# The world is mad.



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

We are now going to investigate what the security services do and it's "our" fault once someone was in another country half was around the world he was "allegedly" tortured.

As for the Americans soldiers urinating on dead Taliban terrorist, does that not come second to killing them!
At the end of the day they were confirmed terrorist who are killing people, not sympathy from me. 
Pull all the press out and remove the rules of engagements that are in place and contributing to the deaths of our service men or just pack up and leave. its not winnable as is.

I don't see the terrorist following the rules...


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

You, sir, are wrong. The last time I checked American soldiers don't necessarily "confirm" that someone is a terrorist before shooting them, let alone checking that they are Taliban and then checking what their contribution is. Anyone dead still deserves dignity. Here's a notable example where you can blatantly see folks who are unarmed even.





You've obviously also never heard of extraordinary rendition. It's torture by the back door by countries that claim not to practice torture, condemn it, but are happy to use regimes that use it when it suits. So yes, our security services are potentially responsible if they send a person to a country where it is likely that they will be tortured or where they know that they will be. It's also against the UN Convention Against Torture.

How many of the million Iraqi civlians who have died directly or indirectly (such as through sanctions) do you think were terrorists? Just wondering.

Try some of the information you DON'T get from the mainstream media. Here's a taster.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

shocking videos !!


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Totally shocking videos. Especially the child


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I guess none of you have picked up a weapon and served....
Its a war, happy with the bombs in london and the planes in newyork?

As for dignity, what do you think they do to soldiers both before and after death?
WWII would be unwinnable now with all the media coverage.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Toshiba said:


> I guess none of you have picked up a weapon and served....
> Its a war, happy with the bombs in london and the planes in newyork?
> 
> As for dignity, what do you think they do to soldiers both before and after death?
> WWII would be unwinnable now with all the media coverage.


i for one can see both sides of this debate as i have friends who have served in the regiment and they certainly didnt get any geneva convention when caught in iraq!!! on the other hand as i sit here and have seen those vids i am appaled by it......but i havn't worn the shoes of the guys that never know if today is the day that they will die frim a bomb or sniper bullet......or some stranger that asks for a light and then kills you and your mates to prove a point.

war is war and things go on that many soldiers may not be proud of, but it had to be done to show them and prove a point that yes we do abide by a set of rules but push us and we will retaliate.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Toshiba said:


> I guess none of you have picked up a weapon and served....
> Its a war, happy with the bombs in london and the planes in newyork?
> 
> As for dignity, what do you think they do to soldiers both before and after death?
> WWII would be unwinnable now with all the media coverage.


and yet these actions will ensure that hatred grows and the militants can continue to recruit; as increased anti west feelings are once again inflamed; so even more for our brave lads to contend with. Thankfully no I havent had to pick a rifle up and I thank god for those that have to in our name. I have counselled a war veteran suffering from PTSD; they are as much victims as the dead children being dug out of that building; most don't join to go killing other people and expecially not women and children (although they know thats a risk), they join because they want a career doing something a bit different and jobs are hard to come by at home. It isnt them I blame, its the systems that put them there, under the banner of freedom; and yet there are so many conflicts that we dont get involved in - no oil to be had there though.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Toshiba said:


> We are now going to investigate what the security services do and it's "our" fault once someone was in another country half was around the world he was "allegedly" tortured.
> 
> As for the Americans soldiers urinating on dead Taliban terrorist, does that not come second to killing them!
> At the end of the day they were confirmed terrorist who are killing people, not sympathy from me.
> ...


What's wrong with accountability? You want terrorists to be accountable for their actions, right? and criminals and politicians and a whole host of other people so how is this different?
If you wish to believe that we were/are on some moral altruistic crusade then fine but that cuts both ways.


----------



## T7 Doc (Jun 28, 2007)

Bung said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > We are now going to investigate what the security services do and it's "our" fault once someone was in another country half was around the world he was "allegedly" tortured.
> ...


Don't normally get involved in idiotic debates. Tosh pissing on dead people? FFS wise up lad

British and American forces have a history of disgrace on these islands and abroad. You can use the "war" argument all day long but let's not be igorant. They are disgusting pigs for doing what they did. It's not war it's rape of another country and it's people. Pissing on them? Disgusting bastards.

And to conclude with "I don't see terrorists following the rules" - isn't that the point?? Aren't these so called Soilders supposed to take the moral high ground when following orders from the more senior pigs?


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Erm... reality check. Troops in theatres of war like that are under emotional torture every day of their tour. Pissing on dead bodies isn't very clever or particularly nice, but it pales into insignificance compared to cutting off the head of a live screaming human being with what is the equivalent of a fairly blunt dinner knife! I can't comprehend how anyone could do that let alone video the proceedings.

I love how we're so judgemental from the comfort of our armchairs and applauding the boy scout set of rules hampering our lads out there fighting an enemy who doesn't abide by any rules at all.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Surely it's the rules that sets us (our forces) and them apart. I don't blame the soldiers, I blame the fookers who sent them there under the pretence of morality but the reality of oil; the vast majority if our forces don't act in that way though do they? What fantastic constraint they show.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

BrianR said:


> Surely it's the rules that sets us (our forces) and them apart.


I don't think so - we're nothing at all like them and don't need any rules to set us apart from them. They're a brutal organisation who wish to rule by terror and with no respect for human life. We're nothing at all like them. We don't expect our troops to be politicians, we expect them to go out there - function while being shit scared every day and die if necessary. Now and again they're going to fook up and make mistakes - it's the nature of war, but it won't be deliberate calculated terroriism by a bunch of religious maniacs twisting their religious doctrine to suit their own ends.

Pissing on dead bodies is dumb and even dumber to be photographed doing it - but rest assured the press will be there when they do to make the most of it. :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

We're not talking about rules, we're talking about oversight. If we as a people believe that torturing people is so wrong that it's never justifiable*, and we can't trust our (or our allies) military not to use it, then we need to have some means to investigate independently.

*As far as I can tell, the only people who don't believe this have also spent way too much time masturbating to episodes of 24.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.

The usual suspects have pipped up spouting their normal PC crap with only a couple of people having a clue what's going on and the pressures your serviceman or woman is under out there.

I have reservations why we are out there now but you follow orders plain and simple or everything goes to pot
and then you would see far more death and carnage.

Keep posting your "shocking"' media videos and righteous crap you and your kind make me sick.

I won't come to this thread again because no don't it will be full of smart ass wordy crap by people who have no idea of just what goes on in war and it is a war.

Thank you to the few for the words of support.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

jamman said:


> Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.
> 
> The usual suspects have pipped up spouting their normal PC crap with only a couple of people having a clue what's going on and the pressures your serviceman or woman is under out there.
> 
> ...


James.......never realised you were ex forces bud (hat off and i bow low) to any ex-forces guys i meet in life. i as said have never walked the walk and only know guys closely that have from falklands to iraq & afghanistan at present. i hear your words & will keep it shut as an outsider with bugger all to contribute m8ee. thanks for all gazz xxx


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.
> ...


+1


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

jamman said:


> Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.
> 
> The usual suspects have pipped up spouting their normal PC crap with only a couple of people having a clue what's going on and the pressures your serviceman or woman is under out there.
> 
> ...


Well said mate


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

jamman said:


> Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.
> 
> The usual suspects have pipped up spouting their normal PC crap with only a couple of people having a clue what's going on and the pressures your serviceman or woman is under out there.
> 
> ...


Thank you, James. I agree 100%.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

igotone said:


> Erm... reality check. Troops in theatres of war like that are under emotional torture every day of their tour. Pissing on dead bodies isn't very clever or particularly nice, but it pales into insignificance compared to cutting off the head of a live screaming human being with what is the equivalent of a fairly blunt dinner knife! I can't comprehend how anyone could do that let alone video the proceedings.
> 
> I love how we're so judgemental from the comfort of our armchairs and applauding the boy scout set of rules hampering our lads out there fighting an enemy who doesn't abide by any rules at all.


+1


----------



## Chubster (Feb 14, 2011)

jamman said:


> Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.
> 
> The usual suspects have pipped up spouting their normal PC crap with only a couple of people having a clue what's going on and the pressures your serviceman or woman is under out there.
> 
> ...


Amen....

To many hand wringing "right on mmkay" do-gooders around these days worrying about "rights".
I just wrote a cheque for 10k so that makes it 50k+ my mum has spent on care home fees since having her stroke,so basically you work all your life and get fuck all.
BUT stroll off a fucking ferry or be a tired c*** and you get it all on a fucking plate,disgusting is a word that springs to mind.
Relating to the topic we get our Forces getting fuck all...no support,no equipment,etc but we pay "damages" to terrorists or let them out on bail while we extradite business men to the US.
We are even giving funds to Argentina ffs,country is totally fucked and will never recover unless that shite Cameron pulls his fucking finger out and stops pissing around trying to be Statesman Blair Mk2.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Is it ok to be upset about this as well  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17288766


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Yes.

And I hadn't noticed your earlier post, so I'll answer it now since your causticity is obviously aimed at one of mine:


jamman said:


> Unless you have been there you have absolutely no idea what it's like out there, I served 9 years and witnessed some heartbreaking scenes.


I believe you did. I have no reason not to. I don't think anyone is pretending that such scenes do not occur, but the simple fact is in any conflict is that such scenes happen on both sides, and improper action happens on both sides also. You seem to think there is something wrong with drawing attention to inappropriate behaviour by troops that are against "them". Perhaps you think there is something to be gained by shooting civilians, but it's probable that actions like that just fuel the problem and make the war last longer. Perhaps you could have come home sooner and seen fewer distressing scenes if things like that hadn't happened.



jamman said:


> Keep posting your "shocking"' media videos and righteous crap; you and your kind make me sick.


Getting a little righteous yourself, aren't you? Nobody is denying that bad things happen to British and American servicemen, and it's nice of you to admit that you have your reservations as to why our countries are involved. However, whilst you may slate media which doesn't agree with your own views, I think you might agree that actually it probably serves everyone's perception of war if the realities of both sides are shown rather than the highly slanted and propagandistic reporting that we are sometimes treated to. Remember Colin Powell's "proof" of WMDs in Iraq or any of the other falsehoods disseminated about the case for going to war with Iraq? This isn't PC crap, principally because I'm not one for PC crap - it's a simple need for accurate reporting which doesn't generally occur in mainstream media. Tosh was showing a rather one-sided and myopic view of things, resulting in a snap judgment.



> I won't come to this thread again because no don't it will be full of smart ass wordy crap by people who have no idea of just what goes on in war and it is a war.


Don't forget that it was smart arse wordy crap repeated without real question by the media that convinced a nation that we only 45 minutes notice before the non-existant weapons hit and that these wars were a good idea in the first place.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Today's tragedy of more young lads not coming home to their families, I can't imagine what they must be going through right now, mothers without sons, wives without husbands and children without fathers. The world is indeed completely fucking mad and these brave lads are paying the price for that.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> And I hadn't noticed your earlier post, so I'll answer it now since your causticity is obviously aimed at one of mine


It's pointless trying to argue. The fact is, a large percentage of people in this country would rather 100 innocent Afghan civilians were killed than one British soldier so they'll never see the point in rules which protect those innocent people, or understand why we should investigate their deaths.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ScoobyTT said:


> it's a simple need for accurate reporting which doesn't generally occur in mainstream media. Tosh was showing a rather one-sided and myopic view of things, resulting in a snap judgment.


The reporting is giving aid and comfort to the very people we are trying to remove. As a former serviceman i can tell you there is nothing that impacts the moral of the service people more than this type of stuff. They didn't ask to be doing what we are tasking them to do, regardless of if we actually agree or disagree with the politics of it. Let me give you a little insight, when you arrive in theater you have to go through hours of rules of engagement sensitivity training and other so called PC crap - the other side doesn't have a checklist to perform before acting against you. The general public then gets to morally judged them via the press for every and any action taken. So, putting it really simply, we either remove the press and the BS around them and give the troops the freedom and support to execute the mission at hand, or just get out. Yes, crap happens, but you cant begin to image the stress and mental pressure people are under - this kinda of stuff doesn't makes sense sat in a nice safe comfy arm chair.

I'm sure a few will understand what this all means, but think of it this way, i cant really put it any simpler. Why do you think all the hospitals and schools are next to so called military targets... Wars are now won and lost based on whats seen on CNN/SKY.

Do we now go into Syria - because the press says we should?
Problem is people power "ask" us to help, then call us conquers.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Toshiba said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > it's a simple need for accurate reporting which doesn't generally occur in mainstream media. Tosh was showing a rather one-sided and myopic view of things, resulting in a snap judgment.
> ...


well said Tosh!!!! personally i would pull all troops out as the locals have ever only played nice guys to whoever is in control at the time.........fence sitting must be painfull :?


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

Although I have never served in the armed forces I have the greatest respect for all of them regardless of regiment or service. I have worked with and spoken to many ex forces personnel over the years and read many books, 2 of which I can highly recommend -

ATTACK STATE RED - Sunday Times Bestseller by Colonel Richard Kemp. This book covers a tour of duty by the Royal Anglians in Helmund Province and is a no holds barred account.

SNIPER ONE - by Sgt Dan Mills, is another no holds barred account of a British battle group under siege in Iraq.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> The reporting is giving aid and comfort to the very people we are trying to remove.


