You see them going to town. I see them responding to force with a measured application of force. If soldiers wanted to "go to town" they would do much worse than smacking these kids on the ass and lower legs. I just re-watched it a couple of times. Maybe you should watch it with the sound off. They don't raise the batons above their shoulder, and with one or two exceptions, it is clear that they aren't putting any force behind the swings. Go find one of the videos of the Basiji beating the crap out of someone in Iran if you want to see what it looks like when people are hit with gusto and compare. In those videos you will see people putting their full weight into swings, and hitting people on the head with clubs. Also, the Basiji keep beating once people have stopped resisting. If you look closely, you'll see that when these stop struggling, the soldiers stop hitting them. It is very kind of you to let them know that they aren't at risk from behind your computer chair in the USA. I'm sure they will take it under advisement. I don't see them losing control. I see them trying to provide the children an incentive to stop throwing rocks. They are very clear in making sure they only hit the legs and rear. I've seen worse applications of force on episodes of COPS. Is this your professional opinion as a riot control manager? And were you in Northern Ireland that you know exactly the circumstances that constituted a sufficient "riot" to merit the ubiquitous teargas and rubber bullets? And what evidence do you have available that shows that the British Army has riot shields available in sufficient number to outfit everybody at this location in Iraq? I guarantee you if you saw the same scene at any of the G20 protests, there would have been tear gas and rubber bullets in addition to riot shields and helmets with face protectors as well as selected beat downs prior to arrest that would be worse than the ones shown. And again, that would be done by police, not soldiers.
No problem. I wasn't really shooting for eloquence. As for maturity, I would think learning to not make blanket and ignorant statements would fall into that. You'll get there someday I suppose. So real quick, what's your experience with the military? I can only say that I work with these dumb people on a daily basis and you are selling them short. Yeah, there are a lot who didn't have anything else going when they joined, but there are many who joined for other reasons. Also, yeah there are some $#!+heads in the services, but there are in all groups. One could make the argument that the number of screw ups in the military vs those in society is disproportionately lower. Anyway my point is that your statement was a bit insulting to say the least. In short, again, f you.
Well, there is actual evidence that those in the military are less educated in comparison to society. Also, I know about 15 people that served and every single one of them were near high school drop outs or were constantly flirting with disaster, as far as the law is concerned. Im still good friends with a few marines...but they still, at the age of 30, like to drive around in big trucks with confederate flags, get wasted on the weekends and pick fights with random people. The only thing thats changed from high school is that they are more fit and that they can go around saying "sempfer fi". Again, there is evidence to my claims, as I showed with educational statistics, its not a blanket statement. Im not saying this is true for all members...ive never said that. There are those that serve because of family legacy...there are those that serve to pay off school loans...then there are the boatloads who would struggle in society and the military gives them a way out.
You did say most. From my experience, again I just see them every day, there are a lot more who aren't idiots. I also factor in where and who I work with. For the record, I did all right as a civilian and don't fit your description. I am curious to the education levels you claim. If you can provide a link that would be cool. Otherwise I'll look on my own. I think you underestimate the ignorance of our society.
IMO by doing nothing to the people throwing rocks at them sends the wrong message. What happened seems a pretty reasonable response coming from guys with big guns on hand. I think what actually happened is way down on the scale of what the soldiers could or should have done. Way overboard: Shooting. Not quite so way overboard: Hitting the kids with the guns Overboard: Bashing the kids upside the head with the sticks Spanking them with minimal force on the buttocks/back of leg doesn't seem so bad now does it. IMO if you got the first three things happening, you have major reason to be upset. What happened, not so much.....
You are right, child abuse should be at the top and whether or not the guy is American is not important. Here is new thread title for you. Islamic Jihadist soldiers abusing American children.
Sorry, can't watch the vid at work. As for the bachelor's degree being a small percentage of soldiers......no $#!+. Thats why they're enlisted. Officers have them, but there's no reason for the enlisted folks to do it aside for personal improvement. I'd be much more interested in how well each do on aptitude tests. Also those articles arguements are heavily emphasizing the areas recruits come from as far as income. They also seems to have that heavy anti-Bush slant in them that was so prevalent a couple of years ago. They focus less on intelligence and more on income and demographics like race. In the end, I would be interested to see how the military does in aptitude and world events testing versus the civilian counterparts. Are there idiots in the military? Sure. Are there in the private sector? Double sure. I would not say most in the military are. Remember that just the Army or Marines are not the only forces.
Yeah, I understand that...but I specifically brought them up because of what we witnessed in the original video. I hold the Air Force to a much higher standard...my opinion of them is completely different.
Guys, you throw rocks at somebody, you get your ass beat. Child or not, who would throw rocks at armed soldiers?
Wow. It can't be that different can it? On another note, I am curious, what are your thoughts on the Navy? Choose your words wisely Persian.
I think it can be a lot different...have a few friends that went to the Air Force Academy...were good students, worked hard, and were disciplined. When the US has a shortage of forces and they seek the high school drop out or the uneducated, those guys will be serving their time on the ground, not in the air or in the water. IMO, there is a good difference between the different services. As far as the Navy is concerned, I think they are the worst of the bunch. Jk, Im guessing thats what youre involved with. Opinion of them is the same as the Air Force. I view them in a completely different light.
Nah, it is what it is. My only point is that we're not all bad apples as some would like it to be. On the other hand we're not all saints as the other side would say. Politics are a funny thing.
