US soldiers were handing out sweets, US soldiers were handing out sweets, ...
July 13, 2005 10:20 AM   Subscribe

Children gathered round the Americans who were handing out sweets. --yet another suicide attack following the opening of a water treatment plant. Our soldiers hand out candy, attracting children, and someone attacks, killing the kids. "Many Iraqi civilians, mostly children, were around the Humvee at the time of the blast," US military spokesman Sgt David Abrams told the Reuters news agency. This same thing happened before--in May 05, and most deadly, in Sept. 04. How many times does the same thing have to happen before we change our policy and stop endangering the lives of children?
posted by amberglow (28 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: complete and utter horseshit



 
The answer is infinity, when you have an obstinate administration accountable to none.
posted by blendor at 10:23 AM on July 13, 2005


Yes, I too blame the administration for handing out candy to children!! I read an article about a suicide bomber striving to murder the greatest number of children and immediately source the object of scorn to be... the now dead man who was handing them candy.
posted by jonson at 10:28 AM on July 13, 2005


Um... Our policy of distributing candy? Our policy of being near children? Our policy of... engaging civilians?
I'm not sure how we can blame this one on the US troops, aside from the dodgy "If they weren't there, there wouldn't be any suicide attacks" dodge. Talking with kids and civilians is a good thing for soldiers to do. Being a little bit more aware of the security situation would be helpful, but frankly, I'd imagine more anger directed toward the suicide bombers and less toward the tropps with candy.
posted by klangklangston at 10:29 AM on July 13, 2005


Hold on a second, are you trying to say that the Americans giving candy to children are more culpable than the guys with the TNT strapped to their bodies?
posted by darukaru at 10:29 AM on July 13, 2005


How many times does the same thing have to happen before we change our policy and stop endangering the lives of children?

As soon as we stop giving candy to children, something bad will happen, and you'll ask

When will we finally change our policy and embark on some sort of public relations campaign to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:29 AM on July 13, 2005


(Heh. Dodgy dodge. Whups).
posted by klangklangston at 10:29 AM on July 13, 2005


To be succint

Are you stupid or just so intellectually arrogant that you don't have a scrap of human feeling left.

The answer is infinity, when you have an obstinate administration accountable to none.

You are why people don't like liberals. P.S. I'm a liberal

The correct question is why do suicide bombers continue to attack innocent children in the name of Allah?
posted by Rubbstone at 10:29 AM on July 13, 2005


Troopies carrying out a hearts and minds mission and not the bombers are now responsible for the deaths of these children? That's a pretty serious abuse of the attractive nuisance construct, no? What would you recommend as a replacement for generating interpersonal contact in a non-combative framework?
posted by Fezboy! at 10:30 AM on July 13, 2005


I'm as up for a round of America-bashing as the next guy, but I'm not sure that blaming the soldiers for the deaths of the children is the way to go here.
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 10:30 AM on July 13, 2005


What a stupid way to link to an otherwise important story. How is this the fault of the US soldiers? One would assume that the insurgent involved in this bombing could see what activity the soldiers were up to, and could see that their were children around, and yet still felt 1 dead soldier was worth 24 dead children.

Don't get me wrong, I hate America as much as the next guy, but really, come on now.
posted by chunking express at 10:34 AM on July 13, 2005


Wow... and I was worried when I wrote MY comment that I'd be the only one who felt that way. Nice to know we're not all so blinded by our hatred of this evil war as to recognize the difference between victim & perpetrator.
posted by jonson at 10:35 AM on July 13, 2005


wow, amberglow is a fucking moron.
posted by keswick at 10:35 AM on July 13, 2005


Hold on a second, are you trying to say that the Americans giving candy to children are more culpable than the guys with the TNT strapped to their bodies?

Yes, that is exactly what he said.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:35 AM on July 13, 2005


Occupying forces giving sweets to kids in the street is good.
Citizens lining up to joing the police and army is good.
Freely accessable open air markets are good.

All these must stop for now, because suicide bombers are bad.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:37 AM on July 13, 2005


Every stupid brutal attack on innocents proves why we cannot and will not walk away and leave the country to evil idiots.
posted by terrymiles at 10:38 AM on July 13, 2005


> but I'm not sure that blaming the soldiers for the deaths of the
> children is the way to go here.

I'm not reading any of that here -- just that we have an irresponsible administration (granted) and a candies handout practice that probably should be stopped (I agree.)
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:39 AM on July 13, 2005


amberglow more like ambertroll am i rite?

That seems like the right level of discourse given the parent.
posted by Ryvar at 10:40 AM on July 13, 2005


Shucks, amberglow. How did I know as soon as I saw your post that you'd exploit this story to condemn the handing-candy-to-children "policy" instead of the
kill-as-many-in-a-group-as-possible "policy" of the suicide bombers, something you've conveniently ignored in all your time at MeFi?

What dopey, dishonest garbage.

You've validated everything rightwing nuts have ever said about blaming America first and ignoring all else. Kudos. And I will bet my next (meager) paycheck that no matter how many of us point it out, you will deny any flaw in your logic, even if the thread reaches 1000 posts.

On preview: what everyone else has said. If there was a flag category for "completely boneheaded" I would've chosen it.
posted by dhoyt at 10:40 AM on July 13, 2005


Let's see, I'm going to have to check my scorecard here:
Soldiers giving candy to kids: not responsible for the suicide bomb attack.
Kids getting candy from GIs: not responsible for suicide bomb attack.
Insurgent with bomb strapped to chest: responsible for suicide bomb attack.
Commander who ordered suicide bomb attack: responsible for suicide bomb attack.

Could the attack have been prevented by a more vigilant perimeter security? Maybe but I wasn't there and didn't see how it happened.

Blaming the soldiers, the kids or Bush for these unspeakably cowardly attacks by the insurgents accomplishes nothing except internal divisions. The ones strapping bombs to thier chests and targeting children are the evil buggers in all of this, them and the ones telling them to go blow up children.
posted by fenriq at 10:43 AM on July 13, 2005


U R SO RITE!!!!!1!!!UNO!!!!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:44 AM on July 13, 2005


Every stupid brutal attack on innocents proves why we cannot and will not walk away and leave the country to evil idiots.

I agree! Wait, we're talking about America, right?

Yeah, bad post.
posted by mkultra at 10:44 AM on July 13, 2005


amberglow, stop it. There are more than enough reasons to hate the war in Iraq without needing to resort to this tabloid bullshit.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:44 AM on July 13, 2005


Thanks for the Powerpuff Girls CD tho.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:45 AM on July 13, 2005


How many times does the same thing have to happen before we change our policy and stop endangering the lives of children?

Here's a tip: it's not the soldiers' fault, and it's not the fault of the United States. It's the fault of the terrorists, and none other. Stop blaming the U.S. for what is clearly someone else's depraved action.
posted by oaf at 10:45 AM on July 13, 2005


Maybe the administration should start a "killing children" policy to better bond with the insurgents. We could end the war so much sooner.
posted by guruguy9 at 10:45 AM on July 13, 2005


we better just stop anyone from gathering in groups in iraq so nobody can blow up anyone! right. jesus christ amberglow, AXE GRIND MUCH?
posted by angry modem at 10:47 AM on July 13, 2005


Hold on a second, are you trying to say that the Americans giving candy to children are more culpable than the guys with the TNT strapped to their bodies?

Or — get this — perhaps the parent is suggesting this given one of the tags to this post is the word "strategy":

As a tactical decision, giving the guys with the TNT an easy target is a Bad Idea, and there are probably Better, Smarter Ways to Win The Hearts And Minds that don't involve pooling children into one convenient killzone.

That implication doesn't require the rightwing mouthbreathers to get upset over imagined slights against their fearless leader or armed forces.
posted by Rothko at 10:49 AM on July 13, 2005


I think the proper question is "Why does amberglow hate America Iraqi children?"
posted by oaf at 10:50 AM on July 13, 2005


« Older On the politics of fear   |   Music "criticism" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments