Biting the hand that feeds you/shot you.

[Iron Sheik]

Bill,

IMHO, "I think you are missing the point". None of these countries in Middle East belongs to the folks that actually leave there. Let’s not loose site here, If Iraqi army was here in US and they had shot me for not understanding their “jibirish”, I should be more than grateful for getting shot by them. At the very least, I should not be pissed

I NEVER understand people who say “put yourself in their shoe”. That is a horrible thing to do,,,,,Hell, my conscience might get a hold of me and then I am ruined we can't have that

[Pat Buckley]

The sooner people can get their minds around the fact that might makes right, the easier things will be to understand.

[Doug Clark]

Look at this picture, read the story...

If it were you would you have done any differently to what the guys says he did?

If this was YOUR wife who'd lost her eye and YOUR children being shot at would you be grateful? I know I wouldn't I'd be F**KING LIVID!!

I'd sue the shit out of everything in sight if it were me. If I were still living in Texas I'd go to Walmart, buy a gun and use it on whoever tried to kill me and my family.

Iraq is described as a "war zone" you do better to try thinking of it as a place were men, women and children just like you and yours live, that have had a whole pile of shit brought into their lives that they didn't ask for.

[Pat Buckley]

So you don't consider it a war zone?

[Doug Clark]

Anywhere can be described as a "War zone" the Jihadists would describe the USA and the West in general in such terms. What these terms do though is belittle the lives of the people that live there. The people in this story did not choose to live in a "War Zone" to them its HOME.

[Bill Hara]

Faili - You are a true infidel

Pat

The sooner people can get their minds around the fact that might makes right, the easier things will be to understand.

That was the Nazi's attitude too, doesn't mean it was right. That "war zone" ended up occupying 1/2 the world and killed 10s of millions, but the fact that 60 odd years has past seems to have dulled the pain and memories that hundreds of millions of people felt at that time.

The movers and shakers out there that are responsible are not interested in showing their might, or in being right, they are interested in making money and lots of it.
All I'm saying is that most of the earths population has forgotten what morals are, forgotten what being humane is, forgotton that there is joy in giving rather than in taking. Money is everything and you, me and everyone else on this forum and the world can be gotten rid of if it stops the movers and shakers from making money.

If they chose not to slow down after being given clear instructions to do so, then they shouldn't have been surprised that they got shot up.

If you read the article, they claim that they saw the soldiers moments before they were shot and had started to slow. Just like when you spot the police officer with the speed camera just after he's nailed you doing 100.
Consequences were a little more drastic in this instance. Oh well they're only human

[Gregg]

Originally Posted by Bill Haralambakis

If you read the article, they claim that they saw the soldiers moments before they were shot and had started to slow.

Bill, I looked at both articles and did not see a reference to them "start[ing] to slow". The story Pete posted insinuates they were stopped already. The story posted by Doug states "Mr Saadi says he pulled up as soon as he saw the four Diggers..." Is there another story? Well, "pulling up" is not the same as stopping. In a country where car bombs are just one of the weapons of choice, "pulling up" to soldier who has directed you to stop is only going to invite the end result we are reading about. They are lucky more of the occupants were not injured. Iraq has been a hostile environment long before the war, and remains so today. If the Saadi's ignored the military's order to stop, they are unfortunately wrong and the consequences are evident. As far as knowing the word/language; "STOP" and its meaning isn't a difficult word to learn and understand. As our forces have been there for sometime now, I will go out on a limb and state that the Saadi's, a middle class family, probably knows the meaning of the word "stop".

[Pete.]

For those of you who have never been in combat or a uniform please try and understand this, manning a checkpoint is just about the most dangerous thing a soldier does short of an actual fire fight. The enemy know where you are and they want to kill you. Any approaching vehicle or person could be that enemy.
These lads are not sitting in a comfortable armchair contemplating the moral rights and wrongs of war or invading a country for what ever reason.
They are in a Farking war zone expecting to be attacked and doing their duty even though they are scared shitless.
Sure they may have had an itchy trigger finger, I know I would have.

[Iron Sheik]

I think (maybe I am wrong), NO ONE here is blaming the soldiers!! This tread is about compensation, right? Should they be compensated, or be thankful for the lead shot in their A$$?

Why can’t it be that,,,, the Diggers did do the right thing at the time of shooting (even though it turned out bad). And now the shot up Iraqis are doing the “right thing” for loosing some flesh. Why can’t they both be right?!

[Gregg]

Falli, I believe you are wrong. I am on the way out and will try to elaborate later, but I will leave you with these questions.

1. Wouldn't the soldiers have to be proven wrong in order to compensate the Saadi's? If the soldiers were right, then no compensation to the Saadi's.

2. Wouldn't the soldiers have to be wrong in theory to allow the institution of a suit? Since when can a civilian sue the government for military action? I would think there would be some type of "exemption" just like Judges can't be personally held accountable for their mistakes/rulings.

[Cliff Beer]

Everyone in Iraq (yes, everyone, civilian or military) knows by now that there is a process for approaching and passing through a check point (ask any Israeli or Palestinian for an example from a different country, it's second nature for them). They know that this means promptly stopping (and anything else you're told to do) when instructed to do so and, most importantly, that if you don't do what you're told (such as stop) you will be exposing yourself to great bodily harm. Why is this the case? Because the first identifying characteristic of a crazy intending to kill and terrorize authorities at a check point is to not stop in order to get close enough to cause maximum carnage. It's real simple, and everyone, including this family, knew the drill and the likely end result of not following the drill.

[Kim Petersen]

Let's see here: An innocent Iraqi family doesn't slow down fast enough for a road block and is fired upon by soldiers. The family is seriously wounded and have to receive hospital care in the country whose soldiers shot them. Injured and displaced from their homeland, having lost everything they owned, the family is looking to the courts of that country for redress. To this set of circumstances, the following remarks are made:

"If you're going to play, play hard" and "the sooner people can get their minds around the fact that might makes right, the easier things will be to understand" and "sure (the soldiers) may have had an itchy trigger finger, I know I would have" and "these lads are not sitting in a comfortable armchair contemplating the moral rights and wrongs of war" and my favorite "should have used an RPG, end of problems."

These were innocent people, scared for their lives, and living in a war zone - a horror most of us can barely fathom. No one has even alleged that they were anything other than frightened and confused. While one can understand that the young troops involved were also scared, it nevertheless astounds me the cavalier attitude some people have for the lives of the civilians we are supposed to be protecting. And, yes, it is the responsibility of these and all soldiers to contemplate the moral rights and wrongs of their actions. Combat does not create nor justify a moral vacuum for the soldiers who must prosecute it. It is precisely this, and our humanity, that distinguishes us from our enemies.

But let's be honest here, if these weren't Arab but rather Europeans, we wouldn't be reading this kind of disturbing banter on our website. But inasmuch as the victims here are Arabs, we read commentary that has all the humanity and intelligence of what you might find at a Klan rally.

[Gregg]

I usually do not get involved in discussions re politics, religion etc., because it generally ends with ill feelings. However, there seems to be ALOT of assumptions here.

Kim, please advise where the following statement was posted as I have yet to read a report of it???

Originally Posted by kepetersen

Let's see here: Injured and displaced from their homeland, having lost everything they owned, the family is looking to the courts of that country for redress.

I agree that some of the comments here are mind numbing. "might makes right" WOW, score one for the bullies around the world.

Our soldiers arer there. Lets keep as many of our own safe.

"But let's be honest here, if these weren't Arab but rather Europeans, we wouldn't be reading this kind of disturbing banter on our website. But inasmuch as the victims here are Arabs, we read commentary that has all the humanity and intelligence of what you might find at a Klan rally. "

I disagree Kim. If the Europeans waged war like the suicide bombing Arabs, I believe you would have the same outcry. How many INNOCENT victims have been killed, maimed. orphaned etc. by Arab suicide bombers?? How many more lives will terrorists as these take. Frankly it is the Arab suicide methods of killing the so called "occupying force" and any countryman who stands for democracy which scares any rationale person. Strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a market killing INNOCENT civilians. Such behavior should not be condoned no matter what country you hail from.

"And, yes, it is the responsibility of these and all soldiers to contemplate the moral rights and wrongs of their actions. Combat does not create nor justify a moral vacuum for the soldiers who must prosecute it."

Kim, this really does not need a response. If it comes down to your life or someone in a hostile country, not following an order to stop, guess what, I'll be alive to go home to my family and not the person driving the vehicle.

I will end this with an anecdote a very wise man told me. It revolved around the controversy of a shooting death. Many lawyers were discussing the merits of the circumstances of the shooting and the outcome. The debate was heated. The pearl of wisdom spoken:

"I'd rather be judged by twelve of my peers than carried by six of my friends." (For those needing a translation, he'd rather be alive and have his actions judged by a jury, than dead and have his casket carried by six friends!)

[Pete.]

[quote=Gregg;221049]

Kim, this really does not need a response. If it comes down to your life or someone in a hostile country, not following an order to stop, guess what, I'll be alive to go home to my family and not the person driving the vehicle.

quote]

Ditto. If you have not lived it, it is hard to understand.

[Pat Buckley]

Jesus - I was responding to a sarcastic post with one of my own.

[Jakob V. Edvardsen]

Originally Posted by 2124

Jesus - I was responding to a sarcastic post with one of my own.

Please... Not Jesus'es... No Allah's... And certainly not pictures of Muhammed!!!

But seriously... This thread is not about which religion you have, but rather about who is to blame in an incident at a checkpoint in Irak.

[Gregg]

Originally Posted by 2124

Jesus - I was responding to a sarcastic post with one of my own.

My apologies Pat. That is not how I read it.

[ChrisL]

I walked away from this forum a few months ago because of what I saw was an imbalance of rednecks and because I was afraid that I might say something (else) that I regretted, but I'm very happy to see that the balance has now been redressed.

Pete, all I can say about your comments is that you should have thought about ALL the consequences of invading Iraq when you so enthusiastically supported it back in 2003. I remember post after post when you supported suggestions that ANY consequence was better than "doing nothing", so it should now be people like you now who are standing up and arguing that this and any other consequence "was worth it". But no, here you are instead complaining about the result of something that you only just supported in your last breath... or did you not think that there would be consequences?

And finally, I can't believe that you are honestly sitting back in your safe little home with all your facial features still in tact and complaining about the drawbacks of a system that solves its problems peacefully in the courts rather than violently in the streets.