UK troops 'shot harmless Iraqis'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by spank_the_monkey, May 11, 2004.

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:


    UK troops have killed Iraqi civilians including an eight-year-old girl when they were under no apparent threat, Amnesty International has claimed.
    In a report, the human rights organisation claimed in "many" cases the deaths of civilians by the British military had not been investigated.

    Too late for my opinion, but '?%@*' comes to mind.
  2. Bullshi-ite!
  3. And what have Amnesty International said about the murder of the Italian that was Kidnapped ?

    <edited to add> Nothing as far as i can tell from thier site.

  4. I wonder if Amnesty have received a reply from Sadr detailing the investigative process doublessly in place in down-town Najaf into the violent assaults on coalition forces and the murder of busloads of kindergarden children in Basra.

    Has the ICRC sent an `interim' report to al Queda asking for Bin Laden to investigate the `shocking' and `humiliating' treatment dished out to Daniel Pearl or the Italian civilian shot through the head recently.

    Perhaps Zawahri could hold a press conference and explain how his `independent' investigaive authority was probing accusations that the multiple suicide bombings in Kabalah had violated the human rights and personal dignity of the 130 pilgrims torn to pieces and splattered all of the outside of a mosque.

    Amnesty and the ICRC are long past their use by date and are repeating the same accusations day after day in order to embarass the US & British governments.

    An Amnesty spokeswoman said yesterday "well we're not in Iraq on a day to day basis so we can't investigate everything ourselves, we have to rely on locals providing us with information."

    Yeah and that'll be the truth, the whole truth so help me Allah!!! Be fcuked!

    They base their claims of UK forces shooting `civilians' on local eye witnesses and completely dismiss any statements by UK forces.

    Lets face it, the anti war, anti Bush & Blair crowd are still smarting and will stop at nothing to discredit coalition governments and now coalition service personnel backed by liars like Piers Morgan.
  5. I didnt think it was the British that did that!!

    The Iraqi resistance arent an official organisation that have signed up to any conventions or agreements. Which is probably why they havent mentioned it in a report about British troops. :roll:
  6. AI ask for an independent report into the shootings, I say fine let them ask! But it will be as usual, they will believe the locals rather than us as we are the armed aggressors.

    A fine tactic of insurgents/terrorists is to hide behind local civ pop and then let rip, hide and let the civ pop take the casualties. This will then lead the finger to be pointed at the soldier(s) as the guilty party for shooting at innocent civilians (memories of NI here!).

    After all, surely AI don't have a hidden agenda to discredit us surely?
  7. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    A few years ago I had some respect for AI, who supported political prisoners by the rather gentle tactic of writing letters to support them, and by sensibly and quietly lobbying governments for their release.

    However, they now seem to have been taken over by extreme lefty hand-wringers.

    Their website includes listings of stuff they're involved in. It includes the UK government's 'shameful' failure to establish an immediate public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane, who was apparently a 'human rights' lawyer. First time I've heard PIRA called a human rights organisation.

    They call the measures taken by the UK to combat terrorism an 'aberration of justice'.

    They think there was 'institutional acquiesence' on the part of the Army in the alleged rape of Kenyan women.

    In all cases, they rely upon hearing only one side of the story to reach their conclusion. Oddly, most of the victims of the alleged abuse of rights are acsking for compensation, so we can be sure they have no interest in talking up their stories.

    Why should the government or the military be accountable to a charity, just because it bleats loudly?
  8. Now this, people, is utter naivety on the part of AI. Is it just me, or is firing your gun in the air during a wedding (as in the case of the 22 year old allegedy killed by our guys) in an area patrolled by the military a little stupid? The case of this poor 8 year old girl is definately an accident - how can they accuse anybody of deliberately shooting a child?
  9. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    They could start with the Serbs, the Croatians, or in Uganda, Rwanda, Cambodia, Liberia etc. etc.

    Then there's Israel, a 'civilised' country whose military regularly kills children.

    A 7 year old child was shot dead in London recently, in some sort of Jamaican drug war, after social workers had failed to look after her adequately. Presumably AI didn't think being abandoned to drug dealers by the local council infringed her human rights, because they have been completely silent on the issue.
  10. I agree with your point, Viro. Is it just me or do 'charities' such as AI go for the jugular on countries like the UK a lot more than they do with groups like the Serbs (although they do condemn third world types as well) because we are an easier target due to a sceptical media.
  11. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    We are an easy target for groups like AI, for several reasons. We have a sceptical media, as STABITD says. We have a government who try to please everyone and will start hugely expensive public inquiries at the drop of a hat to improve their own ratings with minority groups. Lastly, we do not respond to criticism by sending round the Albanian/Serb/Croat/Russian/Chechen mafia, the Yardies or the Mujahideen.
  12. HLS

    HLS Old-Salt

  13. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Just scanned the AI report. It relies heavily on the testimony of the locals, and generally appears biased in their favour - where the military account of a situation disagrees with that of the locals, AI seem always to believe the locals. Interestingly, whilst AI's interest is in the principle of the protection of human rights, the interest of the locals is in securing compensation, but AI do not acknowledge that this could result in 'embroidery' of statements.

    AI do not comment on whether any of their reporting staff have ever served in the military, or have ever had to take snap decisions. Nor do they comment on the wisdom of trying to apply Western standards to what is effectively a medieval Arabic culture.

    Though I looked very hard, I was unable to find any reference to the killing of Coalition personnel by Iraqis. Odd, that.
  14. It would be a shame to get overly defensive because of the faked mirror pictures that coincide with the spam jail abuse and a couple of incidents under investigation over here.

    If there are any events that AI or anyone else for that matter consider worthy of investigation let them probe. Maybe even some lessons can be learned all round.

    Transparency is not the enemy.
  15. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    You are right, OG, but we must also maintain a healthy index of suspicion regarding groups who seem to have a vested interest in anti-military stories, and a history of reporting incidents which subsequently prove to be groundless.