Skip to main content
16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 14, 2022 at 16:26 comment added Barmar @Cerberus You said The children mentioned also seem older than "small children". This suggests that it's important whether they're small children or big children. I don't see the point of that distinction in discussing the veracity of this claim.
Sep 14, 2022 at 16:14 comment added Cerberus @Barmar: Whom is this message for? Is there anyone here who would disagree with what you say here in the slightest?
Sep 14, 2022 at 14:47 comment added Dan Romik Agree with @Barnar about Cerberus’s criticism about “small children” being quibbling. The phrase “missing the forest for the trees” comes to mind. The horrors we are reading about here are among the worst crimes against humanity I can imagine. Somebody asked if these events really happened, and clearly they did. Whether a 12-year old counts as “small” or not is trivial and utterly unimportant by comparison. (On the other hand, pointing out that the WP article is unsourced and short on detail is a fair criticism.)
Sep 14, 2022 at 14:25 comment added Barmar @Cerberus Child labor is consider wrong, surely children being used as cannon fodder in war is as bad as it can get.
S Sep 13, 2022 at 23:13 history suggested CommunityBot CC BY-SA 4.0
Adding reference to the sources in case the links ever die
Sep 13, 2022 at 22:04 comment added Cerberus @Barmar: Why is it splitting hairs? Children of 6 years with "little feet" and those of 12 or 16 years are very different. I also don't understand why you keep saying it's horrible, what does that suggest?
Sep 13, 2022 at 20:43 comment added Barmar But I guess Skeptics often focus on every detail.
Sep 13, 2022 at 20:42 comment added Barmar @Cerberus You seem to be saying that it's significant that 12-year-olds are not "small" children. I think any use of children for purposes like this is horrible, and quibbling over whether they're actually small is splitting hairs.
Sep 13, 2022 at 20:39 comment added Cerberus @Barmar: I'm not sure I understand your point here, sorry.
Sep 13, 2022 at 16:25 comment added Barmar @Cerberus Is it really that much less horrific to use 12-year-olds than, say, 8-year-olds? I agree that they may be exaggerating for emotional effect by calling them "small children", but they're still children.
Sep 12, 2022 at 22:39 review Suggested edits
S Sep 13, 2022 at 23:13
Sep 12, 2022 at 20:04 comment added Cerberus The WP article is more like an opinion piece, without mentioning any source or specific events, let alone time or place. The children mentioned also seem older than "small children". In addition, I think there is a difference between a.) using child-soldiers as regular minesweepers, the way normal soldiers in any army sweep mines, without harming themselves if things go well, and b.) sending them into minefields as suicide mine sweepers.
Sep 12, 2022 at 19:58 comment added Cerberus I'm not entirely convinced by this CSM article. The essential passage, "ordered to be a human minesweeper", is not explained. It sounds like interpretation. Second, it is said in the article itself that various children in the camp tell the same story about certain events. The Iraqi wardens have an interest in letting the captured child-soldiers say certain things to Western journalists, so say aid organisations quoted in the article.
Sep 12, 2022 at 19:54 comment added M.A.R. The first linked article has a headline that doesn't match the narrative in the article's body. The whole article is speculating that they're just putting on a show with a few children, while the conditions in other camps may be much different. Why should one trust any part of Shirzad's story?
Sep 12, 2022 at 19:18 comment added Robusto Theroux seems to imply that smaller children were involved ("running, tripping into the minefields to detonate the bombs with their tiny feet"). Is he perhaps misinformed or being somewhat disingenuous?
Sep 12, 2022 at 18:15 history answered DavePhD CC BY-SA 4.0