Thusfar it hasn't been established that these American soldiers in question actually were kicking a pregnant women. I find it interesting that so many are eager to jump to conclusions before all of the facts are in. Then they have the nerve to say those who would rather wait on the facts before passing judgement are the ones who are biased. On a site that's about denying ignorance, the willingness to stereotype others is astounding. The attitudes expressed about killing American soldiers are pretty digusting too. They are the same kind of attitudes that have kept those parts of the world at war with each other for generations(i.e. I'm not sure if this person is actually guilty of something, but someone else in their group is, so I'll just take out my hate and frustration on them instead).
Additionally as was previously mentioned- assuming that the kicking/beating did occur, we don't know the circumstances(did she have explosives, a weapon, just committed some sort of hostile act, etc...)
Without having all the info, it is asinine to try to come to a conclusion, however that doesn't seem to be a problem around here. Emotions trump logic, and hypocrisy is rampant(if you are concerned about human life so much, and justice, perhaps you could show concern for all those who's guilt hasn't been established). I don't see how one can accuse one group of people as bloodthirsty, and with straight face call for blood and violence. It's especially disgusting when some of these people are fellow Americans, whose rights to spew such hateful bile are protected by those of us in uniform. Who needs Al Qaeda- folks of this ilk will tear our society apart from the inside, without a shot being fired.

You have far, far less justification in issuing your declaration than the OP whose story you want to repudiate. There is some evidence for his report. You are passing your off opinion as fact. No can do.

You simply can't accept that your troops could act in such a manner. Wake up.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

The OP posted links to various sources suggesting what the OP originally posted was indeed the facts of the matter...

Later on in the thread, the sanitised AFP/AAP/Reuters/BBC version of events came to the fore...

I guess its a matter of which source you trust...

Just cos I'm some middle class white guy in Australia getting by quite nicely means I blindly accept whatever the main OS news agencies pass off to our local networks...

I mean, the MSM have already admitted said conflict took place, just the detail is different...

Now, consider for a moment...Those MSM outlets don't post the sanitised versions of said story...

Could this mean denial of access to "official sources" when requiring info ?

It does make me wonder...

The OP's sources have no constraints hanging over them....

Something to consider, for sure...

What about a right to dissent...or free speech? Bush said 'You're either with us or against us", and what did that get you? It was dissent and the exposure of shameful crimes like My Lai that got y'all out of Viet Nam.

I mean this war is all about truth, justice, and the American way, right? Bless the military...but not at any cost.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

---

Based on my personal experience in Iraq- there isn't a single objective news source in that region. Sensationalism is the SOP, and you learn to take everything with a grain of salt. There have been countless times where bogus stories came out, trying to stir up crap, completely without merit(completely anecdotal, BS photoshopped pics, etc..). Until I hear a corroborating story, that has been fact checked by other media sources, I'm simply not going to jump to any conclusions. There are bad apples over there, but they are the distinct minority, and I refuse to allow the rest to be painted in broad brush strokes, by anti-America/anti-West types.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

---

What it got us was defeat in Vietnam. The military won every battle, but the war was lost at home. After the Tet offensive, the VC were destroyed as a fighting force, but the public opinion at home turned, and we lost the stomach to see it through, and left the South Vietnamese out there hanging. I much prefer the WWII model- i.e. the country unites for a common cause, we win the war, and come home.

And what do all these posts say about those cheering the death of anyone? I find them bloodthirsty and disgusting too.

Your generalizations about all American soldiers are just like the generalizations of all Muslims you all fight tooth and nail against.

Look in the mirror people for you are no different than what you write against.

reply to post by Rilence

---

The problem with your assertion is that you're automatically assuming that the original story was accurate and that the other versions were sanitized. You're right about one thing. The Arab media doesn't have the constraint of corroboration, fact checking, objectivity. If the story sounds good, they'll print it, as long as it makes the US(or whomever they dislike) look bad.

Amen to all you've said. Of course, those comments can be applied to most media outlets around (cough, cough...FOX..cough). All I'm saying is that the report can't be dismissed out of hand...that's as bad as taking it to the bank. Frankly, I hope it's propeganda, because I like Americans and they're taking enough black eyes as is.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

---

The difference in the Western media(to include Fox), is that if they put out a story that turns out to be false, you're gonna hear about it, because there are folks checking up on the veracity. There is no such accountability in the Arab media. You'll never hear an Arabic newspaper, or cable news show retract a story if they got their facts wrong.

