This is why an increasing number of Americans object to US Troops serving in UN ops–the commanders put more value on the lives of the locals than on the lives of their soldiers.
I don’t say I completely agree with those people. But they have, at least, a little justice on their side.
Heh. You can’t explain why shooting a gun at an oblique angle in the middle of a desert, many miles from civilization, is fundamentally more dangerous then shooting into the air while hunting so you resort to these fallacious appeals to authority–“Iraqi’s shouldn’t fire guns into the air in the middle of the desert because the International Hunter Education Association says so!” (paraphrased) and “I’ve fired a gun, therefore I’m right!” (paraphrase).
“They didn’t have a target!!!” Well so fucking what? Hunters miss, and the end result is that many of their shots are going to fall to the ground–just like the Iraqi’s. That report you linked to is pretty interesting–it looks like there are plenty of hunters who get shot while hunting. Hunting (at least in North America) is largely a recreational activity, i.e., people go out in the woods and kill things because it makes them feel good. Same reason these Iraqis were shooting weapons in the air in the middle of the desert–it made them feel good.
Correct. And unless you’re clairvoyant, you cannot possibly state that they were shooting them perpendicular to the ground. Since they’re not alive anymore to defend themselves, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
This whole “The Iraqi partygoers were stupid for shooting into the air argument” is just a construction to make you feel better about your government fragging a bunch of civilians, after all, they were just stupid Iraqi’s who don’t conform to IHEA standards of gun safety!
I agree, which is why I added:
Oh, come on…
This whole “After all, they were just stupid Iraqi’s who don’t conform to IHEA standards of gun safety” is just a construction to give you the upper hand in a debate. Does it make you feel better to say people who don’t agree with you are racists?
Seems it was a safe house for foreign fighters, especially since wedding parties generally don’t shoot back.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html
Again, I say:
If there was an invading force in my country, and they were looking around for people firing guns, I’d think twice about shooting guns in the air. And that’s regardless if I felt they were in my country for good or evil.
If they did not, then the blame can’t fall solely on the shoulders of the Americans.
I don’t know how else to put it. Firing guns indiscriminately in a tumultuous political environment – how in the fuck can you think this is a good idea? Tradition aside?
For clarity, I was referring to “those people in America who do not want US personnel serving in UN peacekeeping ops”.
Metacom,
You can’t explain why shooting a gun at any angle in the middle of a large group of people (including women and children, btw), let alone in the middle of a war zone, is fundamentally safe, let alone less dangerous than hunting, so you resort to these fallacious and offensive accusations of racism.
You’ve never even so much as held a gun, yet you profess to know anything about their safe use under any circumstances. You ignore the fact that guns are weapons, not toys and should be handled with respect and care and not fired willy-nilly without regard to the safety of those around you. And then you have the audacity to accuse me of wanting to feel good(???) about people being killed? And to put it in quotes so it looks like I actually said that vile crap? You are despicable. I’m so done with your disgusting ass.
I can explain why celebratory gunfire in the middle of the desert is as safe as hunting (“fundamentally safe” is a seperate issue–one that I haven’t argued): They both involve bullets being shot well away from where they are likely to hit people. You’re the one who can’t explain why one is significantly less safe then the other without resorting to worthless appeals to authority or circular reasoning.
The “war zone” issue is entirely distinct from the “celebratory gunfire issue.” If you’d agree that celebratory gunfire doesn’t make the Iraqis who did this stupid, I’d be happy to move on to that.
I never accused anyone of being racist. Please don’t say that I did.
What the fuck? Where do you get off saying that? I’ve never said anything about my experience with firearms, in this thread or elsewhere on the SDMB. I have, in fact, held and shot guns, and received instruction on how to do so safely.
Here you go again–you’re once again refusing to explain why shooting off guns into the air in the middle of the desert is more unsafe then hunting. Rather then acknowledge that there really isn’t that much of a safety difference, and that the sole proveable reason the act was unwise was because of the risk of being shot by the US, you go back to circular reasoning: It’s stupid to shoot celebratory gunfire in the middle of the desert because it’s unsafe, and it’s unsafe because people shouldn’t do celebratory gunfire.
That’s not what I said. I said you characterized them as stupid to make you feel better about them being killed, i.e., that you’re fallaciously rationalizing there being shot has a result of their stupidity, which is evidenced by them shooting guns off to celebrate a marriage. That’s a far, far, cry from feeling good about them being killed.
