American troops shoot Iraqi child

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1000100.htm

 

A seven-year-old child brandishing a Kalashnikov was shot in the foot by US troops during a raid in the hotspot city of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, the US military said.

 

"[Troops] conducted a mission in the Ramadi area today. While on patrol, the soldiers witnessed two men with weapons running into a nearby residence. The soldiers followed the men in order to apprehend them for questioning," a Central Command statement said.

 

"Upon approaching the house, a seven-year-old child came out with an AK-47 rifle pointed at the soldiers. A soldier responded in self-defence and shot the child in the foot."

 

The statement said the child was evacuated to a nearby army medical facility for treatment and then flown to Baghdad.

 

I'm sure something will be ignored if this story breaks.. maybe the big-ass gun.

 

Hey, they only shot him in the foot, but i'm sure somebody will complain.

 

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I would have shot him in the head. If he had a gun then he knew how to use it and now that he's been shot in the foot he'll want to shed blood even more.

[NoCalMike 0]

How can you blame or fault the soldier in anyway? What the hell else is he supposed to do with a gun pointed at him? I consider it almost jesus-like that he even managed to just shoot him in the foot.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ditto. Pointing a gun at an armed person is a threat, and if you're old enough to know what a gun is then you know that.

[Anakin Flair 0]

should have gone for the shoulder. Make it hurt to pick up the gun.

[Guest JMA]

Kudos to the soldier. He did the right thing.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow, shooting a kid in the foot -- that's some marksmanship.

 

Wonder how Al Jazeera would have covered the story if the soldiers smoked the little bastard, which is what they should have done...

[Guest Jimbo]

Bah, ABC shouldn't even be reporting this, the man did his job and saved his own and probably his comrades lives. I'm sure this happens quite a bit over there, yet this reported because of a few kiddie-loving idiots who want to stir up a bit of controversy...

[Art Sandusky 0]

I think this is more of a "look at what some of these crazy bastards will still do" story than a "feel sorry for the people under our oppressive thumb" story. I see it as more of the former, anyway.

[Guest Anglesault]

Showed more restraint than I would have.

 

All that would have been left of the little bastard would have been his foot.

[Guest Kamui]

Okay:

 

A) Why the fuck shouldn't ABC report the story? I don't get it. It's not like they reported "SOLDIER SHOOTS UNARMED CHILD IN FOOT, LET'S KILL HIM!". It's called reporting news. It's what they do.

 

B) Some of you must be kidding, because otherwise you're HUGE idiots. I don't like soldiers, at all, and even I agree that he did the right thing by shooting him in the foot. That's something he deserves praise for.

 

Meanwhile, saying you "would have shot him somewhere else/killed him/etc." is bullshit. The kid's SEVEN, dickheads. If a seven-year-old murdered someone in America, he'd get psychological help and a stay in a juvenile facility, not a death sentance. Why should an Iraqi kid get any different?

 

God. Think before you type, people.

 

-Duo

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Meanwhile, saying you "would have shot him somewhere else/killed him/etc." is bullshit. The kid's SEVEN, dickheads. If a seven-year-old murdered someone in America, he'd get psychological help and a stay in a juvenile facility, not a death sentance. Why should an Iraqi kid get any different?

If a Seven-year-old came at a police officer with a gun I would hope the cop would make sure the little bastard never has the opportunity to pull a trigger of any sort ever again...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh dear god. It's spread to this forum.

[Downhome 0]

Okay:

 

A) Why the fuck shouldn't ABC report the story? I don't get it. It's not like they reported "SOLDIER SHOOTS UNARMED CHILD IN FOOT, LET'S KILL HIM!". It's called reporting news. It's what they do.

 

B) Some of you must be kidding, because otherwise you're HUGE idiots. I don't like soldiers, at all, and even I agree that he did the right thing by shooting him in the foot. That's something he deserves praise for.

 

Meanwhile, saying you "would have shot him somewhere else/killed him/etc." is bullshit. The kid's SEVEN, dickheads. If a seven-year-old murdered someone in America, he'd get psychological help and a stay in a juvenile facility, not a death sentance. Why should an Iraqi kid get any different?

 

God. Think before you type, people.

