The other day a Facebook friend of mine posted up a video that has quickly become popular on the web. The video was first posted (to my knowledge) by www.worldstarhiphop.com, and was brought to public knowledge by www.wikileaks.org. It was crudely called "Disturbing: Footage of Innocent Civilians, Including Reuters Employees, Being Shot to Death by U.S. Military in Iraq is Released!..."
Now, I wont go into the specifics of the video, instead I will put the link up so you can see how the events unfolded for yourself. But, to put it mildly the clip demonstrated what many have feared for a long time: the U.S military seems to exhibit a collateral-damage ideology, similar to that of any popular videogame. Some of their tactics seem to go directly against the Rules of Engagement stipulated by the Geneva Convention. For example, "Any form of physical violence or degradation (against a civilian) is prohibited. An armed force may not attack civilians, nor use them as a "human shield" to render a location protected from attack" (Convention IV). The occurrences in this particular video instantly present a case against some of the military's procedures. For example, upon shooting at innocent civilians and learning that they have wounded two small children (clearly visible on camera), one officer says "Well it's their fault for bringing children to a battle". At this point I'm still confused about what his idea of a "battle" is:
Is it the part where you shoot at innocent Reuters employees for assuming their cameras are weapons? Or is it the part where you intentionally shoot at the van, packed with other defenceless witnesses, which has come to save the only person that survived the unprecedented attack?
Anyway, upon seeing that this video had been posted, I took the liberty to comment "I'm glad you posted this up so everyone can see that the American military is the largest organized terrorist network."
A few hours later, someone else decided to drop a comment:
"what about our patriotism to our country. right or wrong they are our family members being slaughtered by roadside bombs and suicide bomers... i think its calld WAR. innocent ppl are a casuality just like all the ppl in the first tower or on the planes.... we know that the ppl have declaired jihad.."
I have to admit, I didn't even know HOW to begin to reply to that comment. I instantly felt anger and indignation. That gave way to a sort of despair-pity combo: despair at the fact that these opinions were not exclusive to this one commentator, and pity at the fact that he (and those with the same ideologies) are almost forced into thinking this way. It is extremely difficult, nearly impossible to think outside of this "patriotism" belief when that is what is being thrown your way as the justification for the brutality that continues to transpire.
Now, my actual reply was:
"Your family members who are being slaughtered decided to WILLINGLY WAGE WAR on another nation state, who is retaliating with "roadside bombs". What about the faaar more fatal missles dropped by the US Military? They're designed with the specific intention of causing collateral damage...
If you know anything about the events surrounding September 11, than you know not a single one of the hijackers was Iraqi. So 7 years later we're still left wondering (although the real reasons are clear enough) about the premise for ATTACKING Iraq. Your argument holds no logic. "People have declared jihad"?NEWSFLASH: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. If that isn't a demonstration of jihad, than what is? Did the Saudi royal family receive any backlash? Did Bush or his survivor Obama retaliate in that country? Nope! Just sent billions of dollars worth of American business that continues to pour in...
Is that how you preserve the legacy of tIs that how you preserve the legacy of the September 11 victims? Is that patriotism?"
And that is exactly how I feel. I am by NO MEANS condoning any of the events revolving around the September 11, 2001. Nor do I wish (at this time, anyway) to delve into the real reasons for the Iraq war. Al I am really trying to say is that in order to label any organization, legitimate or not, a "terrorist-inspired" one, we must first examine our own definition of what "terrorism" is. If we as a society are to condemn "Jihad" against a people as unacceptable, then by these same standards we must be heedful of employing the methods we have rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Pick my brain and leave some of yours!