Originally posted by Pooh21
oh and dead, they obviously were throwing rocks, because as poor mistreated minoritys being steamrolled by the Bush/Haliburton corporate juggernaut, they felt they had no other options and we should feel sorry for their plight
No blood for oil!11
Bush is the satan!11
Walmart sucks1111
George Bush does not care about Black people!!!!!1
If you think throwing a rock vs assault rifles, airstrikes, riot gear etc is armed, score one for Western propaganda. But it begs the question why didn't they shoot them straight away if they were armed?
As to the reasons, it's all speculation: as I pointed out, none of us know why they were throwing rocks. You haven't asked, and you obviously don't care: score another one for Western propaganda.
The kids are most likely not a minority, given that the Brits generally troll around the South, which is populated by the majority Shi'ia. But again we don't know. If you think Iraqis are a minority in Iraq, though: score another one for Western propaganda.
The Brits here are certainly guilty of the most heinous crime possible in Operation Iraqi Freedom: being off-message. Nothing says "occupation not liberation" like a beating or a torture session.
Personally I'd say if you can't take a few rocks being thrown at you, you shouldn't sign up to be part of an occupying force: it comes with the package, and dishing out beatings aren't going to help calm things down. After all, the Brits weren't invited by the Iraqis, and if the Brits hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq, they wouldn't be there to get rocks thrown at them, so the Brits aren't deserving much in the way of sympathy to my mind: If you're not invited, you can hardly expect to be welcomed.
So if the Brits are really upset with the locals throwing stones at them, they could always take the unsubtle hint and just go home - unless you're suggesting there's more to Operation Iraqi Freedom than Iraqi freedom.