The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3087121.stm
Well, maybe. I doubt it for some reason.
And part of me can't help but think it's all a ploy.
Well, maybe. I doubt it for some reason.
And part of me can't help but think it's all a ploy.
Page:
I can possibly understand why they showed them on Arabic tv in Iraq, to prove to the citizens they had been killed.
However, what I cannot condone is seeing them splashed all over our newspapers. That is pure ghoulism and something I find sickening.
There was such a hoo-ha about that programme showing the bodies of 2 allied soldiers, with the press saying "oh we'll pixelate their faces etc" and it was condemned for being "sick" and "voyeurism".
Yet I can get petrol and see two bloodied, disfigured corpses peering out from the plastic display stands at the door?
And there is the whole quandry of displaying dead bodies on Arabic television, given the Islamic beliefs in the portrayal of death.
Ultimately, I cannot help personally thinking that either justice would have been served better by bringing these two to justice instead of utilising 200 troops, attack helicopters and a humvee, or by displaying the corpse of the 14yr old grandson as well.
You either show it all, portray the brutality and filth of death and war
OR
You dont plaster 2 corpses of men smack bang on the front of all my national papers.
However, what I cannot condone is seeing them splashed all over our newspapers. That is pure ghoulism and something I find sickening.
There was such a hoo-ha about that programme showing the bodies of 2 allied soldiers, with the press saying "oh we'll pixelate their faces etc" and it was condemned for being "sick" and "voyeurism".
Yet I can get petrol and see two bloodied, disfigured corpses peering out from the plastic display stands at the door?
And there is the whole quandry of displaying dead bodies on Arabic television, given the Islamic beliefs in the portrayal of death.
Ultimately, I cannot help personally thinking that either justice would have been served better by bringing these two to justice instead of utilising 200 troops, attack helicopters and a humvee, or by displaying the corpse of the 14yr old grandson as well.
You either show it all, portray the brutality and filth of death and war
OR
You dont plaster 2 corpses of men smack bang on the front of all my national papers.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Wrong + wrong = right. Yep...
>
> Depends on what you define as wrong.
>
> Ending the careers of two mass murderers + proving to those they
> preyed on they are dead = right. Yes.
No no, a wrong on their part plus a wrong on our part is what I meant. If they show pictures of allied soldiers's bodies, that doesn't make it right for us to do the same to them. Indeed, it's pointless as afterwards we can't use that against them.
> Blank wrote:
> Wrong + wrong = right. Yep...
>
> Depends on what you define as wrong.
>
> Ending the careers of two mass murderers + proving to those they
> preyed on they are dead = right. Yes.
No no, a wrong on their part plus a wrong on our part is what I meant. If they show pictures of allied soldiers's bodies, that doesn't make it right for us to do the same to them. Indeed, it's pointless as afterwards we can't use that against them.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Intelligence is frequently wrong as history proves.
The irony!
> Intelligence is frequently wrong as history proves.
The irony!
I remember a good joke from Dave Letterman on his show he made about Saddam before this news came out when he said
*so far we've killed his brothers and sisters in law and his ex-wife.... Boy we're really making his life hell aren't we?*
*so far we've killed his brothers and sisters in law and his ex-wife.... Boy we're really making his life hell aren't we?*
Apparently the Iraqis tried to do something similar, but they realised that killing Bush's relatives would mean eradicating a whole southern town... {makes cletus noise}
Blank wrote:
> Wrong + wrong = right. Yep...
Depends on what you define as wrong.
Ending the careers of two mass murderers + proving to those they preyed on they are dead = right. Yes.
Apology goes to Goatboy, I misinterpreted what he said regarding Al Jazeera, bit too quick to criticise that time - sorry.
> Wrong + wrong = right. Yep...
Depends on what you define as wrong.
Ending the careers of two mass murderers + proving to those they preyed on they are dead = right. Yes.
Apology goes to Goatboy, I misinterpreted what he said regarding Al Jazeera, bit too quick to criticise that time - sorry.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> Pics are up of the two sons.
> Except, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the US up in arms about US
> soldiers being displayed on Al Jeezera?
> Heck, nice that both sons were together at the same time. It's not
> like the entire US army was after them or anything.
>
> Didn't notice you condeming Al Jazeera back then, usual double
> standard eh ?
That's because he's pointing out a double standard. Before today what would he have pointed out, a single standard? You baffle me with your stupidity at times.
> Not being used as propoganda, and who
> really cares if it is violating any law anyway ? God knows those two
> did there fair share of that...
Wrong + wrong = right. Yep...
> Goatboy wrote:
> Pics are up of the two sons.
> Except, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the US up in arms about US
> soldiers being displayed on Al Jeezera?
> Heck, nice that both sons were together at the same time. It's not
> like the entire US army was after them or anything.
>
> Didn't notice you condeming Al Jazeera back then, usual double
> standard eh ?
That's because he's pointing out a double standard. Before today what would he have pointed out, a single standard? You baffle me with your stupidity at times.
> Not being used as propoganda, and who
> really cares if it is violating any law anyway ? God knows those two
> did there fair share of that...
Wrong + wrong = right. Yep...
English_Bloke wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> Pics are up of the two sons.
> Except, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the US up in arms about US
> soldiers being displayed on Al Jeezera?
>
> Yes, that one was a nice double standard, wasn’t it?
>
> Hussein’s old bodyguards have sworn that more revenge attacks on
> American soldiers will be carried out.
So far everyone shown on TV saying that has been nothing more than an untrained civilian waving an AK or similar around. Sure, there will be experienced men around but a lot of these are bound to know that, if they fight, they will die. More likely that the real experienced men will by and large disappear apart from those who know their crimes will follow them, leaving behind an ill trained guerilla force that can be beaten given time.
> Goatboy wrote:
> Pics are up of the two sons.
> Except, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the US up in arms about US
> soldiers being displayed on Al Jeezera?
>
> Yes, that one was a nice double standard, wasn’t it?
>
> Hussein’s old bodyguards have sworn that more revenge attacks on
> American soldiers will be carried out.
So far everyone shown on TV saying that has been nothing more than an untrained civilian waving an AK or similar around. Sure, there will be experienced men around but a lot of these are bound to know that, if they fight, they will die. More likely that the real experienced men will by and large disappear apart from those who know their crimes will follow them, leaving behind an ill trained guerilla force that can be beaten given time.
Goatboy wrote:
> Must be nice to be a master tactitioner at such a young age.
> And not even in the military! Woolies really train you guys good eh?
As I'm sure you've learnt many things in your job....
Y'see, one of the great things about living in a democracy, i.e not Iraq with Saddam in charge - is that much of the working's of the military is for sale, freely, and is, if one has the intelligence to sift the exageration and inaccuracies from them at times, largely correct. Now if someone had been reading about military units, various wars, talked to people who had been in the military at shows, been on simulators, etc then they'd have a reasonable idea of what they were talking about.
> Pics are up of the two sons.
> Except, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the US up in arms about US
> soldiers being displayed on Al Jeezera?
> Heck, nice that both sons were together at the same time. It's not
> like the entire US army was after them or anything.
Didn't notice you condeming Al Jazeera back then, usual double standard eh ? There are differences of course, video for the US troops, photo for the 2 sons. Not being used as propoganda, and who really cares if it is violating any law anyway ? God knows those two did there fair share of that...
> I'm surprised some waggish jarhead didn't scribble "i bum
> men" on their foreheads as well.
Taking into consideration that one of the worst war excesses was that of a british soldier...
> Must be nice to be a master tactitioner at such a young age.
> And not even in the military! Woolies really train you guys good eh?
As I'm sure you've learnt many things in your job....
Y'see, one of the great things about living in a democracy, i.e not Iraq with Saddam in charge - is that much of the working's of the military is for sale, freely, and is, if one has the intelligence to sift the exageration and inaccuracies from them at times, largely correct. Now if someone had been reading about military units, various wars, talked to people who had been in the military at shows, been on simulators, etc then they'd have a reasonable idea of what they were talking about.
> Pics are up of the two sons.
> Except, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the US up in arms about US
> soldiers being displayed on Al Jeezera?
> Heck, nice that both sons were together at the same time. It's not
> like the entire US army was after them or anything.
Didn't notice you condeming Al Jazeera back then, usual double standard eh ? There are differences of course, video for the US troops, photo for the 2 sons. Not being used as propoganda, and who really cares if it is violating any law anyway ? God knows those two did there fair share of that...
> I'm surprised some waggish jarhead didn't scribble "i bum
> men" on their foreheads as well.
Taking into consideration that one of the worst war excesses was that of a british soldier...
Unbeliever wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> Man or woman it does not matter, coalition forces always go after
> their own and do so assuming resistance. Shouting, waving weapons
> etc
> is all part of having a psychological impact which encourages the
> target to comply. It worked, in and out with no loss.
>
> Methink you've been watching too much Platoon and Full Metal Jacket!
No, it's proven. In a situation which requires direct, rapid entry into a hostile target the best tactic, assuming possible resistance, is to move fast, make the presence of weapons clear, rapidly shout orders and intentions to any possible resistance etc - it all acts to disorientate and confuse those in the target for a mission such as this. Take flashbangs, whilsts the detonation of them throws out a blinding white light the prime function is the detonation sound which screws up hearing - except in those deploying them if they have experience of them and protective headgear.
If they had met heavier resistance then tactics change, depending on the situation they'd have moved in, clearing room to room, if there was a danger of any hostage being executed, or secured a perimeter and called in C130 Spectres - Hercules transport planes outfitted with mortars and gatling guns linked by target control systems - to suppress resistance, or Humvee TOW launchers. There's many options available to meet the situation but ANY operation in enemy territory is extremely dangerous no matter what intelligence says.
Intelligence is frequently wrong as history proves.
> Practical Magic wrote:
> Man or woman it does not matter, coalition forces always go after
> their own and do so assuming resistance. Shouting, waving weapons
> etc
> is all part of having a psychological impact which encourages the
> target to comply. It worked, in and out with no loss.
>
> Methink you've been watching too much Platoon and Full Metal Jacket!
No, it's proven. In a situation which requires direct, rapid entry into a hostile target the best tactic, assuming possible resistance, is to move fast, make the presence of weapons clear, rapidly shout orders and intentions to any possible resistance etc - it all acts to disorientate and confuse those in the target for a mission such as this. Take flashbangs, whilsts the detonation of them throws out a blinding white light the prime function is the detonation sound which screws up hearing - except in those deploying them if they have experience of them and protective headgear.
If they had met heavier resistance then tactics change, depending on the situation they'd have moved in, clearing room to room, if there was a danger of any hostage being executed, or secured a perimeter and called in C130 Spectres - Hercules transport planes outfitted with mortars and gatling guns linked by target control systems - to suppress resistance, or Humvee TOW launchers. There's many options available to meet the situation but ANY operation in enemy territory is extremely dangerous no matter what intelligence says.
Intelligence is frequently wrong as history proves.
Page: