Report by the NBC reporter inside the Fallujah mosque
-
Read this this morning. Though others might be interested, I would say its pretty thought provoking. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Read this this morning. Though others might be interested, I would say its pretty thought provoking. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I think there are some interesting fallacies going on here. First off, is the idea that: We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. such understanding can even be conveyed to someone sipping a beer in his comfy living room in suburban America. Second is that the viewer has the intelligence to understand it even if it can be conveyed. And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
I think there are some interesting fallacies going on here. First off, is the idea that: We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. such understanding can even be conveyed to someone sipping a beer in his comfy living room in suburban America. Second is that the viewer has the intelligence to understand it even if it can be conveyed. And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
It also seems to be forgotten entirely that the 'insurgents' have no 'embedded reporters' filming their violations. I refuse to count the staged horrors like the beheadings of innocents, although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations... Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
I think there are some interesting fallacies going on here. First off, is the idea that: We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. such understanding can even be conveyed to someone sipping a beer in his comfy living room in suburban America. Second is that the viewer has the intelligence to understand it even if it can be conveyed. And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
I thought from the tone of the report that the reporter himself seemed to regret the fact his report is being used as propoganda. I cannot imagine that someone could be involved with an actual combat operation and not feel an extrordinary sympathy for the troops involved. The report mentioned that the men who had been left in the mosque had been involved in fighting the day before, and gave some what seem to be, extenuating circumstances for the events. The truly sad thing here is that there is probably no really good way to know what happened. The soldier involved didn't seem to be trying to kill someone out of anger or raw hatred. The idea that anyone of us can sit here and judge what the mans intentions were in the safety of our homes and offices is ludicrous. The one thing that I think everyone can agree with is that if you place an 18 or 20 year old man in a situation where they must fight or die, cool calm rationalization is the first thing to go. I can't pretend to judge someone in what is obviously a combat situation, this is different from the prisoner abuse that we saw in Abu Ghraib. I just wish the Arab networks spent half as much time publicizing the beheading of innocent aid workers as they did showing this incident. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
It also seems to be forgotten entirely that the 'insurgents' have no 'embedded reporters' filming their violations. I refuse to count the staged horrors like the beheadings of innocents, although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations... Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: I refuse to count the staged horrors like the beheadings of innocents, although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations... Probably not. Rhetorical question though, should the US unilaterally follow a policy that the other side does not follow? If we are fighting a foe that behaves in a manner that doesn't follow the so called "rules of war", should we do the same. Obviously doing so limits our ability to claim the high moral ground, but how much should we concern ourselves with what some might call the hand wringers? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Rob Graham wrote: I refuse to count the staged horrors like the beheadings of innocents, although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations... Probably not. Rhetorical question though, should the US unilaterally follow a policy that the other side does not follow? If we are fighting a foe that behaves in a manner that doesn't follow the so called "rules of war", should we do the same. Obviously doing so limits our ability to claim the high moral ground, but how much should we concern ourselves with what some might call the hand wringers? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Obviously doing so limits our ability to claim the high moral ground, but how much should we concern ourselves with what some might call the hand wringers? if you want to live in a terrorist state, then by all means, advocate that the government tell the military to use terrorist tactics. i'll be telling them the opposite, of course. rhetorical 'you', of course. Software | Cleek
-
I thought from the tone of the report that the reporter himself seemed to regret the fact his report is being used as propoganda. I cannot imagine that someone could be involved with an actual combat operation and not feel an extrordinary sympathy for the troops involved. The report mentioned that the men who had been left in the mosque had been involved in fighting the day before, and gave some what seem to be, extenuating circumstances for the events. The truly sad thing here is that there is probably no really good way to know what happened. The soldier involved didn't seem to be trying to kill someone out of anger or raw hatred. The idea that anyone of us can sit here and judge what the mans intentions were in the safety of our homes and offices is ludicrous. The one thing that I think everyone can agree with is that if you place an 18 or 20 year old man in a situation where they must fight or die, cool calm rationalization is the first thing to go. I can't pretend to judge someone in what is obviously a combat situation, this is different from the prisoner abuse that we saw in Abu Ghraib. I just wish the Arab networks spent half as much time publicizing the beheading of innocent aid workers as they did showing this incident. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Oh come on surely he just went up to the guy and shot him in the head while he was lying on the ground. He smoked the guy, that's all. Some things really aren't that complicated. Personally I think the war stinks. But this sort of thing doesn't surprise me at all. Things like this and Abu whatsitsname go one in every war. What I find hard to understand is how you couldn't hold an election a year ago with ration coupons as Ids because ration coupons weren't valid and the security situation was too bad and yet now you can hold an election with ration coupons as Ids.
MOO!!
-
It also seems to be forgotten entirely that the 'insurgents' have no 'embedded reporters' filming their violations. I refuse to count the staged horrors like the beheadings of innocents, although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations... Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations it's easy enough to find out[^]:
Insurgents are also reported to have violated rules of international humanitarian law: "Commanders and fighters of armed groups in Falluja also have an obligation to respect fundamental rules of international law. Acts such as booby trapping dead bodies are also war crimes," Amnesty International said.
-
Rob Graham wrote: I refuse to count the staged horrors like the beheadings of innocents, although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations... Probably not. Rhetorical question though, should the US unilaterally follow a policy that the other side does not follow? If we are fighting a foe that behaves in a manner that doesn't follow the so called "rules of war", should we do the same. Obviously doing so limits our ability to claim the high moral ground, but how much should we concern ourselves with what some might call the hand wringers? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: should the US unilaterally follow a policy that the other side does not follow? IMO, we should make every effort to follow 'the rules of war' as embodied in the Geneva Conventions that we are signatory to, even though circumstances and opponents might allow us to claim that those rules were not applicable. I beleive the military is making an honest and sincere effort to do so in Iraq, making exceptions only when necessary to prootect itself (entering Mosques is a violation, but one forced on us by the opponent...). I think the hand-wringers have valid concerns, but too often focus on only one side of the conflict. I would be outraged if we chose to behave exactly as the opponent does, just because the opponent 'did it first'. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Obviously doing so limits our ability to claim the high moral ground, but how much should we concern ourselves with what some might call the hand wringers? if you want to live in a terrorist state, then by all means, advocate that the government tell the military to use terrorist tactics. i'll be telling them the opposite, of course. rhetorical 'you', of course. Software | Cleek
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Obviously doing so limits our ability to claim the high moral ground, but how much should we concern ourselves with what some might call the hand wringers? if you want to live in a terrorist state, then by all means, advocate that the government tell the military to use terrorist tactics. i'll be telling them the opposite, of course. rhetorical 'you', of course. Software | Cleek
I agree that we have to try to follow as closely as possible the agreement. Unfortunately, war isn't one of those black and white things. The only clear cut thing in a war is that its a horrible wasteful thing. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Rob Graham wrote: although one wonders if these will result in any 'war crimes' charges from the same 'human rights' organizations it's easy enough to find out[^]:
Insurgents are also reported to have violated rules of international humanitarian law: "Commanders and fighters of armed groups in Falluja also have an obligation to respect fundamental rules of international law. Acts such as booby trapping dead bodies are also war crimes," Amnesty International said.
Do you honestly think anything will come of that though? How do you grab a non-state terrorist, try and punish them? I'm not asking to be arguementative, but to try to see how people honestly think we should try to deal with these kind of people. Its one thing if they are killed during the conflict in open combat, quite another of they are captured. What would we do with Zharqawi if we did catch him, or bin Laden? Lock him away in a max sucurity federal prison with Noriega? Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross, or would they be just regular prisoners? It might be worthwhile if the Iraqis took care of them for us, but even then there is a danger they could be released by people elected in January. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
DRHuff wrote: How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. I would prefer: Fight by the rules...even when the other side doesn't. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
Do you honestly think anything will come of that though? How do you grab a non-state terrorist, try and punish them? I'm not asking to be arguementative, but to try to see how people honestly think we should try to deal with these kind of people. Its one thing if they are killed during the conflict in open combat, quite another of they are captured. What would we do with Zharqawi if we did catch him, or bin Laden? Lock him away in a max sucurity federal prison with Noriega? Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross, or would they be just regular prisoners? It might be worthwhile if the Iraqis took care of them for us, but even then there is a danger they could be released by people elected in January. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Do you honestly think anything will come of that though? of course not. Amnesty has no authority to do anything. Doug Goulden wrote: Lock him away in a max sucurity federal prison with Noriega? i'd be OK with that. Doug Goulden wrote: Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross, or would they be just regular prisoners? not sure what the laws are here. but, either way - as long as they aren't getting out and aren't happy about it... Software | Cleek
-
DRHuff wrote: How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. I would prefer: Fight by the rules...even when the other side doesn't. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: I would prefer: Fight by the rules...even when the other side doesn't. I agree in general, but if I remember right the Geneva Convention says we can't hit things like mosques and schools. Seems like we should avoid hitting them whenever possible, but when they are being used to attack us from or to story weapons, I think we have to act. Unfortunately, the reason we had to enter a school or mosque doesn't make the news in the Middle East. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
Pretty slippery slope there isn't it? How far do you go once they broke the rules? I can see entering a mosque where there are snipers or weapons stored, but how much more can you do? Do yah just blast the hell out of a church and level it to save our guys lives, and how do you deal with the fallout from the media coverage.... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
DRHuff wrote: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't I agree in general, but if I remember right the Geneva Convention says we can't hit things like mosques and schools. Seems like we should avoid hitting them whenever possible, but when they are being used to attack us from or to story weapons, I think we have to act. Unfortunately, the reason we had to enter a school or mosque doesn't make the news in the Middle East. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Read this this morning. Though others might be interested, I would say its pretty thought provoking. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
These "embedded journalist" remind me of the begining of the American civil war. The first few battles used to have seats and audiences. It was not until the people saw the carnage and danger in front of their very eyes that they knew he mistake they had made. War is not pretty, it never has been, it never will be. To those who really think that war can be moderated, as if it were some social event, are sorely mistaken. To say "your nto playing fair" or "time out" is stupid. These kids are out there with one thing on their mind, coming home. Most have been there too long, and must fear anything the insurgents can throw at them. This is why war is a last measure, not a pre-emptive move. Now that they are their, they do what they must, thats war. Those who do not like it, hate the war, not the kids fighting it. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
These "embedded journalist" remind me of the begining of the American civil war. The first few battles used to have seats and audiences. It was not until the people saw the carnage and danger in front of their very eyes that they knew he mistake they had made. War is not pretty, it never has been, it never will be. To those who really think that war can be moderated, as if it were some social event, are sorely mistaken. To say "your nto playing fair" or "time out" is stupid. These kids are out there with one thing on their mind, coming home. Most have been there too long, and must fear anything the insurgents can throw at them. This is why war is a last measure, not a pre-emptive move. Now that they are their, they do what they must, thats war. Those who do not like it, hate the war, not the kids fighting it. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
You get my coveted 5 for the post of the day. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.