2005/01/27

Instantly Orphaned

I dare you to watch this slide show in its entirety. Since this murderous act is under investigation I'm not sure how long this will stay up considering US desire to coverup and brainwash the public about how good everything is going in Iraq. Certainly the cameraman will be called a traitor by many as was Kevin Sites after his footage in Fallujah. Read it and weep for the children, for Iraq and for what America has become.

Instantly Orphaned

49 Comments:

I have one observation. If American soldiers are proud of what they are doing, why is the soldier in image #9 wearing a shroud over his face? 

Posted by Buckwheat
1/28/2005 12:41:00 am  
I noticed that as well. Looks really strange doesn't it and speaks volumes.  

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 12:45:00 am  
Unbelievable. I was in a good mood this afternoon. Now I feel selfish for enjoying my day. This HAS to stop.  

Posted by surrogate
1/28/2005 12:55:00 am  
Yep. Ain't war wonderful? And wars willingfully started on a pack of lies... yes, should make every American right winger and Bush supporter feel all proud and gooey. 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 01:25:00 am  
I wished you guys had put a warning or something on this. 

Posted by april
1/28/2005 02:52:00 am  
You guys need to have winston smith in here too.
those pictures were rather sad and sickening. i have no clue why i went back and veiwed again but the point got across. if only you could show it on cspan or 20/20... 

Posted by april
1/28/2005 02:53:00 am  
"those pictures were rather sad and sickening".

Yes, April. Did you have your sound up? The spoken account was of really bad quality but mostly undertandable.

Tragic, and I guess it's the every day reality there. When is Bush going to be standing at The Hague tribunal answering to crimes against humanity? 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 02:59:00 am  
Here is an interesting comment I saw on Dianne's own blog, in response to this very same post (crossposted there). By the way, this is the sort of intelligent arguments Dianne and I get from American right wingers every day of the year on our individual blogs, and Dianne usually gets them 5 times a day:

"That stinkin' journalist is indeed a traitor for posting Muslim anti-American propaganda like this.

Oh boy, are those towelhead sand niggers lowlife goat-humpin' savages gonna behead lotsa good American kids in retaliation now !!

WTF ? how the hell are we to know whether or not that family was actually trying to ram the barrier down and plant some bombs to kill our Good White Christian soldiers ? Hell, are we supposed to go along with the word of some Muslim-sympathizer ?

Geez, gimme a fricking break ! They failed to stop the car when they were asked to, and they knew what the consequences were. Whad'ya expect our troops to do ? Go up to the front of the car and stop it with his foot ?

Get a brain, liberals !! Go humpin' your goats or whatever it is you do on Rama-ding-dong-fucking-dan.

Stop taking these cheap shots at our brave and honorable troops"
.

Loovely, ain't it? Whatcha think Mechelle? Does it sound like a reasonable argument? 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 03:44:00 am  
Sounds like the whack-jobs I attract at my site. Dianne, I am cross-posting this if you don't mind :) 

Posted by Sarah
1/28/2005 04:13:00 am  
I think the journalist's perspective on this is the correct one: war is hell, and this is the kind of thing that we can expect from war. Horrible things happen to people from all walks of life as a result.

The photos, and commentary, are devastating.

But here's the really tough ethical question that this raises - does the fact that all wars necessarily involve the death of innocents make all wars wrong? Was it wrong for the U.S. to fight in Germany, France, and Korea?

It's always good to remember what war really does cost, but it's also crucial to apply the conclusions you draw from that consistently. 

Posted by brogonzo
1/28/2005 04:24:00 am  
"Sounds like the whack-jobs I attract at my site.".

LOL, I re-replied to your Jesse darling, but on re-reading myself thought I'd better not and deleted it. I don't want to go start flame wars on your site - I'll keep them for here when the wackos turn up.

"Dianne, I am cross-posting this if you don't mind :)".

She just went to sleep (4:30am here), but I'm sure she won't mind in the least. Go right ahead, Sarah - the name of the game is to spread the message :-)  

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 04:25:00 am  
You guys need to have winston smith in here too..

I missed this earlier comment. It's hard to keep up sometime. We don't have Winston because this is a group effort. Winston works alone, doesn't participate by supporting others. I agree wholeheartedly with him on the issues and am very sorry he's not more of a team player. He asked me about posting here from time to time and I invited him to visit and join in the conversation so others could get to know him. So far, as you can see, nothing.
 

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 11:40:00 am  
I think the journalist's perspective on this is the correct one.

I can't disagree with his perspective on this but I didn't hear his perspective as, "these poor soldiers are the victims here and we have to understand."

Of course, all wars aren't wrong but this one certainly is. I have a the tiniest of hope that perhaps we will see the day when we will war no more. Of course, this will take the proponents of war as a viable means of dealing with various issues around the world to say there has to be a better way and we must find it. 

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 11:53:00 am  
Dianne, I am cross-posting this if you don't mind.

Gosh, I hope everyone crosspost it for the world to see. Thanks Sarah! :) 

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 12:36:00 pm  
"That stinkin' journalist is indeed a traitor for posting Muslim anti-American propaganda like this.

Oh boy, are those towelhead sand niggers lowlife goat-humpin' savages gonna behead lotsa good American kids in retaliation now !!

WTF ? how the hell are we to know whether or not that family was actually trying to ram the barrier down and plant some bombs to kill our Good White Christian soldiers ? Hell, are we supposed to go along with the word of some Muslim-sympathizer ?

Geez, gimme a fricking break ! They failed to stop the car when they were asked to, and they knew what the consequences were. Whad'ya expect our troops to do ? Go up to the front of the car and stop it with his foot ?

Get a brain, liberals !! Go humpin' your goats or whatever it is you do on Rama-ding-dong-fucking-dan.

Stop taking these cheap shots at our brave and honorable troops".


AHHHH "CHRISTIANS" GOTTA LOVE 'EM!!!!! Somehow, i just can't picture Jesus saying "towel-head sand-niggers" or "Rama-ding-dong-fucking-dan." I picture him maybe putting his arms around the orphan and maybe saying "everything will be alright". But, then again, I haven't been to church in years, maybe the message has changed since then???? 

Posted by angiekruger
1/28/2005 02:30:00 pm  
I suppose it's necessary, since the enemy is a group of racist religious fanatics who torture people for fun, to make sure we characterize the American side as a bunch of racist, religious fanatics who torture people for fun. 

Posted by brogonzo
1/28/2005 03:14:00 pm  
"AHHHH "CHRISTIANS" GOTTA LOVE 'EM!!!!!".

yes, Angie, amazing eh? Well, here is one even better, also a comment on Dianne's site (I'm not quoting the entire drivel, which is quite long):

"This is something you cowardly liberals would never consider, but there's only ONE way when we can win this towelhead war and stop them from beheading our guys.

For every single American that these Muslims kill either by cowardly RPG attacks on convoys or beheading, let's grab 1000 Muslims from wherever we can find them - eg. in some slum in Detroit, or in your Frenchie Muslim Haven ... and behead the motherfuckers, after which we can toss them in pig lard so they'll never get to meet their hero Mohammed the pimp and pedophile in towelhead heaven.

Let's see. They've killed 1,500 of our troops in Iraq so far, so let's get busy and round up 1.5 million of these towelhead goat humping scum.

'cos the Only way to deal with terrorists is to respond with even more terror. Such overwhelming terror that they'd have no choice but to capitulate.

If you really want there to be a lasting peace, you've got to fight the terrorists in this way. THIS is the ultimate solution to terrorism !"
.

Yep, Christ's teaching sure radiates from those good ole White Christians. Funny how this rings a bell... you know.... 1940-1945, France... for every German soldier killed by the Resistance groups, they would round up entire village populations, lock them all in the local church and set it ablaze. Those that manage to run outside would be neatly finished off with flame throwers - moving targets practice, wow, what fun! 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 03:24:00 pm  
Brogonzo,

Yes, all wars are wrong. War helps nothing, anywhere, anytime. Providing we don't annihilate ourselves first the far reaches of history will look upon the concept of war as lunacy.

You mention World War 2. OK lets go with that. Hitler's expansionist policies started that war. The people on the other side were defending themselves.
Lets compare that to Iraq. Exactly who was Iraq attacking when the US invaded that soverign nation? Oh right, nobody. Not exactly a direct parallel is it? What is the US defending itself against?

Furthermore, if Germany were not treated so unfairly after WW1 with terms meant to crush the nation, I'd bet Hitler would never have risen to begin with. Incidentally, who brokered that treaty again? Does that mean I think Germany should have won that war? Not at all.

People defending themselves is one thing. People invading other people is quite another.  

Posted by deviant1
1/28/2005 03:25:00 pm  
"'cos the Only way to deal with terrorists is to respond with even more terror. Such overwhelming terror that they'd have no choice but to capitulate.

If you really want there to be a lasting peace, you've got to fight the terrorists in this way. THIS is the ultimate solution to terrorism !"

Yep, thats some good thinking there! More violence!That'll ork!  

Posted by deviant1
1/28/2005 03:43:00 pm  
Hey dev no fair!!! I was just going to say that. But I was going to make the point that the only reason we got involved in WWII was because of Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, we would have stayed out of even that war. Iraq had done absolutely nothing to the United States. Alot pf people want to make the argument that the torture and killing of the citizens of Iraq is justification enough for invading. Explain to me then why we have not invaded Sudan, where there is a government backed militia carrying out an ethinic cleansing? Mr Bush has said that "interferring in Sudan is not in our best intrest" but it is in the best intrest of the United States to interfere in Iraq? How can this be? 

Posted by angiekruger
1/28/2005 03:44:00 pm  
Angie,

Yes, the US cares so much about freedom and democracy and everyones innate human rights, unless you need oil and money from them like Saudi Arabia. Or you need a coke dealing dictator in the region like Noriega.

Heck, Heres a whole bunch of US backed friendly dictators:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

Let Freedom reign!  

Posted by deviant1
1/28/2005 03:58:00 pm  
All wars may be wrong but sadly they are not always avoidable. If you attack me I will attack back with all my might. You attack mine and I will respond just as fiercely. But, as we know Iraq was attacked without provocation, literally pounded into the ground at the direction of the courageous AWOL leader George Bush.

I dream of a day without war but a quick review of our inability to settle matters even online in a diplomatic way leaves me with little hope of peace. 

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 04:32:00 pm  
deviant1 -

If we're going to talk about World War II, then it's worth noting that we invaded Germany without ever having been attacked by them. I have a hard time thinking about the Ardennes as a "self-defense" action, or the North African campaign.

Was it wrong for us to go into Somalia? Would it have been wrong for us to go into Rwanda? Was it wrong for us to go into Afghanistan?

War is a horrible, bloody thing... but sometimes it is necessary. To quote John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

And furthermore, from Gen. Douglas MacArthur:

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." 

Posted by brogonzo
1/28/2005 04:56:00 pm  
War represents nothing but utter failure, and there is no such thing as a good war, or a just war. The only higher moral ground that can be claimed is when a person (or a country) is attacked, that they then defend themselves. In this case, the Iraqi "insurgents" are nothing more than the Iraqis themselves, taking all the help they can get from sympathizers, defending themselves against an invading superpower. We have become the Hitler of our times. We are the expansionists, we are the interventionists. Our government has forgotten what makes America great. John Stuart Mill notwithstanding, my moral conviction that war is evil, unnecessary, and unjustifiable is neither decayed nor degraded. I would fight to the death if someone attacked me, my child, or my loved ones. That is not the same thing as saying I would bomb a city full of human beings because I thought someone in them might be thinking about attacking. It is simply morally wrong to kill people, whether you have decided they are "innocent" or not. War is simply what happens when we decide to suspend morality and the rule of law. And we always have other choices.
John Stuart Mill also said this:
"A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."
Inaction against these people propagating an unnecessary war, and the acceptance of the lies that promoted that war, makes us all accountable. The blood of Iraq is on our hands.
 

Posted by Sarah
1/28/2005 05:45:00 pm  
Brogonzo-

Then again what made it a "World War" at all was the fact that many nations fought in it on two sides. It seems to me that the Japanese attacked Pearl. That was when the US bacame involved. The Japanese fought in concert with the Germans, then in essence the Germans did attack America.

Regarding your Mill qoute:

Interesting but primitive. It makes the assumptions that people will not fight because of their own cowardice. Could it be possible some people won't fight because it they believe it to be wrong? Oil, revenge, imperialism, idiocy do not count for something to fight for in my book. A "preemptive counter attack" is madness in my book. It is not up to the US to decide how to govern the world by the barrel of a gun. I am sure Hitler felt he was changing the world for the better, It didn't give him the authority to do it. Just the size of his armies did. Sound familiar?

regarding your second quote:

I agree now that your commander in chief has usurped another soverign nations government they have little choice but to stabilize the nation before anyone can go home.

I have a quote for you:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

-Rudyard Kipling

 

Posted by deviant1
1/28/2005 06:07:00 pm  
Sarah -

I suppose there's only so far I can argue in your case of American self-loathing.

By comparing what the United States is doing in the Middle East to what Hitler did in Europe during the 1930s and '40s, you not only slight those who perished in Nazi death camps, but you ignore the reality of what is happening today.

But if you're so convinced that America is the new Nazi Germany, why not follow in the steps of John Walker Lindh? You cited Mill yourself, saying that inaction makes you culpable for the evils perpetrated on your watch. "Take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them." 

Posted by brogonzo
1/28/2005 06:31:00 pm  
I find it fascinating that the rationale for this invasion has become "humanitarianism". If I remember correctly it was that Saddam was an "imminent threat" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Everyone knows that rationale is utter BS. How does that equate to Rwanda or Somalia? Funny, I don't remember anyone suggesting before, during, or after those that the US was invading those countries. I guess it was because they weren't.

I must be an idiot because I fail to see the remotest connection between US involvement in those conflicts and the invasion of Iraq.

Irony defined: Conservative Republicans accusing "liberals" of spin on this matter.  

Posted by deviant1
1/28/2005 06:39:00 pm  
I just wanted to make a small comment here P and D. I went and viewed this and so here is what i got from it.

The reporter in no way villified the troops. it was past curfew NEAR the syria border. It was dark, and they gave them warning to stop. So in my head this is what played out.

It is near the Syrian border (which IS closed). A car is coming towards a checkpoint in the dark AFTER curfew, The troops offered up several warning to stop. (Here is where i am sure the guys were worried it was another in a succession of car bombs, another kamikaze jihadist willing to die at the expense of a few of our tropps). When the car did not stop, shots were fired. More shots then probably needed to be, but when you are frightened for your life, rationality isn't what is forfront saving your skin is.

Why would this journalist be branded a taitor for posting these images? This is a war, and casualties happen, especially when you out right disobey orders to stop , after dark, after curfew. Should our troops had let the car get close enough to blow up?


Please I am not saying that it is RIGHT that these children lost their parents. I am saying stand in the shoes of those soldiers and decide what you would have done, when you were Hungry, scared, and aware that death could come at anytime from any angle.

I suspect that these children will forever hate the United States for the death of their parents, but If it had been the other way aruond, and it had been a car full of Americn soldiers approaching a checkpoint manned with armed soldiers, if they didn't stop when asked, they would have been fired upon and possibly killed.

 

Posted by Catonine
1/28/2005 06:40:00 pm  
We were talking about war in general, Deviant. The argument here was that since such a terrible thing happened to these Iraqi children, the war in Iraq must be wrong. So we were, or at least I was trying to, make some statements about war in general, and how in some cases war is justified. 

Posted by brogonzo
1/28/2005 06:53:00 pm  
Catonine,

"When the car did not stop, shots were fired. More shots then probably needed to be, but when you are frightened for your life, rationality isn't what is forfront saving your skin is.".

Here and elsewhere, you make good points. However, there are less lethal ways to stop a car then blindly fire multiple assault rifle bullets through the front windows. One simple way springs to my mind: why not shoot the tires of the car?

Besides, if the suspicion was that the car could have carried a booby trap, firing inside the car is pretty dumb and more likely to make it explode than shooting the tires of the engine. 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 07:11:00 pm  
Ooopps.... I meant "the tires OR then engine" 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 07:23:00 pm  
Right, seems there is a bug in my keyboard, LOL, let's try again: "the tires or the engine" :-) 

Posted by WhyNot
1/28/2005 07:25:00 pm  
I suppose there's only so far I can argue in your case of American self-loathing..

What's the matter Bro? Can't make your case without getting into the typical mudslinging? Just what about Sarah leads you to believe she loaths America? Does one questioning and even recognizing the wrongs of their countries government make them a traitor?
Somehow I don't expect you will be here long. Isn't your final argument always, "I guess I can't convince you to see it my way..." I know you Bro and I don't think you can take the heat but time will tell. Try to play nice. We will if you will.
 

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 07:31:00 pm  
I never said that it wasn't a dumb think to do - wink- just that the poor tired uneducated boys fell back on the only thing that they had been taught to do, which (remember I am imagining scenario's in my head so this is only what I suspect not something that I can give a reference to and say this is what happened) was probably some drill sargent yelling at them everyday 10 hours a day 7 days a week for six weeks that the only way they were going to stay alive was to fire that gun.

Brainwashing - yes. Brainwashing with a purpose - yes. Is it right that when frightened these boys fired first asked questions later? Is it right that they didn't have the foresight to shoot the tires or engine out? Remember the brightest ones got scholarships to college, the 'smart' ones decided to work their way through college. The rest: half decided that college wasn't for them and got a job, and the other half decided to let Uncle Sam pay their way through college. That isn't to say that there isn't anyone in the service just because they are proud to serve their country, just saying that the people that are serving our country are majoratily made up of YOUNG men (and women) who just wanted a way to pay for college. YOUNG- inexperienced = mistakes = casualties. .. Seems I am making your argument for you... -whistles- time to eat lunch run errands and maybe then I can come up with more theories and arguments for you. 

Posted by catonine
1/28/2005 07:40:00 pm  
Catonine
They could have stopped the car without killing the drivers as has already been pointed out. Why riddle it with bullets except to kill? They made the decision to stop the car by death. The passengers were condemned and duly put to death for not stopping. The reporter said it was dark, the soldiers had no lights and he knew those in the car wouldn't be able to see them. It's not hard to know truth unless you refuse to accept it. Give me a break!

 

Posted by Dianne
1/28/2005 07:41:00 pm  
hhmmmm diane.... 

Posted by angiekruger
1/28/2005 07:44:00 pm  
I knew that the word Hitler would be the only thing some people would latch on to, instead of actually speaking to the points. :)

I made a comparison of Hitler's expansionist policy to Bush's expansionist policy, I did not say the country America is Nazi Germany. Again, don't confuse government with country. Twisting words only weakens your argument, because it ignores the other's perspective.
It's not self-loathing, brogonzo. It is self-examination. There exists a difference, whether or not you yourself choose to see it. My love for America is evident in my many comments both here and on my own blog. I would not feel so strongly about these issues if I did not love America. You seem at least partly educated. Are you not aware that what you just did (branding dissenters as "enemies of the state") is an instrument of fascism?
If you want to revert to slippery-slope arguments that is your prerogative, but it doesn't do much for your position. As for comparing the killing of innocent people during WWII and the killing of innocent people in the Iraq war: what is the difference? Numbers? Is one dead child not enough for you to see the evil?  

Posted by Sarah
1/28/2005 07:44:00 pm  
"dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
-thomas jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
-ben franklin 

Posted by angiekruger
1/28/2005 07:57:00 pm  
Fair enough Bro. and I was making a statement that war is never justified. Certainly not in this case. Do you really feel that there was no alternative left than to go to war with a state that was not attacking anyone?

Regarding WW2, you brought it up dude! :) 

Posted by deviant1
1/28/2005 08:24:00 pm  
Ah yes, clearly I'm the idiot, right?

Sarah, here's what you said:

We have become the Hitler of our times.I thought that was rather direct.

And where did I say that dissenters were "enemies of the state"? Have I ever accused anyone of "seditious libel"? You're accusing me of twisting your words, and twisting my own words to make your case!

On to another point, although since we've clearly got a double-standard going on, I don't hold out much hope. Anyway:

The difference between the people who were gassed in Nazi concentration camps and the parents of the six children killed in the posted slide show seems pretty clear - it's intent.

The Jews were intentionally murdered en masse as part of a program of genocide. The parents in the vehicle were killed due to a tragic accident.

I know I'm only "partly educated," so maybe I'm way off on this, but the two cases seem pretty disparate from me.

And Dianne, thanks for the vote of confidence. Maybe you could cite some examples of my "usual mudslinging" for me? I'd appreciate it.

I came here because I was interested in what all of you had to say, and I was under the impression that it would be okay (if maybe slightly begrudged) if I added my two cents to the discussion. But if you're only interested in hearing your own opinion being echoed and aped in the comments section of this blog, I don't see what the point of having it is.

Anyway, I'll keep coming, until someone gets fed up with a different point of view and blocks me. 

Posted by brogonzo
1/28/2005 08:33:00 pm  
Some people just love to whine :) And as far as I can tell, it's pretty "intentional" when we fly our troops thousands of miles overseas and spend a couple hundred billion dollars to make sure they are standing there, fear and propaganda still roaring in their ears, at checkpoints with their rifles.

I would have thought this would be an obvious point, but apparently not: Brogonzo, the overriding concept here is that war creates the kind of context in which these kinds of "accidents," as you call them, happen. You behave as if it were all inevitable, as if no one had a choice whether or not to go to Iraq and bomb these people, napalm them, shoot them in their cars. My point is, and continues to be, that we had that choice, and still do. You are bending over backwards to justify evil, and I suspect in your heart you know it.

Don't cry double-standard here. If you cannot stand the heat of the debate, then remove yourself from it, pat yourself on the back for a job well done, and go back to wherever it is people buy what you say. Here, you are in no danger of being "blocked", banned, or censored in any way (unlike the sites you are perhaps used to.)

 

Posted by Sarah
1/29/2005 05:57:00 am  
"The difference between the people who were gassed in Nazi concentration camps and the parents of the six children killed in the posted slide show seems pretty clear - it's intent".

Intent. Right. What about the *intent* to go invade a country under false pretense? Was it not there? And while I don't say the US army went there with the *intent* of wiping out 25 million Iraqis (wow, what a noble achievement, we're better than Hitler!), is it not a known fact from the start that there will be those conveniently labeled "collateral damages"?

Is that not an *intent*? Can you honestly say "yeah but we are so smart and sophisticated that there will be NO accident"? This is pure bullshit and you know it - being a person in the military yourself. You perfectly well know that there WILL be accidents, there WILL be cute and fuzzy *collateral damages*. The *intent* to go warring IS what inevitably will end up in what is so far a 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians.

No point in hiding under a self righteous excuse of "but we didn't intend it to happen". The US military know full well there will be those little accidents, and their *Intention* to launch an unjustified war equates to their being directly responsible for all those nagging 100,000 Iraqi dead bodies.

When you drive a car with 10 times the legal alcohol content and run over & kill someone, you obviously didn't intend to kill that person. and yet, it's already pretty bad by anyone's standard, right? But now, if this has already happen to you, and you go out to a party, and wilfully decide to get blind drunk even though you know you ARE going to drive home and you will likely run over someone yet again, wouldn't you say that the fact you didn't *intend* to kill that second person makes you still virtually as 100% responsible as a full on murderer? 

Posted by WhyNot
1/29/2005 08:32:00 am  
And Dianne, thanks for the vote of confidence. Maybe you could cite some examples of my "usual mudslinging" for me? I'd appreciate it..

I'm just speaking for myself here Bro. You're doing well with the rest of the group and I have no complaint. But, we do have a short history don't we and one can't put aside their history when dealing with the future.

The following is your comment that I responded to as mudslinging.

I suppose there's only so far I can argue in your case of American self-loathing...

Perhaps I jumped too fast but because of our history I just couldn't restrain myself.. Sarah responded better than I but she doesn't have our history and is probably a much better person than I am.

I think you make good talk (yes, I know it's not good english). I also think you have a sincere interest in discussing the issues. But, you're right I don't have a lot of confidence in your staying power if you're unable to convince us. I say this only because of what I've seen in the past on mine and WhyNot's blog. Of course, this is not in itself a bad thing. I much prefer someone to bow out rather than get nasty as so many do. I also have backed out of conversations that were obviously going nowhere and a waste of time.

I am not against you but I am skeptical of you. I am well aware of your viewpoint of me and I'm not sure how well I can carry on a conversation with you.
Let's be honest Bro. If we were in the same room together we wouldn't be making chitchat. We tend to rub each other the wrong way don't we? I don't deny it so why should you. It's not a crime. It's sometimes the way things are.
So, for the benefit of the group I will watch your participation and see how it goes. If I feel I can be rational in responding to you I will. If not I will leave you to others who perhaps can read your thoughts without personal feelings entering in.

BTW We don't block anyone so that's never a problem.
 

Posted by Dianne
1/29/2005 08:51:00 am  
Dianne - One of my closest friends back home, a musician named Brad, shares your views almost exactly. We go out for beers whenever I'm home and talk politics. We don't agree, but we respect each other for the positiions we take because both of us know that the other one has a rational basis for holding his beliefs.

So, I daresay, if you and I were in the same room (and I can only speak for myself here), I would definitely want to have a conversation.

As far as "American self-loathing" goes, that only is in reference to the group of people who find it necessary to characterize every move the US makes as wrong and evil. It's been going on for at least 40 years. That's not mudslinging.

I'd say calling someone the "SS Gestapo officer of tBlog" is mudslinging, which is a moniker I picked up from CheckItOut.

And you know what? I'm going to stick around just to spite your disbelief that I will. How's that? 

Posted by brogonzo
1/29/2005 05:15:00 pm  
And you know what? I'm going to stick around just to spite your disbelief that I will. How's that?.

Gentlemen and ladies choose your weapons.
http://www.uws.com/

or your beer.
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/

;) 

Posted by Dianne
1/29/2005 06:02:00 pm  
I've read the comments of the people who complain that reporting this event is somehow unpatriotic and/or somehow paint the American soldiers as racist... or that "of course the soldiers had to shoot since the car wouldn't stop..."

I thought the report started out pointing out that the soldiers were dressed in dark cammo and so wouldn't have been seen by the driver. I also heard no accusations regarding racism on anyone's part regarding the report. It was simply an eyewitness account of a tragedy that ONLY took place because we're over there where we don't belong.

I am also extremely tired of fools trying to make comparisons between WW II and this "conflict." Only fools do it and trying to argue logically with people who don't use logic themselves, is pointless. 

Posted by surrogate
1/30/2005 03:12:00 pm  
Brogonzo:

"I came here because I was interested in what all of you had to say, and I was under the impression that it would be okay, if maybe slightly begrudged, if I added my two cents to the discussion."

I made that same mistake. I also reached the same conclusions. It is of one mind around here, so just don't question anything.

Good luck brave man! 

Posted by Anonymous
2/04/2005 08:23:00 pm  
....so just don't question anything.

Of course you can question! What a childish thing to say. I looked through the comments and don't see your entry.
Hmm Methinks you are a gutless wonder. 

Posted by Dianne
2/04/2005 09:07:00 pm  
To “brave” anonymous":

“...It is of one mind around here, so just don't question anything.”.

Why don't you have the guts to sign your name?

As to "it's of one mind here", well, what do you expect? We ppl of similar views regarding peace and justice on this planet form a blog together. Do you expect we are going to have fascist nutcases among us?

And as far of "not questionning" anything, you're full of shit. If you care to read this entire thread, it is an argumentative discussion where both sides use facts and rhetoric to prove their respective points.

As far as YOUR joining the discussion and feeling you're not allowed to try prove YOUR point, it is sheer bullshit - you're not even anywhere in the discussion. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/04/2005 09:08:00 pm  

:
:
:

BloggerHacks

<< Home