Your thread title "Jordanian UN Police officer kills US colleague in Kosovo, in quarrel over Iraq" has to be one of the most inaccurate summaries of a news event that I've ever read.
1. It never says the (dead) Jordanian did the killing.
2. 2 Americans died, not one (so singular "colleague" is wrong).
3. The 3 dead appear to have been "shot by colleagues", not necessarily each other - going by your BBC article. (11 other UN cops are wounded).
4. The UN hasn't confirmed the cause and never mentions Iraq.
Why don't you go reread the article.
If any of what you said ultimately proves correct, it is irrelevant because the article you pointed to at the time said nothing to that effect. If you heard otherwise, then fine but point to a link that doesn't contradict you at least.
Search around. You'll find 4 Jordanians were arrested. One of the dead officers was an American woman, another an American man.
<speculation>
If I was to speculate, I'd bet it was over allowing women to serve as police that got the Jordanian angry, shootout starts, more Jordanians defend him, more cops fire away.... Nothing to do with Iraq. </speculation>
If any of what you said ultimately proves correct, it is irrelevant because the article you pointed to at the time said nothing to that effect.
Search around. You'll find 4 Jordanians were arrested. One of the dead officers was an American woman, another an American man.
<speculation>
If I was to speculate, I'd bet it was over allowing women to serve as police that got the Jordanian angry, shootout starts, more Jordanians defend him, more cops fire away.... Nothing to do with Iraq. </speculation>
Why don't you go stand in a corner yourself.
I read this in a norwegian paper. it contained just that information, but wouldn't be any use for you because of the language. My first post was: "lookin for link right now". Then I added the BBC link. Which contained a bit of the same information and some different information.
Your specualtion is pretty far out, and predjudical, if anyhing.
It looks like jordanians and americans fell out in an argument over Iraq wich ended in a shootout. Two americans and one jordanian were killed. Eleven more were wounded. some of them american.
I read this in a norwegian paper. it contained just that information, but wouldn't be any use for you because of the language. My first post was: "lookin for link right now". Then I added the BBC link. Which contained a bit of the same information and some different information.
Your specualtion is pretty far out, and predjudical, if anyhing.
It looks like jordanians and americans fell out in an argument over Iraq wich ended in a shootout. Two americans and one jordanian were killed. Eleven more were wounded. some of them american.
I didn't say it as in "why don't you go fork yourself". I said it like "everything you've said is contrary to what is in the article you linked to". I was literally suggesting you re/read your link. Big difference.
All I was saying was it'd be less of a wild goose chase if you picked an article that backed up your assertions. Then you wouldn't have people needlessly correcting you. So you goofed and the link is contrary to other news you heard. Fair enough. But don't act like you can't see how it'd be viewed as inaccurate by those that (shock) actually followed and read your link.
Regarding my speculation. It isn't prejudicial to imagine Muslims/men from Muslim countries to take issue with the role of females as soldiers/cops. Not whatsoever.
Hm....Jordan is 92% Sunni Muslim. Yeah, I'm sure they are just pleased as punch having women in uniform serving with them.
How racist of me to speculate that being a factor.
My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine.
And your wrong in regards to muslim women...
The tone was entirely polite. You read into it because I was taking issue with nearly everything you said. That is not impolite. That is discussion. I used no italics, no all-caps, no other forms of indication stress or tone.
Your title may turn out "just fine" but are you sure you want to suggest the Jordanian did the killing? Rather prejudicial of you to suggest a Jordanian would murder someone over a mere political argument.
Regarding Muslims and women troops: I didn't say they weren't hypocritical.
Sure, properly wrapped up women can serve. They are "free" to go blow themselves up too.
But Allah forbid an American woman not wrap herself up in an abaya. Allah forbid an American/non-Muslim female should search a man or point a gun at a man.
The tone was entirely polite. You read into it because I was taking issue with nearly everything you said. That is not impolite. That is discussion. I used no italics, no all-caps, no other forms of indication stress or tone.
Fair enough. I misinterpreted you, I seem to be doing that a lot today.
Quote:
Your title may turn out "just fine" but are you sure you want to suggest the Jordanian did the killing? Rather prejudicial of you to suggest a Jordanian would murder someone over a mere political argument.
These were the original news as I read them. Nowhere did I suggest what you said. Now you're being unfair.
Quote:
Regarding Muslims and women troops: I didn't say they weren't hypocritical.
Sure, properly wrapped up women can serve. They are "free" to go blow themselves up too.
But Allah forbid an American woman not wrap herself up in an abaya. Allah forbid an American/non-Muslim female should search a man or point a gun at a man.
These were the original news as I read them. Nowhere did I suggest what you said. Now you're being unfair.
When you said "My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine." it makes it sound like you -want- the title to be accurate (despite its inaccuracies you already admitted to), namely that a "Jordanian UN Police officer kills US colleague in Kosovo, in quarrel over Iraq.".
What will be "just fine"?
That an argument about Iraq turned murderous?
That a Jordanian killed (sic) a US colleague (sic)?
That Muslims and Americans are hostile to each other?
I guess I don't understand the desire for the thread title to be correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by New
And now you're being just stupid.
Look, I can quote sources until I'm blue in the face but I wont because you will just use the time honored tactics of:
1. Refute the credibility of the source
2. Suggest that the examples, true or not, are 'rare occurrences', aberrations or minority views/opinions
And that is an endless exercise.
But don't pretend it isn't, in general, offensive to Muslim men, again, in general, to see western women in military uniforms without being covered by whatever garb local religious doctrine or culture would demand.
When you said "My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine." it makes it sound like you -want- the title to be accurate (despite its inaccuracies you already admitted to), namely that a "Jordanian UN Police officer kills US colleague in Kosovo, in quarrel over Iraq.".
What will be "just fine"?
That an argument about Iraq turned murderous?
That a Jordanian killed (sic) a US colleague (sic)?
That Muslims and Americans are hostile to each other?
By "fine" I mean it will turn out to be accurate enough. As you may have noticed one can't edit thread titles.
Quote:
But don't pretend it isn't, in general, offensive to Muslim men, again, in general, to see western women in military uniforms without being covered by whatever garb local religious doctrine or culture would demand.
I'm not so sure. I think it's more offensive in general to "a good muslim" to have unhealthily skinny, close to naked, western women in sexual positions on every corner and every street, selling anything from toothpaste to pop music.
But I also suspect that muslims have as many different opinions on things as people on this board.
Hmm - so when was the last time you were out and about in downtown Amman ?
Mmmm taste the condescension. Love it.
Why on earth would visiting a place/culture in person be a prerequisite for forming an opinion or arguing a particular view?
That's a mighty biased, affluent-person's view to suggest we can all afford to go to every land, visit every people and gain enlightenment first hand or else forever be silenced in not being "worthy" of possessing a given viewpoint.
That would mean the majority of the world would have "no right" to argue one way or another, since most people never see people of different types or cultures. Yes, most people see only people of their own kind. Don't let America, Canada and Europe fool you. You local cafe might lull you into this IBM-commercial fantasy world view where there is a mix of all types of people and everyone is politically saavy.
But that is what is nice about the media/Internet. One can cull info and form fairly accurate views given enough time, enough factual sources.
Problem is there are to many sites that take facts and bend them each and every way possible.
Seems like it was an attack made by one jordanian on americans. Two americans were killed, 10 more wounded. One lethally. One additional austrian was also wounded.
The americans returned fire and killed the Jordanian. The UN offical claimed there had been no previous contact between the parties. But I have a feeling that this is not true.
My question is, does unilateral action taken by individual nations, jeopardize international peackeeping efforts?
WAIT! Yes, I know some of you will say: How the hell can you blame the US for this one too!?! I'm not.
Let's try to elevate this to a level were its not about the US Vs. whoever, but about the compatibility of engaging oneself in unilateral action one place, and international UN missions in another place. There are serious obstacles here. I would, for instance have a hard time trusting Pakestani and Indian peacekeepers working in the same place.
"The shooting came a day after King Abdullah of Jordan said, during a visit to the United States, that the war in Iraq had created unprecedented animosity towards Americans across the Middle East."
Abdullah II has nice taste in women. Abdullah II and Rania are progressive. :shrug:
What is sad is that they are such extremely rare examples and they are so precariously in charge. The Islamists will someday destroy them and Jordan will fall. But somehow the myopic cynical spin will say the U.S. fighting radical Islamist will be "the cause" not "the effect". But I'm not arguing, it's pointless.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I don't get it. Everyone involved in the shooting were on the UN "police" force?
seems so...
1. It never says the (dead) Jordanian did the killing.
2. 2 Americans died, not one (so singular "colleague" is wrong).
3. The 3 dead appear to have been "shot by colleagues", not necessarily each other - going by your BBC article. (11 other UN cops are wounded).
4. The UN hasn't confirmed the cause and never mentions Iraq.
Why don't you go reread the article.
If any of what you said ultimately proves correct, it is irrelevant because the article you pointed to at the time said nothing to that effect. If you heard otherwise, then fine but point to a link that doesn't contradict you at least.
Search around. You'll find 4 Jordanians were arrested. One of the dead officers was an American woman, another an American man.
<speculation>
If I was to speculate, I'd bet it was over allowing women to serve as police that got the Jordanian angry, shootout starts, more Jordanians defend him, more cops fire away.... Nothing to do with Iraq. </speculation>
Originally posted by johnq
Why don't you go reread the article.
If any of what you said ultimately proves correct, it is irrelevant because the article you pointed to at the time said nothing to that effect.
Search around. You'll find 4 Jordanians were arrested. One of the dead officers was an American woman, another an American man.
<speculation>
If I was to speculate, I'd bet it was over allowing women to serve as police that got the Jordanian angry, shootout starts, more Jordanians defend him, more cops fire away.... Nothing to do with Iraq. </speculation>
Why don't you go stand in a corner yourself.
I read this in a norwegian paper. it contained just that information, but wouldn't be any use for you because of the language. My first post was: "lookin for link right now". Then I added the BBC link. Which contained a bit of the same information and some different information.
Your specualtion is pretty far out, and predjudical, if anyhing.
It looks like jordanians and americans fell out in an argument over Iraq wich ended in a shootout. Two americans and one jordanian were killed. Eleven more were wounded. some of them american.
Originally posted by New
Why don't you go stand in a corner yourself.
I read this in a norwegian paper. it contained just that information, but wouldn't be any use for you because of the language. My first post was: "lookin for link right now". Then I added the BBC link. Which contained a bit of the same information and some different information.
Your specualtion is pretty far out, and predjudical, if anyhing.
It looks like jordanians and americans fell out in an argument over Iraq wich ended in a shootout. Two americans and one jordanian were killed. Eleven more were wounded. some of them american.
I didn't say it as in "why don't you go fork yourself". I said it like "everything you've said is contrary to what is in the article you linked to". I was literally suggesting you re/read your link. Big difference.
All I was saying was it'd be less of a wild goose chase if you picked an article that backed up your assertions. Then you wouldn't have people needlessly correcting you. So you goofed and the link is contrary to other news you heard. Fair enough. But don't act like you can't see how it'd be viewed as inaccurate by those that (shock) actually followed and read your link.
Regarding my speculation. It isn't prejudicial to imagine Muslims/men from Muslim countries to take issue with the role of females as soldiers/cops. Not whatsoever.
Hm....Jordan is 92% Sunni Muslim. Yeah, I'm sure they are just pleased as punch having women in uniform serving with them.
How racist of me to speculate that being a factor.
Oh well.
My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine.
And your wrong in regards to muslim women...
Originally posted by New
Well, your tone wasn't very polite.
My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine.
And your wrong in regards to muslim women...
The tone was entirely polite. You read into it because I was taking issue with nearly everything you said. That is not impolite. That is discussion. I used no italics, no all-caps, no other forms of indication stress or tone.
Your title may turn out "just fine" but are you sure you want to suggest the Jordanian did the killing? Rather prejudicial of you to suggest a Jordanian would murder someone over a mere political argument.
Regarding Muslims and women troops: I didn't say they weren't hypocritical.
Sure, properly wrapped up women can serve. They are "free" to go blow themselves up too.
But Allah forbid an American woman not wrap herself up in an abaya. Allah forbid an American/non-Muslim female should search a man or point a gun at a man.
Originally posted by segovius
Probably best not to speculate then.....
Nah, I kinda feel free to do so, as much as the next guy. And when I do it is based on a reasonable assessment of the facts known at the time.
Sorry if it doesn't always align with the trendy "USA = evil; anything Muslim = angelically innocent" worldview so popular nowadays.
Originally posted by johnq
The tone was entirely polite. You read into it because I was taking issue with nearly everything you said. That is not impolite. That is discussion. I used no italics, no all-caps, no other forms of indication stress or tone.
Fair enough. I misinterpreted you, I seem to be doing that a lot today.
Your title may turn out "just fine" but are you sure you want to suggest the Jordanian did the killing? Rather prejudicial of you to suggest a Jordanian would murder someone over a mere political argument.
These were the original news as I read them. Nowhere did I suggest what you said. Now you're being unfair.
Regarding Muslims and women troops: I didn't say they weren't hypocritical.
Sure, properly wrapped up women can serve. They are "free" to go blow themselves up too.
But Allah forbid an American woman not wrap herself up in an abaya. Allah forbid an American/non-Muslim female should search a man or point a gun at a man.
And now you're being just stupid.
Originally posted by New
These were the original news as I read them. Nowhere did I suggest what you said. Now you're being unfair.
When you said "My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine." it makes it sound like you -want- the title to be accurate (despite its inaccuracies you already admitted to), namely that a "Jordanian UN Police officer kills US colleague in Kosovo, in quarrel over Iraq.".
What will be "just fine"?
That an argument about Iraq turned murderous?
That a Jordanian killed (sic) a US colleague (sic)?
That Muslims and Americans are hostile to each other?
I guess I don't understand the desire for the thread title to be correct.
Originally posted by New
And now you're being just stupid.
Look, I can quote sources until I'm blue in the face but I wont because you will just use the time honored tactics of:
1. Refute the credibility of the source
2. Suggest that the examples, true or not, are 'rare occurrences', aberrations or minority views/opinions
And that is an endless exercise.
But don't pretend it isn't, in general, offensive to Muslim men, again, in general, to see western women in military uniforms without being covered by whatever garb local religious doctrine or culture would demand.
Originally posted by johnq
When you said "My title for the thread will turn out to be just fine." it makes it sound like you -want- the title to be accurate (despite its inaccuracies you already admitted to), namely that a "Jordanian UN Police officer kills US colleague in Kosovo, in quarrel over Iraq.".
What will be "just fine"?
That an argument about Iraq turned murderous?
That a Jordanian killed (sic) a US colleague (sic)?
That Muslims and Americans are hostile to each other?
By "fine" I mean it will turn out to be accurate enough. As you may have noticed one can't edit thread titles.
But don't pretend it isn't, in general, offensive to Muslim men, again, in general, to see western women in military uniforms without being covered by whatever garb local religious doctrine or culture would demand.
I'm not so sure. I think it's more offensive in general to "a good muslim" to have unhealthily skinny, close to naked, western women in sexual positions on every corner and every street, selling anything from toothpaste to pop music.
But I also suspect that muslims have as many different opinions on things as people on this board.
Originally posted by segovius
Hmm - so when was the last time you were out and about in downtown Amman ?
Mmmm taste the condescension. Love it.
Why on earth would visiting a place/culture in person be a prerequisite for forming an opinion or arguing a particular view?
That's a mighty biased, affluent-person's view to suggest we can all afford to go to every land, visit every people and gain enlightenment first hand or else forever be silenced in not being "worthy" of possessing a given viewpoint.
That would mean the majority of the world would have "no right" to argue one way or another, since most people never see people of different types or cultures. Yes, most people see only people of their own kind. Don't let America, Canada and Europe fool you. You local cafe might lull you into this IBM-commercial fantasy world view where there is a mix of all types of people and everyone is politically saavy.
But that is what is nice about the media/Internet. One can cull info and form fairly accurate views given enough time, enough factual sources.
Problem is there are to many sites that take facts and bend them each and every way possible.
Off topic and vowing to stop here.
Seems like it was an attack made by one jordanian on americans. Two americans were killed, 10 more wounded. One lethally. One additional austrian was also wounded.
The americans returned fire and killed the Jordanian. The UN offical claimed there had been no previous contact between the parties. But I have a feeling that this is not true.
My question is, does unilateral action taken by individual nations, jeopardize international peackeeping efforts?
WAIT! Yes, I know some of you will say: How the hell can you blame the US for this one too!?! I'm not.
Let's try to elevate this to a level were its not about the US Vs. whoever, but about the compatibility of engaging oneself in unilateral action one place, and international UN missions in another place. There are serious obstacles here. I would, for instance have a hard time trusting Pakestani and Indian peacekeepers working in the same place.
"The shooting came a day after King Abdullah of Jordan said, during a visit to the United States, that the war in Iraq had created unprecedented animosity towards Americans across the Middle East."
linky dinky
What is sad is that they are such extremely rare examples and they are so precariously in charge. The Islamists will someday destroy them and Jordan will fall. But somehow the myopic cynical spin will say the U.S. fighting radical Islamist will be "the cause" not "the effect".