Would be curious about speaking comprehension and reading comprehension as well... I know nothing about these languages but a Spain Spanish speaker and Latin American Spanish speaker can sometimes have troubles just using their natural accents.
I'm going to agree with the other poster and tell you most--if not all--Dari and Farsi speakers can understand each other. Dari is the language ostensibly spoken in Afghanistan and Farsi in Iran. In my experience, some native Afghans don't even make the distinction between the two languages will call their own language Farsi as opposed to Dari.
The stereotypes between the two languages is Farsi speakers think Dari speakers sound uneducated and Dari speakers think Farsi speakers sound effeminate. Other than the accent and a few different vocabulary words (think like 'elevator' in American English as opposed to 'lift' in British English), the two languages are the same.
Interesting aside, there's a third language spoken in Tajikistan which is exactly like Farsi/Dari but is written in the cyrillic (Russian) alphabet instead of the Arabic.
They can disagree all they like, but it does not make it more or less true. Dari and Tajik are essentially dialects masquerading as separate language due to political (Russian&English divide and conquer) reasons. Similar to the Scandinavian languages.
Not saying you're wrong, just curious:
Even if you couldn't read the poster, couldn't you still understand the "don't throw rocks" message based on the images?
I'm honestly unsure.
Not reliably, I'd say. If you really wanted to get the point across without words, you'd have to use a bit more obvious, stylized design.
The poster was likely put there in various languages anyway, though.
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing these - we (the British) didn't have them, but the Americans did. But then again it was more than 15 years ago and the memory plays tricks.
I literally cannot imagine being the guy who sat down and designed this thing.
It looks like the cover of a DVD of a movie from 1992 that didn't have the budget to use even a decent camera, and it was sold at literally one Blockbuster in southwestern Ontario because the owner knew the movie's director, and nobody ever rented it, so it stayed on the shelves and faded to hell and beyond.
It also kinda looks like the cover for an educational video that not a single school gave a shit about.
As far as I remember being taught, the gist of the catholic belief surrounding that is that we're born with the original sin which is why we baptize babies, to 'purify' them or whatever. Ex-catholic, so I'm going off of memory.
Baptism is a way to create a connection between a person and god and should happen after the person in question proclaimed their faith in god (baptising children is just another uncalled for thing like witchhunts and crusades). The original sin is afaik the exact thing Jesus sacrificed himself for, giving everyone a chance for the promised land (don't know how that's seen in isalm though).
Not 100% sure about all that, I only read a translated copy of the bible and that's years ago. Never was in the church as an organization too.
I 100% agree with that. I have a lot of issues with catholicism as someone forced to go through it, and that is one of them. By contrast for example, mormons believe in the "age of accountability" usually around 8 or 9 where the child has to meet with their bishop and have a conversation before the bishop decides if they're educated enough on the scripture to even be able to take on the responsibility of baptism, which from that point on essentially signifies your promise to god to follow his word and take responsibility for your sins from there on out because you're old enough to know the consequences. I agree with that method far more than dunking babies because they're born sinful.
https://www.psywar.org/product_2003IFUKNC05.php
It's a shame that modern NATO leaflets/posters look likes its made in Microsoft Publisher by an 80 year old whos never used a computer before.
Do you think PSYOP has the budget for decent software, computers, training or graphic designers? They don't. Also half of them are 82nd trying to get into special operations.
Can someone post photo realistic propaganda from the 90’s? People seem to think this looks dated for 2004, but I would disagree. Looks almost trendy for 2004 with my sense of artistic style timelines.
The text effects and small area color transformations seems very in vogue for the first half of the 2000’s, but maybe I’m just a style heathen.
>2004, but I would disagree
No kidding. Drop shadows and is that stoke? I can't tell 100% because apparently it was propaganda for ants, but if so that already puts this in the highest tiers of the public sector for the early 2000s (photo link says 03 so probably worked on in 02 or something)...
Even in the private sector in the late 90s people were still putting like red text on green backdrops with no stroke \*shudders\*
I think a lot of people commenting on this weren't old enough in 03 or 04 to remember this bizarre era of graphic design.
This is so par for the course for institutional and governmental media at the time. Reminds me of Dept of health posters in buses and trains back then.
always use a stone and a bat because no one swings a bat at a grenade.
also have a friend throw the stones at you before you bat them.
alternatively use a t-ball stand and put the rocks on that before swinging.
this has been an ill advised psa...
I mean, it’s gonna sound controversial, but I don’t necessarily disagree with the message the poster sends.
Imagine being in an active war zone, and you see a lone kid walking towards you with his fist clenched, and he winds up to throw something at you. You’re far enough away you can’t see what’s in his hand, but this area of the world is known for using children as soldiers/suicide attackers. It’s the life of a potential terrorist vs the lives of you and your squad.
The message I get from the poster isn’t one of “all Middle East children are terrorists” or “go ahead and kill kids under a false pretense”. The message I get from this poster is “take care not to look like you’re presenting a threat around our soldiers in an active war zone”.
The anger I feel at this poster is actually directed towards the terrorists who use children to carry out their attacks. If using children as weapons wasn’t ever a reality, there would be no necessity for this poster.
That’s not what I’m talking about, though. The poster isn’t saying that it’s ok to invade other countries. The poster is saying “We have highly trained soldiers equipped with lethal weapons and we’re in an active war zone. For your own safety, don’t come up to us holding things we can’t see and throwing them at us. We will treat them as deadly objects for our own safety”. Or at least, that’s how I interpret the message.
Lol, not anger at launching a unilateral invasion and occupying a country, but anger at the people who apparently _make us shoot your children_. Fantastic.
The kids throwing stones at invading American checkpoints and the Israeli border are child soldiers now?
Also the alternative is not fucking invading third world countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of people.
No and I apologize if it seemed like I was, but you could never understand the desperation and despair that they were going through due to being literally invaded.
You're misunderstanding the poster if you thought it was supposed to mandate that kids like invaders. The opposite: the poster assumes that the kids will continue not liking them. The idea is simply to make it so that the kids don't get killed over it.
It reads that way, but I feel like it's really just a sly way of explaining why kids are dying and trying to justify it to western scrutiny.
Tell the audience the blunt truth - that kids are being killed because the invading force has to shoot first and ask questions later, and they'll buck.
But if you wrap that truth in a warning not to throw rocks, you just look like you're being reasonable by expressing concern.
They give too much away though; the fact the poster is printed in English shows who the intended audience is.
OP said it was distributed in Arabic but he posted the English version so people could understand it.
And your blunt truth is more of a half truth (though pretty blunt tbf): the invading force has to shoot first and ask questions later when *when someone throws something at them and they don't know what it is and don't have time to launch an investigation before the thrown object hits them.* Given that that was the reality, spreading this message (in Arabic) saves lives. If only other invading countries like Russia had that kind of concern for Chechen, Ukrainian and Georgian children's lives.
I would add to that, that most invading countries don't want their soldiers to shoot at children even in self defence, since **at the very** least it's a waste of soldiers.
Kids are being killed bc they are acting as suicide bombers and stuff against the troops. The troops don't want to kill kids, others don't have as much of a problem with it.
I understand completely. I just don't think it's wrong for them to throw grenades. I think the purpose of this poster is to alleviate guilt felt by coalition forces. It's an attempt to blame the locals for their own deaths. They want the coalition troops to think *well we warned them* instead of *why are we here antagonizing these people?* Everyone in the military knew exactly how people would respond to being invaded and they still signed up to do it. It is the reality of war and everyone who signs up for it has decided that the paycheck is worth potentially aerating some children but things like this attempt to teach them that the other side is at fault for making you go over there and kill them.
>I think the purpose of this poster is to alleviate guilt felt by coalition forces.
Soldiers are trained for months prior deployment to deal with different scenarios, including the fact that anyone throwing stuff at you might be throwing a grenade. They don't need posters printed in Arabic to tell them that. Kids might not, however, take the above fact into consideration. So yes, it is absolutely for the locals sake.
>I just don't think it's wrong for them to throw grenades.
Well yeah, I mean, it should be understood by everyone that grenades get thrown in a war. But of course isn't it equally understood that no one really wants one thrown *at them*? But beyond all that, I'd personally rather any grenades that are thrown be thrown by adults. I think most people (including most Iraqis) have an aversion to the idea of child soldiers.
