British commanders condemn US tactics

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British commanders condemn US tactics
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 18:59:

Posted by occrider on Apr-13-2004 19:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
No did get it, what I ment was firstly the officer doesn't really make a genralisation. He is talking about the way the American troops are told to do things and the mentality behind that. It's not a genralisation as it's a fact not an observation. Secondly I don't see what value your posted added to the discussion by quoting, at your own admission, genralisations.

But anyway George is right the torygragh really arn't the sort to talk about these types of things. Any negative comments from them about active troops are VERY unlikely to be unsubstantuated. And do you really think ANY british officer could add his name to that type of comment? And from all the people I've spoken to in the forces I've heard similar things and they have experianced it first hand.

The following statement is a fact?:

quote:

American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

Ok well please demonstrate how this is not a generalization and is in fact, fact. Making the case for a fact is going to be pretty hard to do since the source prefaces his very own statement with the clause, "My view ..."

But I'm sure there's a veritable wealth of material out there that proves the aforementioned thesis ... perhaps I'm just not reading the right material.

Posted by Dervish on Apr-13-2004 19:07:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?

Well one source I'll impicitly trust one which I'd take with a pinch of salt(who was in iraq before). He said the American way of doing things was fundentally differnt to the British and he said they have a tendancy to overreact to anything they reguard as a threat. Further he said they also have the tendancy to reguard basicly any iraqi as a threat. They don't view them as anything but threats. And they don't view the war/occupation as real in a way, they see it as a game well atleast act that way.

Actually I have seen from other sources a video which I think shows this best. I want you to watch it then think about your reaction and post it here.

Link

Posted by Spankster on Apr-13-2004 19:12:

quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
Wow- that was informative and useful.
Shut your cack holster please. tks.

(yea yea- this isnt too useful either but I've seen nothing but stupid comments from you)

On the contrary the point I was trying to make is many of the peeps who refuse to accept the article as credible, due to the fact that the source of the information chose to remain anonymous are more than likely the same peeps who accepted much of the media bullshit generated by the bush administration about WMD's, even though they too were unwilling to reveal any evidence or source of information.(Officially dubya and co lied 227 times leading up to GWII).

if you can accept GW Bushes lies without any evidence/source of info, maybe with a credible news agancy like the Melbourne Age, you can accept their story. Remember the BBC and Bliar debacle when anonymous sources got revealed. People end up mysteriously dieing!
If you still have no idea what i'm talking about then my friend you really have no idea!

Posted by DigiNut on Apr-13-2004 19:26:

quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
Could you please keep your replies to 2 maybe max 3 syllables sentences please.
My brain hurts reading your replies.

It shall be so - I'll even do it in ebonics for you:

"Nigga say wha? Don't be talkin' no trash from those homies who ain't knowin' their shit, dawg. Y'all think you got sumpin' on me, then show me yo proof biatch."

Better?

Posted by Dervish on Apr-13-2004 19:27:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are.

Yes he has prefaced it with "my view". And yes I was wrong to say it is a fact. But would you dispute that the average american solider like many (american) posters on here belives that " They view them as untermenschen. " Or it is somehow a good thing to do in an occupation. I'd actually agree in a war situation (edit: i.e. you have to few threats as targets). But not in a occupation you can't do that and not civlians as some people on here suggested. I belive the problem lies in tha the American troops are trainned for war and this is not war, it's occupation. I mean I understand (as much as one who hasn't been in the situation could) that it is a hugely stressfull situation.

But honestly answer this question do you belive an american soliders life is more valuable than an iraqis?

Posted by George Smiley on Apr-13-2004 19:34:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?

Obviously I don't go "fallacy!" to ANY source, because you're right, it's not very constructive. Quoting a source is by no means fallacious - it is only a fallacy when that source is either unidentified or not qualified to have an authoritative opinion on the subject.

Bloody hell! What do you think this is?! A fucking academic paper we're all taking part in?! Do you want us to reference all our posts using the Harvard Referencing system or summat?! Fallacy fallacy fucking fallacy!!!!!!!!

This is an internet chat site! We express on it opinions! We are but mere mortals who aren't experts on anything!

Everything everyone says on here is a fucking fallacy you muppet if it is our opinions! Why the hell should we only have an opinion that can be backed up by the same opinion as an "expert"?!

Would it really hurt you so much to come up with your own thoughts every now and again instead of loitering round threads waiting for the perfect opertunity to proundly proclaim that stupid fucking website you post up in every thread you take part in and announce: "This, people, is a fallacy!"

Get a life mate!

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 19:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Well one source I'll impicitly trust one which I'd take with a pinch of salt(who was in iraq before). He said the American way of doing things was fundentally differnt to the British and he said they have a tendancy to overreact to anything they reguard as a threat. Further he said they also have the tendancy to reguard basicly any iraqi as a threat. They don't view them as anything but threats. And they don't view the war/occupation as real in a way, they see it as a game well atleast act that way.

Actually I have seen from other sources a video which I think shows this best. I want you to watch it then think about your reaction and post it here.

Link

OK- So maybe i read a bit into what my friends said.
Their exact words were
"They are hesitant and indecisive."

now- I dont know about you but if im fighting side by side with someone- I dont think i want those traits with my companions I am fighting with.

What other conclusion can you draw?

Posted by Spankster on Apr-13-2004 19:39:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Sigh ... well I think Izzy said it best when he stated that the opinion of an unnamed british commander who supposedly speaks for the british command as a whole, is NOT the best of sources particularly when he brings in references to Nazism . Since we know nothing of this commander, his rank, or his credibility or authority to make such a judgment call it's an unsubstantiated report.

1 Max Hastings, Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, p. 317.

Let me refresh ur memory.........BBC........Tony BLIAR.........sexed up weapons report.........source revealed..........source of information(a brittish scientist part of the Inspections team) ends up dead.

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 19:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Well one source I'll impicitly trust one which I'd take with a pinch of salt(who was in iraq before). He said the American way of doing things was fundentally differnt to the British and he said they have a tendancy to overreact to anything they reguard as a threat. Further he said they also have the tendancy to reguard basicly any iraqi as a threat. They don't view them as anything but threats. And they don't view the war/occupation as real in a way, they see it as a game well atleast act that way.

Actually I have seen from other sources a video which I think shows this best. I want you to watch it then think about your reaction and post it here.

Link

eh- sorry- I cant watch movies at work.
How can the troops view all iraqis as anything but threats
until proved otherwise? They have shown they will send woman and children to their deaths.

Posted by Spankster on Apr-13-2004 19:42:

quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Bloody hell! What do you think this is?! A fucking academic paper we're all taking part in?! Do you want us to reference all our posts using the Harvard Referencing system or summat?! Fallacy fallacy fucking fallacy!!!!!!!!

This is an internet chat site! We express on it opinions! We are but mere mortals who aren't experts on anything!

Everything everyone says on here is a fucking fallacy you muppet if it is our opinions! Why the hell should we only have an opinion that can be backed up by the same opinion as an "expert"?!

Would it really hurt you so much to come up with your own thoughts every now and again instead of loitering round threads waiting for the perfect opertunity to proundly proclaim that stupid fucking website you post up in every thread you take part in and announce: "This, people, is a fallacy!"

Get a life mate!

You dont only need a harvard referencing system........you also need a dictionary so you can argue about definitions before you can even begin to discuss the actual topic.

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 19:44:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
It shall be so - I'll even do it in ebonics for you:

"Nigga say wha? Don't be talkin' no trash from those homies who ain't knowin' their shit, dawg. Y'all think you got sumpin' on me, then show me yo proof biatch."

Better?

Ugh- now I need a dictionary! LOL

as you were sir!

Posted by Dervish on Apr-13-2004 19:46:

quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
OK- So maybe i read a bit into what my friends said.
Their exact words were
"They are hesitant and indecisive."

now- I dont know about you but if im fighting side by side with someone- I dont think i want those traits with my companions I am fighting with.