And I did NOT put the above in quotes. What I put in quotes was paraphrases of your arguments (which were clearly marked as such) as I understood them.
Shayna, regardless of the stupidity of firing guns in the air, the fact is it is still a part of their traditions.
when they started to fire off the guns, ground troops investigated, saw there was no danger and backed off.
Then the Apache helicopter came in and killed them.
these people were killed beause of a breakdown in communication. Even if they were firing in the air, would it not make more sense for the pilot to back off, request clarification ( get the groung troops to investigate) before going back in?
[Voice of Reason]Outside a firefight, anyone discharging a firearm without having a clear idea of where the projectile(s) will end up is behaving in a stupid and undeniably unsafe manner. Projectiles from an assault rifle like the AK-47 fly for friggin’ miles.
Also, leveling someone’s village with explosive ordnance from helicopter gunships because they fire AK-47s into the air is a massive overreaction and as such a fuck-up, particularly in an occupation/liberation scenario.[/Voice of Reason]
Something seems to have been up … it’s hard to accept the “wedding party” interpretation at face value.
What about the fact that helicopters, from my experiance, are not real “sneaky”. You can hear them coming from quite a distance, in many instances before you can even see them. Now perhaps it is so that this is a relevant cultural expression; to fire off automatic rifles for a celebration. I have no problem with that, other than it’s an intrinsically dangerous activity.
But would you not wait for the helicopter to pass by before commencing firing into the air, lest the pilot decide you’re joyous celebration is actually an attack?
Yes. And one can safely presume that they know where they aim at = at nothing.
People here seem to argue that they aim at their own wedding party. What else are you going to invent to “proof” that Iraqis who hold on to their tradition are “idiots”.
Read: I say: Traditions Understand: That means it is something that is done all the time. Read: People know what they are doing. Add: Those who fire these arms are men. Add: This are men who live in a culture where men are expected to provide for protection and safety for the women and children. They are supposed to do that even when they are still children themselves. Conclude: They do not aim in a direction were someone can get hurt. If they kill or hurt someone they are done in their community for being a failior of a man.
I don’t say that accidents with this kind of tradition are completely excluded. I say that you have no clue what you talk about because you have no idea of Iraq, its population, its traditions and its cultures.
You also have no clue about Islam. Because no, Muslims do not get drunk. They do not drink alcohol. And most certainly not at a wedding where everyone can witness it that they don’t obey this command.
Yes, I heard this version also. Now there are other versions surfacing.
Are you going to argue now that this is impossible, just because the US army makes an other story of this?
Can someone tell me how flattening a village killing more then 42 people including women and children - and it seems also including someone known to be a singer at wedding partys and this man’s brother - has even remotely something to do with “attacking a safe house”.
Can someone also explain what can ever justify for the US military to just start blowing up houses on simple suspicion that there might be some resistance fighters inside. They learned a lot from the Isrealis, no?
(Even the Abu Graib pictures show that clearly. Exactly the same methods are said to be used by Israel on Palestinians. Hail Bush the Sharon- lover.)
You seem always to forget that the US military is the invader there. They have no right whatsoever to blow anything - or anyone - up. The Iraqis on the other hand have every right to blow every US’er up whenever they want to.
I would do exactly the same when my nation was invaded and occupied.
Wouldn’t you?
Salaam. A
There are 113 posts in this thread. Point to ONE of them that say this.
Ryan,
It is for the same money possible that they didn’t hear a helicopter coming because they were in the middle of firing arms.
It is for the same money possible that the story about them being checked out by ground military and thus felt safe to fire those arms (And not only not hearing it coming, but not expecting any helicopter to even appear.)
Salaam. A
Every post where the writer claims that they are idiots to start firing arms while surrounded by people holds this insinuation.
Salaam. A
Incorrect. Try again.
You can find that “incorrect”. I find it an absolutely correct interpretation.
Since you have an other one and tell me that I am wrong: Please explain.
Salaam. A
You can find that “incorrect”. I find it an absolutely correct interpretation.
Since you have an other one and tell me that I am wrong: Please explain.
Salaam. A
You originally said:
You have failed to provide ANY evidence of the sort. Of 116 posts in this thread, you haven’t pointed ot ONE of them that say this. Tell me, Aldabaran, what is your definition of “aim”?
And how can you complain about American arrogance when you try to offer absolute interpretations of several dozen posters’ words? Is there nothing in your religion and culture that values honesty and integrity?