News of the World

[Guest sandpipper]

I've come into this late but I'll chip in!

 

One - most of us think we'd be patriotic enough to do military service, but if I was given the choice I'd (being honest) personally dodge it. Therefore anyone that is prepared to travel across the world, putting themselves in the line of fire (or worse) to do their duty ultimately has nothing but my respect (you can question the need for war, but you cannot blame a soldier for following orders).

 

Two - these guys are taken away from their families for long periods of time and many may have seen their comrades or even iraqi civiliians who have been victims of insurgent attacks/terrorism etc. Mentally their definition of right and wrong might differ to ours when we have only edited CNN clips to go by.

 

Three - groups of lads go out in the UK every Friday/Saturday and give regular beatings to people whether they deserve it or not (i.e. drink related violence). Putting a group of squaddies together, retaliating against a potential attack, with all the pressure they are under THEN you have to question whether they have commited a huge crime (in comparison). The irony is the binge drinkers get a warning and a £70 fine, and the squaddie gets 2yrs (it should be the other way around).

You cannot condone violence really, but unless you've been and experienced what they have (I haven't) I don't think we can condone their actions either. I personally don't agree with the entire war thing, and don't agree our lads should still be there, but the one thing they should have is the entire nations support AND that of the media whilst they are!

Thankyou saves from me saying it

[corydoras]

...the paper should have contacted the authorities before going to press...

I thought that we were in Iraq to support a free press, amongst other things?

[Scotty T]

ah well that makes it all OK then . Its not very hard to see why Iran is desperate to get their nucular weapons prog underway.

 

Yoxer, you've contributed jack all to this thread, apart from a few sarcastic, non constructive one liners. Why, in your valued opinion are Iran desperate to get their nuclear 'weapons' program underway.

 

Why don't you cut the crap, if you've got something to say, then say it. If not put a sock in it.

 

Scotty

Edited February 17, 2006 by Scotty T

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

War is not clean, and people need to appreciate that, and also it cannot ever be entirely premeditated.

 

We ALL react to danger or potential danger, and a soldiers method is arguably going to involve more violence than say mine. Also the perception on 'level of violence' is different for a soldier since they are taught to kill (hence a bit of a beating is mild in comparison).

 

I don't think unless you've been there and gone through the same series of events you -deserve- to criticise them. By all means give them support, but condoning a man for earning a living for defending his country is pretty low - Bear in mind, if we didn't have troops (and lets not fool ourselves, we have killed unarmed combatants in all wars including WWI WWII and even the falklands), this country would not be as it is today.

 

If you oppose the war in Iraq (which is a different question) the buck stops with Tony Blair and Labour, which is a problem the newspapers could easily deal with if they really wanted to!!!!!

[Chris Goddard]

"you must realise that our troops are in no more danger showing those pics they were in danger since they first stepped over the border in an illegal war."

 

 

Personally I think they(The squaddies) did exactly the right thing. I would like the same punishment handed out in the UK.

 

I would also love to see the person who sold the tape get EXACTLY the same!!

 

BUT what I can't understand is the above passage from our one and only???? Where are you getting your info from Chesters??

 

Fraid to say that is just MORE propaganda I fear!! And one of the reasons..... nay the ONLY bloody reason I am moving lock stock and barrel to France!!

 

"Why are you moving Chris" I am being asked more and more!! Take a look at the papers, outside your front door etc., etc. Is my answer!!

[chesters1]

"you must realise that our troops are in no more danger showing those pics they were in danger since they first stepped over the border in an illegal war."

 

mostly because the newspapers (and thats what were referring to as the thread stated)here showed nothing but blotchy stills and i doupt because of its female interest its available in downtown bahgdad,the main culprit for world wide showing was the television with continual reruns which was picked up in foreign news programs!

 

before we stepped into iraq there were no "insurgants" or "terrorists" only saddam and his henchmen.

 

we took out saddam and opened pandora's box ,the resistance in iraq is determined to kill as many foreign invaders as it can so a few pictures (in a far off country and unseen and probably unheard of)can hardly make them more determined they want us (as in the occupying forces) out anyway.

 

i choose the word resistance with care knowing full well that a majority of us would act in the same way if thousands of foreign troops landed here and took control and imprisoned the government (although i may help them in this case)

 

so the news of the world had no effect in increasing risk in iraq as we were in risk as soon as the troops went over the border.