I agree, but the level of hatred on ATS over the thinnest of stories that paint Americans in a bad light is truly is astounding.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

If only things were that simple...

In this case, the US was the aggressor, therefore, you are responsible for the restoration of the Sovereign Nation of Iraq, unless your "coalition" pals want to kick in...I'll bet they won't...I know Australia won't, you gave us bad info...Tough...you foot the bill

You started the war over false premises of WMD....Then it was regime change, where the regime in question did a perfectly good job of enforcing law and order...

Except..."Sanctions" imposed by the "international community (read the US) had been crippling this sovereign nation for no reason at all..

Every reason the US had for imposing these sanctions was proven false after invasion...

The thing I find highly amusing about your "fight, win, go home model" is this...

1) Almost all the rest of the world, and we are not talking governments here, we are talking people...Sit and wonder why the US and its allies committed such an atrocious act in Iraq"

2) Once you end the conflict, your economy is going so far south even the Emperor Penguins in Antarctica won't be able to see it...

Bush 2.0 "cleverly" thought he'd follow in Daddy's shoes and create a war economy, without any thought whatsoever happens when said war ends...

You can't keep it going forever, you will have a change of government...

Anyone in the US silly enough to think any economy outside the US is going to suffer worse in the coming world wide recession is dreaming...

The US will be the hardest hit by a long shot...10%+ unemployment, massive foreclosures on mortgages, stock market tumbles...

Unfortunately, the US borrowed the majority of global liquidity to support wealth which does not really exist...You borrow money, you cannot expect debtors to accept re-po after re-po...That practice will end, and soon...

You gotta understand, there is the Iraq war...But the consequences of same will not come home to bite US citizens on the butt for a while yet...

God help you all when it does...

Thank goodness I live in a resource based country where we will always be able to sell something of substance that the rest of the world want's

Anyone who thinks the Iraq conflict is the be all and end all is mistaken...

I'm sure they kicked a pregnant woman. It's also reported that the soldiers then took candy from a baby...

www.cnn.com...

Not the first time an insurgent has done this...

reply to post by Rilence

---

How does any of that relate to this particular story, or trustworthiness of media sources? That's a whole other thread topic. My point was that you accepted one media source at face value, and stated the other stories were sanitized. Can that be described in anyway other than biased?

reply to post by GT100FV

---

Bias is a two way street, as I've already mentioned...Of course the US would want any mention of a pregnant woman being involved removed from said reports...

And the US has those three major world news outlets in its pocket for a gazillion reasons (that's Reuters, AFP, and AAP for ya'll...maybe theres some others....)

You tell me which reason you'd believe ? Me...I'll take the "unsanitised by the US Military"version thanks...

The Arabs sources have little to lose...They've been cactus for years...The US info machine has to guard against what it sees as "disinfo" 24/7

Even Stevie Wonder sees that...

Why do people keep mentioning "bad apples"? It really trivialises the whole issue imo. I don't want an argument here, but please stop this self-satisfying meme.

I'm going to draw your attention to this website:
www.projectcensored.org...

...you know, it could be wrong...left-wing propeganda...all that...but it has the top 25 censored stories of 2007 including the following which has appeared on ATS as well:
#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
Source:
The Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, and Ithaca Journal, June 29, 2006
Title: “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’”
Author: Ed Haas
www.teamliberty.net...

reply to post by Midav

---

Good find there- I think this snippet from that story is very interesting-

"The Iraqi soldier who allegedly opened fire, fled the scene but was identified by other Iraqi Army personnel and was then apprehended," the military said.

The military said two Iraqi soldiers were being held in connection with the incident."

It's interesting how the shooter was identified by other Iraqis and apprehended. Kind of makes you wonder why they would do such a thing if the Americans were at fault. Perhaps because the Iraqi shooter wasn't trying to protect a pregnant women?

So what you are saying is all western news sources are sanitized by the military/US to be pro US and the only accurate news source is Arab even when those sources cannot be checked for accuracy and when nine times out of ten the stories are spun as bias against America so they can sell their own newspapers in the Arab world?

Since the majority of American news is pro democrat do you not think anyone of them would jump at the chance to print anything remotely against Bush? Do you think that any number of other world news companies would print the truth as it is?

You logic is about as bias as you profess western news to be…


[edit on 5-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by GT100FV

---

Exactly my thinking!

RIP to those soldiers.