Because we’re supposed to know better? That’s what we’ve been saying, last I heard…
I’d still like to blame people who shoot guns in the air. I would never justify the shooting of an unarmed person. If nobody there was shooting, then why are we talking about this, wouldn’t that just be an unprovoked massacre? I’d also love a cite.
Let’s assume for a moment that they were shooting celebratory gunfire. As I said to Aldebaran earlier in this thread, it would be interesting to know why this particular incident went down so differently from so many others that have most certainly taken place throughout the country over the course of the past year. I was just re-reading madmonk28’s thread in MPSIMS (Ask the Aid Worker in Iraq), and he said:
So clearly there’s been an awful lot of shooting going on on the part of Iraqis, yet this is the first we’ve heard about a (supposed) retaliation of this magnitude. What the fuck happened?!
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I think it’s valuable that he tries to drive home the point, and makes us stop and really absorb the fact, that desert-living Arabs don’t think the way we do in the West, and that doesn’t make them stupid or evil.
[QUOTE]
Evil, no. Stupid, in regards to shooting guns in the air around children, during an occupation, yes.
That would be a rather culturally superior attitude to take, don’t ya think? They’re Desert Arabs, so they don’t know any better?
The cite is right above my last post, dickhead and it was an unprovoked attack on unarmed people either way. According to testimony from the survivors, US soldiers made special trips on foot to shoot women holding their children in their arms.
Yeah, okay. These soldiers are your neighbours when they aren’t overseas in the military. While I am not discounting that it is possible that it could happen, I find it highly unlikely that someone would make an effort to go out of their way to kill people in this way. I can see if you were in the heat of battle and things get out of control as has happened more than I’d like to think of in the past, but this is highly suspect.
From my experience in the ME, I can say that the local media tends to over-exaggerate things quite a bit. It seems to be in character. I’ve received help desk calls asking me why there is a conspiracy against the person on the phone because his computer isn’t working properly. This is NOT an isolated experience from one user. Another anecdote: A 60 year old truck driver died at work. He went to breakfast then back to his room to lie down. He never got up again. A stroke was the cause, IIRC. I, and other expats, spent the rest of the day trying to quite down a theory that he was poisoned because his lips were blue (uh, blood settles when you die, doesn’t it? Yep). They bypassed the simple solution and went way out to left field. When the body was delivered to the family at the airport, a national company rep had to talk fast with the family. They had arrived at the airport in two trucks fully armed to take their revenge on the people who had caused their family members death. Sometimes I can’t believe the stuff that goes on.
Take it from me that the world can’t believe 'the stuff that goes on" since Bush The Enlightened New Prophet got pushed into the White House.
Are the Good Christians who according to detainees in Abu Graib made Muslims denounce Islam and thank Jesus for being alive (by doing such harmless things as beting someone on his broken leg and the lkes) and were occupied in a bit of innocent tortering while rejoicing it and giving thumbs up at pictures (maybe they saw the Gibson Movie and thought they were in Hollywood) also " good neighbours" when they are at home?
For the rest: Your description of situations you were confronted with - and which I can imagine myself all too well of being possible - is only support for my arguments on this thread.
Salaam. A
Arrrgh! Aldebaran it was so nice agreeing with you for a change. Do you really think this comment is fair? It’s not like no Muslims have ever committed human rights attrocities–hell, for pretty much any substantially sized religion you’re gonna find plenty of bad apples.
That was a reply to where was insinuated that no soldier in Iraq does something wrong because you must imagine him/her to be “your good neighbour”.
= The implied quesiton was: Can you imagine your “nice neighbour” flattening a whole village for no reason?
Answer: No. But that doesn’t make it impossible. The sadists in that prison surely are also “nice neighbours” and “good Christians”.
At home.
My reply has nothing to do with "no muslims are sadists or criminals or “all” christians are sadists or criminals.
Salaam. A
Forgot to say: I’m really nice here for me being my sharp sarcastic self 
I did not even go in to:
Although we can say one and an other about US media in that respect. Before and during the invasion and up to this day.
(I also did not ask the poster if he knows Arabic… I suspect he does since he speaks of experience with local ME meida and direct contact with the people.)
Salaam. A
No, I don’t speak Arabic. Everyone in my company is required to speak English. That is both a company and a govermental mandate. Most of my job is training nationals to replace myself and other expats, so I deal quite closely with the nationals as I supervise about 20 of them directly. Most of my experience is with Nationals who have degrees of one sort or another. Most have taken those degrees outside of the country. The assumption is that being educated and travelling abroad makes one more ‘worldly’, knowledgable and understanding of different cultures. If educated people see conspiracies because their computers don’t work, what do the less educated (by far) people make of things they see in the media?
Maybe the Arab language media, in general, is less biased than the English version I read? Who wants to make bets on that?
My ‘neighbour’ comment is to have the poster think what it would take for him to do such an action as he thinks US soldiers do with little compunction. I can understand how the ‘enemy’ can be easily demonized eg. Jap, but to demonize people you know without thinking things through is a stretch, afaik.
Turns out, it wasn’t a wedding.
The videotape of dead children says otherwise. The word of the military is dogshit as far as I’m concerned.
Well, there could be another explanation: that there was a movement of terrorists in the area at the same time, and unfortunately, a wedding party was also there. Yet, I do have an issue with Kimmitt: a family massacre occurring at the same time, close by, and the army never noticed?
Wasn’t shooting in the air the original reason to attack? Or is that now an inoperative excuse? This latest explanation sounds to me as complete nonsense if that was a terrorist place and not a wedding party. Why would terrorists broadcast with shots to the air that they where there?
This issue of the video of dead children is still an issure for me how exactly did they end up dead?
But, I will concede that if what Kimmitt is saying right now is true, it certainly suggests that it was indeed a valid military target. The 300 sets of bedding gear and the 100 “packages” of pre-arranged clothing do it for me. I can think of absolutely no valid reason for these things.
I’m not sure that there ever was any firing in the air, ever. I would still be interested to know where the video of children came from and how these events became confused. Were there two seperate incidents? What’s the deal here?
You know, some posters here seem to find it easy to think that US soldiers would deliberately shoot women holding children, but I wonder why they never think that terrorists wouldn’t shoot those same people for propoganda purposes? Not that I’m suggesting that was what happened, I’m just trying to understand thought processes.
Who would have believed that US soldiers would torture raoe and murder innocent civilians either?
Who would have believed that the peaceful Islamists would behead somebody, either?
I doubt that the most rabid of my liberal brothers would call those people “peaceful Islamists.” You did, but we wouldn’t. :rolleyes: