From: matus (matus@matus1976.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:43:46 MDT
Michael Wiik posted this article:
US TROOPS ADMIT SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=fu
ll_siteid=50143_headline=-US-TROOPS-ADMIT-SHOOTING-IRAQI-CIVILIANS-name_
page.html
An interesting article, and disturbing if true. However, no indication
is made that this is the official US policy, and the simple manner is
was titled "US TROOPS ADMIT SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS" and the first
sentence "American troops today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi
civilians - some of whom are entirely innocent" should cause some pause.
Both of these statements should have been preceeded by a qaulified, for
instance 'some' i.e. "SOME US TROOPS ADMIT SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS" and
"Some American troops today admitted..." Leaving that out makes a very
clear distinction harder to draw. More accurately the article should be
titled "TWO US TROOPS ADMITTING SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS" Was this
official policy? or are thes acting a manner that is uncondoned by the
coalition forces? And, more importantly, it is clearly easy to imply
certain things an add an spin to an article withouth lying, this is
easily accomplished by quoting out of context.
For example, the interview may have asked
"Whats it like over there"
To which Sergeant First Class John Meadows responded
"> "You can't distinguish between who's trying to kill you and
> who's not,"
The next question a reporter might as then would be
"Have you ever killed any civilians?"
To which John could have responded
"Its possible, you don't really know for sure every time, and some
instances may occur where you don't have time to sit down and analyze
whether a person is a civlian or plan clothed combatant out to kill you.
And in the heat of the battle, making such clear decisions could be made
even more difficult."
To which the reporter might have responded:
"Oh Can you give an an example of a situation where something like that
might occur?"
To which John may have responded
"Like when a wall of people are approaching you, some armed and some
not. Like, the only way to get through s*** like that was to
concentrate on getting through it by killing as many people as you can,
people you know are trying to kill you. Killing them first and getting
home"
Then the reporter made a mental note "Ah, American Troops admit shooting
Iraqi Civilians" will make a great headline, and I can use this quote!
I am not saying this is what happened, but I don't think there are *any*
news stories of this manner from either idealogy that does not
sensationalize, twist, or otherwise quote out of context, so please keep
this in mind while reading.
If these soldiers actions are not condoned, and they admit to shooting
civilians when they had no reason to feel threatened by them, they
should be punished, severely. However, I note in the above quote that
the interviewee said "you know they are trying to kill you" If they are
civilians, and they are trying to kill you, you can certainly defend
yourself. The fact that he said this could mean that he told a story
and was asked question similar to what I hypothesize, conversely, it
could mean that he thinks 'them' (as in all Iraqis) are out to kill him,
but which of these is a more reasonable opinion that we should
reasonably suspect an average soldier of holding?
Each of the statements of this article viewed in this late can become
suspect, yet the first line in the article insists that "American troops
today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi civilians - some of whom
are entirely innocent."
Where is the 'Routine' admission of gunning down Iraqi civilians? No
where in the article does a soldier say 'Yeah, we routinely gun down
civilians'
Consider also the reporter says "Describing the scene during combat
Richardson admitted shooting injured soldiers and leaving them to die."
So, during combat, he shot the enemy, and then left them to die? This
does not seem to be odd behavior for actually being in combat.
The latter two statements are much more difficult to reconcile, but I
would be interested in hearing what these two soldiers have to say of
this 'interview'. In either case, suggesting that the killing of
civilians was routine and leaving the implication open that [all]
American troops admit shooting civilians instead of [two] is egregious
and dishonest reporting. But I am sure less critical people whos
idealogy this reinforces will be all to ready to accept everything it
says.
Regards,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:19:28 MDT