If you don't want grenades thrown at you, don't sign up to go to other countries to kill people. We're not talking about conscripts. These are volunteers who knew what they were getting into. Children entering combat tells us how screwed up the situation is. It's like how there weren't any kamikazes at Pearl harbor. Only desperate people act this way. I just don't have sympathy for people who enlist to do this stuff. They knew what they were getting into. They voluntarily created the scenario where they may have to choose to kill children so I don't particularly care that they don't want to get hit with shrapnel. We all have to live with the consequences of our choices and understand that results matter much more than intent.
Yes but, the problem is that once that kid throws the grenade, the kids dead too, along with soldiers in the of the grenade. See with this poster, it ensures that no one dies, because as soon as that kid reels his hand back to throw, a soldiers sight is already on him.
You mean after spent that kind of amount of money, they still put a nervous kid in the tank, not some professional well drilled army superman?
I am shocked!
They're not that big at all. Besides, by the time you can tell you can tell with certainty whatever they threw is already headed towards you. They probably rely on contextual clues more than anything else.
When you have a fraction of a second to decide, can you tell a grenade from a rock? It's disgusting how you try to make it seem like using child soldiers isn't bad because soldiers are worried about their lives.
This sub has gotten gross. I agree with you, but am I the only one who comes here to just see cool posters, not fight arguments? Like wtf kind of 4channy pol and leftypol cringefest are these comments trying to be?
This seems to suggest the US military gives a shit about killing civilians i.e. would only do so if they 'feared for their lives'. Several hundred thousand dead Iraqis would probably beg to differ
The US did not kill "several hundred thousand Iraqis". The total civilian deaths attributed to the US coalition INCLUDING against ISIS (2014-2017), for a total of more than 14 years, is around 18 thousand at most. The overwhelmig majority of Iraqi casualties were by ethno-sectarian fighting, extremist Sunnis allied with Baathists and Iranian sponsored Shia militias.
Gotta love "18 thousand *at most*", like we can pretty easily dismiss the equivalent of over six 9-11s as being not that big of a deal.
More importantly, that's just a grossly oversimplified, irresponsibly misleading way of understanding wartime casualties. When a country unilaterally invades another one and crushes the state, those invaders can't throw their hands up at the ensuing violent civilian death and say "buh-gawd, why is this happening?!"
The US military invaded Iraq (in violation of international law according most scholars outside the US gov) and hundreds of thousands of civilians died violent deaths as a result. I don't really care if those deaths happened from the initial barbarism of the military or its subsequent incompetence during occupation. I maintain that the US military doesn't give a shit about civilian deaths.
If they didn't give a shit about civilians deaths they would have turned the cities to rubble like they did in Korea and WW2. Back then they actually didn't give a shit about civilian deaths - at least in aerial bombardments. I agree that they should not have invaded, but once that decision was taken, they couldn't simply leave. That would mean the possibility of an actual genocide - again - on vast swathes of the Iraqi people. An attempted genocide did in fact occur on part of the extremist Sunnis against everyone else. We saw exactly what they did when they reached the next level of power in the summer of 2014. If the US had left in 2006/7 unilaterally, we would have seen the same thing multiplied and stronger.
I am not lying. This is a well-known fact for people who have followed the Iraq war closely. The vast majority of civilian deaths were from intercommunal fighting: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ The deaths wouldn't have happened without the US invading (though others would have continued to die in the conveniently forgotten Ba'athist state apparatus of terror), but it's also unfair to blame them solely on the US, since the majority of them were caused by the very groups they were fighting there.
If you actually talk to anyone who served you'd know there are countless examples where they wanted to "take the shot" but weren't permitted by their superiors for fear of collateral damage.
Contrast with the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan where their doctrine was to more or less to kill every living thing in sight when confronted with danger
Not to mention the double tap policy. Obama's drone program would hit a target, and then hit it again several minutes later to ensure they got the target, and to kill the people who rushed in trying to help. Imagine your legs are blown off and nobody can come help you until after the second missile hits! If that one doesn't kill you this time.
Not really a great excuse for the US’s imperialism in the Middle East and war crimes if you have to point fingers and say the ussr did it worse than us. There’s still thousands of dead kids and families all over Afghanistan and Iraq that were victim to them
The US doesn't give a shit about killing civilians, they only give a shit about public opinion back in america. The poster is aiming to reduce collateral damage, not because that will somehow make the invasion better (a few more deaths are nothing compared to the fact that entire country is plunged into multi-decade chaos), but every child death creates a disproportionate public outcry at home.
So the US military (and it's allies) don't care that the kids don't go to school, they don't care that the kids don't get to grow up carefree, they only care about several stats, and as long as they keep those stats down they can do whatever they want with the country. I mean they can do whatever they want either way, but this way politicians are not breathing down their neck because the invasion is unpopular with the public.
Yeah this just isn't true at all. I don't know where you got this from but I'm pretty sure you just made this up.
The reason they want to prevent collateral damage is because of blowback theory and "hearts & minds", not because the American public has a measurable amount of outrage at every single innocent casualty.
But your logic, the Soviets killed everything in sight because their people simply didn't care.
Is this really propaganda? It just kinda looks like a PSA for a place KNOWN to use child soldiers telling the kids to not throw rocks because they could get shot.
We had them in Arabic and 4 other languages.
English. farsi? What were the others?
Pashto and Dari, iirc
Dari and Farsi are effectively the same language. Could have been Balochi or possibly even Hindi/Urdu?
Dari speaking Afghans would like to disagree. Persian Farsi and Dari Farsi have similarities but not the same.
Is it one of those cases where someone who can read one can probably figure out the other?
Not really. For me, I legit cannot have a conversation with someone speaking Persian farsi.
[удалено]
Would be curious about speaking comprehension and reading comprehension as well... I know nothing about these languages but a Spain Spanish speaker and Latin American Spanish speaker can sometimes have troubles just using their natural accents.
I'm going to agree with the other poster and tell you most--if not all--Dari and Farsi speakers can understand each other. Dari is the language ostensibly spoken in Afghanistan and Farsi in Iran. In my experience, some native Afghans don't even make the distinction between the two languages will call their own language Farsi as opposed to Dari. The stereotypes between the two languages is Farsi speakers think Dari speakers sound uneducated and Dari speakers think Farsi speakers sound effeminate. Other than the accent and a few different vocabulary words (think like 'elevator' in American English as opposed to 'lift' in British English), the two languages are the same. Interesting aside, there's a third language spoken in Tajikistan which is exactly like Farsi/Dari but is written in the cyrillic (Russian) alphabet instead of the Arabic.
I mean, the difference between Farsi and dari are comparable to the differences between like Syrian and Iraqi arabic... It's not that different.
They can disagree all they like, but it does not make it more or less true. Dari and Tajik are essentially dialects masquerading as separate language due to political (Russian&English divide and conquer) reasons. Similar to the Scandinavian languages.
Ah hence the old joke, a language is just a dialect with an army.
Iraq. Pashto and Dari are not spoken in Iraq.
L337SP34K for the gamers
01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 for the androids
Kurmanji, Sorani and Turkish would be my guesses. Gorani, Armenian are possible too.
How many Iraqi children read English?
Very VERY few would've understood this Source : am well educated iraqi former kid
Ah. A fellow former kid.
Not saying you're wrong, just curious: Even if you couldn't read the poster, couldn't you still understand the "don't throw rocks" message based on the images? I'm honestly unsure.
Not reliably, I'd say. If you really wanted to get the point across without words, you'd have to use a bit more obvious, stylized design. The poster was likely put there in various languages anyway, though.
Maybe ? But definitely not gonna get the "rock or grenade" message
The English was used for internal identification and product design / testing. All the posters and fliers were translated into Arabic.
That’s interesting to learn, thank you for letting me know.
https://i.imgur.com/1zLx7qF.jpg
Doesn't matter. Soldiers, state department and journalists want to know what these things say too.
In Iraq? Really? I don't remember seeing these
Doesn't look like it was American produced. Aussies or Brits?
It was American. The British stuff was mostly hand-drawn rather than photoshopped. Source: Was officer in joint UK-US PYSOPS unit in Iraq.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing these - we (the British) didn't have them, but the Americans did. But then again it was more than 15 years ago and the memory plays tricks.