 

i am also aware if labour gets its all encompassing "glorifying terrorism" clause through i could be arrested because i called iraqi's fighting the troops "resistance" rather than "terrorists" but ofcourse the "terrorists" are the making of the governments in the first place so bugger them

 

if you read my posts instead of cherry picking it you will see i had sympathy in the ACTIONS of the troops but called both the troops and the photographer idiots because they were too stupid to do it out of sight

 

so that brings us back to the pictures them selves ,remember the uproar when american troops were paraded infront of cameras ,we have done exactly the same before and after .

no problem with showing iraqi's attacking troops (remember the uproar over the mob attack on the armoured vehicles)

but strangly you want pictures censored that show us in a bad light if you dont want to see them close your eyes at least bad things wont be happening on both sides in your blinkered life.

Edited February 17, 2006 by chesters1

[yoxer]

"Why don't you cut the crap, if you've got something to say, then say it. If not put a sock in it.

 

Scotty"

 

Because its obvious to all capable of thinking why Iran would wish to develope their Nucular weapons programme and for those that cant think why any explanation would probably be a total waste of time in the explanation . So Scotty do you think it would be a wise move for Iran should develope their weapons and if not why not ?

[chesters1]

iran can develop any nuclear things it wishes (its perfectly legel) only nuclear weapons are "outlawed" (easy to get round if they leave the nuclear prolifferation pact) i think their oil reserves are less than there letting on and making preperations (seeing its their only income they wont want to use it themselves) .

there is just as much "evidence" on the iran weapon front as here was in iraq its a slow wind up to war by america using the fear element to justify it ,if i were iran i would publically say i have them ,develop them as quick as possible and stand up to america knowing full well they dont attack anyone that can fight back (take india ,pakistan ((bad guys)) china ((errr ignore the human abuse)) and korea ((bad guys)) isreal is ok just turn a blind eye) america is a bully and only takes on countries far from able to defend themselves (look out britain) we have nukes but in reality these are under full american control even worse they could be used on us

Edited February 17, 2006 by chesters1

[Dan]

"Why don't you cut the crap, if you've got something to say, then say it. If not put a sock in it.

 

Scotty"

 

Because its obvious to all capable of thinking why Iran would wish to develope their Nucular weapons programme and for those that cant think why any explanation would probably be a total waste of time in the explanation . So Scotty do you think it would be a wise move for Iran should develope their weapons and if not why not ?

 

 

I understood you Yoxer if Scotty didnt! Lighten up Scotty we are not at war with each other!

 

Chesters I think in principle I agree with you again. I would just repeat that with freedom comes responsibility, just as if you slag someone off in the press you have to be aware that they may sue for slander etc. Every action has a consequence and it is a judgement about what is in the public interest. It most certainly is in the public interest to know if our troops are doing their job properly, in my opinion the motives of the press were about circulation and were not so concerned about the consequences of their actions.

 

If the film is genuine and soldiers filmed were punished would it still be in the public interest to publish the pictures and put not only our soldiers but the Iraqi public at further risk. Do we want to see a photo over misdeameour of our troops, I doubt it just as long as we know that this is not officially sanctioned and is the exception not the rule.

 

One last point the insurgents as mentioned above are not only about killing infidels but also any Islamists that do not form to their particular brand of Islam.

 

Oh and just in case any one is wondering we dont have freedom of the press in the UK, we just have more freedom than some others. We have the Official secrets act, Data protection act, privacy laws, slander/libel laws and whole host more, so no high horses please!

 

dan

Edited February 17, 2006 by Dan

[chesters1]

One last point the insurgents as mentioned above are not only about killing infidels but also any Islamists that do not form to their particular brand of Islam.

 

thats what we get for removing saddam.

note the most people killed by moslems is moslems ,that will carry on whether were there or not ,in iraq its directly blamed on us being there in the rest of the world they will carry on without our "help"

 

saddam may have been a bastard but the only way to control 3 countries and 3 religeons rolled into one is to come down hard at the first sign of unrest ,we took out saddam and once were gone civil war will reign untill those countries are seperate again as they were before the west (britain mostly) put them into this mess in the first place.

 

the taliban were the same ,hard bastards who came down hard on the blood thirsty tyrants that were in power ,yes they took the country back a hundred years but we went in because they (in my eyes) blew up a couple of irreplaceable statues.now weve "freed" them of the taliban our bloodthirsty murderers are our best friends and (unlike under the taliban) drugs are cheap for our kids to buy on the street.

 

as with saddam the taliban were backed by the west with money training and weapons,strange how the west changes sides so much and brings the world into conflict under the pretence of democracy

 

"I would just repeat that with freedom comes responsibility, just as if you slag someone off in the press you have to be aware that they may sue for slander etc."

 

thats only possible if it wernt true if it is then fair play (not insinuating every thing in the press is true ) without the press "freedom" most harmfull things (especially the governments ) would be unknown and the culprits scott free and laughing behind our backs ,government control of the press is to protect the government not any other reason

Edited February 18, 2006 by chesters1