I take it you were there in person?
And I give no credibility to a bunch of lying cowards that bring children along with them on their terrorist ventures, hoping that opposing forces will withhold fire.
The military is a whole lot more reliable than cowards that hide behind children.
Yeah, and Christians don’t commit adultry, right? :rolleyes:
BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, you PINWORM oozing mongrel! There is a HUGE difference between indiscriminate Burmese Pai Dong Neck-Stretching in a crowded suburb and Burmese Pai Dong Neck-Stretching in the OPEN DESERT. The Burmese Pai Dong Neck-stretchers have every right to practice Pai Dong neck-stretching in an area where they know they aren’t going to hurt anyone without worrying about an occupying army anhilating them with chain guns!
Oh. Wait…
Sometimes a little self-parody is good for the soul…
Though I’m not one of the people getting my panties knotted up about Aldebaran, I’m happy to respond that the answer to your question is undecidedly YES! They most certainly have the right to practice their own traditions in their own country without getting slaughtered, indeed! Yay - agreement!
Now, can you tell me why it is unreasonable to suggest that since they know they’re living in an area that is heavily patrolled by invading U.S. forces, that they take reasonable precautions not to risk their lives and the lives of their children by not firing weapons that could be mistaken for an agressive attack?
What a lame fucking comeback.
What fucking evidence do you have that these victims were “terrorists?” What was their “venture?” The reports of what happened are coming from an entire village of people including a local (US installed) police chief. The military is refusing to deny that it was a wedding party, choosing instead to hand wave and throw up meaningless innuendos about cash (at a wedding party) and passports (on a border).
Since when? And who are these imgaginary “cowards” you’ve concocted? Why hasn’t the miltary made any mention of them?
Sure they do, but Muslims don’t drink. You obviously don’t know much about the Arab world.
They didn’t do anything irresponsible. Stop blaming the victims. The Military was irresponsible and wreckless in opening fire on a house they knew nothing about FIVE HOURS AFTER the celebratory gunfire was heard. Your rationalization is like if someone broke into your house, ordered you at gunpoint not to move, killed you when you did move and then called you “stupid and irresponsible” for moving. Our very presense in Iraq is a criminal act. Killing our hostages for spooking us with one of their own celebratory traditions is not something that can be blamed on the victims.
Well, I disagree that it wasn’t irresponsible to fire weapons near invading forces – I think it was terribly reckless and dangerous. But that does not mean I blame the victims. Perhaps you’ve missed the several posts I’ve made in this thread where I liken it to not thinking a child who isn’t strapped into a safety seat deserves to die if his mother gets into a car accident. It’s really disingenuous for you to keep saying we’re blaming the victims.
And your analogy is flawed, because asking someone not to move is entirely different from suggesting that it would be prudent for someone to refrain from firing weapons frivolously, temporarily, until the assholes with the guns can’t possibly mistake it for enemy fire. We ask parents all the time to take reasonable precautions to protect their children. We even ask that they take those precautions against “bad” people who would knowingly and purposefully do harm to them. We teach our children all the time that “if action A might possibly result in action B, it would be prudent to avoid action A so you don’t get hurt.” That doesn’t make the “bad” people any less bad or the victims any less wronged if something bad does happen. But suggesting that people should take reasonable care is not quite as malicious as you make it out to be.
<sigh> That was me, not my husband. Sorry for any possible confusion.
Lame comeback, Dio? You have presented as fact something you couldn’t possibly know without first hand knowledge.
By DTC: “Sure they do, but Muslims don’t drink. You obviously don’t know much about the Arab world.”
The Muslim woman that works for me drinks. But not around home. Just when we’re attending two or three day out of town training sessions. She’s kinda’ like them Baptists and their adultry, it doesn’t count if THEY (whoever they are) don’t know about it.
"What fucking evidence do you have that these victims were “terrorists?”
About as good as your evidence that these terrorists are “victims”.
The cowards I refer to are these foreign fighters that travel in groups with women and children. It’s win-win for them. If the US forces see children and with-hold fire, the terrorists don’t get shot. If the US forces don’t see the children and mop the place up, the survivors can scream “Innocent wedding party victims” or some such.
There are some among us that are duped by this tactic on a regular basis. Not naming anybody special, ya’ know…
Sure they do, moron. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia.
It’s still part of the Arab world, fucktard.
Diogenes, I’m afraid you’re misinformed.
A driver gets killed by another driver that runs a stop sign.
Who is to blame?
Of course, the person that ran the stop sign is to blame.
If the person that got killed was killed because they did not wear a seat belt, the blame is still on the driver that ran the stop sign.
But. The person that did not take prudent precautions, by wearing a seat belt is, IMHO inviting disaster.
Nobody ran a stop sign.
Well nobody was told not to move, either, but that didn’t stop you from using that as an analogy to try to illustrate your point.
If the gun ship shot on a wedding party, I’d say that the US ran a stop sign. And I would say that the wedding party did not take ‘prudent precautions’.
Don’t start a bon-fire when the forest is dry. It’s just plain stupid. Tradition or not.
Given Shayna’s cites above, do you still think that “Muslims don’t drink”?
Moron.
Muslims DON’T drink. It’s forbidden by Islamic law. If they do it, they do it, as the links say, “furtively,” in secret, behind closed doors, not in public. It isn’t done at wedding parties, that’s for sure.
And Baptists DON’T commit adultery, right?
You’re being even stupider than usual.
That’s the first article, not the second.
From the Washington Times article:
Nobody at wedding parties drink, huh? :dubious:
Not for the first time, you confuse me. Is it your position that:
A) Muslims don’t drink.
B) Muslims drink furtively
C) Muslims don’t drink furtively at wedding parties
D) Mohammed Majed’s Baghdad bar is a figment of Shayna’s imagination?
E) None of the above
F) All of the above
??? 
???