posted
Why should this particular event tick you off? Does this event tick you off more than others? I'm just curious, because I'm sure it's not the first time the US Government has lied about something that happened in Iraq. It's certainly not the first time our armed forces made a mistake.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's just no way to know. In war there are so many lies everywhere. The U.S. military people said it was a legitimate military target, that they didn't think it was a wedding going on at three in the morning. That makes sense. But then Al Jazeera said it was a celebration after a wedding with celebratory gunfire going on into the night and that also makes sense. There's just no way of knowing the truth. There are so many lies in a war on all sides and always have been in all of history.
I keep thinking some government sometime somewhere will have the novel idea of actually telling the truth so that people come to trust what they say. I think I consider that a baseline condition of being a good government, in fact, just as I expect for my family and friends not to lie to me. Yet it never has happened yet. Would the whole world turn upside down if this happened? Why is it seemingly so difficult to accomplish? Just tell it straight. No spin. No lies. The truth. What a concept.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
What ticks me off is the fact that they bombed this tent. Why not send in ground troops and secure the area? Are we really a people that cares more about saving a single soldier's life while placing numerous civilians at certain risk?
I can remember when Bill Maher was fired for agreeing with a guest who said that the terrorists may be many things, but one thing they are not is a coward. I would have to say that bombing a tent from a distance, just because someone suspects what it may contain, is cowardly.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't know who to believe. I'm not prepared to believe the other side doesn't lie as well. Are we sure this is true?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:If its one thing the terrorists are, its cowardly.
Your average front-line terrorist sees action a lot closer at hand than a soldier, not to mention the prevalence of suicide attacks. You might argue that the head honchos' hiding in a cave is cowardly, but inviting the US Marines to hunt for you endlessly still takes balls.
As for the topic, war always leads to We asked for it.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If its one thing the terrorists are, its cowardly.
I'm not sure if that's meant to be taken seriously or not, but if there's one thing terrorists are definitely NOT, it's cowardly. It takes courage to the extreme to blow yourself up for your beliefs.
It's one thing to blow up civilians because you think there some greater good that can only be accomplished through those means. But it is another thing altogether to blow up civilians because you don't want to take the time or cost or risk entailed in investigating a little closer before bombing.
The worst part, though, is that we refuse to admit being wrong. Making one mistake like this is not so bad, but to refuse to admit it is just insulting.
And I don't see much reason to believe the government on this one. The more objective evidence seems to point to a wedding, and our government has already created a reputation for untruthfulness in regards to this war.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that it is cowardly to attack civillians, those whom you know beyond a doubt are not part of the millitary conflict. Willingness to lose your life and is'nt the same thing as bravery, at least not all the time.
Attacking without warning, on a clear September day, is cowardness, plain and simple. Attacking targets that you know can't fight back.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
who fires guns into the sky during a wedding ceremony in that kind of environment? screw ceremonial tradition. might as well strip to the waist and paint "insurgent" on your chest.
quote: Attacking without warning, on a clear September day, is cowardness, plain and simple.
I'm going to assume you're talking specifically about September 11th and not just anyone who chooses to attack without warning during a particular time of the year. Your basis for it being cowardly is that they're attacking civilians instead of the military, right? I don't think al Qaeda sees a distinction between the two. Both are America. American commerce is one of the things they're angry at. The World Trade Center was a symbol of American commerce. They weren't attacking the military. They were attacking AMERICA. It's two sides fighting by completely different rules. And to write the other side off as cowardly is... I don't know. It's just not looking at the whole picture.
quote:Attacking targets that you know can't fight back.....
Guess that war in Afghanistan never happened...
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They were attacking AMERICA. It's two sides fighting by completely different rules. And to write the other side off as cowardly is... I don't know. It's just not looking at the whole picture.
It is well for our enemies and ourselves that we do not attack IRAQ, or AFGHANISTAN, or AL QAEDA, but rather we attempt to be more specific.
I still do not believe it takes much courage at all to murder one's hated enemies, when by doing so one believes they instantly ascend to paradise and nail virgins. That's not courage, that's just a good investment mixed in with some fanaticism.
If you want 'bravery' from terrorists, don't look at the ones who think that-I get to go to Paradise for murdering my hated enemies RIGHT AFTER I DO IT!-look at the ones who are atheists and think that nothing happens when they die.
