Quote:
Originally posted by promethius9594:
quote:
Originally posted by Donut:
I think we should hold fire on the British photos. There are some inconsistencies in them.
|
heh, there are inconsistancies in the american photos too, but that didnt matter so long as it wasnt the brittish was it?
what a double standard. both groups, the brittish and the americans should be put to the appropriate trials and be sentenced for them through their own nations military justice.
i still dont get how if someone says american soldiers everyone jumps on the bandwagon, and when they say british soldiers everyone feels sorry or doesnt beleive it. flipping double standards... [/QUOTE]What are the inconsistencies in the American ones? According to Amnesty International they had already informed the military this was going on.
As for the British ones, they are rather large inconsistencies: the rifles shown weren't issued to Iraqi troops, the hats weren't worn; only beret's or helmets in Iraq, the truck shown also wasn't sent to Iraq. The prisoner doesn't have any bruises/mud/blood on him which you would expect after an extended beating.
As for double standards, this is surely only natural? As an american you will always be rooting for american troops, whilst as a brit i will always be hoping that our guys shine out there.
It is present within the armies as well - the British think that the US army is too unsubtle and brutal with not enough experience in this kind of operation, whilst the US thinks that the British aren't firm enough eg their willingness to deal with former army officers (although a practice that the US has now adopted).
I think this is inevitable when you have two countries that both have a different way of doing things working side by side...it's not something that anyone should get too hung up over as the important thing is that we're both working towards the same goal. The US and Britain are two very different countries so it's only natural that there will be disagreements.
As for the media double-standards this is again understandable. If you read arabic media then you will see stories of American brutality towards Iraqi's almost on a daily basis whereas British troops never seem to feature as much. I'm sure that the different political climate in southern Iraq has allowed the Brits to be less heavy handed (rather than the 'softly-softly' approach making things calmer by itself) but I would imagine that is the reason for the different media stances.
Quote:
Originally posted by promethius 9584]
somedays i wish the media was controlled by some outside source... but who would do it without SOME agenda?
|
I'm right with you there, but only in an ideal world i guess
. I suppose the best we can do is combine lots of sources and hope to arrive at a representative view.
Myself, i use
www.cnn.com and
www.abcnews.com for the American view,
http://news.bbc.co.uk and
www.telegraph.co.uk for the British view and
http://english.aljazeera.net for the Arabic view.
[ 05-02-2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]