I have a few questions maybe someone can answer. How many Allied soldiers have been killed by Iraqi children throwing stones in this conflict? How many Iraqi children have been killed by Allied soldiers in this conflict?
So the soldiers in the video are liable for the actions of others under other conditions and from other countries at different points in time on the other side of Iraq?
Why would he need to rotate him to put him in a position to headbutt him? He and the kid end up in exactly the same position relative to each other, but 180 degrees relative to the world. I don't understand. It looks like a pretty crappy attempt at something approaching a hip toss to me. He tries to toss the kid so that he will fall to the ground, and the kid spreads his legs and lowers his center of gravity to avoid being dropped. And as indicated, the solar plexus is an area that is recommended in the manual as a place to hit with a baton. So good job following instruction, soldier. So as best I can tell, one of the major points is that normal police behavior is actually aberrant behavior, and constantly results in lawsuits that prove this (presumably in the form of large judgments to the wronged). But I have yet to see even the slightest evidence beyond your repeated suppositions that this is true.
The soldiers are part of an occupational force that many Iraqis view as a threat, understandably so in my view. The stone-throwing kids are part of the rabble that, apparently, soldiers view as a threat of some sort. I'm just comparing those two threats. Does that have any bearing on which of the two parties in the video we should condemn? I have my own views on that matter, but people can decide that for themselves.
So then you understand and sympathize when some people condemn Muslims and maybe throw stones at people entering and leaving Mosques, since people "perceive them as a threat" and Muslim terrorists have killed more Americans than, say, Buddhists? I mean, people can make up their own mind, right?
If the "Muslims" are a non-civilian, foreign occupational force, and the "Muslim terrorists" have killed tens of thousands, maybe more, actual civilians? Yes, I would understand.
So fundamentally, these soldiers should be so ashamed of themselves that they should take off their helmets and kevlar and let themselves be stoned to death? Would that make them OK in your eyes then? Or would they still be at fault? Let me use an analogy which I've used before. I understand why there were riots surrounding the Rodney King affair. I can sympathize. I think lots of people understood that. But does that mean that the people who stomped Reginald Denny should have been acquitted? Would you have given them a pass for stomping that guys head?
I did not say anything to even remotely suggest that. Nor did I say the particular soldiers at whom stones are being thrown are at fault. Did I not ask, initially, how many soldiers were killed by the throwing of stones? I think its fair to take into account the threat posed. So in your analogy, are the mass riots that resulted several deaths and massive economic damage being compared to the little kids throwing stones at armored soldiers or what the occupational force has done in Iraq?
Some people just need something to take their anger out on. I'm sorry your life sucks, but blaming a race of people isn't going to change anything.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-19-iraq-kids_x.htm http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=57415 Are you talking about the soldiers, or the kids? Seems to apply pretty equally if you want to start assuming you know what is going on in people's heads.
Watch the video again. At the 19 sec. mark the soldier is walking the captive in by holding around the scruff of the neck. He swings the kid around, doesn't attempt to put his hip out as would be case in a hip throw, is holding the kid's hands and then headbutts him followed by putting the captive in a headlock while punching him. So do the instructions recommend holding a captive up to administer shots? And how do you explain the Rodney King Civil Rights verdict, the Abner Louima verdict? Just a quick Google Search of "Police Brutality Lawsuits" shows several millions paid out just in the past few years over police brutality. Anyway compare this beating with the Rodney King Beating. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROn_9302UHg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROn_9302UHg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> In my opinion this beating is worse than the King beating given how the soldiers deliberately open up the captive for shots along with beating what appears to be a limp and/or unconscious captive. The problem that I see with your line of argument is that what I see on the video goes beyond the standards that you state, headbutting with helmet, beating a limp or unconscious prisoner, and while the regulations might allow a solar plexus shot I would still suspect that holding a captive up and openning him up for that type of shot is discouraged. The second problem is that your defence is a disservice to soldiers and police. Your argument is that these responses are beyond the control of the authorities. IN short they are just robots or morons who only react to stimuli thoughtlessly. That sort of defence isn't one that is generally accepted and has many very negative consequences if it is.
As I've said before rewatching the video again I don't fault the soldiers for taking the kids into custody. My own criticism is limited to what they did immediately after taking them into custody. Leaving aside the general argument regarding brutality on principle the behavior of these soldiers causes immediate problems for trying to win over the populace. Whether the regulations allow them to behave this way or not, and I will stand by from what I have seen stated they went beyond that, they have to consider what this will do to their perception as an occupying force.
"No serious injuries have been reported in the attacks by children, although one platoon commander was hit in the face with a rock." Thanks for the answer, but this is from 2006.
I very clearly see him putting his hip out for a hip throw. Perhaps your judo skills lead you to expect a level of skill that isn't present. The instructions recommend the use of force to ensure compliance. As I have stated before, in the Rodney King case the application of force to stop King from resisting was never against the law. What the trial very clearly stated was that once King stopped struggling and was lying unmoving on the ground, the officers violated his rights by continuing to beat him. I've looked at the video more time that I can count, and still haven't seen anybody sodomizing anybody with a broomstick. If this were the Rodney King video, when the kid in the foreground is lying unmoving on his stomach on the ground, they would hit him 15-20 more times for fun. I don't see a single beating of a "limp or unconscious captive". As stated before, these are MP's, not local police officers. You can believe if you want that it is discouraged, but you would be wrong. The use of "baton force" was a regular aspect of police behavior in the days before Tasers and pepper spray. MP's in a combat zone don't have those sorts of things at their disposal. There are a couple of moments where they act beyond what they are trained to do. It certainly wouldn't be proof of overt sadism or a massive conspiracy. The there is a disservice to soldiers and police, but not from me. It is as if you are watching a football game, and demanding the defensive lineman be arrested because they are sacking the quarterback, since if anybody tackled anybody like that on the street, it would be a clear case of assault.