreed with AllisterH is that soldiers are not trained to be police officers.

Technically true- but despite that, the British armed forces have been used in police action several times now, including Northern Ireland where they very recently were part of an anti-riot effort. I'm sure they've picked something up about what they're not meant to do.

Not in the Chinese Army.

Well, yeah, but we're talking about the British army here, not the Chinese one.

[BlairH]

including Northern Ireland
Bloody Sunday

Well, yeah, but we're talking about the British army here, not the Chinese one.
Bloody Sunday

[Charles RB]

Bloody Sunday

OK, very good point. I assume we did try to not open fire on peaceful demonstrators and civvies at some point though.

[Adam Crocker]

...I know.

Blair's the Prime Minister!? LYNCH HIM!!!

[BlairH]

Blair's the Prime Minister!? LYNCH HIM!!!
If you lynch me now, I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

[Adam Crocker]

If you lynch me now, I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

Yeah right! That's what they all say!

*Uses his can opener to open a can of Potted Meat Food Product and chucks the contents at Blair*

[Cotton]

Bloody Sunday


Bloody Sunday

Damn it Blair...Beat me to it...

But yeah...remember BLOODY SUNDAY?

[Cotton]

Well, yeah, but we're talking about the British army here, not the Chinese one.

Yeah because the day we talk about the Chinese Army being in Iraq, is the final days before World War III and the Armageddon happens.

Man, I hope the Apocalypse involves Zombies...

[Iangould]

N
Not in the Chinese Army. Be glad you live in a country where our troops are suppose to respect rules of engagement.

Do you actually know anything about the history of the PLA?

[Cotton]

Do you actually know anything about the history of the PLA?

I know that they hunted down and killed civilians in the 1950's and Tibetians a little later. I was referring to the old Soviet Style Chinese Army.

Edit: Also, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 era PLA.

[Rachel Grey]

This whole war gives me that same sick feeling in my heart that Padme had when she said "So, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

Seriously, there is a weight in me that says that all this shit is just the prelude to something much worse...

[Iangould]

The PLA is actually an extremely disciplined force - they obey orders meticulously, including orders to kill civilians, unfortunately.

[Cotton]

The PLA is actually an extremely disciplined force - they obey orders meticulously, including orders to kill civilians, unfortunately.

That's not obeying the rules of engagement now is it? Most nations don't condone that sort of thing.

[Wesley Dodds]

Actually, I kind of agree with Blair on this. There are nice guys in the army but there are also a lot of people in it who join up because they get a chance to be dicks. If you send the army out of do something, yeah, a lot of this kind of stuff is going to happen. I'm not comfortable with playing distressed ingenue when people we've trained to kill beat up people who were throwing rocks at them.

[Iangould]

That's not obeying the rules of engagement now is it? Most nations don't condone that sort of thing.


It's obeying THEIR rules of engagement.

Seriously, one of the main reasons the communists defeated the nationalists was that the Nationalist army was an ill-disciplined rabble that used to rob and rape the peasants.

The PLA shot people for that sort of shit.

[Adam Crocker]

Seriously, one of the main reasons the communists defeated the nationalists was that the Nationalist army was an ill-disciplined rabble thast used to rob and rape the peasants.

The PLA shot people for that sort of shit.

One of the reasons Marshall Tito was so popular after WWII in Yugoslavia was the expediency of his war crimes tribunals.

"Is this the guy who raped you?"

'Yes'

*Bang!*

[Cotton]

It's obeying THEIR rules of engagement.

Seriously, one of the main reasons the communists defeated the nationalists was that the Nationalist army was an ill-disciplined rabble thast used to rob and rape the peasants.

The PLA shot people for that sort of shit.

Yeah, but that doesn't discount the fact that they still shot civilians, including but not limited to people they deemed a threat to the communist movement.

I'm talkin' about the rules of engagements that don't involve shooting of civilians.

[Iangould]

"I'm talkin' about the rules of engagements that don't involve shooting of civilians."

You mean "counter-revolutionaries" "American spies" and "Tibetan separatists" surely?

As opposed to "enemy combatants" and "suspected terrorists".

[Cotton]

"I'm talkin' about the rules of engagements that don't involve shooting of civilians."

You mean "counter-revolutionaries" "American spies" and "Tibetan separatists" surely?

As opposed to "enemy combatants" and "suspected terrorists".

Hurm...obviously, you don't remember what the Red Guards did to civilians during the Cultural Revolution.