Of course, the best way to look at them is a post-mortem picture or perhaps a jail picture.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
But would you call me financially savvy if I said, "I'm gonna invest this $1,000.00 and instantly profit a thousand-fold!" You might think I was stupid, you might think I was wrong, but you probably wouldn't think that, from my perspective, the initial investment was a stroke of monetary genius either.
Bear in mind, this comes from someone who has never risked his life or had it threatened. I do think it takes courage to get to the point where one actually does that, to overcome our hardwired fear of death.
But I think that courage comes more, in the case of suicide bombers, from fanaticism than anything else. And I don't put much stock in that sort of courage, because it's (I think) a selfish, easily-obtained courage. Kind of like getting likkered up and then picking a fight with someone three times your size and eight times your skill.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, basically, what you're saying is that all military men are ALSO not particularly brave, since quite a lot of military training involves learning to suppress one's fear of death.
Frankly, Jeff, I think you're confusing "brave" with "honorable;" suicide bombers are plenty of the first, but none of the last.
posted
You don't believe it takes courage to have faith when faith entails endangering yourself? If, for instance, God told you that you had to be nailed to a cross and die, you'd consider that to be requiring nothing more than "selfish, easily-obtined courage"?
Come on people... this "terrorists are cowards" talk is just rhetoric. We don't want to admit that the bad guys are more brave than most of us are, but the fact of the matter is, if the situation ever arose where we felt a bunch of us needed to fly a plane into a building in order to do the right thing, I bet few of us would be able to do it, even if we wanted to.
You might be right...I definitely do use the two as synonyms in my head. Might be carrying over. But...
quote:So, basically, what you're saying is that all military men are ALSO not particularly brave, since quite a lot of military training involves learning to suppress one's fear of death.
Not at all. Most people who sign up don't do so for religious reasons. They don't necessarily think that by putting their lives on the line, they get instant access to heaven. They're also, you know, fighting people who fight back.
Whereas a suicide bomber gets this deal: Kill hated enemies, die, and be having sex with virgins before the bodies are cold. I still say that if one really believes that, then it's not as courageous as someone who puts their life on the line without the assurance of that kind of reward.
-----
Tresopax,
You've ignored a few key aspects of that first example. Big shocker there. First off, JC had a choice. Didn't have to get nailed to the cross and die a torturous death. He walked to that death in cold blood.
Second, if God said to Jesus in His mind, "Son, I command you to let this happen to yourself. You will be rewarded with everlasting Heaven afterwards," then no, I don't think He was very courageous beyond the initial conquest of hardwired fear of death.
Third, I'm not someone who believes it was crucifixtion that sets JC apart. Voluntarily taking up the sum of human misery and sin, though? That takes some bravery.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Come on people... this "terrorists are cowards" talk is just rhetoric. We don't want to admit that the bad guys are more brave than most of us are, but the fact of the matter is, if the situation ever arose where we felt a bunch of us needed to fly a plane into a building in order to do the right thing, I bet few of us would be able to do it, even if we wanted to.
One could say the same about your constant harping on the virtuous motives of terrorists, I guess. Just rhetoric.
And I admit it: I don't know if they're braver than I am. I haven't been in that position before. But I can guarantee you one thing. If I were asked to murder in cold blood thousands of Iraqi civilians at one blow just because they're the enemy, it wouldn't be fear of death that would stop me from doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, I can't imagine how anyone can view stupid suicidal egomaniacs as brave.
Isn't the soldier who puts his life on the line for his own honor (or "stupid suicidal egomaniac" if you want to put it that way) the epitomy of bravery?
"As Peter Rojas points out in Engadget, it was not actually a mainstream news source which first reported Rumsfeld as saying: "To protect the Iraqi prisoners from any future abuses; any digital cameras, camcorders, or cell phones with cameras are strictly prohibited anywhere in any military compound in Iraq." That statement was actually a satirical story from The Daily Farce."
posted
The "western style" white dress and veil also makes me suspicious, and that this came out so late after the fact. (skipped thought) I think people are testing the power of images that has been found in the prison abuse "scandal". But I guess we are reaping what we sowed when we displayed the photos of the dead Husseins last August.
P.S. Tom, do you want it to be true for some reason?
Am I the only one who finds "scandal" an odd name for the prisoner abuse?
Well, let's see. I mean, on one hand, I never met them or anything, so I guess I MIGHT be glad to hear the U.S. military has killed another bunch of civilians just so I can again point out, to those who don't already agree with me, that war is a bad thing.
But on the other hand, I'm not a complete and total asshole. So, gee, I guess not.
------
pooka, a much more pointed question is, IMO: why do you feel the need to imply that my outrage over this potential catastrophe (and our alleged cover-up) is feigned and politically motivated? Why do you wonder whether I would in fact welcome a massacre of Iraqi innocents, for any reason?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just how you chose to draw people in with the thread title. The article doesn't seem to be saying it's true. Sorry if I imputed high emotion to you.
P.S. I doubted it was really a wedding since I first heard about it from my husband, who didn't doubt that it was. The time of day and the location both caused me to be doubtful. He answered all these doubts at the time. I just know that if this video is real, it wasn't viewed by the helicopter pilots before they decided to fire.
quote: The Defense Department said it hasn't banned the devices and doesn't plan to -- as the Business Times of London and two wire services have reported. But the Pentagon is telling commanders in the field to strictly monitor the use of consumer wireless technology through Directive 8100.2 -- Use of Commercial Wireless Devices, Services and Technologies in the Department of Defense Global Information Grid -- issued last month.
quote:In a nutshell, the directive tells all soldiers, contractors and visitors to Defense Department facilities that they can only carry wireless devices that conform to the military's security standards. These specify that the devices use strong authentication and encryption technologies whenever possible. In addition, the devices cannot be used for storing or transmitting classified information. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz signed it in April after two years of internal debate.
McClellan said commanders in the field haven't been told to use the directive to stamp out the use of the gadgets in Iraq. Instead, the directive is "general guidance" passed "along to the theater commanders, and they decide how to implement it in their own commands."
While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may not have signed a ban on new consumer digital-imaging technologies, he did express clear concern about the unforeseen impact of such technologies during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 7.
"People are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon," Rumsfeld said.
According to McClellan, some Defense Department lawyers may be reviewing how the spread of consumer digital-imaging technology among military contractors and enlisted personnel affects the military's obligation to abide by a Geneva Convention article against holding prisoners up to public ridicule. "Lawyers may have looked at that and said, 'It's probably a good idea to get these things out of the prisons.' There's no Pentagon-induced rule in the theater at this time ... but there may or may not be some discussion taking place as to how the directive might be supplemented in Iraq to prevent things we saw at Abu Ghraib."
So, while there might not be a ban now, there very well might be soon.
Also, I found it amusing that I read this story at yahoo news yesterday, and when I searched for it today, it was gone. The Washington Times still has the UPI story up.
Once again, because I have no faith in our government's ability to tell us the truth, I find the timing of the implementation of the "Directive" to be highly coincidental.
(Also, an amusing side note. When spell-checking this with ieSpell, it said Wolfowitz was incorrect and suggested halfwits as a substitution. I think they are on to something, there. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I think there's an important distinction between believing that it may be true and WANTING it to be true. I want more than almost anything for it not to be true, but I believe that it is.
Especially when the only argument AGAINST it has to do with a Western-style wedding dress, an argument that lacks legs.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only description that does seem to authenticate it is a vague sentence that the AP photographer "identified" some of the same people on the tape, which did not have closeups. I don't always believe our government, but I'm more distrustful of anti-American press.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article also mentions that residents of nearby villages also claim that numerous wedding parties were ongoing at the time, and features interviews with eyewitnesses who were wounded by the attack. It also names a specific individual shown on the tape who was later buried following the attack, wearing the same outfit.
We have to decide, then, whether it's more likely that, after reporters have descended in number on the site, the reason the only data we've found actually collaborates the eyewitnesses stories is that multiple villages got together and faked the whole wedding thing to blacken our reputation -- or whether the military has yet again bombed a village in the middle of a wedding and denied it after the fact, something that we know they're already capable of doing.
Unfortunately, I think it's far more likely that our military is covering up a mistake.
posted
Sounds like, on the balance, it comes down to what one wants to believe. They gave a lot of quotes from the injured woman, but couldn't spare an actual quote from the AP reporter and photographer, who are not even named and whose replies might not have needed to be translated.
I feel sorry for the victims but I don't see how the details of their suffering weigh in one direction or the other.
Also, my husband originally presented that there was gunfire into the air triggering the attack (neither side seems to argue this now) which is consistent with an Arab celebration, but this story indicates few weapons were found.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it's not a matter of WANTING to believe anything. I just think, based on prior behavior and basic human nature, that one story is more likely than the other.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
We asked for it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
