**
Yes, I still think “where’s the crime”.
Monty, you racist. YOUR lilly-white family might have learnt that it is not nice to barrel through police barricades, but as the racist histrionic left has taught us, the unwashed brown people of the world are too fucking stupid to know to stop in such situations. So of course the evil aryans should be strung up accordingly.
Where in hell did that rant just come from? 
zuma that’s not the point at all and you fucking well know it. These people weren’t barreling though anything they just misunderstood what was required of them. The poor fuckers are dead. Should there not be a way for them to try and get some compensation? If the soldiers did nothing wrong and the procedures are correct what’s there to worry about?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962796085.html
Beats the hell out of me, Aro. I don’t know WTF zuma has the stupidity to call me a racist.
was using heavy sarcasm to support your point, Monty.
I’m still for paying the families a structured settlement. “Next!”
I think Zuma’s post was an attack on Aro’s position and not yours. S/he wasn’t really calling you a racist.
Zuma is probably Monty’s alter ego.
Hahaha… get it?
Montyzuma?
Ha ha…ha? uhm well…
BS, Beagle. “Monty, you racist” is a direct accusation that I, Monty, am a racist. It’s also untrue that I am a racist.
Not that I’m saying you’re BS, Beagle. Just that zuma’s “point” is.
On the thread’s topic: I really don’t see why someone should get prosecuted for what I guess would be called “justifiable homicide” or “self defense” for acting on what they believed to be a reasonable action.
Yes,but when s/he says “Monty, you racist”, in this case, it’s intended to be considered tongue in cheek. S/he was not actually saying that you were a racist, but setting up a satiric straw man. S/he does not apparently believe that it is actually racist to expect people to stop at roadblocks.
Maybe. I’ll believe it when I read it from zuma.
Oh, and zuma: If I’ve been whooshed, then I’ve been whooshed.
Personally, I steer clear of the heavy sarcasm. Throwing around insults like that in jest is risky business. Best to hang around to explain it. Or, rely on the handy smilie collection.
I don’t see how, taken as a whole, that post was a shot at you Monty. OTOH, I don’t see this as a left versus right thing. The debate seemed to be going pretty smoothly, then a post like that can cause brakes screeching sounds.
Well, I’m going to go with you on this, Beagle and consider that I’ve been whooshed. I don’t see it as a left vs. right thing, either. I see it as a fair vs. unfair thing for the person who had to pull a trigger.
FWIW, I also thought Zuma was having a go at me, not you, Monty. My surprise was at the idea that someone reading the thread actually thought I was suggesting something like 'those poor brown Iraqis are too dumb to know better, so we should punish the whitie soldiers’ or some such toss. Quite incredible, really.
I’ll agree with that. There are no winners here. It’ll be (I guess) a difficult thing to live with, killing a civilian in war time. I’m sure the soldier did his job, as well as may have been expected in the situation.
On the flip side, it will also be difficult to (and unfair to suggest they should) just live with the death of loved ones who wanted no part in any armed conflict. Iraqi families pain counts too, and this unfortunate situation could be best resolved with acknowledgement of this fact from US authorities.
I am with Aro and find it despicable to blame the victims. It is quite clear they were a family who were NOT trying to do anything foul, just misunderstood what was wanted of them. The idea that you can just call out “stop!” and then fire is ludicrous and uncivilised. Deadly force should be used only when strictly necessary and the US forces had many ways of stopping traffic which did not involve deadly force. How about just crossing a truck or two on the road? There is ample evidence that the US forces did not act reasonably, including their own commanding officer who said they had killed a family unnecessarily. There is plenty of evidence to warrant an investigation. War is not a justification for killing anyone who might be in the way. I am not saying the soldiers are directly responsible, maybe they are not but it is the responsibility of the higher ups to organise things right and if you are incable of doing things right then don’'t go around invading other countries.
That family did not deserve to die and blaming them is despicable.
FTR, In not blaming the soldiers for opening fire, I’m not automatically putting the blame on the victims.
There apparently was a situation where both parties misjudged the situation they were in. Be that because it was not made clear enough that it was a roadblock or that the victims didn’t know how to behave or whatever…
It just goes way too far to equate this tragic event with a warcrime.
There is no evidence whatsoever that these people were wantonly killed for no reason. The evidence seems to point in the direction of poor planning and execution on the part of the US forces and it is enough evidence to warrant an investigation to determine if there was criminal negligence on the part of the soldiers and/or on the part of the higher-ups. In any case the US should be civilly liable and compensate the families. It is the right thing to do.
My apologies, Monty, it was indeed an attempt at sarcasm, not aimed at you. And I didn’t really do a very good job at it.