This video is a few years old actually. And that is a voiceover, not the actual person taking the video.
If you are criticizing someone it does matter that you are criticizing the right person. Otherwise that would mean it shouldn't be a big deal to say that Iraqi's were involved in 9/11 even though none were.
Youre so mature. Thanks for proving my point. Well, its true...there is a good portion of the military that are comprised of people who wouldnt amount to anything on their own, so they join the forces. You can be oblivious to it if you like. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vLuMWiQ6r2o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vLuMWiQ6r2o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/poor-and-uneducated-like-we-thought/Content?oid=933196 http://www.slate.com/id/2127487/ http://www.politicalarticles.net/bl...ted-whites-and-minorities-who-cant-find-jobs/
Exactly. I imagine his reaction would be different, if muslims were blamed for a terrorist attack commited by non-muslims. He would be griping that the terrorists aren't muslim, and how unfairly that his people are treated.
That's right, but that's not the point here. My comment was regarding thechest bumps and high fives that were flying around because the guy is not American. That's an ancillary detail and not even worthy of making the main focus of this thread. The topics in order of significance: - Child abuse. - Poor conditions in Iraq. - Behavior of the people in the video. . . . - A human harmed a child by force. - (then WAY down here) the guy is or is not American. So yes, it does matter to get the details right. All I'm saying is, this guy not being American is not a victory of ANY sort. It's just people so caught up with getting a one up on someone else and ignoring the main issue.
Not exactly because the thread starter didn't specify that was an ancillary detail and since he put that in the title the presumption is that "American Soldiers" is an important part of this topic. As far as chest bumps are high fives how is pointing out the error of the title chest bumping and high fiving? That is only your reading though that isn't supported by the fact that the title of the thread is "[Video] US Soldiers abusing Iraqi children". Since "US soldiers" is ahead of "abusing" and "Iraqi Children" it seems to me that the order of importance is the inverse of what you have described. Obviously it is terrible that children are being beaten by soldiers but it is important who you state is doing it, especially on a board that consist primarily of US posters. I find this argument from you somewhat surprising given that you have previously criticized posters who mixed up different Middle Eastern peoples or Muslim practices so you should appreciate why its important to correctly identify people.
UK troops 'executed Iraqi grandmother': http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...roops-executed-iraqi-grandmother-1863887.html
Wow I completely disagree with you but have no urge to explain. I do have an urge to get back to the thread topic and I hope you don't mind me doing that. Also, about your last paragraph I didn't say anything inaccurate or to insinuate that British and American soldiers are the same.
When these children commit aggravated assault on people whose job is to kill people when they are tooled up for a combat patrol, what do they think is going to happen?
As far as I am concerned, their parents should have a visit from CPS. Letting your children assault a bunch of soldiers carying big guns is like letting your children play on the freeway, or letting them play with a loaded handgun. If you allow your children to attack soldiers, you are an unfit parent and guilty of neglect. If you have some need to attack soldiers, don't hide behind some sort of passive-agressive facade. Do it yourself and don't endanger your kids.
Take your time. I ask you though can you explain through other than your own opinion why the OP emphasized "US Soldiers" in the title of the thread if he/she didn't think that was important. You're not but you are downgrading the implications of mislabling the two in regard to such a controversial topic. Something that you have previously taken other posters to task for.
I imagine parenting in Iraq in the midst of war and occupation is a lot different than parenting in the US in the peacetime. I mean how do you know that these children aren't orphans? For that matter shouldn't British soldiers be better trained to not abuse civillians especially children? Or are you saying that the British soldiers are the victims here and they just can't help themselves but haul off some rock throwing kids and go Rodney King on them? Anyway kids have been throwing rocks at British solidiers in Ireland for generations. Oh well at least the Brits didn't go Bloody Sunday.
And in the midst of war, the rules for soldiers constantly being shot at are different than for policemen working a sleepy, peaceful town in the USA. Imagine the soldiers called the Iraqi police to arrest the kids, what kind of response do you think they'd get? They are soldiers, not policemen. People seem to have trouble understanding the difference between the two. They are explicitly trained to respond to force in kind. If they didn't break any bones or cause permanent damage, then they acted logically to deter future acts according to what they have been trained and molded to be. Imagine for a moment you are these soldiers, and children are throwing rocks at you every day, injuring soldiers and reducing combat effectiveness. Do you imagine they should just "take it" and let themselves get pummeled? What if a soldier gets hit in the arm, and the next day they are all in a firefight where that injury means the soldier can't raise his gun fast enough to protect his friends? The army mindset is "when you see a problem, fix it yourself". That is what they were trying to do, through the application of operant conditioning. So you think the rubber bullets and tear gas response to rock throwing used in Northern Ireland would be better? Personally, I'd rather get hit on the ass and the back of the legs by a cane than be shot by a rubber bullet and maybe loose an eye. The best option I know of is the water cannon trucks like in Iran, but I don't think the British army has those available.
So you are giving the soldiers a break but not the parents, who may be dead? You think parents in the midst of war should control their children like in peacetime but the soldiers can go to town? First off these are few kids throwing rocks at soldiers wearing body armor, helmets and carrying guns. The chance of injury to them isn't that high. FOr that matter the British themselves claimed that their experience with Ireland and other colonial occupation had made them better at dealing with civillians than Americans. Also the point of the occupation mission was to win heart and minds not kick ass on irate civillians. As it turns out in Basra, where I bet this video came from, they didn't do that good of a job and this is just further proof. Are you really saying that because of operant conditioning means they really can't control themselves in the face of even a minor threat? I don't think the British Army holds that standard. A few kids throwing rocks isn't a riot that would need that sort of response a few riot shields would be enough to protect the troops.