I tend to agree with rez, the only people I know who joined up were those without good grades or the desire to go to college. It was the slackers that ended up in the military. That being said obviously not everyone in the military is an ignorant, lazy, person who couldn't make it in college. However it's interesting that with unemployment at record highs that the military is still having trouble filling quotas. The marines and the army are some of the only occupations I know that advertise everywhere for available positions. If service was so great why wouldn't more people do it?
And are you still blaming the parents? I will concede they are better than the basiji but that's not much of a comparison and I suspect you know that. Considering I almost go killed during the Rodney King Riots when I was reporter for the Daily Cal, UC Berkeley Newspaper, have been tear gassed, had bottles and rocks thrown at me, and during the RNC in St. Paul in 2008 had a cop throw a concussion grenade at my feet. I'm not just talking as a keyboard warrior. Maybe so but its not like US cops don't lose control every now and then. That said these are kids throwing stones at troops with body armor. I've seen the CHP show more restraint during People's Park Riots. One because the British Army themselves said that they were better equiped than the US Army to deal with crowd control and irate civillians. We now know for a fact that they weren't considering the Brits themselves have admitted to human rights violations in Basra. That said though if they had any pretense to being to deal with that they would've packed some riot gear. And as I said about riots as I said earlier I've been on the front lines of riots. Anyway I don't want to seem like I'm bragging but I wouldn't have mentioned it if you hadn't called me out on it. I am dissapointed though that you think me a keyboard warrior when I haven't called you out about your knowledge or riots and conflict zones or military procedure.
1) Because he/she believes they are American. Everything else is an assumption. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the OP somehow figured out that the title of the video in the link is wrong. 2) Yes, I am definitely downgrading it, because in this context, it is ancillary to the tragedy. I will obviously take other posters "to task" if they do something similar in a different, more racial context. To cut to the chase, there will obviously be situations where the same action alternates between appropriate and inappropriate based on the context. If I've done the same thing, please show me so that I can apologise and learn not to do so in the future. At present, I think you may be ignoring the fact that the nationality of these soldiers can never be as important as a child being abused by a soldier who apparently came to his coutnry to save him. I don't care if he's Kenyan. If the soldier being British makes everyone feel better, that's good for you and I suppose it's a common way of seeing things. IMO that does not make it right.
So what you're saying is that abusing children is not right, but we/thekids/the parents should have expected it. Hah. So we're sure these kids aren't orphans and they were constantly attacking the soldiers?
If the government of Iraq allows large packs of wild orphans to roam the streets unattended and randomly attack people, they have bigger problems than what the British Army does in response. If you run with the Bulls in Pamplona, and a Bull gores you, do you blame the Bull? Or do you think that when you decide to step in the street, you assume the risk for doing something that should be reasonably foreseen as dangerous? If a Child chooses to play on a freeway, do we blame the motorist who hits the child or the kid's deadbeat parents who were negligent in the care of the child? Should we institute a rule where soldiers call "time out" and stop fighting in order to check the ID of the people they are fighting, so that no minors get hurt? If a child commits a crime, say a violent assault or a mugging against your father, do you think the appropriate course of action is to let the child free with no repercussions? Is that really the most appropriate response? Or is it only soldiers, because they are inherently evil, who should allow themselves to be assaulted out of shame at their own evilness?
Uhh how can they all be slackers if some want to go to college but can't afford it without enlisting?
You seem obsessed. What I don't blame is the Army for responding to force. I don't know who is responsible for these children and whether they are I don't know that at all. They are absolutely doing things according to the rules for subduing and arresting truculant demonstrators. This is how it is supposed to be done. Perhaps in this era where regular police zap everybody with Tasers instead of using riot sticks, people have forgotten exactly what it is police used to do. It seems you've forgotten exactly what it was that the officers in the Rodney King affair did wrong. They were entirely justified in the use of force with batons while he was fighting back. The problem was once he gave up they kept hitting him, and blows were directed to inappropriate locations, like the head. Again, I don't see a single example of anybody loosing control, but you seem to just gloss over this. Maybe you could identify one of the specific individuals in question and articulate exactly where it is and what action indicates to you that he is "off the reservation". Personally, the more I watch it, the more I become convinced that these guys are MP's, not regular soldiers because they are doing everything appropriately to subdue indivduals for arresting them according to the rules as I understand them. Which has no relevance in relation to the action in question. If you want to take them to task for those violations, fine. But don't color outside the lines and blame these soldiers for other, unrelated transgressions. I don't think you really understand it from the side opposite from where you stood, if you think the appropriate and generally accepted action is to "just stand there and take it". I just spent 20 or so minutes flipping through MP and civil affairs manuals. I don't see a single thing that indicates that even remotely indicates that this would be the appropriate and sanctioned course of action. In fact, everything I read indicates that MP's are explicitly responsible for force protection and civil order, no matter how trivial the offense in question. Most of the manuals approve of baton force even in peaceful protests where soldiers are just trying to move a peaceful but unresponsive mob. These, of course, are US Army manuals, but I somehow doubt the British manuals for crowd control are much different.
What? There are many people that cant afford college...what does not being able to afford college have anything to do with enlisting? I'd say a large number of college students are getting by with loans...I did it (at a cost of 30K a year) and many others are/have. Just because you cant afford college doesnt mean you can only get an education by enlisting.