 

-Duo

I was going to reply to this, but then I saw the following quotes by you...

 

Some of you must be kidding, because otherwise you're HUGE idiots.

 

The kid's SEVEN, dickheads

 

...and then realized it wasn't worth my time to go in depth.

[Guest Kamui]

If a Seven-year-old came at a police officer with a gun I would hope the cop would make sure the little bastard never has the opportunity to pull a trigger of any sort ever again...

Okay....why? If you have no other choice but to kill him, fine, self-defense and all that....but again, a CHILD does not neccesiarly know what they are doing. This is basic biology, and again, it's why children can't get the death sentance for murder. If a soldier or police officer has the ability to take down a child coming at them with a gun without killing them and still protecting themself, they should be PRAISED, not told "Oh, well, you should have killed the little bastard."

 

A child's mind doesn't function the same way as an adult's. It has been proven that a violent child CAN become a productive member of society with the proper psychological treatment. And Downhome, I'm sorry if you were offended, but I really can't believe what some people will say on message boards, and that was my initial reaction- disbelief that people weren't praising this soldier for taking down the child without killing him (which is what I was expecting) but making remarks about how he should have killed him instead. That's just....asinine.

 

-Duo

 

Edit: Another thing I just thought of: Can anyone here prove that the child actually knew how to use the rifle? It doesn't mention anything about shots being fired or anything else, just that he "came at the soldier" with the rifle. I'm thinking he probably didn't know how to use it all that well, and I'm not sure if he even really could- I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, but wouldn't the recoil make it very hard for a seven-year-old to shoot accuratley?

 

Just makes it seem even more pointless to actually kill the kid, which is why I'm once again shocked that people are actually suggesting the kid should have been killed. The soldier did the right thing, and he has my respect for it (and again- I normally don't like soldiers, so this isn't an easy thing to get).

Edited November 30, 2003 by Duo

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Okay....why? If you have no other choice but to kill him, fine, self-defense and all that....but again, a CHILD does not neccesiarly know what they are doing.

 

Who cares? If a kid is pointing a gun at me, and if I'm packing heat, little Bobby/Jenny is going down and going down fast.

 

This is basic biology, and again, it's why children can't get the death sentance for murder. If a soldier or police officer has the ability to take down a child coming at them with a gun without killing them and still protecting themself, they should be PRAISED, not told "Oh, well, you should have killed the little bastard."

 

If a soldier or officer does that and the tyke lives, then I'll get all warm and fuzzy inside, like I am now.

 

Awwwwww. How sweet they didn't kill the kid -- now he can grow up to become a suicide bomber.

 

A child's mind doesn't function the same way as an adult's.

 

But a child's trigger finger does.

 

It has been proven that a violent child CAN become a productive member of society with the proper psychological treatment.

 

Yay.

 

And Downhome, I'm sorry if you were offended, but I really can't believe what some people will say on message boards, and that was my initial reaction- disbelief that people weren't praising this soldier for taking down the child without killing him (which is what I was expecting) but making remarks about how he should have killed him instead. That's just....asinine.

 

I'm praising the soldier for not getting himself/herself killed. Shoot someone in the foot, even "helpless" seven-year old kids, and there's still a chance of them firing off a shot or two.

 

And this scenario occurs if you're lucky enough not to miss the target entirely.

 

Another thing I just thought of: Can anyone here prove that the child actually knew how to use the rifle?

 

Can you prove that he didn't know how to use the rifle?

 

It doesn't mention anything about shots being fired or anything else, just that he "came at the soldier" with the rifle. I'm thinking he probably didn't know how to use it all that well, and I'm not sure if he even really could- I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, but wouldn't the recoil make it very hard for a seven-year-old to shoot accuratley?

 

I'm thinking he probably wasn't going to "turn in" the rifle to the troops either.

 

Just makes it seem even more pointless to actually kill the kid, which is why I'm once again shocked that people are actually suggesting the kid should have been killed. The soldier did the right thing, and he has my respect for it (and again- I normally don't like soldiers, so this isn't an easy thing to get).

 

It's a shame you don't like soldiers because I'd LOVE to see you handle this situation.

 

"Hey there kid -- you with the Kalashnikov, I know that someone your age can't shoot a weapon like that accurately due to the recoil factor, so can I ask why you have a firearm like that in your possession? I wouldn't want to shoot you in the foot -- that is, of course, after I let off several warning shots and go tell your mother that you are playing with such violent toys. Why you might shoot your eye out!"

 

I'm no gun expert by any means, so I did a quick Google image search with "Kalashnikov" and came up with this.

 

 

Yeah, I'm going to ask questions first to somebody holding THIS.

 

Unless of course they looked something like the person below, then I might ask for a phone number or something...

 

Edited November 30, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Guest Kamui]

Who cares? If a kid is pointing a gun at me, and if I'm packing heat, little Bobby/Jenny is going down and going down fast.

 

Yeah, you're right- who cares about not killing when you don't have to? Forget just when they're packing heat, let's start shooting to kill any Iraqi who looks at us the wrong way! Would that make you happy?

 

Again....IT WAS A LITTLE KID. The soldier did the right thing by shooting them in the foot. If he tried to shoot them in the foot and died instead, MAYBE I could understand why we're having this conversation. MAYBE.

 

 

If a soldier or officer does that and the tyke lives, then I'll get all warm and fuzzy inside, like I am now.

 

Awwwwww. How sweet they didn't kill the kid -- now he can grow up to become a suicide bomber.

 

Well, at least you're being honest and admitting that you're racist against Iraqis.

 

 

But a child's trigger finger does.

 

*sigh*

 

Thank you for missing my point completley.

 

 

Can you prove that he didn't know how to use the rifle?

 

We'll never know one way or another, which is why THIS CONVERSATION IS STUPID. The soldier prevented harm to himself without killing a seven-year-old: this is a GOOD THING. We should be praising the soldier, not telling him that he should have killed the kid.

 

 

It's a shame you don't like soldiers because I'd LOVE to see you handle this situation.

 

"Hey there kid -- you with the Kalashnikov, I know that someone your age can't shoot a weapon like that accurately due to the recoil factor, so can I ask why you have a firearm like that in your possession? I wouldn't want to shoot you in the foot -- that is, of course, after I let off several warning shots and go tell your mother that you are playing with such violent toys. Why you might shoot your eye out!"

 

Yeah, I'm going to ask questions first to somebody holding THIS.

 

Okay....this arguement would make sense if I said I was pissed that the soldier shot the kid in the foot. And if I was in the soldier's situation, I would have done the same thing- shot a non-deadly body part. That is the LOGICAL thing to do, and it's all I'm defending.

 

How you got from my original point of "The soldier was right to shoot the kid in a non-lethal body part and people who are saying the soldier should have killed the kid are idiots." to "The soldier was wrong to shoot the kid in a non-lethal body part and should have held a conversation with him instead." is beyond me.

 

-Duo

[Renegade 0]

Seems like self defense to me

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, you're right- who cares about not killing when you don't have to? Forget just when they're packing heat, let's start shooting to kill any Iraqi who looks at us the wrong way! Would that make you happy?

 

No, but I am gleeful when we kill any Iraqi who points a Kalashnikov at our troops -- regardless of age.

 

Again....IT WAS A LITTLE KID. The soldier did the right thing by shooting them in the foot. If he tried to shoot them in the foot and died instead, MAYBE I could understand why we're having this conversation. MAYBE.

 

Again. Who cares if it's a LITTLE KID?

 

Just out of curiousity -- at what age does someone, who is pointing a gun at a soldier, have to be before it is OK for the soldier to shoot back with the intent to kill?

 

Well, at least you're being honest and admitting that you're racist against Iraqis.

 

Well, at least you're being honest and admitting that you're a blithering idiot. (I would use stronger words, but I'm not getting a mod warning over this.)

 

Thank you for missing my point completley.

 

*sigh*

 

Nah, I think I got your point the first time I read it.

 

*scratches nuts*

 

We'll never know one way or another, which is why THIS CONVERSATION IS STUPID.

 

We agree on this one -- it's a shame you're the one that brought up the stupid "what-if."

 

The soldier prevented harm to himself without killing a seven-year-old: this is a GOOD THING. We should be praising the soldier, not telling him that he should have killed the kid.

 

And what if the soldier, or someone in the squad, had been shot. Would you be praising this soldier for not killing the "helpless" seven-year old?

 

Okay....this arguement would make sense if I said I was pissed that the soldier shot the kid in the foot. And if I was in the soldier's situation, I would have done the same thing- shot a non-deadly body part. That is the LOGICAL thing to do, and it's all I'm defending.

 

If you were in this soldier's situation you probably would have crapped your pants at having to make such a split-second, life-or-death decision that could affect the rest of your life.

 

I know I would have.

 

How you got from my original point of "The soldier was right to shoot the kid in a non-lethal body part and people who are saying the soldier should have killed the kid are idiots." to "The soldier was wrong to shoot the kid in a non-lethal body part and should have held a conversation with him instead." is beyond me.

 

Not surprised it went beyond you.

 

1) Myself, and I'm sure others on this board, are saying that our troops shouldn't be focusing on trying to shoot the arms/legs/feet of people pointing guns at them.

 

2) Never said, "The soldier was WRONG to shoot the kid in a non-lethal body part."

 

3) The whole "conversation" bit was sarcasm. Jesus Christ.

 

Now remember troops, when you go out there putting your lives, and the lives of others, on the line, don't shoot until you see the whites of the enemy's high-tops.

 

Oh, and so that last line doesn't go "beyond you," (it probably wouldn't have far to go to achieve that) I was being facetious...

[Fökai 0]

Just out of curiousity -- at what age is it OK for a soldier that's having a gun pointed at them to shoot back with the intent to kill?

 

Duh. 18.

 

And if you're not sure if they're 18, ask for ID first.

 

[Guest Kamui]

No, but I am gleeful when we kill any Iraqi who points a Kalashnikov at our troops -- regardless of age.

 

Do you lack the mental capacity to get what I'm saying? A seven-year-old doesn't have the mental ability to understand what he's doing in the same way the adult does. He doesn't deserve to die, especially with all the outside factors (uh, being raised in a place of anti-American hate?). All I was saying was that the stupid jokes about how he should have been been killed instead of getting shot in the foot were stupid, and that the soldier did the right thing.

 

 

Again. Who cares if it's a LITTLE KID?

 

Just out of curiousity -- at what age does someone, who is pointing a gun at a soldier, have to be before it is OK for the soldier to shoot back with the intent to kill?

 

I don't know, but sure as hell not 7.

 

 

We agree on this one -- it's a shame you're the one that brought up the stupid "what-if."

 

Uh, hello genius- I DIDN'T BRING UP THE WHAT-IF. Everyone else in this thread did ("OMG he should have killed that kid!").

 

 

And what if the soldier, or someone in the squad, had been shot. Would you be praising this soldier for not killing the "helpless" seven-year old?

 

So I'm bringing up the what-ifs? Yeah....okay.

 

Anyway....if that had happened, I would have commended the soldier for trying not to kill the seven-year-old, but honestly, that's not what happened, is it?

 

 

If you were in this soldier's situation you probably would have crapped your pants at having to make such a split-second, life-or-death decision that could affect the rest of your life.

 

I know I would have.

 

Probably, but I'm saying that I hope I would have made the same decision, because it's what I feel is right.

 

 

1) Myself, and I'm sure others on this board, are saying that our troops shouldn't be focusing on trying to shoot the arms/legs/feet of people pointing guns at them.

 

If that person is over 12, okay, maybe I'd agree with you. But it was a seven-year-old, so I don't. If the soldier felt he had the opprtunity to take the kid down without killing him (and, uh, hello, HE WAS RIGHT), that's his choice, and I for one think it was the right choice.

 

But hey, why make serious posts on a board called "Current Events" when you could make a bunch of sarcastic posts about murdering seven-year-olds instead.

 

-Duo

[Guest Ghettoman]

Not sure if this was mentioned but a kid in Iraq with a gun in his hands is more dangerous than a kid in america with a gun in his hand.

 

The kid was probably trained to shoot that gun if what happened, happened since he was 4. A kid in america wouldn't even know if the safety's on.

[Firestarter 0]

If that person is over 12, okay

A child's mind doesn't function the same way as an adult's

So, at 12, a child's mind starts functioning as an adult's. Got it. Now why is the drinking age 21, the age of consent anywhere between 14 to 18, and the age for military service and criminal responsibility 18? Let's make them all 12. I mean you have no problems with killing 12 year-olds pointing firearms at our soldiers, right? You must be advocating the deaths of all 12 year-olds! Break out the howitzers!

 

Twit.

 

It has been proven that a violent child CAN become a productive member of society with the proper psychological treatment

How is this relevant? Point a gun at our soldiers and you will be shot and in all probability you will die. What you MIGHT do if you don't die is entirely besides the point. Lots of suicide bombers were architects, engineers, and doctors. They might have designed, built, or served in hospitals and saved other people's lives. Instead, they chose to take them. That 7 year-old might have become a doctor himself - and, thanks to the admirable restraint of our soldiers, he might still. (But he'll never be a soccer player - convene the court-martial now!) However, he chose to attack our soldiers, and I would have shed no tears had he been shot and killed. He wasn't. That's a great mercy, to him, and to our soldiers' consciences. But it's not a mercy that the child deserved.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Duo shouldn't be allowed to talk about anything other than anime. His views on warfare and other subjects leave those that read it that much stupider.

[Guest Kamui]

Okay, once again- how is saying "I'm glad the soldier didn't kill the kid." stupid? But I suppose all of you know so much better than the soldier what to do in that situation- so go enlist in the fucking army now then already, then you can choose whether or not to kill a seven-year-old. Yay for you.

 

-Duo

So glad I live in a world where saying "I'm glad a seven-year-old didn't die." is considered CONTROVERSIAL~!!

[Guest MikeSC]

No, but I am gleeful when we kill any Iraqi who points a Kalashnikov at our troops -- regardless of age.

 

Do you lack the mental capacity to get what I'm saying? A seven-year-old doesn't have the mental ability to understand what he's doing in the same way the adult does.

But they have the PHYSICAL CAPACITY to pull a trigger and kill somebody. In ways, they are MORE dangerous as they might NOT know what the heck they're doing.

He doesn't deserve to die, especially with all the outside factors (uh, being raised in a place of anti-American hate?). All I was saying was that the stupid jokes about how he should have been been killed instead of getting shot in the foot were stupid, and that the soldier did the right thing.

Nobody wants the kid to die --- but give a choice between the soldier and the kid, the soldier tends to be the sympathetic favorite. The soldier left himself at risk by only shooting the kid in the foot.

Again. Who cares if it's a LITTLE KID?

 

Just out of curiousity -- at what age does someone, who is pointing a gun at a soldier, have to be before it is OK for the soldier to shoot back with the intent to kill?

 

I don't know, but sure as hell not 7.

The kid can still pull the trigger at that age and do a nice job of splattering the soldier's brains on the wall behind him.

We agree on this one -- it's a shame you're the one that brought up the stupid "what-if."

 

Uh, hello genius- I DIDN'T BRING UP THE WHAT-IF. Everyone else in this thread did ("OMG he should have killed that kid!").

Umm, excuse me?

 

Duo Posted: Nov 30 2003, 09:40 AM

Edit: Another thing I just thought of: Can anyone here prove that the child actually knew how to use the rifle?

And what if the soldier, or someone in the squad, had been shot. Would you be praising this soldier for not killing the "helpless" seven-year old?

 

So I'm bringing up the what-ifs? Yeah....okay.

Basically, yes.

Anyway....if that had happened, I would have commended the soldier for trying not to kill the seven-year-old, but honestly, that's not what happened, is it?

So, the soldier and possibly a few others of his company are killed --- but, hey, as long as the kid ain't killed, huh? Thank God you're not in the military. I would HATE to have to rely on you for my life.

If you were in this soldier's situation you probably would have crapped your pants at having to make such a split-second, life-or-death decision that could affect the rest of your life.

 

I know I would have.

 

Probably, but I'm saying that I hope I would have made the same decision, because it's what I feel is right.

Odds are, you would've flinched and ended up hitting the kid elsewhere. The depression from that act would affect you for years. You'd turn to the bottle, using alcohol to silence your inner demons. You end up killing yourself after a heroin bender --- because these things NEVER end up well --- and dying in a gutter somewhere in a sewer in NYC.

