It appears that the UK military was just as brutal as the US in Iraq. It is disgraceful that a court martial acquitted the UK soldiers.

The findings of the Judge demonstrate that UK military tribunals are corrupt.

Death is Tony Blair's legacy.

How many more such incidents of murder will be exposed over time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37380673


Quote:

Four UK soldiers who "forced" an Iraqi boy into a canal and let him drown have been condemned by a judge investigating civilian deaths in the Iraq War. Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, who was 15, died in Basra in May 2003 after he was detained on suspicion of looting. The British judge's report said Ahmed should never have been detained or made to enter the canal, and should have been rescued when he was "floundering". The Ministry of Defence said it was "extremely sorry". 'Bullying conduct' UK forces entered Basra City on the night of 6 April 2003, as part of the invasion of Iraq, and rapidly took control of the area, although they encountered widespread looting. The incident took place after soldiers were called to a derelict industrial compound where they found 20 to 30 suspected looters. After a chase, Ahmed was one of four suspected looters who were first made to roll around in a pool of stagnant water. They were then taken in a Warrior armed vehicle to the Shatt-Al Basra canal and forced to enter the water there. According to one of the others detained, Ayad Salim Hanoon, the four were forced to enter the canal "at gunpoint". He also gave evidence that the soldiers threw stones to force them into deeper water, although the report was unable to establish whether or not this claim was true. The report does acknowledge that Mr Hanoon's evidence "has been subject to extensive criticism", including "mistakes or misunderstandings" or problems with translation. The report by the Iraq Fatality Investigations, led by former High Court judge Sir George Newman, described the soldiers' actions as a "clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise". 'State of chaos' It criticised their "manifest failure" to take action to save the boy's life. "His death ensued because he was forced by the soldiers to enter the canal, where, in the presence of the soldiers, he was seen to be in difficulty, and to go under the water. "Notwithstanding the unlawful treatment involved in getting him into the water, his death could have been avoided because he could and should have been rescued after it became clear that he was floundering." The four soldiers involved, who were granted anonymity in the report, were acquitted of manslaughter at a court martial in 2006. Timeline: Iraq War UK military deaths in Iraq The report raised "grave concerns" about their ability to have coped with the responsibilities imposed on them and about the adequacy of the resources available to British forces in Iraq. It added there were also concerns about training and "the ability of the occupying force to take on the burden to act as both policemen and combatants simultaneously". Basra at the time had "descended into a state of chaos" and there was no assistance from Iraqi police or legal processes in place to deal with the problem of looting, which had been "beyond the capabilities of the British Forces to reduce", it continued. Basra was in a state of chaos, the report says It said guidelines on how to deal with suspected looters, which involved short periods of detention before handing them over to a higher chain of command, were "totally unrealistic and impractical". This had led to soldiers meting out "on-the-spot justice", with the punishment differing "according to the temperament and inclination of the soldier in command". 'Feared for lives' Of the Basra case, the report added: "[The four suspected looters] had been compelled to get into the Warrior by fully armed soldiers. "They probably had no knowledge or understanding of what was going to happen. They are likely to have feared for their lives. "None of the soldiers gave a satisfactory explanation for their actions in directing the looters into the canal." Part two of the report, which will draw conclusions to be learned from the incident, will be released at a future date. The Iraq War, in which President Saddam Hussein was overthrown by a US-led coalition including the UK, led to the deaths of at least 150,000 Iraqis, with more than one million citizens displaced. Violence has continued in the country since then, and so-called Islamic State has taken control of parts of it. More than 200 British service personnel and civilians died during the conflict. British troops were based in Iraq for a number of years The Iraq Fatality Investigations were set up in 2013 to examine a small number of Iraqi deaths that involved British troops. Similar to inquests, they do not consider issues of individual or collective culpability. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "This was a grave incident for which we are extremely sorry. "We are committed to investigating allegations of wrongdoing by UK forces and will use Sir George's findings to learn lessons to help ensure nothing like this happens again."

like any war it is what it is.. terrible the men that did this have to live with it there is and always will be WRONG on all sides . at least the Brits bring their people to task....for actions that are unbecoming of any professional Soldier.

you can be judgmental if its your way.. me I wasnt there I have never been put in a situation that would drive anyone to do something of this kind....

