Army Abuse of Iraqi 'Appalling'
Discussion
There are quite a few different issues running through this thread. I've got a few comments on them, though.
The discussion of Islam, extreme and otherwise, and its relation - or otherwise - to terrorism has been done to death elsewhere.
The discussion of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns at the political level have been done to death elsewhere.
This death was a crime. The soldiers involved have been punished. You may disagree with the level of sentencing, but if torturing and killing prisoners was part of accepted army practice and culture there would have been no trials and disciplinary action.
Every time there is a military thread, someone comes on and says something to the effect that soldiers are all as thick as a castle wall, and are recruited from verminous stock where they should stay.
As it happens some parts of the army require entry qualifications, while some don't. The mere fact of having no qualifications doesn't automatically make someone a dullard, although it might. Yes, there are thick people in the army because, guess what, there are thick people in society. The army is a mirror of the society it recruits from, albeit a slightly distorted one because not everyone wants to be a soldier.
Quite often in these discussions, the comment is made that some or all soldiers are only there because they are too poor/thick/aggressive/whatever particular trait you don't like to do anything else. In some cases that is true but so what? If someone joins the army as a way out of poverty, what is wrong with that? In most cases its not true.
Two facts remain: One is that the army is made up of 100,000 people and it contains a spectrum of ability, intelligence, talent, decency and any other measure of a human that you care to choose. The other is that of the 100,000 serving at any one time (and the army is a sausage machine of people entering and leaving so you can multiply that if you like) only a tiny fraction behave as these guys did. And when they are caught, they are punished.
The discussion of Islam, extreme and otherwise, and its relation - or otherwise - to terrorism has been done to death elsewhere.
The discussion of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns at the political level have been done to death elsewhere.
This death was a crime. The soldiers involved have been punished. You may disagree with the level of sentencing, but if torturing and killing prisoners was part of accepted army practice and culture there would have been no trials and disciplinary action.
Every time there is a military thread, someone comes on and says something to the effect that soldiers are all as thick as a castle wall, and are recruited from verminous stock where they should stay.
As it happens some parts of the army require entry qualifications, while some don't. The mere fact of having no qualifications doesn't automatically make someone a dullard, although it might. Yes, there are thick people in the army because, guess what, there are thick people in society. The army is a mirror of the society it recruits from, albeit a slightly distorted one because not everyone wants to be a soldier.
Quite often in these discussions, the comment is made that some or all soldiers are only there because they are too poor/thick/aggressive/whatever particular trait you don't like to do anything else. In some cases that is true but so what? If someone joins the army as a way out of poverty, what is wrong with that? In most cases its not true.
Two facts remain: One is that the army is made up of 100,000 people and it contains a spectrum of ability, intelligence, talent, decency and any other measure of a human that you care to choose. The other is that of the 100,000 serving at any one time (and the army is a sausage machine of people entering and leaving so you can multiply that if you like) only a tiny fraction behave as these guys did. And when they are caught, they are punished.
Shar2 said:
bmw535i said:
southendpier said:
It is one of the horrible aspects of society that puts young, maliable kids through that processs.
Eh?BruceV8 said:
Every time there is a military thread, someone comes on and says something to the effect that soldiers are all as thick as a castle wall, and are recruited from verminous stock where they should stay..
If that was directed at me then we are clearly going round in circles.Stay safe guys.
Southend
1.What do you know about the Army recruitment policy?
2. Please state your perceived reasons that the Army "takes certain types of people for the grinder". Your previous post did not make any sense - hence my "eh?"
3. Why are you denying things that you have clearly said previously?
1.What do you know about the Army recruitment policy?
2. Please state your perceived reasons that the Army "takes certain types of people for the grinder". Your previous post did not make any sense - hence my "eh?"
3. Why are you denying things that you have clearly said previously?
Blue Oval84 said:
jimnicebutdim said:
The incident that sums up the enemy for me happened about 2 years ago in Sangin (I think). Taliban entered the town, found the prettiest little girl they could, and then kneecapped her. Her father was ordered to take the girl to the British outpost for medical aid. The Brits called for a medevac for the little girl and the chopper was ambushed. See, the TB knew the Brits would pull out the stops for a child and did all this to try and bring down a chopper.
That is the nature of the enemy we fight, and despite the occasional story of violence or abuse, we would or could never sink as low as that scum.
Jesus. Never heard of anything like that and it certainly sums up the enemy.That is the nature of the enemy we fight, and despite the occasional story of violence or abuse, we would or could never sink as low as that scum.
Good luck out there, hope that whoever responsible for that was suitably dealt with.
Jimbeaux said:
There are no qualifications whatsoever? Minimal educational ones?
http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20145.aspxFor a basic infantry soldier there are no qualifications required. I.e GCSE's etc. There are jobs in the Infantry where qualifications are required.
Once you are in though, there are plenty of courses to pass which require basic skills levels which are taught by the Army. We have a Corps dedicated to it.
Most jobs in the Army require some entry level qualifications at GCSE level or above.
When I joined the army I had no qualifications. (I was a 16 year old from Tottenham and I guessed that 24 years in various war zones would be safer for me 
). Now I'm just about to submit my MPhil thesis which, I think, shows several things: One is that the army can and does offer people with perhaps not the best, or easiest, starts in life opportunities for education and advancement.
Another, slightly O/T point (perhaps more relevant to the riots thread) is that it also shows that coming from a toilet of a sink estate should never be an excuse for being a rubbish human being. We all have choices and we can all find routes out of there if we want to. Mine was the army.
). Now I'm just about to submit my MPhil thesis which, I think, shows several things: One is that the army can and does offer people with perhaps not the best, or easiest, starts in life opportunities for education and advancement. Another, slightly O/T point (perhaps more relevant to the riots thread) is that it also shows that coming from a toilet of a sink estate should never be an excuse for being a rubbish human being. We all have choices and we can all find routes out of there if we want to. Mine was the army.
BruceV8 said:
When I joined the army I had no qualifications. (I was a 16 year old from Tottenham and I guessed that 24 years in various war zones would be safer for me ). Now I'm just about to submit my MPhil thesis which, I think, shows several things: One is that the army can and does offer people with perhaps not the best, or easiest, starts in life opportunities for education and advancement.
Another, slightly O/T point (perhaps more relevant to the riots thread) is that it also shows that coming from a toilet of a sink estate should never be an excuse for being a rubbish human being. We all have choices and we can all find routes out of there if we want to. Mine was the army.
Actually, it shows that your booze addled brain is not very good at remembering more than one thing ). Now I'm just about to submit my MPhil thesis which, I think, shows several things: One is that the army can and does offer people with perhaps not the best, or easiest, starts in life opportunities for education and advancement. Another, slightly O/T point (perhaps more relevant to the riots thread) is that it also shows that coming from a toilet of a sink estate should never be an excuse for being a rubbish human being. We all have choices and we can all find routes out of there if we want to. Mine was the army.
bmw535i said:
Jimbeaux said:
There are no qualifications whatsoever? Minimal educational ones?
http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20145.aspxFor a basic infantry soldier there are no qualifications required. I.e GCSE's etc. There are jobs in the Infantry where qualifications are required.
Once you are in though, there are plenty of courses to pass which require basic skills levels which are taught by the Army. We have a Corps dedicated to it.
Most jobs in the Army require some entry level qualifications at GCSE level or above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff