British torture pics have "inconsistencies"

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-03 11:41am

Here's the linky

Doubts over UK 'abuse' pictures
Monday, May 3, 2004 Posted: 9:56 AM EDT (1356 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Doubts are growing over the authenticity of photographs that allegedly show British troops mistreating an Iraqi prisoner.

Some British military officials have cast doubt on the pictures -- first published in the Daily Mirror newspaper -- saying the clothing and equipment pictured is not currently troop issue.

But military and photographic experts have pointed out a series of inaccuracies and inconsistencies, suggesting the pictures were fakes.

The experts say the SA80 rifle shown in the images was not issued to British soldiers currently serving in Iraq.

They also say the alleged captive's shirt depicts the pre-1988 Iraqi flag and is too clean to be that old.

And the location of the photos suggest the inside of a Bedford truck -- but experts say those vehicles are not being used by British forces in southern Iraq.

The Mirror's pictures, which it said came from two soldiers in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, showed soldiers apparently kicking, stamping and urinating on a hooded Iraqi.

It said they were taken during an eight-hour beating in Basra, southern Iraq, where Britain has around 7,500 troops.

The Daily Mirror is standing by the story and on Monday published more detailed reports of alleged abuse and hinted it may publish more images.

"Despite the whispering campaign and dodgy briefings that went on yesterday, the Daily Mirror has no doubt that the allegations made by the two soldiers who came to us were true," the newspaper said in an editorial on Monday.

But the newspaper seemingly acknowledged the apparent inconsistencies could not easily be explained.

"The two squaddies (British soldiers) admit they cannot answer questions regarding minor details in the photos which were taken months ago," said the newspaper.

A Mirror spokesman declined to say whether the newspaper paid the two men for the pictures.

A former commander of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment dismissed the photographs as having "too many inconsistencies."

Colonel David Black told the BBC on Monday the vehicle shown in the pictures was never sent to the war zone in Iraq and the uniforms were not the same as those worn by the regiment.

But John Nichol, a former British soldier captured during the 1991 Gulf War, believes authenticity isn't the issue.

"If we find out in a week's time or four week's that they're not authentic -- it doesn't matter -- the whole Arab world have seen them and it is turning Arab opinion against the forces in Iraq and that can only do immense damage to those troops trying to do the best they can," Nichol told CNN.

British officials say an investigation into the matter is ongoing.

"We want to find out how this came about," retired Col. Bob Stewart, former NATO commander in Bosnia, said.

"If people did it and they're within our ranks, those of us that are against it -- everyone -- will want them in prison. If it's some kind of sicko's joke, I want them in prison too."

Prime Minister Tony Blair also condemned the alleged abuse, but stressed it did not reflect the conduct of the vast majority of coalition troops.

"This is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are in Iraq," Blair's official spokesman said.

Eight cases of alleged mistreatment by British personnel were being investigated, he confirmed.

American television network CBS has also aired photos of U.S. soldiers apparently engaged in a wide range of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.

CNN has not verified the authenticity of those images.

The U.S. military has reprimanded six American soldiers and admonished another in connection with alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the prison.(Full story)

But a leading human rights group has said graphic pictures shown on TV and in newspapers of alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition soldiers are the tip of the iceberg and that it has uncovered widespread torture.

London-based Amnesty International said it hoped the images apparently showing detainees being mistreated would force the U.S. and British governments to launch an independent investigation into the abuse claims.

Very strange indeed.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-03 12:10pm

Holy fucking shit, if this turns out to be a Hoax......

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-03 12:12pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Holy fucking shit, if this turns out to be a Hoax......

The paper my family gets had 20 things that said "bullshit" about the pictures from the wrong type of gun being used currently to uniform inconcistencies and general way the soldier was.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-03 12:13pm

By the way, if it is a hoax then aside from The Mirror being up shit creek without a paddle, the Arab world won't care because the damage has already been done and we're pretty much at rock bottom for PR as it is.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-03 12:17pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:By the way, if it is a hoax then aside from The Mirror being up shit creek without a paddle, the Arab world won't care because the damage has already been done and we're pretty much at rock bottom for PR as it is.

seems the Mirror lives up to it's name.... as the mirror of Faux News. Each spews one sided bullshit without bothering to confirm any of it first.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-03 12:31pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:By the way, if it is a hoax then aside from The Mirror being up shit creek without a paddle, the Arab world won't care because the damage has already been done and we're pretty much at rock bottom for PR as it is.

Yeah, they said that in the article that no arabs will care if its fake. Damage done.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-03 12:40pm

What a clusterfuck. I'm glad that this stuff is apparently fake, but it is still going to get coalition soldiers killed.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-03 12:40pm

Er, replace "apparently" with "potentially".

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-05-03 12:42pm

So the newspaper is sure that they're real, the people that gave them to paper just can't verify it. Right.

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2004-05-03 01:28pm

Tabloids eh?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-03 01:54pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:By the way, if it is a hoax then aside from The Mirror being up shit creek without a paddle, the Arab world won't care because the damage has already been done and we're pretty much at rock bottom for PR as it is.
seems the Mirror lives up to it's name.... as the mirror of Faux News. Each spews one sided bullshit without bothering to confirm any of it first.

The Mirror is worse than Fox News, thats the sad thing.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-03 02:49pm

I'd been suspecting they where fake since I first heard it. Doing it would be child's play for anyone almost anywhere and the source really is far worse then fox news.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-03 02:51pm

It's interesting how they won't say whether they paid for the pics.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-05-03 02:54pm

This really makes you wonder how much of what we see in some of the, uhm, "less reputable" papers such as the Mirror are actually faked.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-05-03 08:45pm

Will the Coalition be using this as a big PR opportunity, claiming all claims of abuse are false and such?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-03 09:04pm

Gandalf wrote:Will the Coalition be using this as a big PR opportunity, claiming all claims of abuse are false and such?

Probably not. Some of it is verified, but the horrible pictures of brutality aren't.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-05-03 09:05pm

Gandalf wrote:Will the Coalition be using this as a big PR opportunity, claiming all claims of abuse are false and such?

I don't think so, but the damage is done for the image of the British Army in Iraq.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-05-04 03:05am

phongn wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Will the Coalition be using this as a big PR opportunity, claiming all claims of abuse are false and such?
I don't think so, but the damage is done for the image of the British Army in Iraq.

The evidence of US abuses is substantial and verified, but the British photo controversy could (assuming that the photos are fake) very well be a clever ploy by some of the resistance elements to stain their image, which so far has been relatively benign in the eyes of the Iraqi population. If this is the case, whoever thought it up, they scored a big political win.

Edi

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-05-04 05:58am

Um...I'm realizing that I've never been to or heard of a UK news site that was reputable. I've heard Brits refer to newspapers as "tabloids," which in the US means shit like the Enquirer (fiction). I was hoping Americans and Brits defined the word "tabloid" differently. Do we, or are UK papers generally full of shit? I find that hard to believe, but stranger things happen.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-04 06:00am

Metrion Cascade wrote:Um...I'm realizing that I've never been to or heard of a UK news site that was reputable. I've heard Brits refer to newspapers as "tabloids," which in the US means shit like the Enquirer (fiction). I was hoping Americans and Brits defined the word "tabloid" differently. Do we, or are UK papers generally full of shit? I find that hard to believe, but stranger things happen.

2 types of newspapers:

Broadsheets - Reliable, good, report actual news.

Tabloids - Report news, often unrealiable, more a kind of "Celeberty X slept with Whore Y" kind of thing. They're known for extreme bias.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-05-04 06:03am

Metrion Cascade wrote:Um...I'm realizing that I've never been to or heard of a UK news site that was reputable. I've heard Brits refer to newspapers as "tabloids," which in the US means shit like the Enquirer (fiction). I was hoping Americans and Brits defined the word "tabloid" differently. Do we, or are UK papers generally full of shit? I find that hard to believe, but stranger things happen.

There's two main types of newspaper in the UK:
Broadsheets: the big fuckers that you need a table to rest on if your going to read them. Tend to be "serious" and have a lot of articles.
Tabloids: Smaller papers (as in smaller page size) made for people wanting to read on the tube and stuff. Generally carry the main news stories but also have a lot of "human interest" stories, eg. which celebs are going out together, who got caught topless on a beach by paparazzi and all that other bollocks. Also give a lot more sports coverage.

Generally i read the Express which seems to be a compromise between the two.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-04 09:45am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3680327.stm

1. Claim: Sources close to the Queen's Lancashire regiment believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq. The rifle would have had a carrying sling attached. Some experts have said they believe it's a replica.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told the Mirror: "I was carrying an SA80-A2. I think the one in the picture is that model as well. I can't explain why it may not be. Some soldiers wore rifle slings, many others didn't."

2. Claim: The condition of the weapon is "pristine", whereas it would be scuffed and dirty if it had seen action. It also has no cover over the barrel and no identification number on the butt.

Rebuttal: Soldier A said: "We cleaned our rifles all the time. It could have been cleaned that afternoon."

3. Claim: The army doesn't use potato sacks as hoods, but dark room curtains. The hood was too clean and "ironed" for something that would have been crumpled up in someone's pockets.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told Monday's Mirror: "I can't answer that. That was the hood the man had on." The paper claims to have seen another picture of a different arrested Iraqi, in which the 'sandbag' hood appears to be identical.

4. Claim: "Why would the soldier be wearing webbing that is undone? Normally soldiers are very particular about that," said former commander Colonel Bob Stewart. Experts have also said it is unusual for the pouches not to be full.

Rebuttal: "On raids, kit wasn't the issue. We had also returned to our compound, the soldier might have removed stuff," soldier A told the Mirror.

5. Claim: The stream of urine does not look authentic. Among the claims are that shadows have been added to the drops of urine, that the wet patch on the hood is fake, and that the droplets are coming from a bottle of water.

Rebuttal: None provided.

6. Claim: The wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq. Some have also said it is too clean.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told the Mirror: "It was a four ton truck, I'm not sure what make. We always used that sort of truck when we were on raids as did other units."

On the cleanliness claim he said: "That's the way it was."

7. Claim: Col Stewart threw doubt on the captive's "slightly silky" football shirt, bearing an Iraqi flag. "Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing?" he said. Other analysts have said the shirt would be out of place in the Shia area of Basra.

Rebuttal: "We saw dozens of Iraqis wearing exactly those t-shirts," soldier B told the Mirror.

8. Claim: Soldiers tie laces in a parallel, rather than criss-cross, fashion.

Rebuttal: The Mirror pictures soldier with boots laced criss-cross. Soldier A said: "I think people lace the boots the way they are most comfortable with."

9. Claim: Soldiers operating in this area wouldn't tuck their trousers into their boots, but would leave them outside with an elasticated bottom to stop sand getting in.

Rebuttal: None provided.

10. Claim: The shirt would be sweaty, dirty and dishevelled after alleged beatings. There are no bruises or marks on the captured man.

Rebuttal: Soldier A told the Mirror: "The man was wearing some sort of Arab dress over his t-shirt and it was ripped off during his arrest."

11. Claim: Regiment sources say soldiers wear berets or hard hats, not floppy hats.

Rebuttal: Soldier B said: "We wore floppy hats all the time. A beret was too hot, helmets cumbersome."

12. Claim: The captive's posture does not suggest he is being tortured. The body would be curled up, legs pulled into the foetal position. "It is not the posture of someone who has suffered pain," said Col Stewart.

Rebuttal: Soldier A said: "That's how he was. His arms were tied behind him."

13. Claim: Divisional markings should have been visible under the flag on the soldier's left sleeve.

Rebuttal: The Mirror pictures two other soldiers serving in Iraq, also with no divisional markings on their sleeves. Soldier A told the paper: "We weren't going around sewing badges on."

14. Claim: Experts have questioned the sharp quality of the photos - former Guardian picture editor Eamonn McCabe compares them with the fuzzy, badly composed pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, published last week. The Mirror's pictures are "all too clinical" to be trusted, he said.

Rebuttal: None provided

Curiouser and curiouser.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-05-04 12:50pm

Metrion Cascade wrote:Um...I'm realizing that I've never been to or heard of a UK news site that was reputable. I've heard Brits refer to newspapers as "tabloids," which in the US means shit like the Enquirer (fiction). I was hoping Americans and Brits defined the word "tabloid" differently. Do we, or are UK papers generally full of shit? I find that hard to believe, but stranger things happen.

There are tabloids and broadsheets; the two refer to different physical layouts. The Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Post are examples of them in the US (along with things you find on the grocery checkout lane). British tabloids typically are heavily biased and are generally not reliable sources.

Broadsheets are conventional newspapers. There are three major ones in the UK -- the Guardian, the Times and the Daily Telegraph. The Guardian is a left-wing paper, the Daily Telegraph is right-wing and the Times is somewhere in between the two. Note that I'm referring to British politics, not American so skew those leftwards if you want to compare to the US.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-04 12:52pm

A lot of this rebuttals are of the "Huh, well...so?" sort...I mean, "It was a four ton truck, I'm not sure what make. We always used that sort of truck when we were on raids as did other units." as a rebuttal to it being a kind of truck not sent there is a pretty shitty rebutal, even compared to some of the shit we've had come up here on the board.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2004-05-04 01:20pm

IIRC, the Bedford truck in the photos is only in use by the TA, and wasn't deployed to Iraq.