I cannot believe the soldiers involved do not suffer from their actions[or lack of] and nothing will undo what happened....

its dreadful but then all war is.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

According to one of the others detained, Ayad Salim Hanoon, the four were forced to enter the canal "at gunpoint". He also gave evidence that the soldiers threw stones to force them into deeper water, although the report was unable to establish whether or not this claim was true. The report does acknowledge that Mr Hanoon's evidence "has been subject to extensive criticism", including "mistakes or misunderstandings" or problems with translation. The report by the Iraq Fatality Investigations, led by former High Court judge Sir George Newman, described the soldiers' actions as a "clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise".

So many versions, but you know the truth?

Now all you have to do is show corruption.

I note this line of the report: It added there were also concerns about training and "the ability of the occupying force to take on the burden to act as both policemen and combatants simultaneously".

Therein is the crux of the problem. Soldiers are not policemen.  Combat and policing require a different mindset and training. It is very difficult to suddenly switch from one to the other, especially in the chaos of a recently occupied city like Basra at the time. 

They will all need a psychiatrist when they come back home and it all sinks in.

Belgarion wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

I note this line of the report: It added there were also concerns about training and "the ability of the occupying force to take on the burden to act as both policemen and combatants simultaneously". Therein is the crux of the problem. Soldiers are not policemen.  Combat and policing require a different mindset and training. It is very difficult to suddenly switch from one to the other, especially in the chaos of a recently occupied city like Basra at the time.

In Timor we were smart enough to send in the Federal coppers to take that role and not burdened our diggers with the task of law & order.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 10:25am: According to one of the others detained, Ayad Salim Hanoon, the four were forced to enter the canal "at gunpoint". He also gave evidence that the soldiers threw stones to force them into deeper water, although the report was unable to establish whether or not this claim was true. The report does acknowledge that Mr Hanoon's evidence "has been subject to extensive criticism", including "mistakes or misunderstandings" or problems with translation. The report by the Iraq Fatality Investigations, led by former High Court judge Sir George Newman, described the soldiers' actions as a "clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise". So many versions, but you know the truth? Now all you have to do is show corruption.

The British establishment considers murder of civilians by their troops as ""clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise"."

That exemplifies that the UK military and its military tribunal system is corrupt.

Belgarion wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

I note this line of the report: It added there were also concerns about training and "the ability of the occupying force to take on the burden to act as both policemen and combatants simultaneously". Therein is the crux of the problem. Soldiers are not policemen.  Combat and policing require a different mindset and training. It is very difficult to suddenly switch from one to the other, especially in the chaos of a recently occupied city like Basra at the time.

This crime was against unarmed children. Are UK troops that dumb that they are unaware of the difference between armed combatants and unarmed children in a situation where there was no immediate armed conflict?

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

The British establishment considers murder of civilians by their troops as ""clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise"."

Sounds more like stupid. Corrupt - the case would never have seen the light of day.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 1:49pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 1:20pm: The British establishment considers murder of civilians by their troops as ""clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise"." Sounds more like stupid. Corrupt - the case would never have seen the light of day.

The public exposure ensured they had to fake a hearing.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 2:09pm:

lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 1:49pm: Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 1:20pm: The British establishment considers murder of civilians by their troops as ""clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise"." Sounds more like stupid. Corrupt - the case would never have seen the light of day. The public exposure ensured they had to fake a hearing.

Wow, you get more delusional by the moment don't you? If they were really corrupt there would never have been survivors for a hearing. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 2:12pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 2:09pm: lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 1:49pm: Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 1:20pm: The British establishment considers murder of civilians by their troops as ""clumsy, ill-directed and bullying piece of conduct, engaged in without consideration of the risk of harm to which it could give rise"." Sounds more like stupid. Corrupt - the case would never have seen the light of day. The public exposure ensured they had to fake a hearing. Wow, you get more delusional by the moment don't you? If they were really corrupt there would never have been survivors for a hearing. ;)

UK military would kill their own soldiers?

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 2:25pm:

UK military would kill their own soldiers?

More weird by the minute.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 2:32pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 2:25pm: UK military would kill their own soldiers? More weird by the minute.

UK atrocities in Iraq?