Munch,
Salaam. A
I don’t suppose anybody would bother taking notice of the issue I raised earlier?
That there is troop rotation going on?
That the chopper, and the land personnel too, for that matter, could be green & inexperienced troops fresh arrived from the States?
Bosda,
I adressed that before you made that post : Not being informed about a nation you invade and occupy only adds to the lunatical arrogance that makes you invade and occupy it.
Salaam. A
I’ve tried reasoning with you, challenging your thought process and your ideals, and even the occasional snarky comment, Aldebaran. While I haven’t gone to the lengths that Munch has in calling your integrity and honor into question, I think there are some points that merit examination.
You seem to show up to discussions solely to make wildly-unfounded statements. While you might think your signature of “My post is my cite” is cute, it neither defends your actions nor excuses your broad-brush approach to painting some of us as ignorant Americans with no concern for others. I, for one, resent that insinuation, and I’m tired of you mouthing off about Americans when, in all likelihood, you’ve never tried to understand our culture, either. It works both ways, chum.
You seem to be as strongly pro-Middle Eastern as some people on the SDMB are pro-American. However, you’re just as bad as the apologists that find no fault in what the Americans are doing – because you find no fault whatsoever in any of the actions of the Iraqi government and its people.
This thread is a perfect case-in-point. No one will argue that the helicopter pilots did wrong, and you’re perfectly happy to paint them as baby-murderers. Still, you hold no one from the party even the tiniest bit responsible for firing automatic weapons into the sky, despite the fact that it would be dangerous and stupid to do so. Yes, stupid. Tradition takes a back-seat to making damned certain that the INVADING GODDAMNED FORCE in your country won’t view this as a hostile action.
That you can’t even acknowledge that sometimes people in any culture can do a colossally stupid thing is unbelievably obtuse. America doesn’t hold the patent to stupid actions, I’m sad to inform you.
If you’ve no intention of ever engaging in intellectual debate, with a desired outcome of actually learning and expanding your intelligence by hearing what others think – You. Are. A. Troll. There’s no finer point to put on it. If you’re typing to see your thoughts on paper, open up Microsoft Word. You argue with no information other than your opinion, and no cite other than your word. That’ll work in MPSIMS, but it damn sure won’t work in any other forum, and certainly not on a political issue.
I’d like to assign you a little homework, Aldebaran.
Listen to what others say, and try to understand why they feel the way they do before spouting off about the way you feel. I’m not suggesting you bow or bend your opinions based on what others say, but at least understand that there are intelligent people here that don’t feel the way you do. Try to understand why they feel that way, instead of simply assuming you know more than they do because they don’t agree with you.
It honestly pains me to pit you like this, Aldebaran, but not much. I’m not sure anyone has pitted you recently, and I can think of no better candidate. You’re an intelligent guy, obviously, and you’ve got a lot of strong opinions. Now try to temper those opinions with a little humility.
In other words, come back when you can act right.
So, they’re supposed to learn everything about a country while standing on one foot? :dubious:
Well, Ayn Rand stated her entire philosophy while standing on one foot, so why can’t they? I mean, have you read Atlas Shrugged?
Twisty, with all due respect, you do not know what patrolling troops determined about the safety of the situation or not, so saying they saw no danger and backed off, then helicopters came in and killed the people there for no apparent reason is a ridiculous and offensive accusation. You do not know what the pilot did as far as trying to get clarification, either. I love how everyone thinks they can just make shit up about confidential military radio communication and the troops’ assessment of what was going on. We don’t even know for sure yet if the claim that a wedding was taking place is even legitimate. Yet you profess to know what the people who were there observing it actually saw, thought and did. Amazing.
As for the contention that just because it’s a tradition to stupidly fire off dangerous weapons in the middle of a celebration, that they should have no freaking restraint from doing so in what is an obviously dangerous and potentially life-threatening situation is absurd. When Jews were rounded up and murdered merely for the act of being Jewish, they went into HIDING. The men cut off the telltale curls they wore from their sideburns. They didn’t walk around wearing yarmulkas. Some of them even converted (or pretended to) to other religions. They denied themselves the daily practice of their traditions because the mere practicing of their traditions would get their asses killed. It really is that simple, and why some of you don’t seem to get that is amazing to me.
And just so we’re clear, that does NOT mean that they deserve to be dead for their stupidity.
Let me repeat that – they did not deserve to DIE because they were stupid.
They didn’t deserve to die for their stupidity any more than the mother who fails to strap her child into a safety seat deserves to have her child killed if she gets into an accident and the kid flies through the windshield. They don’t deserve to be dead any more than the father who leaves his kid unattended in a hot car for an hour and comes back to find them suffocated.
But that doesn’t make them any less STUPID for engaging in behaviour that is inherantly dangerous anyway, especially when they have children in their care and most especailly when they’re in the middle of a fucking WAR.
This is only common sense.
It is NOT about denying people the right to their traditions.
What goes up must come down… (bolding mine)
And if you’re in the open desert, and not firing “straight up” they’re not likely to come down on anything other then sand.
Celebratory gunfire in a populated area is really stupid, and I think it’s a very different ball of wax then celebratory gunfire in the open desert.
And, once again, how is the safety of celebratory gunfire (in general–not in an occupied territory) relevant to the situation at hand? (Unless you were trying to rebutt one of Aldeberan’s assertions that I missed).
No, I don’t think one can presume that. The American troops in the area said they had come under fire. So your presumption that they were firing into the air is unsupported.
You do realize that airships are in the air, don’t you? So if these light-hearted revellers are shooting off their weapons into the air, they are not exactly aiming at nothing.
Already dealt with. No one has stated this.
Some have stated that firing bullets into the air occasionally results in injury or death to people in the area. Did you read Cecil’s column on the topic? Or are you saying that Iraqi wedding gunplay is always completely harmless?
Add: That firing into the air when there are gunships flying around - in a war zone - is “aiming in a direction where someone can get hurt”. They can get hurt either by the bullets falling back down and hitting them, or because the airships passing overhead who are in your line of fire may take being shot at in the wrong way.
Tell us - don’t the neighbors ever complain about this little Mideastern quirk of firing off AK-47s at weddings? God knows I have enough problems with the kids across the street and their darn stereos.
Well, if the house in question is indeed a “safe house”, then I wouldn’t say it was all that difficult to understand.
I would say being shot at is pretty close to probable cause. So it goes a little beyond “simple suspicion”.
Sorry, you lost me there. Are you claiming the Iraqi prisoners were shooting at their guards? Or that Palestinians are shooting at Israelis? I thought it was mostly suicide bombers.
Hold on there, sport. I thought you were swearing up and down that this was just a few Iraqis having some good clean fun firing their weapons up in the air. Now you claim they were trying to blow up American troops.
Little trouble keeping your story straight, perhaps?
Regards,
Shodan
And so are plenty of things we do for entertainment. Alpinism is dangerous. Swimming in the sea is dangerous. Driving a car when it’s not absolutely necessary is dangerous. Drinking alcohol is dangerous.
If we were to try to ban all recreatives activities which involve a risk, life would be extremely boring.
No shodan, it is your usual attempt to twist and turn a post until it fits your try to picture it.
Nothing unusual about that anyway.
Salaam. A
They fired on ground troops? When did they say that? I call bullshit. Every indication is that they were firing into the air. Firing on troops my fucking ass.
Yes, that’s exactly what the fuck they were fucking aiming at and they were “light hearted revellers,” so fuck you, Quit making excuses to slaughter children, Christian.
Fucking stupid-ass, irrelevant hijack. How many drunken hunting accidents happen in the US every year. At least the Iraqis are fucking sober. Speculating about the remote possibility of a bullet coming down and hitting someone is a pretty stupid reason to SHOOT THE WHOLE FUCKING PARTY TO SHIT.
I’ll fucking say it. It’s harmless. It’s at least as harmless as driving to the grocery store even though car accidents happen.
It’s not a warzone. The fucking chimp in the flight suit said so, did you forget? Or are you admitting he’s a fucking liar. Rummy said we don’t even have a guerilla war going on, so how can it be a warzone?
I see, they might get murdered by the illegal invaders, so that makes them stupid. Blame the fucking victims. I’m sure that’s in the Bible somewhere.
The neighbors are AT the fucking weddings, moron. The entire viilage participates.
Why stop at saying maybe it was a “safe house?” Let your imagination run loose. Maybe it was a portal to hell. Maybe it was a transporter site for aliens. Hey, maybe the house next door to you is a “safe house .” You better set in on fire, quck. Don’t take chances, and don’t waste any time trying to find out. And if there’s any children in the houes, well fuck 'em. That’s what they get for being stupid.
They weren’t shot at. They had zero fucking cause.
Sorry, you lost me there. Are you claiming the Iraqi prisoners were shooting at their guards? Or that Palestinians are shooting at Israelis? I thought it was mostly suicide bombers.
[/quote]
The Iraqi wedding party wasn’t shooting at anybody. The p[alestinas that wre slaughterd by Israel weren’t shooting at anybody. The Iraqi detainees (mostly innocent civilians off the street) weren’t shooting at anybody.
No, he was saying they would have been justified if they HAD fired on US troops. From a legal stanpoint, he’s right. If you’re country gets invaded you have a right to fight back, don’t you? Of course it WOULD be stupid to attack a force you can’t beat. That’s what makes the intimations that a wedding party full of women and children was trying to attack US troops completely absurd. Safe House my fucking ass.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
True or not, isn’t that exactly what you’ve been doing when I asked you to point to a single post that says Iraqis aim weapons at each other at weddings?
Correct. Do we know for certain in which direction the shots were fired? Considering we don’t even know for certain it was a wedding celebration, I think not.
My main point, as evidenced in the bolded part, is that Iraqis can and have been killed by their own celebratory gunfire. Enough that Saddam outlawed the practice. Kinda throws Aldeberan’s entire argument out the window.
Jeff,
No. You said I was wrong in my interpretation. I’m still waiting for you to explain that.
Salaam. A
What a ridiculous strawman.
When we go mountain climbing we wear protective safety gear.
When we drive we follow the rules of the road that are designed specifically to minimize danger and afford the most possible safety.
When we drink, we aren’t legally allowed behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
When we do any dangerous activity we accept that there are certain risks and decide what safety precautions to adhere to, if any. And especially when we have children in our care, we do extra things to ensure their safety, because we are the responsible adults.
So we buckle our kids into car safety seats while driving, to minimize the risk of injury or death.
We put our kids in life vests when we take them out boating, to minimize the risk of injury or death.
We remember to put toilet seat lids down at all times when we have young toddlers in the house, to minimize the risk of injury or death.
We do not leave children in hot cars while we get our hair done or go to work, to minimize the risk of injury or death.
We do not tug on Superman’s cape, we don’t spit into the wind, we don’t pull the mask off the Ol’ Lone Ranger and we don’t randomly shoot AK-47s into the air in the middle of a party where children are present and there are constantly patrolling military aircraft who will be likely to feel threatened if they perceive themselves being fired upon during a WAR.
And if we do (or don’t do, as it applies) any of the above, we shouldn’t be surprised (even if we are saddened or even outraged) when there is a forseeably bad outcome.
Why is this so hard?
It’s pretty simple, Aldebaran - you infer from the objection to firing into the air a stipulation that was not made. The majority of posters in this thread who object to firing “up in the air” really mean firing “not directly at someone” or “not parallel to the ground.” That’s a non-obvious distinction, and I’ll go ahead and give you a pass for that based on our language differences.
That said, their objection is not that the firing is “at their own wedding party” (your words). The objection is that the bullets, which are not aimed could nonetheless come back down with enough force to kill someone. Because they’re being fired from within a village, we can’t really tell if they were taking care not to hit their own village or not, but the objection remains. It is irresponsible to fire a bullet when you are uncertain what it might hit.
The other half of the objection is also pretty simple: regardless of anyone’s “right to be there,” or any “tradition” that seems to have sprung up since the invention of the assault rifle, when one is living in an occupied country, and fires a weapon, one may expect that the occupiers will fire back.
Neither of these objections has anything to do with whether the members of the wedding are being injured by the gunfire – the objections are, instead, appeals to the Iraqis to think about the consequences of their actions, and not willfully ignore facts of the world around them (your bullet will come down and hit something; there are people in this country armed to the teeth who object to you firing a weapon).
Of course, talking to you about “willfully ignoring facts” is kind of like trying to teach al-Zarqawi about knife safety.
One last question: does anyone else think that a thread with Shodan and Aldebaran arguing resembles a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back?
Salaam & Regards,
J.