Torture in Iraq???

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by LadyBird, May 31, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. What's this about British Soldiers torturing Iraqi soldiers??

    Can that really be true????
     
  2. According to the Sun, "one of the images, which it did not publish, showed an Iraqi POW gagged and bound, hanging in netting from a fork-lift truck driven by a British soldier. Other snapshots allegedly depict soldiers committing sex acts near captured Iraqis.
    ."

    This is intriguing.  I can't think of any reason, other than necessity, for treating a prisoner like that.  I doubt that the RRF would get a kick out of it.  And what are these "sex acts" allegedly being carried out (and photographed) - and which the plonker with the camera thought were so innocuous that he was happy to take the film along to HappySnaps for d&p?

    It all looks like a bit like the Collins saga again.
     
  3. This could end up being a witch hunt against anyone who handled any prisoners - any hint of rough handling and watch out.  The press will make a big deal out of it whilst not realising that if you treat prisoners with a certain amount of aggressiveness they are less likely to try and give it a go.  
    One of the comments about Camp X-Ray from the yanks was that the reason they were bound up so well was because the prisoners had threatened to take the lives of the prisoner handlers.  Ok, there is some grounds for complaint under the geneva convention, but as the old saying goes, better to be judged by twelve men than carried by six.
     
  4. You can't even get your own private pics developed without some spotty teenager looking at them.

    Do the police arrest any photo journalist who happen to take a photo of Kuwaiti's being hung by Iraqi's in Gulf 1.
     
  5. No but the journalists weren't the ones doing the hanging.
    By the way don't knock the poor spotty kid in the photo shop, he needs to look at the photos to ensure that they are done properly.
    Oh and there are the fringe benefits of looking at the pics people send in of their girlfriends/wives/bit on the side posing in very little/nothing.
    (I was that spotty kid - top job!!)
     
  6. He may be a REMF who wants pay back for not being at the front and wants to satisfy his ego thinking that a few slaps and the rest make him a man, and make it up for missing the action.

    Pure conjecture but I have seen it before.

    Either way it is nothing compared to the way that they treated prisoners but in our f#ucked up culture of treating the bad guys well we will always be f#cked, we are a masochistic society.

    As for the sun backing the boys f#ck them I trust the daily Mirror and Pravda more as at least you know where you stand.

    The Sun should have said nowt until case proven but same old shite with tabloids two-faced bastards.

    Chris
     
  7. ...bizarre isn't it......the yanks hold a shed-load of people captive; bound, gagged, blind-folded without trial or legal assistance for over a year.  The Brits (allegedly) give a few POWs an incy-wincy bit of rough handling and all hell breaks loose.

    The media need to get a sense of perspective...and a fcukin life....... :mad:
     
  8. Oh and kill families at VCP's because they are scared shitless and have niet discipline.

    Chris
     

  9. incy-wincy hun? Well I'm sure you understand the difference between terrorists and enemy combatants, well I would hope you do. While I personally could care less what happened, trying to compare it to our detention center is BS. But I'm also sure you knew that too.
     
  10. ...whatever, the US' treatment of those people regardless of who or what they are is disgraceful....

    Sorry, let's get back on topic :)
     
  11. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    Isn't that dependant on who is doing the defining? You've heard the saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, I'm sure. Are you saying then that the US wouldn't have kicked up a fuss if we had bound, gagged, and sensorally deprived the "good ol' boys of the IRA" (that it must be remembered many of your countrymen/voters bankrolled through NORAID and the same terrorists given legitimate status by your former President Clinton by inviting Adams to the White House), held them on one of the deserted Orkney Islands, and denied them the right to legal due process and stopped the International Red Cross from having access to them? The "Irish American" lobby would have been up in arms about that and you know it. So no, that isn't BS, it's a good point well made! It seems that when the US goes around exporting it's version of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" it conveniently bypasses anyone that would either put up a bit of a fight (N Korea, China) or where the administration would loose votes (N Irish Republican terrorists). I recall the sweeping generalisations of Pres. Bush about his war on terror and taking out the terrorists and their supporters. By that same logic then, perhaps we should have sent over a few Tornados and Cruise Missiles to take out Boston and Chicago, 2 of the cities which donated so much money to the same Irish Republican cause that has costs the lives of so many British Soldiers and policemen?

    Also, are you telling me that the life of one human being has more value than that of another depending on whether you define him as a combatant or a terrorist? I would refer you back to the question above and ask if you are suggesting that it is ok to treat one human being differently than another because you define what he is fighting for and the methods he uses as terrorism, and another as a combatant because it is politically expedient? I don't for a second condone the murderers of Al Quaeda, but two wrongs do not make a right!

