Mindset?

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by Nehustan

I'm a bit lost now Sunstone and Netdoc...are you proposing the kids throw sweets to the convoy instead of rocks?

I don't think so.... Sunstone said the soldiers should throw candy to the rock-throwing kids. This would certainly confuse them! They are trying to provoke a negative reaction by throwing the rocks, which they are getting with the cursing.

Doc answered in agreement ~ that the 'evil' being done by the kids should be answered by throwing candy back at them instead of asking to kill them.

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Besides the kids will just find somebody else to throw rocks at, Jaiket. You can't try and tackle a symptom and expect the disease to go away. In this case, their anger (the disease) at these troops will simply get redirected.

I wonder..... Is the anger the kids are expressing their own or taught to them by their elders? Their anger is being justified by the reactions of the soldiers.

[Seyorni]

The link says "ready" but won't play, for some reason.

No doubt it's completely impractical, but, ideally, the kids should be rounded up, made comfortable, given a soft drink, and asked to explain why they were doing this, asked to justify their actions, asked if they were Muslim and, if they responded in the affirmative, asked how their actions were congruent with the Quran (interviewer should be ready, with condemnatory passages, to counter any affirmative arguments).
If properly done the kids will come away confused by the American's kindness, ashamed of their actions, and fearful that they, and those who might have encouraged them in these actions, are in danger of Hell's fire.
They then should be taken home, their actions disclosed to their parents, and their parents urged to be merciful with them, as they knew not what they did. The parents should also be earnestly urged to keep the kids off the street lest they come to harm.
If the parents seem supportive of the kids delinquency, a discussion similar to the kids' interviews should be initiated with them.

When it becomes clear that Americans return good for evil and that they are genuinely concerned with the physical and moral safety of others, the Iraqis will realize that the yanks are in accord with the best traditions of Islam, that they are, in effect, better Muslims than they (Iraqis) are.
The Iraqis will be ashamed and cease their attacks. In an effort not to be bested in righteousness by infidels, the Iraqis will begin to conform their lives to the peaceful teachings of The Prophet and become an exemplary society of compassion and harmony.

Perhaps I'm being a bit over-idealistic here, though...

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Nehustan

I'm a bit lost now Sunstone and Netdoc...are you proposing the kids throw sweets to the convoy instead of rocks? I don't think they have the money, it would be fairer if the Americans gave candy to the Iraqis

Nah... they throw rocks and we throw candy back at them!Like the commercial where everyone pelts their problems with candy bars! Bwahahaha! Zing 'em with a Zagnut!

[Pardus]

"What do you expect? they're american." is a harsh reality.

[Nehustan]

I tried to be pragmatic in the options, covering every opinion I could think of to hand. I'm just pleased there are no votes for the ICC one atm. But then anyone who subscribes to a religious forum (I'd hope) wouldn't be likley to tick that one...

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

No they couldn't. They will get shot or imprisoned if they try.

Besides the kids will just find somebody else to throw rocks at, Jaiket. You can't try and tackle a symptom and expect the disease to go away. In this case, their anger (the disease) at these troops will simply get redirected.

Do you suppose that Iraqi children are angry by nature, and the innocent American soldiers just chanced to cross the paths of the angry children who are bound to be out throwing rocks at somebody? Do you think it's unnatural or unusual for children to be angry at foreign soldiers who have invaded and are occupying their land? Of course they're angry. They're right to be angry.

On the other hand, it makes no sense to tut-tut about the soldiers' frustration at not being allowed to kill children. Does anyone really think that shooting children down in cold blood on the roadside is any worse than dropping bombs on them from on high? It's the job of a soldier to do evil. That's what they're there for; it's why we have soldiers in the first place: to kill and destroy in order to serve the purposes of those in power. These men are too dimwitted to understand that public relations considerations impose some limits on their function, but morally they're just what we expect a good soldier to be.