[Iangould]

Hurm...obviously, you don't remember what the Red Guards did to civilians during the Cultural Revolution.

The Red guard weren't PLA - in fact they were specifically created by Mao as a counterbalance to what he saw as the threat from the PLA.

[Cotton]

The Red guard weren't PLA - in fact they were specifically created by Mao as a counterbalance to what he saw as the threat from the PLA.

I thought that the Red Guard was just civilian extension of the PLA? Is this not true?

Edit: But in any case, the PLA killed civilians a little moreso than the average Army (Whether it be British Troops in Ireland, or National Guards at Berkely. Just look at Tianneman Square.)

[Iangould]

The Red guard was formed by local party cadres on direct orders from Mao, the PLA was ordered to turn weapons over to them.

soem senior PLA officers refused - this is as close as the PLA has ever come to outright disobedience to political authority.

I'm well aware of the actions of the Red Guard - I read Ken Ling's book during my Asian Studies degree,

I'm also well aware of the actiosn of the Red Army over the years - my brother's a Free Tibet activist and I knew people who were killed during the Tien An Mien massacre.

None of which alters the fact that the PLA is a highly disciplined apolitical military force.

[Cotton]

The Red guard was formed by local party cadres on direct orders from Mao, the PLA was ordered to turn weapons over to them.

soem senior PLA officers refused - this is as close as the PLA has ever come to outright disobedience to political authority.

I'm well aware of the actions of the Red Guard - I read Ken Ling's book during my Asian Studies degree,

I'm also well aware of the actiosn of the Red Army over the years - my brother's a Free Tibet activist and I knew people who were killed during the Tien An Mien massacre.

None of which alters the fact that the PLA is a highly disciplined apolitical military force.

None of this changes the fact that the PLA has killed civilians.

[Iangould]

See my earlier comment about "enemy combatants" and "suspected terrorists".

[Cotton]

See my earlier comment about "enemy combatants" and "suspected terrorists".

What about Tiananmen Square? Soldiers and Tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the PLA were there.

[Iangould]

Yes - and they were kept under a media black-out for a week previously then told they were suppressing an armed uprising against the government.

The Beijing garrision had previously refused to use force against the protestors - and were supported in this by the Defence Minister (who was subsequently purged).

[Paul McEnery]

Actually, I kind of agree with Blair on this. There are nice guys in the army but there are also a lot of people in it who join up because they get a chance to be dicks. If you send the army out of do something, yeah, a lot of this kind of stuff is going to happen. I'm not comfortable with playing distressed ingenue when people we've trained to kill beat up people who were throwing rocks at them.
Oh yeah? Well you bloody should be.

I've got a friend who not only got posted to fight in the Falklands, but got posted to patrol the six counties. As an officer. And he made damn sure nothing got out of hand on his watch.

The one thing the British had going on in Iraq is that they had his like running things, as opposed to the Abu Ghraib bullshit that the Americans have had going on. Now they don't even have that. By God, I hope they string their commanding officer up in public. And every bastard squaddie too. Shoot every last one of them in front of the Iraqis, because that's the best you can do. Jesus.

And of course that won't happen. And of course we've just recruited another 1000 insurgents, and the Brits have just become targets. Fucking arseholes.

[Cotton]

Yes - and they were kept under a media black-out for a week previously then told they were suppressing an armed uprising against the government.

The Beijing garrision had previously refused to use force against the protestors - and were supported in this by the Defence Minister (who was subsequently purged).

I guess I made the mistake of mixing up the Red Guard with the PLA, I thought they were interchangeable, I was misinformed.

But didn't the PLA get conflicting orders during the incident?

[Iangould]

Ever see the episode of Babylon 5 where Sheridan manages to ignore an inconvenient order because it came from outside the chain of command?

The Chinese chain of command went from the Politburo (of which the Defence minsiter was only one member of five) to the Central Military Committee (equivalent to the Joint chiefs) to the military commanders of the various units.

The Defence Minister and the generals who backed him were, technically, acting illegally in defying the orders of the Politburo.

Conversely though, those orders should supposedly have been ratified by the Central Military Committee before being transmitted to the units in the field.

Yang Shang-Kun (China's President and former chair of the Central Military Committee) and Deng Xiao Ping were unable to get a quorum of the CMC to meet and also acted illegally by using their personal connections with army commanders to get them to act.

China came very close to civil war in 1989.

The hardliners won out in large part because they made it clear that they controlled China's nuclear arsenal and were prepared to use it.

I guess why I'm going off on this lengthy tangent is that it's very easy to dismiss the PLA as a gang of thugs.

They aren't -which, if anything, makes them even more dangerous.

[Paul McEnery]

They aren't -which, if anything, makes them even more dangerous.
Well, I hate to take this out of the realm of he said she said but:

You reckon?

I could be being pollyanna about this, but I think this is okay.

[Iangould]

I think that in any conflict with the west they'd be a much more disciplined and dangerous foe than most people seem to realise.

[Charles RB]

And of course that won't happen. And of course we've just recruited another 1000 insurgents, and the Brits have just become targets. Fucking arseholes.

The provincial councils in our area want us to hand power over to them and get out. Since they have cut all communication with us and councilman can get fired for talking to British forces, we might as well. If we stick around, that's just going to draw insurgents in and turn the place into a violent mess, which nobody wants.

Let's just have the troops leave Basra & Maysan, and only go back in if the councils ask us back in.

[Wesley Dodds]

I've got a friend who not only got posted to fight in the Falklands, but got posted to patrol the six counties. As an officer. And he made damn sure nothing got out of hand on his watch.

The one thing the British had going on in Iraq is that they had his like running things, as opposed to the Abu Ghraib bullshit that the Americans have had going on. Now they don't even have that. By God, I hope they string their commanding officer up in public. And every bastard squaddie too. Shoot every last one of them in front of the Iraqis, because that's the best you can do. Jesus.

And of course that won't happen. And of course we've just recruited another 1000 insurgents, and the Brits have just become targets. Fucking arseholes.

OK, first up, I think there's a big difference of degree between the Falkland Islands and Iraq. The more chaos, the more likely things are to "get out of hand".

One thing my grandad told me about fighting in WW2 -- when they saw what the Japanese had done to Australian prisoners, the rules of war went out the window. When you sent soldiers to war, it's inevitable that some soldiers are going to do this. I'm nowhere near naive enough to think this is the only squad that's done this. I don't know how regularly it happens, but it's a fact of war.

Yes, I know the British are supposed to be different. They're not.

[Violently Apathetic]

One thing my grandad told me about fighting in WW2 -- when they saw what the Japanese had done to Australian prisoners, the rules of war went out the window. When you sent soldiers to war, it's inevitable that some soldiers are going to do this. I'm nowhere near naive enough to think this is the only squad that's done this. I don't know how regularly it happens, but it's a fact of war.

It's a fact of war so we should...?

Ignore it? Condone it? Condemn it? Throw them a parade? Rost them over coals?

[Wesley Dodds]

It's a fact of war so we should...?

Ignore it? Condone it? Condemn it? Throw them a parade? Rost them over coals?

We should condemn it, but let's not be cute about what a shock and outrage this is. No, this is the first time we had film with running audio commentary, that's all.

[Charles RB]

We should condemn it, but let's not be cute about what a shock and outrage this is.

Of course it's a shock and outrage. Every time this is done when the military is meant to be doing police action, that's a shock and outrage. I don't give a shit if they've done it before in other conflicts.

[Wesley Dodds]

Of course it's a shock and outrage. Every time this is done when the military is meant to be doing police action, that's a shock and outrage. I don't give a shit if they've done it before in other conflicts.

I think for something to be a shock and outrage it has to be at least a little unexpected. If you put a military into this kind of situation, yeah, some members of that military are going to do this stuff. It's wrong, both morally and strategically, but the reality for me is that if we're going to train people to kill, we shouldn't be surprised when they're violent.

[Charles RB]

I think for something to be a shock and outrage it has to be at least a little unexpected.

OK, not a shock then. But it's still going to be an outrage. It's not unexpected that elderly pensioners get robbed & mugged, but it's still an outrage. Troops meant to be doing police action, beating up civilians that they'd already detained and who weren't able to do anything at that point in time? That's a big damn outrage.

the reality for me is that if we're going to train people to kill, we shouldn't be surprised when they're violent.

Then maybe we're not disciplining them enough. This is not so long after a video surfaced of the Marines viciously bullying new recruits as an initiation ritual, leaving some of them killed. I don't think the Royal Marines are meant to be trained to be violent & murderous against each other. It's extremely worrying hearing the sodding PLA might be more disciplined.

[Calybos]

We only trust them with guns and tanks if they agree to follow stricter rules. That's how it works.

If they step out of line, even slightly... they get smacked down, hard and immediately. If they don't like being forced to operate under "unreasonably strict conditions that hamper our efficiency," they don't have to sign up and play with the big boom-sticks.