    Could a British Soldier have tortured an Iraqi? I don't know, it's possible but let's wait and see when the facts come out. Knowing our press, having got bored supporting the troops and putting them on a pedestal are going about their usual business of knocking them off again as they were happy to do with Tim Collins, meanwhile  I am sure the Guardian readers are having an onanistic frenzy and frothing at the mouth at the prospect of having something to criticise the armed forces about  :mad:
     
  12. Soldier_Why

    Soldier_Why LE Moderator

    Well put woopert.  I wholeheartedly agree that the events of the 11th were an unspeakable atrocity, but the US administration, rather than suddenly appoint themselves "global policemen" should have had a good, long, hard look at themselves and at least asked why a rather large percentage of the world's population had taken a dislike to them.

    As for the incident with the Iraqi POW, I will reserve judgement until all the facts are known.
     
  13. Once again I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being in complete agreement with woopert  ;D

    I have swung from being fairly pro US to now being almost completly anti US.

    The way that they have conducted themselves in the sandpit is a disgrace. They have shown that the majority of their forces, both land and air, deserve the "cowboy" handle that they have been landed with. the hypocrisy that is going on is unbelievable.

    After all, as woop pointed out, the spams bankrolled the most effective terrorist organisation that has ever existed, costing the lives of thousands of civilians and service / police personnel over the years and what was their answer to this? To invite the bearded b*stard adams and that smarmy fcuker mcguiness to the seat of american power for a good old chinwag :mad: Where was their "war on terrorism" then ?

    I noted a blatant "amercanism" the other day after visiting a yank site (listed on here somewhere) which listed all of the allied dead. I noticed, with blood boiling, that all of the Brits who had been killed by the fcuking spam air force cowboys were listed as being "killed by fire", whereas the Brits killed by the Chally blue on blue were blatantly listed as being killed by "British fire". The b*stards had doctored it to look like they hadn't killed any of our guys and that we were the bumbling incompetents! :mad: :mad:

    The final straw was that c0ck sucking civvie "major" having a pop at Collins just because he (the spam wannabe) couldn't grasp the concept of "orders" and "rank". But then again, being a member of the spam mil, I suppose we shouldn't expect too much. Noticed that the yank papers made a big deal about it whilst consigning all of their own amateur fcuk ups to column 5 on page 27.

    They have proven again and again that they are not worthy of the support that we give them. Until they get their heads out of their arrses and realise that the world does NOT revolve around them and that they are NOT the "moral guardians" that they have convinced themselves that they are, then I say fcuk em, let them fight their own battles. Whilst I do not condone in any way shape or form any terrorist attack against anyone, yanks included, I no longer see why the fcuk we should have to follow them around just to show them how to do it properly.

    Jobs done in Iraq now, so lets get the boys home and leave the sceptics to sort the mess out. If we leave them on their own out there, the place won't be a problem after a couple of years because by then the yanks would have killed every child, woman and man (in that order) at VCP's.

    In the mean time, I shall be waiting with baited breath for the CIA to come and snatch adams, mcguiness and co and cart them off to cuba.
     
  14. Eagle- disgraceful... ok so what would you propose we do with them?

    woopert- Yea I'm sure attacking Boston or Chicago would have served your cause well. I suppose all of those IRA boys were given 3 hots and a cot and sent home right? I didn't support the IRA nor did I ever see them as anything but terrorists, granted I was a tad young in those days.

    If a man/woman decides to become a terrorist and chooses America as his enemy, then yes to me his life isn't worth spit, nor his family or pets. If one chooses to join the Military of his country and ends up facing us on the battlefield I will give respect as it is due. I can distinguish between enemy soldiers and terrorists and I consider them different, if you don't that’s your choice.

    I don't consider those that target a civilian population to be honorable, but I don't make policy at this time so it's pretty much pointless. As for clintoon, I didn't like much of what he did, but I guess I was a minority at that time.

    ORG When were you in the "Sand Pit" ? Just figured it was important since you seem to have witnessed all of our forces at work throughout the duration of the operation.

    Do you have a link to that site ORG? There are many sites up and running, some by questionable moderation to say the least.

    Yea ORG I wouldn't hold the bar too high for the US Military, you know we're all backwoods, corn fed, hicks or inner city thugs.

    -- Well I can see that this board has become an American bashing forum like so many others on the wagon. I wish you the best in your pursuits and hope that you never have to serve along another American soldier. As well I hope none of my former soldiers have the displeasure of seeing what our "Allies" say behind their back.

    Tis a shame I'll say.

    Good Bye, and enjoy your circle jerk.
    :-X