Originally posted by MacBeth 1) Have you ever given ANY credence to the Iraqi versions of US missiles being responsible when we were saying it was insurgents bombs? <b>Yes. No doubt that has happened, but it is not our obligation to assume responsibility every time something goes wrong... which is what the anti-war crowd is only too pleased to do for us.</b> 2) What does it tell you that Iraqi versions are acknowledged as 'biased' against us? That Iraiw children celebrate attacks on us? Which version of reality about the level of anti-US sentiment does that support, theirs or ours? <b>I don't even see these children as being anti-US. Light anything on fire and onlookers will gather. There is a fascination with burning things. Also, notice that the report only says "some" witnesses blame US troops. Why no unanimity there?</b>
1) Actually, when you are the invading and occupying force, many actually would see you as being the one bearing the responsibility. 2) Granted, but I take it that at least this means you, for one among the war crowd, acknowledge that the anti-US level is just a tad above being comprised only of Saddamites and foregn terrorists? That was my point: I don't think that even the wildest anti-US spin has sai that it's 100% against, but the wildest pro-US spin has come pretty close to the opposite.
MacBeth, quit playing word games here. Are you trying to defend glynch's wording in the thread title?
What the celebration shows is that these "children" have already been taught to hate. Get rid of them early.
1) Am not playing word games. 2) Neither defending nor supporting it. Simply don't know enough about the occurence.
Originally posted by MacBeth 1) Actually, when you are the invading and occupying force, many actually would see you as being the one bearing the responsibility. <b>Understood, but I am talking about specific events not the overall situation. If you object to the overall situation, then you are very likely going to die. No sympathy from me.</b> 2) Granted, but I take it that at least this means you, for one among the war crowd, acknowledge that the anti-US level is just a tad above being comprised only of Saddamites and foregn terrorists? That was my point: I don't think that even the wildest anti-US spin has sai that it's 100% against, but the wildest pro-US spin has come pretty close to the opposite. <b>How can the anti-US spin be anything BUT 100% against? The anti-US spin is also blaming the US for the resurgent car bombing deaths as well. See your #1 point above...</b>
By intentionally getting rid of children(not saying that's what happened here, just responding to your proposition.) You are the one teaching the hatred. That will only encourage more hatred.
We do't know what these children where taught and what they value. E.g, I don't equate the insurgents' actions with our revolutionary war heros, but what if these parents' kids do? Unless they pick up the rifle themselves, leave kids out of war.
Do you really think that "children" are the target of are military. BTW, these were 12 year olds and I know I could shoot pretty well when I was 12, and I didn't grow up in a war zone. What I mean by this is that even a 12 year old can be a threat in the field of battle.
What the celebration shows is that these "children" have already been taught to hate. Get rid of them early Spoken like a true supporter of Sharon. On the other hand MJ Rocket will say this was worth doing because of deep love for the Iraqis. A larger point is that incidents like this are repeated over and over in occupied Iraq. Incidents like this are the nature of war and occupation and are one of the reasons why most of the world religions did not think this war met the just war theory. That was before the absence of wmd and Al Qaeda and immintent threat, which removes virtually any doubt that the war was unjust. It is a certainty that innocent children are killed by our troops. Is there evidence that would convict the troops beyond a reasonable doubt on this case? No.
Originally posted by PieEatinFattie Do you really think that "children" are the target of are military. Is that what you think I meant? BTW, these were 12 year olds and I know I could shoot pretty well when I was 12, and I didn't grow up in a war zone. What I mean by this is that even a 12 year old can be a threat in the field of battle. 1) I already said if children carry weapons... 2) No one claims that these children carried weapons... Therefore, they're off limits.
Of course they are off limits, but those men and women are doing a job over there that is dangerous from start to finish. If these children were caught in the crossfire I'm sure that those soliders were the first to question every move that they made. If they didn't know better than to play around what was obviouslly an intense area, after all a Humvee was just blown up, than shame on there parents for not teaching them. If a reporter was encouraging the activity then he should strung up by his toe's in town square. But don't blame a solider for following orders and than protecting himself.
Glynch, just when I don't think your posts can't get any worse, you do something like this, trying to paint our soldiers as brutal savages? Are you not really Bagdhad Bob? Sometimes I wonder. Trust me folks, there is nothing more dangerous than a 12-year old with a rifle. Since they lack the emotional maturity to realize the horror of killing someone, they will pull the trigger without a second thought. A lot of the militia bandits in Somalia were 12 and 13-year olds with AKs, doped on that hallucinoginic stuff they chewed that colored their teeth a coffee brown.
Insurgents use children as cover. They will mask their movements by moving behind the children. They walk behind the children with their weapons hidden and will raise their weapons in an attack. When the US soldiers kill these children in the insuing firefight, they are labelled as murderers, baby killers, war mongers, etc. It is better for him to be dead than me.
Bamma, and Uncle Tim, There may be nothing more dangerous than a 12 year old with a weapon, and some folks may try and hide where there are women and children around hoping that will save them. However, in this case, NOBODY is claiming that is what happened. It doesn't matter which reports you believe about this particular incident, not one of them claims these children were armed, or that enemy fighters were using the children for cover.
Glynch, just when I don't think your posts can't get any worse, you do something like this, trying to paint our soldiers as brutal savages? Are you not really Bagdhad Bob? Sometimes I wonder. Trust me folks, there is nothing more dangerous than a 12-year old with a rifle. Apples and oranges, bama. 1) I'm not even saying the troop killed these kids on purpose. Stuff happens in war. This is why you don't start wars needlessly. 2) Now you are saying that these 12 year olds had rifles. Anything to avoid the unpleasnatires of the elective war you guys support.
Ok, but on specifics, even if you defer the overall blame, why does our side always assume the presumtion of accuracy/honesty? We have a very long and tawdry history of distorting the truth to avoid blame for our actions. Not saying it should be reversed, but this doesn't make sense either. Patriotism is not a lense through which reality is altered. I have never seen any claims that every Iraqi is against us, or anything near that. On the other hand there have been claims in here that the only ones opposing us in Iraq are Saddam supporters and insurgent terrorists. In fact we've gone fromn labelling them all Saddam supporters ( early days) to terrorists ( up to about a month ago) to the latest, insurgetns...and nowhere do we address the fact that some of these anti-personel devices used for defoliation and removal with prejudice or some of these combatents exchanging fire are, in fact, merely Iraqis fighting against a foreign invader. That is what I mean by the extremes...( and yes, I sued several military euphamisms to point out the ridiculous lengths we go to to desensitize the US public to the actions we take.