What other conclusion can you draw?

If I were a Iraqi, and by the way these are the people which matter most. I'd prefer people who were hesitant in the use of force, and also if I were in the army. Your in a city not a war zone. And as for Britsh troops being indecisive or inapporpriatly hesitant ( bit of genralisation kinda, though I can't talk ) I don't belive so, in places like Bosina were troops were patroling I rember a incident where a car load 5 or so people (all armed and shooting) attacked a british solider he killed all 5. Now thats the defintion of descive! Just an example but I cout very much if presented with a real rather than percived threat British troops are any less likely to attack.

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 19:47:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish

But honestly answer this question do you belive an american soliders life is more valuable than an iraqis?

Depends on the Iraqi.

Posted by FuzzyGreen on Apr-13-2004 19:47:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
But honestly answer this question do you belive an american soliders life is more valuable than an iraqis?

All human life is equally valuable. Unfortunately the terrorists don't have the same respect for human life.

The American military SHOULD view every Iraqi as a possible threat, because you can never know which is a friend and which is a foe. This is a lesson the American millitary learned in Vietnam.

Posted by occrider on Apr-13-2004 19:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Yes he has prefaced it with "my view". And yes I was wrong to say it is a fact. But would you dispute that the average american solider like many (american) posters on here belives that " They view them as untermenschen. " Or it is somehow a good thing to do in an occupation. I'd actually agree in a war situation (edit: i.e. you have to few threats as targets). But not in a occupation you can't do that and not civlians as some people on here suggested. I belive the problem lies in tha the American troops are trainned for war and this is not war, it's occupation. I mean I understand (as much as one who hasn't been in the situation could) that it is a hugely stressfull situation.

Well I'm not going to attempt to predict what the average american soldier thinks, and I'm most certainly not going to try to predict what they think on the basis of what the average american here thinks. Either which way it's a faulty generalization ... I will concede that many soldiers may be overly jumpy since they're getting attacked 20+ times a day or so ... but to go from that to saying that they few Iraqis as "untermensch" is something of a stretch.

quote:

But honestly answer this question do you belive an american soliders life is more valuable than an iraqis?

No, I think an american soldiers life is as valuable as an Iraqis. If I had to make a choice of life and death for one of them I suppose it would depend on a number of factors. Is the Iraqi a woman? A child? etc. If I had to make a choice all things equal, I would probably choose to save the american ... but really who wouldn't have a bias for their own countrymen?

Posted by Dervish on Apr-13-2004 19:50:

quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
eh- sorry- I cant watch movies at work.
How can the troops view all iraqis as anything but threats
until proved otherwise? They have shown they will send woman and children to their deaths.

Ohh my god. There ladies and gents is the problem. Thats it exactly. What about "not guilty until proven guilty" just becuase they are Iraqis they arn't so important? Is that it? Or becuase it's a high risk enviorment? Well they are troops (high risk is what they are for), the Iraqis for the most part are civlians who didn't sign upto anything they are just trying to live their lifes.

Posted by Spankster on Apr-13-2004 19:52:

Link to article

The article above relates to some inside information on what is going on in falluja.

a Couple of paragraphs here:

"He hadn't slept much, along with all of the doctors at the small clinic. It started with just three doctors, but since the Americans bombed one of the hospitals, and were currently sniping people as they attempted to enter/exit the main hospital, effectively there were only 2 small clinics treating all of Falluja. The other has been set up in a car garage.

As I was there, an endless stream of women and children who'd been sniped by the Americans were being raced into the dirty clinic, the cars speeding over the curb out front as their wailing family members carried them in.

One woman and small child had been shot through the neck -- the woman was making breathy gurgling noises as the doctors frantically worked on her amongst her muffled moaning.

The small child, his eyes glazed and staring into space, continually vomited as the doctors raced to save his life.

After 30 minutes, it appeared as though neither of them would survive.

One victim of American aggression after another was brought into the clinic, nearly all of them women and children."

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 19:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
If I were a Iraqi, and by the way these are the people which matter most. I'd prefer people who were hesitant in the use of force, and also if I were in the army. Your in a city not a war zone. And as for Britsh troops being indecisive or inapporpriatly hesitant ( bit of genralisation kinda, though I can't talk )

You dont think that city is considered a war zone right now?
Maybe not officially but im pretty sure the US troops
are feeling threatened everyday. How much hesitation would be enough? How many british or US soldiers must die before the hesitation level goes down and reaction goes up?

Posted by Dervish on Apr-13-2004 19:55:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider If I had to make a choice all things equal, I would probably choose to save the american ... but really who wouldn't have a bias for their own countrymen?

If I had to choose between my friend who is there and an Iraqi say of the same age. I'd choose my friend to die I mean (obviously if I had enough time to think about it and so on). You can question this if you like. But the fact is he's a solider the Iraqi is not. he knows what he is trainned for. And every member of the British forces SAS to the cooks knows what thier job is.

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 19:56:

Posted by Dervish on Apr-13-2004 20:00:

quote:
Originally posted by xKaoSx
Well how would you decern the civilians from the people who want to shoot you? What would you have them do?

Oh wait- You hesitated too long- you're dead- sorry. Ill call your parents and inform them.

Thats the problem, you can't shoot. You cannot shoot until you know. If that means you are going to die then that is the case. You cannot trade the life of an Iraqi for a little assurance. You have to show restraint. It's fundemental to peacekeeping.

Posted by Spankster on Apr-13-2004 20:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Ohh my god. There ladies and gents is the problem. Thats it exactly. What about "not guilty until proven guilty" just becuase they are Iraqis they arn't so important? Is that it? Or becuase it's a high risk enviorment? Well they are troops (high risk is what they are for), the Iraqis for the most part are civlians who didn't sign upto anything they are just trying to live their lifes.

I may appear to never pick on the brittish forces inside iraq.
Dont worry.....i look every where looking for dirt to give shit to the poms but unfortunately i cant find any. Sure the brittish have been in gunfights but from the sources i read theyre always proffessional and disciplined about it.
In fact if anything, all I see is good reports about brittish forces and its annoying me!! I want dirt dammit!! I saw a news report on tv how the brittish try to give the iraqi's the impression that theyre there to help iraqi's by wearing minimum armour, wearing berets instead of helmets(it makes them look less threatening), biulding football parks and playing soccer against the young iraqi's.
Following local customs and taking an interest in the way they live.
Maybe all the experience drawn from northern ireland, kosovo and bosnia has helped.

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 20:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Thats the problem, you can't shoot. You cannot shoot until you know. If that means you are going to die then that is the case. You cannot trade the life of an Iraqi for a little assurance. You have to show restraint. It's fundemental to peacekeeping.

Are you fucking kidding me?
How about the civies spread the word- Dont make sudden movements and just do what they ask for now till things cool down.
Sorry to say but it's a either him or me mentality out there
and if the Iraqi's dont understand that then they need to
learn a little self preservation.

Posted by xKaoSx on Apr-13-2004 20:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Spankster
I may appear to never pick on the brittish forces inside iraq.
Dont worry.....i look every where looking for dirt to give shit to the poms but unfortunately i cant find any. Sure the brittish have been in gunfights but from the sources i read theyre always proffessional and disciplined about it.
In fact if anything, all I see is good reports about brittish forces and its annoying me!! I want dirt dammit!! I saw a news report on tv how the brittish try to give the iraqi's the impression that theyre there to help iraqi's by wearing minimum armour, wearing berets instead of helmets(it makes them look less threatening), biulding football parks and playing soccer against the young iraqi's.
Following local customs and taking an interest in the way they live.
Maybe all the experience drawn from northern ireland, kosovo and bosnia has helped.

That's pretty easy to do in a low risk zone. What would happen if they tried that where the heat is?

Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »