The OP is just proof-positive that some of you will go to any lenght to “justify” this murderous and inmoral invasion. What you’re doing here is repulsive.
So far, all your pre-emptive BS has done, along with killing counteless innocents such as these, is fan the flames of hatred of over one billion Muslims while confirming their worse fears about you. Those that weren’t radical before, are well on their way now…
Congratulations. There’s something to be proud of.
Rhum: “The two statements are not mutually exclusive, they are just not supported by the article.”
Actually, they are supported by the article. Because until there is further investigation there will be no official opinion as to whether the shots were fired in timely fashion or not. And even once there is, we will never really know.
Yet, as I hope my posts have made clear, for me that’s hardly the point. I’m not looking for a scapegoat in the form of a soldier who may have fired too late. I’m just saddened by the tragedy itself and by what seems to me to be a very disheartening response to it.
Does anyone have a link to this FoxNews story?
RedFury have you met Futile Gesture? Your post is so sadly ironic. In your quest to condem the pro-liberation side of the argument you accuse us of going to “any length” to justify the invasion. But in fact it is not the invasion at all that is the topic of conversation here. So I say that your post is “proof-positive” that some anti-war people are too blinded by their zealous condemnation to participate in any meaningful discussion. What you’re doing here is repulsive. Congradulations. There’s something to be proud of.
The man in the photograph is John Leonard, Unit 422, Civil Affairs
He’s wearing a bandana that reads “KILL’EM ALL”
KILL THEM ALL is the opposite of FREE THEM ALL
… help me out here Rhum Runner, I can’t figure out all by myself
this photo can (or could ) be found in foxnews.com
and also here
RedFury:
Now, now, please articulate in a civilized manner what some of us are quitely thinking to ourselves. No need to add more fuel to our own fans of hatred.
** Mandelstam** you are, of course, correct that there has not yet been an official determination as to what happened, but those at the scene felt the shots had been fired in time. Of course, one may wonder whether or not those at the scene are likely to be objective in their determination as to what “in time” means. Since all we have, at this point, is that eye witness account in the Post article, I say we should assume the shots were timely. I agree with you 100% that this is a tragedy.
Chaos - so what? I suppose it is possible that you are unaware that “kill 'em all” has been a common phrase in the US military for some thirty+ (maybe more?) years? It doesn’t mean that the man is litterally going to “kill them all” and it is unclear who the “them all” is supposed to be. It could just be all the enemy soldiers, it could be anything. In any event, one soldier’s bandana doth not evidence make.
Maybe that’s the point?
Regardless if that is what happened here, it would certainly be quite a brilliant tactic. It’s hard to sympathize with a suicide bomber who blows up a cafe or restaurant. But…what if you instead use that willingness to die to force your enemy to appear to be the monster?
RedFury Your post is just proof-positive that some of you will go to any length to ignore the murderous and immoral practices of Iraqs leader. What you’re doing here is repulsive.
So far, all your BS has done, along with killing threads as these, is fan the flames of hatred of …well no one… confirming our worse fears about you. Those that weren’t ridiculing you before, are well on their way now…
Congratulations. There’s something to be proud of.
Regardless if that is what happened here, it would certainly be quite a brilliant tactic. It’s hard to sympathize with a suicide bomber who blows up a cafe or restaurant. But…what if you instead use that willingness to die to force your enemy to appear to be the monster?
I was actually was actually commenting on your own very much un-forced choice to partake in speculation that a tragedy was in reality a brilliant (albeit devilish) tactic on behalf of the victims.
What about it? It wouldn’t be a moral judgement made against any of the victims, especially if they were forced into the situation. The real monsters here are the Fedayeen Saddam who spend civilians like pawns for propaganda victories.
That’s what people like RedFury don’t seem to get, it is a tragedy… when civilians are murdered it is always unfortunate and tragic. But it is an even greater tragedy when their deaths so profoundly serve the purposes of those who essentially murdered them. That disgusts me.
This type of action does seem to fall under the category of “valuing coalition lives over the lives of Iraqis”. There have been a few such incidents since the first suicide bombing. Coalition forces shot a Iraqi civilian in a truck to death at a checkpoint for failing to stop as well. If an unknown situation presents itself, using deadly force to resolve it before it can turn into a threat against coalition forces is a policy which will certainly cause more civilian casualities. However, I’m not sure this is inconsistent with the entire attitude of this war. The Administration has declared war based upon debatable evidence of weapons of mass destruction and decided that taking out the Iraqi regime now is necessary to protect American interests/lives in the future. This seems exactly analogous to firing on a vehicle that may or may not contain explosives and may or may not be driven by a suicide bomber. Shoot first, ask questions later. Hope the answers to the questions turn out to justify the shots. In the case of the van full of civilians and the truck it appears they didn’t. We’ll have to wait and see how the answers fall out from the larger scenario.
Enjoy,
Steven
Punctuation is the same. Not sure if this came after the use of the term in the military. However, I had this inscription for a brief period of time on my high school backpack.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what Spc. Leonard is referencing. He’s pretty close to my age group. It’s a stupid thing to have on your bandanna if people are taking pictures of you and you’re supposed to be of the benign, kindly, discriminating sort of occupying force, but there you have it.
I’ll admit that with the bible and the bandanna, he is the poster child for a new crusade, and I’m sure this picture is being given heavy play as such.
Oh, but it would, and it is, be an allegation against the victims, if you make such general statements as the OP f.e. and don’t bother to qualify exactly what people in the vehicle are supposed to be involved in this “setup”.
Remember, everyone in there have relatives. To someone they were neighbours, friends etc. The Iraqi public, and the arab public in general, won’t forget that fact even if you chose to do so.
Should I understand this as a claim that it is proven that the Fedayeen Saddam are responsible for this event? That is ludicrous. To say that is even likely is also ludicrous. Check your facts.
“Kill’em all”… Isn’t that originally from Heart of Darkness? Very appropriate, if so.
**
To categorically deny the possibility is ludicrous. Pontificate about your “facts” all you want. :rolleyes:
I think it would be foolish, considering the nature of the conflict, to not consider such tactics as a possibility. If the topic is uncomfortable to you, maybe you should try another thread.
Azael:
“Not even likely” does not equal “not possible”.
msmith:
The nature of this particular incident, as illustrated by f. e. Mandelstams quotes make it very unlikely. It makes me uneasy because it is quite disrespectful to the victims. Much like you may find it revolting when Iraqi TV interogates american POVs.
So now you are willing to admit the possibility? That’s awful big of you.
Given the nature of the tactics used by the Fedayeen Saddam I would say “not even likely” isn’t realistic either. But I’ll take what I can get.
Azael:
If you spend more time reading carefully, than you do arguing strawmen you’d be suprised!
“Not even likely” is quite realistic, given that:
“Fifteen Iraqi civilians were packed inside the Toyota…along with as many of their possessions as the jammed vehicle could hold. Ten of them, including five children who appeared to be under 5 years old, were killed on the spot when the high-explosive rounds slammed into their target…” (My bolding)
Also, given the practical problems of one man holding fourteen women and children hostages while at the same time driving the car.
Randy -
I know that treads dangerously close to the lack of evidence proving the conspiracy reasoning that we all hate around here, but I don’t think your points refute the claim either.
