Talk:Amiriyah shelter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Amiriyah shelter is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Neutral Point of View 2 Image 3 Human face 4 The Top Picture 5 Massacre

[edit] Neutral Point of View

While the Amiriyah shelter page certainly has been the target of some atrocious additions in the past (the picture of "An Iraqi girl" unconnected to the events at Amiriyah). The current page is a selective and sanitized view of history at best.

The current page features prominently the post-war comments of a defector who said he "was told that it [the Amiriyah shelter] was a command center" and that he "decided it was probably Saddam's own operational base". These comments are worth a mention on this page. However, with a little research you can certainly find comments of Iraqis and others who dispute the use of the shelter as a command center. The page ought to at least explain that whether or not the shelter was being used as a military command post or hideout for officials of the Iraqi regime is a matter of contention.

Rick Atkinson, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and former assistant managing editor at The Washignton Post, documents in his book "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War," that there were reservations among the military leadership who were involved in the selecting bombing targets about selection of the Amiriyah shelter.

While there is contention as to whether the shelter had been used as a command center and, thus may have been a legitimate military target, I don't think there is any disputing that the bombing of the shelter was a horrible mistake that did not achieve any military result. There is not a single account of the bombing's aftermath (whether from Western or Iraqi sources) that shows that any military or political personnel or assets were in the shelter at the time of the bombing. BBC reporters with full access to the site the morning of the bombing found no evidence of military use. What they did find was the charred remains of more than four hundred women and children.

I have added paragraphs that provide a more complete picture of the events at Amiriyah.

[edit] Image

Is the picture Amariyah B.jpg (labled "An Iraqi Girl") a victim of the atack? The description does not say; if she is it should probably be labled as such (or labled with her relation to the bombing). --Hansnesse 07:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human face

I put on the top of the page not an image, but a human face, as the true story of Amariyah can hardly be told by reporting the number of children killed without also saying what could have been. David Cruise 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Top Picture

Thank you Hansnesse for reverting the 207.233.110.65. I visited his homepage and looked at his recent contributions:

• Amiriyah shelter
• Terminator 2: Judgment day
• King Kong
• Doom (film)
• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Support for use of atomic bombs)

The 207.233.110.65 was looking for a way to discredit the article and, as you correctly predicted, the Iraqi's girl's picture appears to be the weak point. I'll try to add a footnote explaining the intended point. Let's keep our options open and see what happens. David Cruise 04:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We should definitely not let vandals determine what gets put into Wikipedia. Thanks, --Hansnesse 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The explanation of the girl's image at the bottom of the page is far too emotional and manipulative - it sounds like something Mike Moore would write (I realise some people would see that as a good thing). I would personally recommend losing the footnote and titling the picture differently - or, even better, getting rid of the picture entirely. Only people looking for a cause to feel bad about to make themselves feel better would value such a shallow inclusion. The story told in the article is horrific and sobering enough. Sorry for any offense taken at this statement but I really do find the picture and explanation to be far too much like feeble emotional blackmail. The footnote would never be included in an actual print encyclopedia.

Thank you for talking about this issue as is is through discussion of opposing views that we learn more about ourselves and our world. I cannot agree with you more that the footnote would never be included in an encyclopedia subservient to the ruling classes. So far we have more freedom, thanks to the Internet, than ever before.

I did not mean the picture to be an emotional blackmail; I intended it to contribute toward our emotional and moral awakening. Instead of removing the picture, we should remove the blinders from our eyes. David Cruise 08:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

David, when I view the picture (or rather, the footnote to it) I do not feel an emotional and moral awakening - I suddenly feel manipulated which lowers my opinion of not only Wikipedia but also of the article itself (how much of it can I trust now? I go through the wording wondering if some of it has been intended to subtly tweak emotional triggers to sway me toward someone else's point of view i.e. why do we need to be shown a picture of some generic child and (re)told about the human cost? Does someone have an anti-US agenda? Believe me, I do not support war or the murder of innocents. Reading this article gave me a lump in my throat. I have children of my own. But I would rather people gained a real feeling from the facts (as I did) than viewing some picture which is essentially ARTIFICIAL in it's presentation).

By saying that you intend to contribute to our emotional and moral awakening you are implying that we as an audience are not savvy enough to determine the human tragedy and cost of this event. Whilst the fact of our general stupidity may or may not be true, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not intended as a platform to preach from - it is supposed to be a tool to disseminate information. Your statement about encyclopedias being "subservient to the ruling classes" makes your agenda clearer - I respect your views but I am sure that others will agree that this is not the place or way to express them. - SoT.

Also, please note the following from the Wikipedia help entry on "Neutral Point Of View":

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

I believe the fact that innocents were killed is obvious and doesn't need someone's emotional manipulation to sell the point - SoT.

Linking to "Supreme Crime" shows extreme bias because it implies that the US initiated the Gulf War with the intent to conquer territory or subjugate people. As this goes against the US's professed intention for their involvement, implying such is a matter of opinion or, at the very least, a point of debate and not neutrality. Please read the "Neutral POV" article. Sak Mo Dee

I agree with SoT. The girl's picture is manipulative, pointless, and silly like a Monty Python sketch. The images of the scorch marks left by the victims is far more disturbing then this random photo.

BTW, on the IP adress thing: the IP 207.233.110.65 is for the Moorpark College computer lab. I happen to know the guy who posted the inflamitory stuff (we both attend chemistry, and I can tell who he is by his tone): he was being a jackass, but his point was valid. The point that no men were killed, only "human beings" sounds rather un-NPOV to me, and the picture is extremely silly. Additionally, the point made that there were "no adult males" sounds as though the writer is suggesting that this act is particularly horrific, and is suggesting that the tragedy wouldn't be quite so - well, tragedic - if it was in fact adult males inside. --A Moorpark College Student, using the computer lab

Hansnesse, you were right to begin with. I removed the top picture and the recent not "Neutral POV" edits. David Cruise 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre

Shouldn't this be entitled the Amiriyah Massacre? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)