If you'd like the media to be more one-sided, agenda-driven and slanted such a "service" already exists. It's called Fox News.



Toshiba said:


> The general public then gets to morally judged them via the press for every and any action taken. So, putting it really simply, we either remove the press and the BS around them and give the troops the freedom and support to execute the mission at hand, or just get out.


Isn't the mission at hand to just sort out the mess that was created by going in the first place?



Toshiba said:


> Wars are now won and lost based on whats seen on CNN/SKY.


I disagree. Wars are won and lost based on what happens on the ground. What usally happens with wars goes something like this (it happens time and time again if you look at the historical record):
1) Create and overinflate a threat,
2) Whip up support for war as moral and just,
3) Provide one-sided coverage of the conflict, 
4) The war gets bogged down (_despite _what is seen and said on CNN) and the media hyperbole ceases to be functional,
5) The public cottons on to the fact that they were duped, again.
6) Wait a few years. Rinse. Repeat.



Toshiba said:


> Do we now go into Syria - because the press says we should?
> Problem is people power "ask" us to help, then call us conquerers.


Well that is unfair when that happens, but people who pin that on the servicemen are missing the point somewhat. The irony is that if the media you also seem to object to in certain contexts were as effective at informing people of broader issues and questioning the pretexts that are supposed to be sold to the public, as they are at lazily running through steps 1 and 2 above, then there might be sufficiently less public support for missold conflicts that servicemen wouldn't need to be in whatever theatre it happens to be.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > it's a simple need for accurate reporting which doesn't generally occur in mainstream media. Tosh was showing a rather one-sided and myopic view of things, resulting in a snap judgment.
> ...


Rules of engagement have been around almost as long as there have been wars. Modern media just allows us to see more than we used to. Of course the enemy will make use of these rules but that doesn't mean we should just throw them out the window and risk bombing a school so we can hit our target. If you think that's acceptable, why not just carpet bomb the entire country?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> If you'd like the media to be more one-sided, agenda-driven and slanted such a "service" already exists. It's called Fox News.


Which is owned by Sky which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

I hope Sky loses its licence then maybe we can get back to some kind of media sensibility.

(Plus F1 might come back to BBC1) :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > If you'd like the media to be more one-sided, agenda-driven and slanted such a "service" already exists. It's called Fox News.
> ...


Sky don't own Fox News and News Corp only owns 39.1% of Sky.

If Skys license was genuinely threatened (which isn't going to happen) due to it's association with News Corp, then they would just do whatever was necessary to save themselves (probably by reducing NCs stake). Regardless of what you think of Sky (based, it seems, purely on Murdochs involvement), most of their subscribers wouldn't want them to be taken off the air, and the government wouldn't want to make thousands of people unemployed.

And why would F1 come back to the BBC? The BBC dropped it because they're having to make cutbacks - they can't broadcast everything. Imagining that Sky are the cause of all the BBCs problems might make the media world nice and easy to understand for you, but it's simply not true.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > ScoobyTT said:
> ...


Okay Spandy I bow to your superior knowledge on what Rupert Murdoch owns and what he doesn't. It's probably all a web of deceit to maximise the tax advantages anyway so it is largely irrelevant.

My personal experience of Sky is not a good one, but that too is largely irrelevant.

I do dislike Murdoch, or to clarify, what Murdoch stands for. I also believe he has a rather simplistic attitude to morals when it comes to news gathering and I certainly think he is a liar. His code of ethics runs through the veins of Sky and for that reason I choose not to subscribe to it.

Regarding F1, that was just a flippant remark made to lighten an otherwise 'heavy' topic. I am fully aware of the reasons why the BBC made the decision about ceasing coverage. It's a shame because I thought it was the best seen in recent years. ITV was crap and Sky before it likewise. I hope they make a better hash of it this time. With Martin Brundle at the helm the signs are promising. Let's hope he doesn't get corralled into dumbing it down so the average Sky viewer can understand it. :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Spandex said:


> Rules of engagement have been around almost as long as there have been wars. Modern media just allows us to see more than we used to. Of course the enemy will make use of these rules but that doesn't mean we should just throw them out the window and risk bombing a school so we can hit our target. If you think that's acceptable, why not just carpet bomb the entire country?


As above, why do you think so many "targets" are located near schools and hospitals? 
Maybe we should strap little children to the fronts and backs of our soldiers? Or maybe make them walk 10 paces in front of the patrols - lets play the media game too?

The term you are searching for is "area" bombing and it worked well in the 40s I'm told... good old bomber Harris..but i didn't advocate anything like that, I also dont recall much selectivity being used on 9/11 or 7/7....and many more i could name.
Would these be rules of engagement "YOU" talk about be the same ones that led to mass genocide in serbia? bosbia? iraq? serria leone?

Define the mission and leave the troops to get on with it, or pull out. We certainly shouldn't use a moral compass borrowed from the press to set a path of righteous. When was the last time the press reported anything noteworthy or positive?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> As above, why do you think so many "targets" are located near schools and hospitals?
> Maybe we should strap little children to the fronts and backs of our soldiers? Or maybe make them walk 10 paces in front of the patrols - lets play the media game too?


I know exactly why so many targets are located near schools and hospitals. That doesn't mean we just go ahead and have a bash at bombing them anyway. Sometimes you have to accept that you're not able to complete 'the mission' because of the risk of civilian casualties.



Toshiba said:


> The term you want is "area" bombing and it worked well in the 40s I'm told... good old bomber Harris..but i didn't advocate anything like that, I also dont recall much selectivity being used on 9/11 or 7/7....and many more i could name.


Why is it people always say ludicrous things like "well, I don't see the terrorists being selective" when it's suggested that our troops should be?? Are you really holding them up as an example of how we should behave? Should the enemy's morals have even the tiniest influence on the standards we hold our armed forces to?? What the Taliban see as right or wrong is completely irrelevant when making a decision on what *we* see as right or wrong.


Toshiba said:


> Would these be rules of engagement that led to mass genocide in serbia? bosbia? iraq? serria leone?


The rules of engagement didn't 'lead' to mass genocide anywhere (unless your grasp of causation is a bit sketchy). It restricted certain actions which may or may not have prevented mass killings, but that alone isn't a reason not to have rules of engagement.


Toshiba said:


> Define the mission and leave the troops to get on with it, or pull out. We certainly shouldn't use a moral compass borrowed from the press to set a path of righteous. When was the last time the press reported anything noteworthy or positive?


The mission is more than just a target. If a missions objective is to kill the enemy but only if you can guarantee no civilian deaths then there's an accepted possibility that you won't be able to kill anyone. As for the media's role, I've seen loads of very positive reports on the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of the negative ones seem to involve the US troops.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Interesting that no one has commented on the US sargeant who slips out of camp late at night and blows away 16 people including 9 children in Afghanistan, yet one more example of why we do need accountability over there. A nutcase with a gun irrespective of what country he's from or for what side or cause he is fighting is still a nutcase with a gun.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Bung said:


> Interesting that no one has commented on the US sargeant who slips out of camp late at night and blows away 16 people including 9 children in Afghanistan, yet one more example of why we do need accountability over there. A nutcase with a gun irrespective of what country he's from or for what side or cause he is fighting is still a nutcase with a gun.


agreed Bung, so why do we enter into conflicts where we have to play by one set of rules and the other side have no rules?
to me it is simple economics and what is beneficial for the future to the economy of a country.......hence nothing in syria despite full on genocide by the government. i am sure however that certain things are going on in the background us mere mortals know bugger all about at the present time........will come out on CNN or a documentary in a year or so.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> agreed Bung, so why do we enter into conflicts where we have to play by one set of rules and the other side have no rules?
> to me it is simple economics and what is beneficial for the future to the economy of a country.......hence nothing in syria despite full on genocide by the government. i am sure however that certain things are going on in the background us mere mortals know bugger all about at the present time........will come out on CNN or a documentary in a year or so.


They have rules, just different ones to us. If politicians, aristocrats and general wealthy people's sons died more the rules would change very quickly. There is this absurd pretence that the government and by extension the country really cares about fallen soldiers. They only care enough to serve their own ends and they certainly care very little about live soldiers who return and need support in one way or another.

The problem for me isn't whether or not we get to play by the same rules as our opponents but more a question of why oh why do we continue to believe the absolute bullshit they tell us to justify conflicts?

Step 1. Identify your enemy as the supreme evil on the planet
Step 2. Alert your populace that they are in grave danger from said evil and must act before supreme evil kills them all.
Step 3.Call anyone who disagrees with the war unpatriotic and ignorant
Step 4. Go to war only to find a few years down the line that the so called supreme evil isn't any worse than a lot of countries leaders that we will happily do business with and ignore what they do to their own people as long as we're making money from it, just keep shifting the goalposts as to why we went to war in the first place so in the end no one really knows.
Step 5. Rinse and repeat


----------

