Brits lay a beat down on Iraqi kids
 

[url:4e145]http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/armyvideo.shtml[/url:4e145]

Don't know what's worse, the beating or the comments from the guy shooting the video.
annoy:

Wow no one steps in to stop either...any world on what is going to happen to these soldiers caught on tape?

Fuck all new there, the brits are renound for this kind of shit, that kind of thing was happenning pretty regular over here not too long ago.

Gotta love the cocksucker with the camera practically orgasming over what was going on. oOo:

They're trying to beat the evilness out of them. We have to beat them to save them! calmdown:

annoy: terrible, though nothing new.

Bloody Sunday

do we know the context of the beating?

eek:

what? I want to know what happened just prior to the beating, it would be stupid to make a judgement about the situation without that information...for all we know, the boys were just shooting rockets or something.

I didn't see any rockets flying..

i do believe the teenagers were throwing stones.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=1610072


[quote:58c7d]The footage purportedly shows a street confrontation in which Iraqi youths throw objects at British soldiers and then flee down the street. [/quote:58c7d]

Yup throwing "rocks and now thers a big kick up about this like its something new. In the seventies and 80's over here this kinda thing was common place, i even seen one guy get pulled into a brit landrover because he was wearing a celtic scarf, he got a beating in the back of it and was kicked out while it was on the fucking move.

Filthy cunts. spank:

Undercover MI5 agents?

eek:

Cut yourself

[/quote:3ab95]

ok, thanks, that's all I wanted.

of course not, you weren't there.



can't get the link to work cuss:

from the the article in reference to the context:

"Troops were involved in running battles with hundreds of screaming demonstrators armed with stones, sticks, shovels and home-made grenades.

A DIY grenade lands and explodes inside the compound—blasting out shrapnel and a cloud of grey-white smoke. A fire blazes just outside the perimeter wall sending up a pall of black fumes as crowds of rioters chant abuse at the soldiers. Dozens of youths run towards the compound hurling stones, but suddenly turn on their heels—chased by a unit of squaddies in combat helmets with riot visors and desert camouflage.Some of the soldiers are wearing flak vests and are armed with batons and rifles.

A crackling radio message to the troops pinpoints a target: "Black top, blue bottoms! Black top, blue bottoms! GO!" "

I know a couple soldiers that told me stories of what iraqis would say sometimes.

"fuck you americans"
"i'm gonna rape your girlfriend"
"burn america"

I'm sure teenagers are the same everywhere. Antagonizing and belligerent little bastards. Soldiers are human. But that's not excuse for it. They should be courtmarshalled or whatever they do in brit.

well its not as if it wasnt provoked, but at the same time its not as if it was the correct manor to deal with it.

[quote="Eight Ace":903a9]of course not, you weren't there.
[/quote:903a9]

I think that is incredibly obvious... rolleyes:

[quote=Machette]I think that is incredibly obvious... rolleyes:[/quote:d01d8]
well "you didn't see rockets flying", what a ridiculous, shit-stirring comment rolleyes:

you didn't see home made explosives either but that doesn't mean they weren't being thrown

...you seem to need to have the obvious pointed out to you.

I meant in the video for crying out loud..

but you can't tell what happened before the video started rolling, what happens before the camera is turned on or out of camera view is very important.

[quote="The Article":29cb1]The beating sequence on the video, which appears to be a series of excerpts from the incident, takes up 60 seconds of the 3minute 12second tape.[/quote:29cb1]
not sure how long the actual rioting/attacks were going on for.

I think its important to note that it was sarcastic...everyone overlooked that, including me.

good, they deserve it.

[quote="Jimmy Paterson":a9ec2]good, they deserve it.[/quote:a9ec2] rolleyes: oOo:

[quote=Machette] rolleyes: oOo:[/quote:d3107]don't doubt the world known Political Scientist Jimmy McFagerson.

One soldier was jailed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/ ... index.html

But I think the cameraman's words were aweful. "Die! Ha ha ha ha"

It's life...hell school is like that...people mad at others...but if you kick the shit outta them you get suspended...throwing stones does not equal almost beaten to death.

it is like syaing if the iraqis also had a gun at their ankle and then killed the soldier it owuldn't be murder...it would be justified.

the guy who was the source of this vid agrees with you, but seems to think stones and explosives are the same thing:-

I would have thought you could expect to be shot for for throwing explosives,
home-made or otherwise, at or into military compounds...guess not.

Geneva convention means little now I guess.

[quote="Short Hand":d3f54]Geneva convention means little now I guess.[/quote:d3f54]
I'm not sure of the details of the geneva convention, what does it say
is an appropriate response for troops having explosives thrown at them?

Eight ace, I'm still puzzled by your stance on this issue. Are you okay with them beating the hell out of those iraqis? I'm just trying to get a clear outlook on your position here.

don't be puzzled, if I'd thought that I would have said so.

maybe you can answer the question I asked short:
"I'm not sure of the details of the geneva convention, what does it say
is an appropriate response for troops having explosives thrown at them?"

[quote="Eight Ace":2c815]don't be puzzled, if I'd thought that I would have said so.

maybe you can answer the question I asked short:
"I'm not sure of the details of the geneva convention, what does it say
is an appropriate response for troops having explosives thrown at them?"[/quote:2c815]

[quote:2c815]Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. [/quote:2c815]

Doesn't sound to me like the Geneva Convention applies to these Iraqi kids, however I don't proclaim to interpret this legaleze accurately.

That being said, Article 6 doesn't grant permission for the Detaining Power to kick detainees in the balls.