Originally Posted by Italian Guy

I would just like to know whether this is within or beyond their ROE's.

Have in mind this is a riot control situation and the ROE is hard to follow in such situations. What the SOP says is also a question that has to be taken into consideration.

Thank you Sunb!.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Listen PJ, what you're saying is far from meaningless IMO, and I'm not famous for my troops-bashing or "liberal" attitudes either.
I would just like to know whether this is within or beyond their ROE's.

I don't think anything you've said constitutes as "troop bashing" nor does it indicate you're a "liberal" (not that the latter would be horrible.) You and I are looking at this from different perspectives, that's all.

As for it being outside of the ROEs, most likely. That said, a lot of things happen outside of the ROEs that are not necessarily "bad."

The stupidity comes from the video tape. The rest is a pretty creative way of dealing with those guys. No one looked seriously injured, and most of the strikes were actually made towards the buttocks and lower extremities. There were a few nasty hits in there, but all in all, it looked like the original intent was to give them corrective action.

I've had to deal with those kids and they're juveniles, just like the kids over here or where you are. Sometimes they are a little thick headed and it takes a little more to get the message through. For some, a little pain now might save their lives later. And that's all I say on that.

Thanks PJ.

Some questions spring to my mind, is why were these riots allowed to go on for three days with the use of tear gas, was it because the Senior Officers were to worried about the come back. Also with these kids using slings they can hurl a rock the size of a base ball about 150 yards, these rocks will not only hurt they can break your bones and even kill you. Now I am not saying that it is right what they did but I can understand their frustration in this matter. Now after these beating the riot stopped I wonder why, is once these youths found that they might get punished they stopped, may be some one might tell me. Another thing that strikes me where was the leadership from the officers in all this, could they have just left the soldiers to get on with it all. The other thing is is why was this soldier filming this sort of thing after all the troubles over pictures, and was he the one that sold it to the papers. If I was soldier these days I would smash any camera I saw some prat pointing in my direction along with the prat holding it.

I didn't say the Brits were protecting themselves, I said they were giving out a little wall to wall instead of simply shooting them in the face.

.3

So now you have a pissed off bad guy thats gona go tell all his friends that he got abused when you could of shot the ****-head in the first place. (if they were takeing fire from them)

Originally Posted by Rabs

.3

So now you have a pissed off bad guy thats gona go tell all his friends that he got abused when you could of shot the ****-head in the first place. (if they were takeing fire from them)

shooting them would have stopped the riot. Good point Rabs

Originally Posted by Rabs

.3

So now you have a pissed off bad guy thats gona go tell all his friends that he got abused when you could of shot the ****-head in the first place. (if they were takeing fire from them)

Doing a bit of Armchair Quarterbacking, are we? I believe your opinion is fit only for the rubbish bin on this matter. It is interesting to watch a 17 year old advocate the killing of juveniles by soldiers with little or no regard or concept for/of the situation at hand.

shooting them would have stopped the riot. Good point Rabs

Did your crystal ball tell you this? Perhaps you should watch the video as the rioters were E&Eing prior to the incident currently under scrutinization. Do you feel it is ok to shoot civilians in the back? To fire into a crowd where the majority are unarmed and all are vacating the area? You would not last very long under my Command.

I think British soldiers had to beat them up to learn Iraqis teenage's lesson. Not to join rioters.

Originally Posted by Fox

I think British soldiers had to beat them up to learn Iraqis teenage's lesson. Not to join rioters.

That is not the purpose of occupation of Iraq.

They are there to teach them how to join the democratic world and by beating them nothing will be learned though