But what amazes me - and it comes through loud and clear in this thread, is how in this "modern" age to coin a Watchtower phrase, war is supposed to be so politically correct. At the end of the day, war is about killing people. The newspapers are constantly looking for scandal every day and seem to have forgotten what war is all about. In the UK, to defend yourself, you are only allowed to use "appropriate force". In war, you only defeat your enemy by using "inappropriate force". I'm not condoning humiliating your enemy and torture, but just in general, I'm making the point that you can't have a holy war, it's taking lives at the end of the day.
UK Daily Mirror Editor Sacked for Printing Faked Iraqi Abuse Photos
by Yizuman 40 Replies latest social current
-
-
Simon
Yes, but you are only supposed to kill "the enemy" and not civilians. This is expecially important when you are an occupying force supposedly trying to liberate and not just conquer.
When the opposition is no longer a threat then it is wrong to kill them. This is why shots of the unarmed and wounded Iraqi fighter being shot at by US troops to whoops and high-fives is disgusting and amounts to murder. It's why the British troops in the Falklands rushed to pick up and save the life of a shot-down Argentinian pilot even though he had just bombed one of the ships. At 11:55 he was the enemy being shot at and at 12:05 he was being treated for his wounds.
Such is the madness of war but it is vital to remain civilised even when doing a job that may require killing as otherwise you become no worse that the opponent that you are condemning. (and if there isn't a reason for fighting them then why are you fighting them?)
-
Simon
BTW: Some soldiers have been arrested over faking these pictures. The story seems to be that they are not pictures of actual abuse but re-enactments of actual abuse that took place.
-
Pleasuredome
mike,
my reply was concerning DH's comment that british army had been proved to have higher standards just because the pics were fake.
-
Proud Witness
The story seems to be that they are not pictures of actual abuse but re-enactments of actual abuse that took place.
It seems? Really?
Do you have proof for these comments, or are you just making them up to back up your own agenda on the war?
-
Simon
I'm going off all the reports that have been on every news channel and in every newspaper and discussed in parliment and in press conferences since the pictures came out.
Is that proof enough for you? TROLL
-
Proud Witness
wow, every one huh?
Can you please state a couple that speak of this so-called 're-inactment'?
Sources please.
-
Simon
I don't know what point you think you have but here is proof to shut you up:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/05/03731045-8104-49a9-9e8a-94beea0323bf.html
The "Daily Mirror's" editor in chief, Piers Morgan, has since changed his claim the photographs were authentic, now saying they "accurately illustrate" the mistreatment documented in Iraq. The British unit named in the "Mirror" story has demanded a public apology from the paper.
-
Curious Mind
Actually to me the photos of the brit troops are not really abuse ,a cover man holding his rifle to the head of a prisoner while he is being processed is not illegal and the level of force used is directly related to the level of resistance, what is abuse however is urinating on the man.
-
Simon
There are reports somewhere that this isn't real even in the staged photos (something to do with the shadows / waterbottles or something like that).
I think the important issue is "has abuse like that gone on" rather than "is that a genuine photo of abuse". Otherwise just destroying the photo solves the problem doesn't it or suggests that without a photo there isnt a problem.