John the article Sam posted was disappointing because it had no context for any of its claims. I thought it might be interesting because it was written by an Iraqi and I read those with anticipation.
For instance, it claims the Coalition forces machine gunned a demonstration but gives not even a single remark about the circumstances. For instance, were the folk shot at armed, or unarmed? Were some of them shooting?
How can I know whether what happened was a matter of misjudgement, malice, good tactics, or what? In effect, there was a lot of noise but little information.
The whole article was of that nature.
My recommendation to them is to hear it as a voice, in this case a voice we don't hear often. Add it to the other voices we hear to make up your own mind.
There might be a whole lot of Guardian readers and writers who might listen to that voice but it's not telling them a great deal. Except the writer doesn't like what's going on.
I say, so? Gimme info, gimme analysis, argue for your recommendation. For instance you want the UN in there. They haven't done well in places where there's shooting, often in places where people from my country are posted. I've got an interest. What makes it different this time?
I read these voices all the time posted here and elswhere, and I usually pass them by, but Sam spoke directly to me about it. |