 

All because you accidentally hurt a kid who was trying to kill you.

 

Shameful.

 

(Now I sit back and see how he responds to this --- I already have bets placed on one of two replies).

1) Myself, and I'm sure others on this board, are saying that our troops shouldn't be focusing on trying to shoot the arms/legs/feet of people pointing guns at them.

 

If that person is over 12, okay, maybe I'd agree with you.

So 12 is the cut-off point where it's OK to mow down a young 'un?

But it was a seven-year-old, so I don't. If the soldier felt he had the opprtunity to take the kid down without killing him (and, uh, hello, HE WAS RIGHT), that's his choice, and I for one think it was the right choice.

Still left himself and his troops at risk.

But hey, why make serious posts on a board called "Current Events" when you could make a bunch of sarcastic posts about murdering seven-year-olds instead.

Geez, can you handle that cross on your own?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I thought kkk was simply joking and Duo was making much ado about nothing, as such seems to happen when he and I post in the same thread (hell, maybe in his posts I don't see), but as the conversation wore on I started disagreeing more and more with what I saw. But I'm going to point out one particular comment that stuck with me:

 

kkk, I just wanted to smack you when you pulled out the awfully predictible "well NOW he can grow up to be a suicide bomber!" routine. We don't have any evidence that suicide bombing is a prevaling theme in Iraq's war culture. Perhaps if it was, all those soldiers we saw surrendering on the way to Baghdad would have blown themselves up instead of turning themselves in.

 

The Republican Guard, I'm not so sure of. It's likely they'd blow themselves up for Saddam if ordered to, but that hasn't been happening to our troops so far.

 

IOW, lay off the suicide bomber comments, unless your point was "A-hyuck, hyuck, Palesinians? Iraqis? They're all the same sand-people to me, a-hyuck!"

 

My personal opinion is that if you can stop somebody and not kill them, go with that option.

[Guest MikeSC]

I thought kkk was simply joking and Duo was making much ado about nothing, as such seems to happen when he and I post in the same thread (hell, maybe in his posts I don't see), but as the conversation wore on I started disagreeing more and more with what I saw. But I'm going to point out one particular comment that stuck with me:

 

kkk, I just wanted to smack you when you pulled out the awfully predictible "well NOW he can grow up to be a suicide bomber!" routine. We don't have any evidence that suicide bombing is a prevaling theme in Iraq's war culture. Perhaps if it was, all those soldiers we saw surrendering on the way to Baghdad would have blown themselves up instead of turning themselves in.

 

The Republican Guad, I'm not so sure of. It's likely they'd blow themselves up for Saddam if ordered to, but that hasn't been happening to our troops so far.

 

IOW, lay off the suicide bomber comments, unless your point was "A-hyuck, hyuck, Palesinians? Iraqis? They're all the same sand-people to me, a-hyuck!"

 

My personal opinion is that if you can stop somebody and not kill them, go with that option.

The suicide bomber mentality, sadly, is not exactly foreign amongst Muslims in that area of the world. As has been stated over and over, there is no shortage of suicide bombers --- well, outside of the families of the LEADERSHIP of those shitholes. But, hey, subhuman monkeys don't want to lose THEIR children.

 

If a child is ALREADY armed and ready to kill at the age of seven, it's not an absurd stretch to question where his mentality will end up leading to down the line.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The suicide bomber mentality, sadly, is not exactly foreign amongst Muslims in that area of the world.

Funny, I don't remember hearing about them in "Major Combat Operations," which is when they would have been most needed. I'm not exactly saying they don't exist, but I'm saying that Iraq has more culture and is more advanced than the Palestine lands. There's also a variety of religions represented and the country isn't always in the middle of a religion-boiled conflict.

 

If a child is ALREADY armed and ready to kill at the age of seven, it's not an absurd stretch to question where his mentality will end up leading to down the line.

                      -=Mike

 

Article doesn't say the kid even knew how to aim.

[Guest Kamui]

At least someone gets what I was trying to say. Thanks JOTW.

 

Again- all I was saying was that I was glad the kid didn't die. Why that's a bad thing and saying "omg i hope the kid DIES~!!" isn't, is beyond me.

 

-Duo