The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In todays Mail on Sunday, there is a list of reasons why those pics showing British troops torturing an Iraqi may be fake, here they are:-
1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that would occur in such a vicious attack.
2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it represents is widespread.
5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He is not.
6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant reaction.
7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition for a rifle in a combat zone.
8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army regulations.
9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm, they were not there in the pictures.
11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from Millets or the Internet.
12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than those of a soldier in a combat zone.
13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera, but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
So, very suspect indeed.
1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that would occur in such a vicious attack.
2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it represents is widespread.
5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He is not.
6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant reaction.
7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition for a rifle in a combat zone.
8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army regulations.
9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm, they were not there in the pictures.
11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from Millets or the Internet.
12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than those of a soldier in a combat zone.
13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera, but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
So, very suspect indeed.
Page:
Darwock wrote:
> Yes, that's possible. Does that justify what we've seen over the past
> week? No.
I didn't say it did.
I was just pointing out that your belief in the, 'its one or the other', was wrong.
Iraq may not be divided into two camps, those supporting the occupation, and those wanting to kill them. There may be more that two you know.
> Yes, that's possible. Does that justify what we've seen over the past
> week? No.
I didn't say it did.
I was just pointing out that your belief in the, 'its one or the other', was wrong.
Iraq may not be divided into two camps, those supporting the occupation, and those wanting to kill them. There may be more that two you know.
Darwock wrote:
> I was responding to the statements further down that said 'what do you
> expect, look how the Iraqis have treated them'.
>
That much I do agree with; the US troops involved in any torture or mistreatment have no excuses of any kind. I thought the "just following orders" excuse died along with those convicted at Nuremburg, but apparantly not.
I still think that, on balance, the evidence indicates most Iraqi's were overjoyed at the fall of Saddam. But you pays your money and makes your choice I guess.
> I was responding to the statements further down that said 'what do you
> expect, look how the Iraqis have treated them'.
>
That much I do agree with; the US troops involved in any torture or mistreatment have no excuses of any kind. I thought the "just following orders" excuse died along with those convicted at Nuremburg, but apparantly not.
I still think that, on balance, the evidence indicates most Iraqi's were overjoyed at the fall of Saddam. But you pays your money and makes your choice I guess.
Yes, that's possible. Does that justify what we've seen over the past week? No.
Darwock wrote:
> I was responding to the statements further down that said 'what do you
> expect, look how the Iraqis have treated them'.
>
> Whether what I believe is the truth or not, it's one or the other...
> either the Iraqis welcomed the troops and therefore the Americans
> cannot claim to have been pushed to breaking point (and started
> torturing and killing people), or the Iraqi people never welcomed the
> occupation.. hence the bad treatment on both sides.
Don't you think its posible, just maybe that the country is split.
Some welcoming the ridding of Saddam, some welcoming the Allied forces, some hating the fall of Saddam, and some hating the coming of the Allies.
> I was responding to the statements further down that said 'what do you
> expect, look how the Iraqis have treated them'.
>
> Whether what I believe is the truth or not, it's one or the other...
> either the Iraqis welcomed the troops and therefore the Americans
> cannot claim to have been pushed to breaking point (and started
> torturing and killing people), or the Iraqi people never welcomed the
> occupation.. hence the bad treatment on both sides.
Don't you think its posible, just maybe that the country is split.
Some welcoming the ridding of Saddam, some welcoming the Allied forces, some hating the fall of Saddam, and some hating the coming of the Allies.
I was responding to the statements further down that said 'what do you expect, look how the Iraqis have treated them'.
Whether what I believe is the truth or not, it's one or the other... either the Iraqis welcomed the troops and therefore the Americans cannot claim to have been pushed to breaking point (and started torturing and killing people), or the Iraqi people never welcomed the occupation.. hence the bad treatment on both sides.
Whether what I believe is the truth or not, it's one or the other... either the Iraqis welcomed the troops and therefore the Americans cannot claim to have been pushed to breaking point (and started torturing and killing people), or the Iraqi people never welcomed the occupation.. hence the bad treatment on both sides.
Darwock wrote:
> Oh yes, a poll by western media.. I'm sure that's representative of
> the nation. In any case, if the polls show overwhelming support, then
> bad treatment of our soldiers can't be used as an excuse for their
> brutal treatment of the Iraqi people.
Nah, sorry mate but I simply don't go along with what you're saying; get rid of a dictator like Saddam (because despite the christawful things our troops have done, we still have a long way to go to catch up with that lovely gent in terms of atrocities directly committed) who was part of an oppressive mainly Sunni elite, and the huge majority of Shia muslims (who make up most of Iraq population, and suffered much persecution) are gonna party like it's 1999. It strikes me that you want to believe that most Iraqi's wouldn't have celebrated, rather than being able to offer any evidence that that is the case.
In other words, I believe that the vast VAST majority of Iraqi's were ecstatic at the fall of Saddam. Equally though, I believe that an increasingly large minority are now seriously opposed to the continued presence of foreign troops. After the pics of torture, it'll probably be a majority.
> Oh yes, a poll by western media.. I'm sure that's representative of
> the nation. In any case, if the polls show overwhelming support, then
> bad treatment of our soldiers can't be used as an excuse for their
> brutal treatment of the Iraqi people.
Nah, sorry mate but I simply don't go along with what you're saying; get rid of a dictator like Saddam (because despite the christawful things our troops have done, we still have a long way to go to catch up with that lovely gent in terms of atrocities directly committed) who was part of an oppressive mainly Sunni elite, and the huge majority of Shia muslims (who make up most of Iraq population, and suffered much persecution) are gonna party like it's 1999. It strikes me that you want to believe that most Iraqi's wouldn't have celebrated, rather than being able to offer any evidence that that is the case.
In other words, I believe that the vast VAST majority of Iraqi's were ecstatic at the fall of Saddam. Equally though, I believe that an increasingly large minority are now seriously opposed to the continued presence of foreign troops. After the pics of torture, it'll probably be a majority.
Does anyone have a link to these pictures? I seem to have missed them...
Oh yes, a poll by western media.. I'm sure that's representative of the nation. In any case, if the polls show overwhelming support, then bad treatment of our soldiers can't be used as an excuse for their brutal treatment of the Iraqi people.
Darwock wrote:
> I still believe the only people celebrating were the local neds and
> criminals, who welcomed the opportunity to start looting the city,
> stripping the palaces and the museums. It's not hard to put a spin on
> that to make it look like the whole country was happy to see us.
What about the millions who hated Saddam. You know, shi'its(sp?) and the like. And don't forget that poll taken re-cently, showing the over welming majority of Iraqis welcomed the Allied troops.
> I still believe the only people celebrating were the local neds and
> criminals, who welcomed the opportunity to start looting the city,
> stripping the palaces and the museums. It's not hard to put a spin on
> that to make it look like the whole country was happy to see us.
What about the millions who hated Saddam. You know, shi'its(sp?) and the like. And don't forget that poll taken re-cently, showing the over welming majority of Iraqis welcomed the Allied troops.
I still believe the only people celebrating were the local neds and criminals, who welcomed the opportunity to start looting the city, stripping the palaces and the museums. It's not hard to put a spin on that to make it look like the whole country was happy to see us.
Page: