• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No wonder they love us!

I suppose it's better than losing one's hands or simply being imprisoned for life, as would have happened under Saddam's rule.
 
cloudshipsrule said:
I suppose it's better than losing one's hands or simply being imprisoned for life, as would have happened under Saddam's rule.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's nonsense on a couple of different levels. How do you justify a post like that?
 
No, let's have a game of "What could possibly be worse than that?" to make our destruction of somebody's livelihood seem harmless in comparison.
 
dann said:
No, let's have a game of "What could possibly be worse than that?" to make our destruction of somebody's livelihood seem harmless in comparison.
Click to expand...
The Danes still have troops in Iraq? :confused:

DR
 
Yeah, but if it's real it's real; even if it serves as propaganda for unpleasant agenda.
 
Also, knikben didn't produce that video, Frontline did, (or at least that sounds like the Frontline voiceover guy) which changes the dynamic somewhat. Just because something is being used as propaganda does not mean that it is propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's nonsense on a couple of different levels. How do you justify a post like that?
Click to expand...

A enjoy touch of sarcasm, and there are days when I have an "I don't give a damn." attitude.
 
UserGoogol said:
Also, knikben didn't produce that video, Frontline did, (or at least that sounds like the Frontline voiceover guy) which changes the dynamic somewhat. Just because something is being used as propaganda does not mean that it is propaganda.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an Orwellian statement. Propaganda is propaganda. What you want to know is if it represents reality and to what degree. I would take it as just common sense that before I shaped my world-view based on something I saw on you-tube that I would first look for independent confirmation.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, that's an Orwellian statement. Propaganda is propaganda. What you want to know is if it represents reality and to what degree. I would take it as just common sense that before I shaped my world-view based on something I saw on you-tube that I would first look for independent confirmation.
Click to expand...

Independent confirmation... How bout the words out of the soldiers' mouths and the tank running over the car?

Is anything OK with you as long as it happens to someone who looks like they might be muslim??

Daredelvis
 
Ya, running over the car was over the top for people who should be professional. I wonder if they still arrested them anyway. If they let them go, I would still consider losing the car lucky. Looters caught in the US end up in jail or dead. I was involved in relief for hurricane Andrew and saw a couple of them dead and tied to tree with a LOOTER sign hanging off of them.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, that's an Orwellian statement. Propaganda is propaganda. What you want to know is if it represents reality and to what degree. I would take it as just common sense that before I shaped my world-view based on something I saw on you-tube that I would first look for independent confirmation.
Click to expand...

Not really. Propaganda is "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." That is, how and why a work is being propagated is key as to whether it qualifies a propaganda. Just because a particular work can be used to propagate a doctrine reflecting the views of those who transmit it does not mean that it can only be used to propagate a doctrine. A video of some soldiers driving over some Iraqis' car can be used to say "AMERIKKKA IS FASCIST PIGS" or it can be simply used to say "A lot of things happen during war, this is one of them. This is not intended to be representative of the Iraq experience as a whole." The former is propaganda, the latter is not.

And I don't think I simply let this reflexively mold my worldview. I mean, I suspect (for the reasons I have already said, although of course it's not impossible to fake a voice) that this is from Frontline (probably slightly taken out of context, though) and furthermore I generally have faith in Frontline to not produce stories which are blatant untruths, therefore I do suspect this is true. But even if it is true I don't think it's really that big a deal. All it says is that some solidiers in Iraq drove over some people's car with their tank. This is horrible, but it's just one data point, and so I don't see how it should make any difference at all for a rational person unless someone was just teetering on the edge between viewpoints and this was the last straw.
 
Last edited:
daredelvis said:
Independent confirmation... How bout the words out of the soldiers' mouths and the tank running over the car?
Click to expand...

Verification means confirming the story with another source, not referring back to the same source. That's pretty basic.

daredelvis said:
Is anything OK with you as long as it happens to someone who looks like they might be muslim??

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Nice smear, how very skeptical of you. :oldroll:

Something that politically charged and inflammatory needs more than a you-tube video to back it up. You've heard the saying about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence, haven't you?
 
This is a really strange conflict, in that it is not clear who the enemy really is. These soldiers aren't selected because of their high moral standards or their high intelligence; they're in Iraq because they signed a contract. The army takes anybody. When the leaders don't know what's going on, and the soldiers are trained to kill or maim anyone who gets in the way (or even just keep the peace), bad stuff happens.

Reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
 
Mycroft said:
Verification means confirming the story with another source, not referring back to the same source. That's pretty basic.

Nice smear, how very skeptical of you. :oldroll:

Something that politically charged and inflammatory needs more than a you-tube video to back it up. You've heard the saying about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence, haven't you?
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me with your alternate hypothesis. Are you suggesting that when the soldier in the American uniform said to the camera, "we caught these guys stealing wood so we are going to run over their car with our tank" that the words coming out of his mouth were dubbed? Or, were those just actors in American uniforms with an American tank saying that they were going to run over the car with said American tank for stealing wood??? Maybe the car had explosives planted in it to weaken the structure before the tank ran it over?!!?!! I mean there is no way, considering the construction of that quality econowagon that it would be crushed just passing a tank over it two times...

You are right. Seeing something like that caught on video, with an explanation out of the mouths of the guys in the uniforms directing the tank is not enough confirmation. Without a second camera crew catching it (from a real newsource, not some PBS apologists) it never happened. And, at the very least we wold need depositions from...

Just using Ochman's razor to figure out your motivations.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Please enlighten me with your alternate hypothesis. Are you suggesting that when the soldier in the American uniform said to the camera, "we caught these guys stealing wood so we are going to run over their car with our tank" that the words coming out of his mouth were dubbed? Or, were those just actors in American uniforms with an American tank saying that they were going to run over the car with said American tank for stealing wood??? Maybe the car had explosives planted in it to weaken the structure before the tank ran it over?!!?!! I mean there is no way, considering the construction of that quality econowagon that it would be crushed just passing a tank over it two times...
Click to expand...
It's typical in the US to confiscate the tools used in a crime. A car will be confiscated if you're caught smuggling drugs in it, your house if you're using it for illegal purposes. I know a girl who lost her car (paid for with an inheritance from her father) after selling a half ounce of pot from her own personal stash to a friend, who had turned informant after getting busted. Use a crowbar to break into someone's house and it will be confiscated. How is this any different?

I remember early in the war how people were incensed that the US wasn't doing enough to stop the looting after the fall of Baghdad, I guess it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 
dann said:
No, let's have a game of "What could possibly be worse than that?" to make our destruction of somebody's livelihood seem harmless in comparison.
Click to expand...
In that region of the world, losing the car is a prettyy mild punishment. Who are the "they" that will hate us for that? The Islamists angered because their hands weren't cut off as demanded by sharia? It seems as if the men weren't even arrested. There's videos of the Taliban cutting off the hands of thieves and parading them around a soccer stadium, the same happens in saudi Arabia and Iran (maybe without the parading). Hard to see those people getting upset about a car being crushed, unless what they're really upset about is being judged by infidels.
 
Did they really have to shoot the car that many times? The poor thing's lucky to be alive.

Nothing displays American-style justice than troops playing cop and judge, confiscating a car on-site, shooting it a dozen times, running over it with a tank and then laughing about it in front of the Iraqi people. Well done, soldiers!

Actually, what am I talking about..."American-style justice". We're in Iraq. We can do what we want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom