Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I wonder however if people would get so het up if the picture was of somewhere else, say South Africa? Or featured a UN peacekeeper.

Chocoholic wrote:Corcovado, that's what I just said!

Soldier in picture = occupation = wrong

Freza - get it now?

"And how does anyone know that the guy isn't there to PROTECT the girl and her child friends? "

ummm, yeah, aha

makes perfect sense


Choco, I'm SURE that if Intimacy or anyone else would have put up a picture of an Al Qaeda man carrying a weapon, walking the streets and kids reacting in fright, you would have the same reaction, right? "Terrorists are bad, but maybe they're protecting the kids, so don't take things out of context people."

The point is when you look at the image, you see what you want to see - that's the difference. In my job I have to look at things objectively. The soldier is not in defensive stance, his hold on the weapon is relaxed, his finger isn't even on the trigger, his back is even to the little girl. The girls body posture is relaxed, there is no tension in this image whatsoever.

The only thing wrong with it is the fact that the soldier is there.

I'll ignore you comment about terrorist as it's typical that you'd change the subject to that, we're not talking about that.

Corcovado wrote:why are u all in denial ??? why u want to find excuses for war??this man should not be in her country with his big gun ... Israel should not be in palestine and lebanon... who died and made them GOD??? stop hiding behind ur fingers and open up ur eyes ... there is evil in the world and its US And Israel

come on Corc. nobody sane would agree with destroying a country out of political or whatever interests, but u cannot blame them for everything that goes on in the world...i know ull say u never said that, but still. there r many things to consider. one is that a conflict is never the fault of only one. the other is that abusing of power is the most common thing in the world. it has always been like this. when the US never even existed, there were others who did the same. and my guess, smtime in the near future the US will lose this power to China...they too will do the same.
i dont agree with the americans meddling in everything all the time, but since Irak came up, well they were not exactly the best example for a peaceful country either.

Chocoholic wrote:The point is when you look at the image, you see what you want to see - that's the difference. In my job I have to look at things objectively. The soldier is not in defensive stance, his hold on the weapon is relaxed, his finger isn't even on the trigger, his back is even to the little girl. The girls body posture is relaxed, there is no tension in this image whatsoever.

The only thing wrong with it is the fact that the soldier is there.

I'll ignore you comment about terrorist as it's typical that you'd change the subject to that, we're not talking about that.

Please don't ignore my comment because I'm going to think that it's convenient for you to ignore it. You should know that there is such a thing a state terrorism, and military-state terrorism...right? So I'm really not changing the subject at all.

Would you have the same type of objectivity if it was an Al Qaeda soldier in such an image?

freza wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:The point is when you look at the image, you see what you want to see - that's the difference. In my job I have to look at things objectively. The soldier is not in defensive stance, his hold on the weapon is relaxed, his finger isn't even on the trigger, his back is even to the little girl. The girls body posture is relaxed, there is no tension in this image whatsoever.

The only thing wrong with it is the fact that the soldier is there.

I'll ignore you comment about terrorist as it's typical that you'd change the subject to that, we're not talking about that.

Please don't ignore my comment because I'm going to think that it's convenient for you to ignore it. You should know that there is such a thing a state terrorism, and military-state terrorism...right? So I'm really not changing the subject at all.

Would you have the same type of objectivity if it was an Al Qaeda soldier in such an image?

why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from.

"why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from."

raidah, that wasn't my point, what she said earlier was what I have an issue with. Please look at the thread from the start.

freza wrote:"why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from."

raidah, that wasn't my point, what she said earlier was what I have an issue with. Please look at the thread from the start.

i asked the question exactly because i have read the thread from the start. we dont know as much about that photo as we think. so if u wanna be objective u have to interpret only what u see there. the man was not pointing the gun to the child. that photo does not suggest that the soldier represents a danger for the kid. still its not a pleasant photo to see, because the mere prezence of the armed man means some state of war. was the soldier from another nation's army in the exact same position, it would be also unpleasant, but for the same reason, war. and nothing more.

raidah wrote:

freza wrote:"why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from."

raidah, that wasn't my point, what she said earlier was what I have an issue with. Please look at the thread from the start.

i asked the question exactly because i have read the thread from the start. we dont know as much about that photo as we think. so if u wanna be objective u have to interpret only what u see there. the man was not pointing the gun to the child. that photo does not suggest that the soldier represents a danger for the kid. still its not a pleasant photo to see, because the mere prezence of the armed man means some state of war. was the soldier from another nation's army in the exact same position, it would be also unpleasant, but for the same reason, war. and nothing more.

So since Choco is not answering my last question, maybe you can:

Would you have the same type of objectivity (and opinion as above) if it was an Al Qaeda soldier instead of an American occupation soldier in such an image?

freza wrote:

raidah wrote:

freza wrote:"why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from."

raidah, that wasn't my point, what she said earlier was what I have an issue with. Please look at the thread from the start.

i asked the question exactly because i have read the thread from the start. we dont know as much about that photo as we think. so if u wanna be objective u have to interpret only what u see there. the man was not pointing the gun to the child. that photo does not suggest that the soldier represents a danger for the kid. still its not a pleasant photo to see, because the mere prezence of the armed man means some state of war. was the soldier from another nation's army in the exact same position, it would be also unpleasant, but for the same reason, war. and nothing more.

So since Choco is not answering my last question, maybe you can:

Would you have the same type of objectivity (and opinion as above) if it was an Al Qaeda soldier instead of an American occupation soldier in such an image?

i cant believe ur asking this very same question over and over, after u have received the answer both from Chocs and me...
here is what she said :"Soldier in picture = occupation = wrong"
and above in red what i said...
what is it that u dont understand?

raidah wrote:

freza wrote:

raidah wrote:

freza wrote:"why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from."

raidah, that wasn't my point, what she said earlier was what I have an issue with. Please look at the thread from the start.

i asked the question exactly because i have read the thread from the start. we dont know as much about that photo as we think. so if u wanna be objective u have to interpret only what u see there. the man was not pointing the gun to the child. that photo does not suggest that the soldier represents a danger for the kid. still its not a pleasant photo to see, because the mere prezence of the armed man means some state of war. was the soldier from another nation's army in the exact same position, it would be also unpleasant, but for the same reason, war. and nothing more.

So since Choco is not answering my last question, maybe you can:

Would you have the same type of objectivity (and opinion as above) if it was an Al Qaeda soldier instead of an American occupation soldier in such an image?

i cant believe ur asking this very same question over and over, after u have received the answer both from Chocs and me...
here is what she said :"Soldier in picture = occupation = wrong"
and above in red what i said...
what is it that u dont understand?

I was being very specific, but your answer was NOT. hence I had to repeat myself. "...was the soldier from another nation's army..." I was referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq which can hardly be considered "another nation's army". Right?
So I guess your answer is YES, if this were an Al Qaeda guy you would have the same type of objectivity and you would even say "maybe he's there to help those people". Got it.

freza wrote:

raidah wrote:

freza wrote:

raidah wrote:

freza wrote:"why would it be different Freza?

Chocs is right. the soldier should not be there, but not because of where he is from."

raidah, that wasn't my point, what she said earlier was what I have an issue with. Please look at the thread from the start.

i asked the question exactly because i have read the thread from the start. we dont know as much about that photo as we think. so if u wanna be objective u have to interpret only what u see there. the man was not pointing the gun to the child. that photo does not suggest that the soldier represents a danger for the kid. still its not a pleasant photo to see, because the mere prezence of the armed man means some state of war. was the soldier from another nation's army in the exact same position, it would be also unpleasant, but for the same reason, war. and nothing more.

So since Choco is not answering my last question, maybe you can:

Would you have the same type of objectivity (and opinion as above) if it was an Al Qaeda soldier instead of an American occupation soldier in such an image?

i cant believe ur asking this very same question over and over, after u have received the answer both from Chocs and me...
here is what she said :"Soldier in picture = occupation = wrong"
and above in red what i said...
what is it that u dont understand?

I was being very specific, but your answer was NOT. hence I had to repeat myself. "...was the soldier from another nation's army..." I was referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq which can hardly be considered "another nation's army". Right?
So I guess your answer is YES, if this were an Al Qaeda guy you would have the same type of objectivity and you would even say "maybe he's there to help those people". Got it.

you are hopeless...the photo would be sad regardless of who was the soldier and the child. i hope this answers ur question. in case it does not, try to find an answer within urself, because i dont intend to repeat myself over and over. and doubt the others will...

and please dont put words into my mouth, nor twist what i say. thank you.

I-No-Jack wrote:

Care to elaborate? (new sudden member of the dubai forums)

No, don't care to elaborate. Simply two pictures (you forgot the other) which everyone is free to rant about and make their own conclusions. Just pictures (like the first one on the thread).

"you are hopeless...the photo would be sad regardless of who was the soldier and the child. i hope this answers ur question. in case it does not, try to find an answer within urself, because i dont intend to repeat myself over and over. and doubt the others will...
and please dont put words into my mouth, nor twist what i say. thank you."


I will say this ONE LAST TIME too (cuz I have to go to lunch).

raidah, what do YOU NOT understand about my POINT? Like I said before, my issue was NOT that the scene was "sad" (awww) because occupation is bad. That was not it and you obviously failed to grasp this. My point was that Choco had previously stated that we shouldn't take the image out of context because the soldier for all we knew, might be there to help kids. OK, then she said occupation was bad, etc. etc. So that is what I was trying to get at. Would she have said the EXACT same thing if it were an Al Qaeda man? Would she have asked for objectivity? Would she have said that maybe he was there to help but still he was bad? I asked you to be specific, you were not. Why? Don't worry, I'm not really interested. I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you did say YES, so next time get what my real point is, will you?

I-No-Jack wrote:No, don't care to elaborate. Simply two pictures (you forgot the other) which everyone is free to rant about and make their own conclusions. Just pictures (like the first one on the thread).

Mr. suspicious new member,

Where were they taken at? Can't you at least give us the country?

Whatever it is I will say this: Whether it is a US backed War militia or an occupying force or the Taliban, they're bad but they are helping kids. AWWWW how sweet!

kanelli wrote:Intimacy, you are a sweet and smart guy, but people can see through these shameless attempts to continue to stir up anti-US sentiment. There are children all over the world suffering in war torn areas and you only seem to care about the Iraqi ones and most likely because

Kanelli....

(1) Well i dont know why you get offended whenever i post such pictures although you are a nice person indeed. but sometimes you take things personally as you are Condalisa Rice defending bush. i have nothing against the american people its the government.

(2) It makes no difference to me whether that kid or person is an Iraqi or from Mars as along he is an innocent human suffering from unfairness and depretion. in fact i could show any Afghani or Somalian or Sudanese... but it will be all the same.. its the US-Gov behind this after all. All the good decent people are my family no matter where he/she were from.. and people who know me know that as a fact.

(3) I still cant see why its Shameless?! maybe this is the new way of answering the "Freedom of press". If the its Shameless then it should be for the people who made it....

you want to give people more reason to hate the US/coaltion forces in Iraq. You don't need a gun to terrorise a child, and you don't need to be American either.

(1) I am not giving people anything .. its the picture which is giving.. thats why i asked for a caption not an opinion!!

(2)If showing the truth would show how brutal the US governement is .. then they have given the people the reason to hate them.. its their deeds not me who did that.

(3) i have nothing against the American people.. at the contrary.. i believe that there are alot of good in them and i like them actually and i think you guys know that.. but i think there is no 2 rational, truthful, and human loving persons would disagree that the US gov is putting her nose and guns every place in the world while they are misleading their good nation with their propaganda.

There are also little children cowering like that in their homes if they have abusive parents

Kanllie, Abusive parents phenomena didnt exist in our community tell the last 5-7 years and its a very seldom thing to happen.. we never experienced that and people here never heard about it. what i would like to truely suggest is an invitation for you are your husband to come and spend sometime with my family. i am serious about it and i really like you gentleman you are married to... he is a good man.... so this invitation is for real

The sun doesnt need a proof for its existence. although there always would be 2 people arguing whether its day or night.

freza wrote:
Mr. suspicious new member,

Nothing suspicious about it. You know, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"!

I-No-Jack wrote:

freza wrote:
Mr. suspicious new member,

Nothing suspicious about it. You know, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"!

Welcome back ... HP

Don't know HP. Just know Jack!

Also another point I'd like to make about the photo, is how do you know it's a U.S. soldier? The British wear the same desert uniform as do servicemen from the different countries in Iraq. There is no emblem badge that can be seen to give his regiment and rank, so he could be from anyone one of the allied forces member countries.

Once again - don't assume!

ASSUME - Makes an ASS out of U and ME!

As my news editor once said.

Marine uniform - M4 gun.....must be a marine

I used to work with UK marines - hotty totty.

Sadly the stuff they've seen you really don't want to know. These guys are very tough on the outside, but still they're very human on the inside.

Chocoholic wrote:I used to work with UK marines - hotty totty.

Sadly the stuff they've seen you really don't want to know. These guys are very tough on the outside, but still they're very human on the inside.

So are the Iraqi occupation fighters. They're human too. They have feelings too. They've seen a lot worse that the UK marines, that's for sure.

I-No-Jack wrote:

freza wrote:
Mr. suspicious new member,

Nothing suspicious about it. You know, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"!

Hahaha, your Lincoln quote applies to you, whoever you rare. Nice. I'm sure that was not the intention.

Oh you are so easy. I'm going to have so much fun yanking your chain!

freza wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:I used to work with UK marines - hotty totty.

Sadly the stuff they've seen you really don't want to know. These guys are very tough on the outside, but still they're very human on the inside.

So are the Iraqi occupation fighters. They're human too. They have feelings too. They've seen a lot worse that the UK marines, that's for sure.

I seriously doubt that, as the UK marines would have been deployed to handle situations all over the globe. They don't just work in Iraq you know. Of course everyone is human underneath. As I-No-Jack says you're a bit too easy to wind up.

Oi INJ, Shouldn't that be I-KNOW-Jack?

Freza, I don't have lukewarm beliefs. You just want everyone on this site to say that Irael and the US are the root of all evil and must be wiped off the planet. Sorry, but I won't ever say this. And if I don't say it it doesn't mean that I support what Israel and the US are doing, even if you assume that is what I am doing.

Intimacy, I get upset because you only post pictures in the forum about Iraq. Maybe if you posted on other subjects and showed the same kind of caring and compassion for children in the same circumstances in other parts of the world I might not criticise. I get fed up of all the hate mongering on here.

Choco makes a valid point that is logical and strips down the emotion that might come from a first glance at the photo. We don't know the full context of the photo. To answer her question - if the soldier was a UN peacekeeper and the child was from another country the picture would not have been posted here and people would likely assume that the soldier was protecting the child. Because we were told that this was a picture from Iraq, the automatic assumption by some people is that the soldier is from the US and the child is being threatened because US soldiers are barbaric of course.

Some of you seem to be shrouded in emotion without tempering it with logic. Maybe you need to step back and stop over-reacting. Pictures like this are used for propaganda and this should be recognised.