The link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4705482.stm

Video footage taken in 2004 apparently showing British soldiers beating up Iraqi youths.  I've heard discussions on the radio today sympathising with the soldiers.  But I agree more with what my friend, an ex Royal Marines officer said.  He served in Northern Ireland, he had youths chucking stones at him frequently.  Of course he want to retaliate, just to give these kids a slap.

But the difference between a professional, well trained military and a 'third world' army is that they have discipline and don't react to this sort of provocation.

If that video shows what it appears to show then those men are a disgrace to the British army.

from beating up Irish teenagers in Belfast and Derry and places like that.

Basra' loss is Londonderry's gain?

I've seen a ten - twelve year old toss a hand granade into a group of fifteen or so US Army troops in Vietnam.  Give it a rest keep your polotics to yourself.  They (British troops) and we are busy defending your freedom.  If you want to walk around not being able to show your face, get an education, have a voice in your life, move to Bagdad or Terran.

the same no matter what side they are on. They can torture and kill all that they want and we won't care what happens to them.

It is only the ones that get the attention that
everyone scorns. I believe Iraqi young men, under
Saddams control usually picked up a gun at the average age of 8.

~So, how can you complain that they were "beating up" teenagers? I  personally became the guardian of an 11 year old from Compton who had been involved in the killing 5 people before his tenth birthday. Regardless of the number of years you have been alive, if you behave in a manner that is in line with that of a soldier you can expect to be treated accordingly.

....Plus, I missed the videos being publicized about 12, 13 and 14 year old Iraqi's who were killing and setting IED's in Iraq.

-War is war people, until we instill a more educated and sensible way of trying to influence a country, violence will be the only answer.

**Call your Senator and tell them we want a better way for these people, walking away isn't the answer.... there are other educated alternatives**  ~just my opinion Tori

Tori has the right of it here.  There is no excuse for the British soldiers who engaged in those beatings.  That incident, and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are not indicative of the conduct of the U.S. or British Army over there. To the contrary, they are the exceptions to the rule.  Unfortunately the media coverage of Iraq is so skewed and there is an element here that sees an abuse like the Brits were just involved in and uses that to justify their own position against the war.

they are soldiers sent to fight a war.

Justification is always an issue of fact based on the totality of the circumstances, and the circumstances are never limited to the videotape.  You have NO IDEA what is going on off camera, or whether these troops just survived precisely what outlaw described - a 10 year old pitching a grenade at them, or how long they have been under fire from these gangs.  ANYBODY who has actually been fired on in any counterinsurgency action knows this happens all the time.

People who think war can be circumscribed by normal rules of civilization haven't been there.  Don't go judging these people until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

Jeez, make a sensible argument or don't bother!  

You are not defending anybody's freedom and if you think the Iraq war is about that then you are very naive.

And for your info,  I've to Tehran and the people are among the most hospitable and friendly I've met anywhere.

I suggest you get out of the US and explore the world, sounds like you really need to broaden your narrow horizons.

(btw, this is the *politics* board!)

http://www.kimsoft.com/guerilla.htm

that talks briefly about the application of insurgency/guerrilla operations.  Its origin doesn't matter, it's about the same thing you will hear from EVERY guerrilla and counter-guerrilla thru the ages - if you want examples, (and assuming motivation) I can give you a nice bibliography in an hour.   Mao is of course well known, but not necessarily any better than say George Grivas.  In fact, Clausewitz is worth noting here.

This sort of low-intensity stuff gained a LOT of popularity in the 20th century, because of the wide disparity of means and methods between colonial powers (to start) and the indigenous personnel.   In practice, EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT, and requires local adaptation, but it is characterized by blurring the edges of political and military actions.  Note the American proverb about all politics being local.

Glib judgments from the other side of the world from non-participants (whether you or Dick Cheney) are not often very accurate; and because of that, carry a high probability of error or uselessness.

OTOH, it is also this very situation that created such an incredibly high risk going into Iraq:  regardless of "cause", it was virtually certain that this sort of situation would arise, and locals can NEVER be expected to cooperate with  armed infidel strangers who don't even speak their language; so time is against any occupier, and this is just one very good reason for Congressman Murtha's POV.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

Most of the ones I know were different categories who had to get out lest they be tortured or hanged as political suspects.

I will be damned if I can understand why things work so well for them in Los Angeles, but not in Tehran.

BECAUSE OF THE AYATOLLAHS!!!!!   And the people who support or tolerate them, which includes a lot of the Iranian populace.   IOW, nice people can act like assholes, too.  And Pat Robertson's response is joining them, not beating them.

It may be news to your Mr Spock but the US is on a par with Iran and China in it's execution policies - it has executed people who were legally minors when they committed their crimes.

Almost everybody I spoke to last time I was in Iran (Aug 05) were really worried about the new president and I don't blame them.  Religist nuts are dangerour whether they are Iranian or American, Muslim or Christian.

The couple of people I spoke to who admitted voting for him did so because they were poor and he promised to share the country's wealth more equitably.  Like most people in most countries they just wanted a better life.  I think the fact he is in power makes the world a more dangerous place and that's not good for Iranians or anybody else.

Europeans may not be subtle enough to distinguish WHY they are doing something (and this may have a lot to do with why their history is so, well, spotted); but generally speaking, Americans execute only for particularly aggravated murders.   Eg, Betty Broderick is still doing time in Chino for pumping her ex and his sweetie full of lead in their bedroom.  Aileen Wournos had to kill a BUNCH of johns, AND THEN tell the judge they deserved it, to get fried in Florida.

The RNC and Pat Robertson's desires aside,  Americans do not routinely execute for sexual or political offenses, unless there is also a murder or 3 involved.

OTOH:  the iranians routinely torture and execute defendants for a number of issues, including blasphemy, and in this particular case of death for fornication, the judge seems to have said she hanged because of her mouthy attitude.

Murder is, in American law, a very serious thing.  Fornication is not, and Americans make every attempt (unlike Europeans) to exclude political dissent from their penal codes.  Get convicted of an aggravated murder in the USA, you just may fry, even if you are Mexican.  Get convicted of fornication in the USA, you may get a ticket and invitation to Oprah.  We can distinguish, unlike much of the world.  ("We":  the human half of me carries half a US passport.)

When you say, legally minors, you mean, under 18.  You realize that most countries have procedures to try younger people as adults in some circumstances.  In the USA, that is usually determined by state law, but generally focuses on the level of the defendant's cosnciousness, which is an issue of fact.  OF COURSE the defense always alleges one thing as proven (even after execution) while the prosecution alleges the other (even before arrest).

Economic or any other single motive for voting for a particular person in an Iranian election does not explain the course of the culture.   There is a very large part of the Iranian mentality that supports the ayatollahs, or they would not be there.  

While I commend the British nation for their notable lack of religious freaks, what can we say about the royal family and their hangers-on?  An amusing and worthwhile zoo?  Definitely; but the attendant class consciousness does inhibit the British economy and society perhaps a bit more than desireable.  Overall grade:  B-.

I suspect that the consciousness to distinguish intent that is present in American criminal judisprudence, and absent in your view of European jurisprudence, is likely a sign of advanced civilization and one factor in American world dominance, YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!

how good your distinguishing skills are.

(1) To say the US is "on a par" with Chinese and Iranian criminal policies is far more false than true.  The ONLY common issue is that Americans do in fact have a death penalty - perhaps because we are serious.  You, as a foreign national, are free to go to the SC court records that you refer to, and examine the court record as to why that defendant was found to be conscious and adult enough that a death penalty was appropriate.  

Can a Vulcan-American go into an English court and do the same?  Hell, the solicitors we retain tell us that they don't even know where to find English criminal records, ie, they have to search every courthouse!  Izzat medieval, or what?

(2)  Religious nuts do not all have the same effect, for whatever reason.  As much as Pat Robertson et al would like, they are generally restrained.  The few abortion clinic bombers and snipers, are so few as to be within the statistical norms for crimes.  

That is NOT true of religious freaks many other places.  True, it may only be, because they are afraid of American moderates, but the fact remains, they do not burn embassies or provide bounties for suicide bombers.

(3)  BTW, you may never have taken statistics, but do you think a couple of Iranians who were willing to talk to an English tourist were a statisitcally valid sample?

The reality is that the only way for Islamic extremism to be defeated is for a change in the political culture in the Middle East. Shiite Fundamentalists and Wahabi Islamic fanatics are best defeated by free and open communities with freedoms that westerners take for granted.  The reason that these groups are so violently anti-western is that they see a cultural change happening and that threatens their power over the masses.  Islam is not inherently violent or evil, however, the thugs in the middle east use Islam to maintain there own power and they routinely use the west or Israel as a focal point to distract people from the fact that they are failing their own people.  
  Since you have been to Tehran, perhaps you should ask next time about the wonderful exploits of those nice people in Hezbollah that are funded by Iran and the ayatollahs.  Great group.  Just ask the Lebanese.

Carrie: You "spoke with" (*and discussed poitics*) w/poor Iranians in 2005 ??? .... There must be some serious changes since Sept of '04 when I sent almost 30 days in the Middle East and the only "poor" that I came in contact with were the ones in Iraq begging for water. ~hmmm... I guess being a US citizen has it's disadvantages when traveling abroad..???? .... just glad someone was able to "speak with the poor of Iran" and discuss politics with them! When I was there no one was able to speak of politics! Not in Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Saudi or Bahrain. Glad to know there has been so many changes since I was there! Care to compare photos? Mine are in the link attached. -BTW- how does one go about blending in the Middle East enough to speak of politics with the poor locals?? Especially considering the fact that you are a female? ~Just wondering for future trips. I was never allowed to speak outside of Kuwait....   ~T

Since we don't know the circumstances as you mentioned, an investigation should clear things up. If the teen did toss a grenade towards them, then he deserved what he got, and an investigation should exonerate the soldiers. However, if they just grabbed some kid at random to satisfy their sadistic urges, then the soldiers deserve to be punished.

We don't know what happened, we just saw a snippet of a video. Everyone should be demanding an investigation instead of just blindly attacking or defending the soldiers' actions based on an edited video.

war is the part of human life where crap like that happens, and that is the reason we try to minimize war.

An investigation in those circumstances is going to be incomplete and unfair, because the situation is inherently unfair - yes, an investigation is necessary.   If I were the CO, even absent the video, I'd be looking into it, though the purpose and methods would be different - but the video has  necessarily made it a political matter, that is, the civilians who may or may not have agreed in sending them there cannot ignore the situation any longer.

When you/we send people out armed, ready to kill other people, you/we have to expect shit is going to happen, and chances are good that teenagers will wind up paying the price.  Civilians in London or wherever have no basis to act as if they are outraged or innocent; because there is no innocence here.

I was first in Iran in 1999 and I was speaking to people then, I found them surprising open and forthcoming. I didn't bring up politics, they did.  

I was there for the solar eclipse and Iran had more tourists then than since 1979 (though obviously still a tiny number).  I met many Americans and they were enjoying their trip as much as me and hadn't had any difficulties.  That's what they actually told me.

Of course I didn't blend in with the locals, I'm a blonde Westerner.  However, I was travelling independently on trains and buses so I was coming into contact with people constantly - for me that's one of the joys of travelling.

I have no idea why you felt unable to converse with the locals in Iran.  I've not been to any of the other countries so I can't comment.  

I'm in Muslim country now and going to a different one tomorrow.  I wouldn't travel to Muslim countries for fun if I found them unpleasant.  I love to experience different cultures and though some are more challenging than others the most difficult I've found to travel in as a woman was not a Muslim country.

Some how I missed something. The entire time I was in the region I never felt welcome or comfortable! ~As far as crossing borders into Iran... yes, I did it but it was specifically to go directly to medical facilities.

I have no problem with Muslim countries or Muslim
people. My challenge is regions that harbor terrorists and extremists. -AND- Iran has both.

With all of the free thinking democracies in the world that encourage tourism and offer amenities, historical sites and comforts... traveling for fun and pleasure does not include Iran for me.

If you think you could convince me that you are
traveling in the Middle East, alone (*or as you stated independently*) and you are presenting yourself as a "blond woman" and ....you expect me to believe you are having a wonderful time, you are in the wrong business. You should switch to romance writing.

You can not enter or exit many of the Muslim
countries, including Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and The
Kingdom of Saudi without a letter of permission From a male relative or your male spouse, who must grant you permission and must speak for you.

As I stated in my previous post, my photos speak for themselves. I did not even show my bare face unless I was in Kuwait City. I also had unparalleled security in the group I traveled with. Furthermore, if you are indeed so well versed in Muslim Countries and Muslim beliefs do you not know that bearing your face in public is an insult to their community? Not mentioning your own personal safety.

I try to limit the time I communicate with people to those who have a level of education or experience to offer something to the conversation. My comments to you are now complete.

Enjoy your travels through the Middle East as a "Blond Woman" freely talking politics to the locals! Yeah ok, I will be back in the area in Oct of '06.... maybe I will catch a glipse of you at one of the local sidewalk cafe's, in Iran, chatting with the locals.....Of course you will have to forgive me for not speaking, I will be the one behind all of the armour in the Surburban... ~T

-- Modified on 2/18/2006 10:01:04 AM

The Iraqi peopoe are also  mostly  "nice" as well, as ar emost of the mainstream people of the world. The problem is that  they are not usually in the drivers seat. It is the whacko power hungry people such as Hussein and the whackos running Iran that creat the problems.
The iraq war got rid of a very nasty power hungry man who would stoop to anything if he increased his power base. Those are the words of a high ranking Iraqi general who was lucky to be alive since his opinions were generally not the same as Hussein's . By this generals account, he is in toch daily with the Iraqi people and his belief that  Iraq is better off than   under a 30 year reign of terror. The U.N. oil for food was the biggest ripoff in the world,  and so is good old Kofi. Hussein made billions for himself under that idiotic U.N. deal  and built more and more palaces, all while his people starved. THe money never made it to the people for food and medicine.
The WMD's?  Well  this general  knows that they were shipped to Syrai, under the noses of the  stupid U.N.