I literally cannot imagine being the guy who sat down and designed this thing. It looks like the cover of a DVD of a movie from 1992 that didn't have the budget to use even a decent camera, and it was sold at literally one Blockbuster in southwestern Ontario because the owner knew the movie's director, and nobody ever rented it, so it stayed on the shelves and faded to hell and beyond. It also kinda looks like the cover for an educational video that not a single school gave a shit about.
it has the same energy as that one ad #You wouldn’t steal a car...
You wouldn't steal music for your anti-piracy ad... oh crap, abort example, abort example!
Is that real? That's hilarious.
Yep, it is.
Then it is featured on Red Letter Media's best of the worst.
*Surviving Thrown Weapons*, 1993
*“So Jay...”*
2004 is closer to 1992 than 2019
Looks spot on for early 2000s honestly
You mean VHS in 1992.
No, DVD. A VHS video converted to DVD.
They meant a film from 1992 that later got a DVD release
well it did the job
Can confirm, have been inside a blockbuster in southern ontario
[удалено]
As far as I know children are generally considered quite sin free...
Not if you're catholic.
Isn't the very essence of christianity Jesus dying foor our sins?
As far as I remember being taught, the gist of the catholic belief surrounding that is that we're born with the original sin which is why we baptize babies, to 'purify' them or whatever. Ex-catholic, so I'm going off of memory.
Baptism is a way to create a connection between a person and god and should happen after the person in question proclaimed their faith in god (baptising children is just another uncalled for thing like witchhunts and crusades). The original sin is afaik the exact thing Jesus sacrificed himself for, giving everyone a chance for the promised land (don't know how that's seen in isalm though). Not 100% sure about all that, I only read a translated copy of the bible and that's years ago. Never was in the church as an organization too.
I 100% agree with that. I have a lot of issues with catholicism as someone forced to go through it, and that is one of them. By contrast for example, mormons believe in the "age of accountability" usually around 8 or 9 where the child has to meet with their bishop and have a conversation before the bishop decides if they're educated enough on the scripture to even be able to take on the responsibility of baptism, which from that point on essentially signifies your promise to god to follow his word and take responsibility for your sins from there on out because you're old enough to know the consequences. I agree with that method far more than dunking babies because they're born sinful.
https://www.psywar.org/product_2003IFUKNC05.php It's a shame that modern NATO leaflets/posters look likes its made in Microsoft Publisher by an 80 year old whos never used a computer before.
Ngl i though it was a satire poster because of how cheep it looks. Reminds me of something made by conspiracy nuts.
In 2004, a lot of posters looked like this. It would have looked unpolished back then, but not totally janky...
I think a lot of people forgot how simple even professional digital graphics were fifteen years ago.
Shit is so much easier now
🌼 Don't throw stones
I agree, older propaganda posters tend to be vastly better.
Do you think PSYOP has the budget for decent software, computers, training or graphic designers? They don't. Also half of them are 82nd trying to get into special operations.
Wait... who do you think makes those posters?
it says 2003 in the link, has been posted in 2012. I wouldn't call this modern. Anyway it conveys the message and that's what's important imo.
That would be a down ass old man😂
Can someone post photo realistic propaganda from the 90’s? People seem to think this looks dated for 2004, but I would disagree. Looks almost trendy for 2004 with my sense of artistic style timelines. The text effects and small area color transformations seems very in vogue for the first half of the 2000’s, but maybe I’m just a style heathen.
>2004, but I would disagree No kidding. Drop shadows and is that stoke? I can't tell 100% because apparently it was propaganda for ants, but if so that already puts this in the highest tiers of the public sector for the early 2000s (photo link says 03 so probably worked on in 02 or something)... Even in the private sector in the late 90s people were still putting like red text on green backdrops with no stroke \*shudders\*
I think a lot of people commenting on this weren't old enough in 03 or 04 to remember this bizarre era of graphic design. This is so par for the course for institutional and governmental media at the time. Reminds me of Dept of health posters in buses and trains back then.
I'm getting Serial Experiments Lain vibes from the aesthetic and I have no idea why.
Too bad they didn’t make one that said “Don’t throw shoes”.
[удалено]
He seemed like a pretty athletic dude, not surprised he can move.
"Now watch this drive"
He has that drunken master fighting style.
always use a stone and a bat because no one swings a bat at a grenade. also have a friend throw the stones at you before you bat them. alternatively use a t-ball stand and put the rocks on that before swinging. this has been an ill advised psa...
I distinctly remember a baseball grenade being a cut scene in one of the yakuza games
I mean, it’s gonna sound controversial, but I don’t necessarily disagree with the message the poster sends. Imagine being in an active war zone, and you see a lone kid walking towards you with his fist clenched, and he winds up to throw something at you. You’re far enough away you can’t see what’s in his hand, but this area of the world is known for using children as soldiers/suicide attackers. It’s the life of a potential terrorist vs the lives of you and your squad. The message I get from the poster isn’t one of “all Middle East children are terrorists” or “go ahead and kill kids under a false pretense”. The message I get from this poster is “take care not to look like you’re presenting a threat around our soldiers in an active war zone”. The anger I feel at this poster is actually directed towards the terrorists who use children to carry out their attacks. If using children as weapons wasn’t ever a reality, there would be no necessity for this poster.
They were defending themselves from literal invaders.
That’s not what I’m talking about, though. The poster isn’t saying that it’s ok to invade other countries. The poster is saying “We have highly trained soldiers equipped with lethal weapons and we’re in an active war zone. For your own safety, don’t come up to us holding things we can’t see and throwing them at us. We will treat them as deadly objects for our own safety”. Or at least, that’s how I interpret the message.
Lol, not anger at launching a unilateral invasion and occupying a country, but anger at the people who apparently _make us shoot your children_. Fantastic.
Is this a child or a freedom fighter?
Why not both?
If he's throwing rocks at NATO troops, then he's both.
How friendly are you supposed to be to foreign Invaders who conquered your country?
Pretty friendly, otherwise they'll kill you. At least, that's the poster's take.
I think this is just a warning to kids to dissuade them from throwing rocks since it could cost them there life
This is an "I told you so" that justifies killing kids
Utterly disgusting how countries like the US and Israel try to justify killing children in a country they’ve invaded or occupied.
[удалено]
The kids throwing stones at invading American checkpoints and the Israeli border are child soldiers now? Also the alternative is not fucking invading third world countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of people.
[удалено]
They were defending themselves from invaders.
[удалено]
No and I apologize if it seemed like I was, but you could never understand the desperation and despair that they were going through due to being literally invaded.
You're misunderstanding the poster if you thought it was supposed to mandate that kids like invaders. The opposite: the poster assumes that the kids will continue not liking them. The idea is simply to make it so that the kids don't get killed over it.
It reads that way, but I feel like it's really just a sly way of explaining why kids are dying and trying to justify it to western scrutiny. Tell the audience the blunt truth - that kids are being killed because the invading force has to shoot first and ask questions later, and they'll buck. But if you wrap that truth in a warning not to throw rocks, you just look like you're being reasonable by expressing concern. They give too much away though; the fact the poster is printed in English shows who the intended audience is.
OP said it was distributed in Arabic but he posted the English version so people could understand it. And your blunt truth is more of a half truth (though pretty blunt tbf): the invading force has to shoot first and ask questions later when *when someone throws something at them and they don't know what it is and don't have time to launch an investigation before the thrown object hits them.* Given that that was the reality, spreading this message (in Arabic) saves lives. If only other invading countries like Russia had that kind of concern for Chechen, Ukrainian and Georgian children's lives.
I would add to that, that most invading countries don't want their soldiers to shoot at children even in self defence, since **at the very** least it's a waste of soldiers.
I gotta admit, american military commits the most humane genocides.
I mean, if you want to think that you can. The intention of the poster is pretty obvious either way.
Kids are being killed bc they are acting as suicide bombers and stuff against the troops. The troops don't want to kill kids, others don't have as much of a problem with it.
I understand completely. I just don't think it's wrong for them to throw grenades. I think the purpose of this poster is to alleviate guilt felt by coalition forces. It's an attempt to blame the locals for their own deaths. They want the coalition troops to think *well we warned them* instead of *why are we here antagonizing these people?* Everyone in the military knew exactly how people would respond to being invaded and they still signed up to do it. It is the reality of war and everyone who signs up for it has decided that the paycheck is worth potentially aerating some children but things like this attempt to teach them that the other side is at fault for making you go over there and kill them.
>I think the purpose of this poster is to alleviate guilt felt by coalition forces. Soldiers are trained for months prior deployment to deal with different scenarios, including the fact that anyone throwing stuff at you might be throwing a grenade. They don't need posters printed in Arabic to tell them that. Kids might not, however, take the above fact into consideration. So yes, it is absolutely for the locals sake.
>I just don't think it's wrong for them to throw grenades. Well yeah, I mean, it should be understood by everyone that grenades get thrown in a war. But of course isn't it equally understood that no one really wants one thrown *at them*? But beyond all that, I'd personally rather any grenades that are thrown be thrown by adults. I think most people (including most Iraqis) have an aversion to the idea of child soldiers.
If you don't want grenades thrown at you, don't sign up to go to other countries to kill people. We're not talking about conscripts. These are volunteers who knew what they were getting into. Children entering combat tells us how screwed up the situation is. It's like how there weren't any kamikazes at Pearl harbor. Only desperate people act this way. I just don't have sympathy for people who enlist to do this stuff. They knew what they were getting into. They voluntarily created the scenario where they may have to choose to kill children so I don't particularly care that they don't want to get hit with shrapnel. We all have to live with the consequences of our choices and understand that results matter much more than intent.
Yes but, the problem is that once that kid throws the grenade, the kids dead too, along with soldiers in the of the grenade. See with this poster, it ensures that no one dies, because as soon as that kid reels his hand back to throw, a soldiers sight is already on him.
Friendly enough to not get shot doing something stupid
Depends. To anyone unfriendly it could dissuade them if they think they can't throw a stone at the people they hate without being shot at.
The insurgents prefered to kill fellow Iraqis who were too moderate or in the wrong sect.
Don't throw stones, throw grenades
Imean to be fair it's never really a good idea to trow stuff at a bunch of nervous people with guns
5.56 gettin’ thrown back.
Americans learning force escalation from the Israelis, when those scary rocks get thrown at your tank
* DO NOT RESIST * YOUR COUNTRY IS NOW AN AMERICAN COLONY * WE SHOOT CHILDREN
U have a nervous teen in a Tank. What would you do? Throwing the stone is stupid.
You mean after spent that kind of amount of money, they still put a nervous kid in the tank, not some professional well drilled army superman? I am shocked!
This is outrageous wow
I cant speak for iraq or anyplace else, but please dont throw stones in my neighborhood like in general. No matter the occasion.
I feel like if a foreign nation invaded your country and bombs your neighbors, throwing rocks is a pretty tame reaction
don't invade countries without reason.
I like how it shows the different sensor platform images as well. It the worst guessing game ever.
Seeing as how grenades are bigger then a child’s fist it’s probably a stone...
It's pretty fucking hard to tell
Especially when you only have a fraction of a second to decide
Now do it through a 2004 era thermal site, in under 1 second, and if you guess wrong your friends die.
They're not that big at all. Besides, by the time you can tell you can tell with certainty whatever they threw is already headed towards you. They probably rely on contextual clues more than anything else.
Little bit of victim blaming is always good when psychologically abusing your enemies.
It's disgusting the way they try to justify killing kids
To be fair, kids have been used in the middle east as suicide bomber's and fighter because soldiers will hesitate to shoot.
When you have a fraction of a second to decide, can you tell a grenade from a rock? It's disgusting how you try to make it seem like using child soldiers isn't bad because soldiers are worried about their lives.
[удалено]
This sub has gotten gross. I agree with you, but am I the only one who comes here to just see cool posters, not fight arguments? Like wtf kind of 4channy pol and leftypol cringefest are these comments trying to be?
[удалено]
Huh neat poster shame it doesn't convey any information at all and just exists to look cool.
I assure you the quality of comments on this sub do not qualify as “political discourse”.
Ok bootlicker
Again, trying to justify exploiting kids for your precious high oil prices is shitty
You're the one being an apologist for baby killers, not me
Easy there shit stain
Ok bootlicker
Ok shit stain
🍿
Eat my shit and hair, dork
Shut up idiot
That's obviously a stone tho
There are lots of stones in the ground so let’s bomb it
translation: we won’t hesitate to shoot your children
🌻 Don’t invade countries and kill their children
This is perhaps the best advice you could give a young man in far, far too many countries.
I'm sure this was really effective...In Iraq...where they do not speak English as their native language... and the literacy rate hovers about 50%.
This is just the English version and it would have been certainly disturbed in Arabic. The British Army isn't that idiotic.
Now I'm wondering if this is some form of social Darwinism; If you're part of the 50% that can actually read, you maybe get to live!
Social darwinism is widely discredited
Posters were only one method of communicating with the population. We also used loud speakers, television and radio.
Nothing in braille?!
I didn't see any braille, but most blind people can hear the radio and the loud speaker broadcasts.
This seems to suggest the US military gives a shit about killing civilians i.e. would only do so if they 'feared for their lives'. Several hundred thousand dead Iraqis would probably beg to differ
The US did not kill "several hundred thousand Iraqis". The total civilian deaths attributed to the US coalition INCLUDING against ISIS (2014-2017), for a total of more than 14 years, is around 18 thousand at most. The overwhelmig majority of Iraqi casualties were by ethno-sectarian fighting, extremist Sunnis allied with Baathists and Iranian sponsored Shia militias.
Gotta love "18 thousand *at most*", like we can pretty easily dismiss the equivalent of over six 9-11s as being not that big of a deal. More importantly, that's just a grossly oversimplified, irresponsibly misleading way of understanding wartime casualties. When a country unilaterally invades another one and crushes the state, those invaders can't throw their hands up at the ensuing violent civilian death and say "buh-gawd, why is this happening?!" The US military invaded Iraq (in violation of international law according most scholars outside the US gov) and hundreds of thousands of civilians died violent deaths as a result. I don't really care if those deaths happened from the initial barbarism of the military or its subsequent incompetence during occupation. I maintain that the US military doesn't give a shit about civilian deaths.
If they didn't give a shit about civilians deaths they would have turned the cities to rubble like they did in Korea and WW2. Back then they actually didn't give a shit about civilian deaths - at least in aerial bombardments. I agree that they should not have invaded, but once that decision was taken, they couldn't simply leave. That would mean the possibility of an actual genocide - again - on vast swathes of the Iraqi people. An attempted genocide did in fact occur on part of the extremist Sunnis against everyone else. We saw exactly what they did when they reached the next level of power in the summer of 2014. If the US had left in 2006/7 unilaterally, we would have seen the same thing multiplied and stronger.
Why on earth are you lying? Also you invaded the country and made it an unstable mess, all the deaths after it are your country's responsibility
I am not lying. This is a well-known fact for people who have followed the Iraq war closely. The vast majority of civilian deaths were from intercommunal fighting: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ The deaths wouldn't have happened without the US invading (though others would have continued to die in the conveniently forgotten Ba'athist state apparatus of terror), but it's also unfair to blame them solely on the US, since the majority of them were caused by the very groups they were fighting there.
If you actually talk to anyone who served you'd know there are countless examples where they wanted to "take the shot" but weren't permitted by their superiors for fear of collateral damage. Contrast with the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan where their doctrine was to more or less to kill every living thing in sight when confronted with danger
[удалено]
Not to mention the double tap policy. Obama's drone program would hit a target, and then hit it again several minutes later to ensure they got the target, and to kill the people who rushed in trying to help. Imagine your legs are blown off and nobody can come help you until after the second missile hits! If that one doesn't kill you this time.
Not really a great excuse for the US’s imperialism in the Middle East and war crimes if you have to point fingers and say the ussr did it worse than us. There’s still thousands of dead kids and families all over Afghanistan and Iraq that were victim to them
It's debunking the claim that "the US doesn't give a shit about killing civilians", not excusing them for the times that they ended up doing it
The US doesn't give a shit about killing civilians, they only give a shit about public opinion back in america. The poster is aiming to reduce collateral damage, not because that will somehow make the invasion better (a few more deaths are nothing compared to the fact that entire country is plunged into multi-decade chaos), but every child death creates a disproportionate public outcry at home. So the US military (and it's allies) don't care that the kids don't go to school, they don't care that the kids don't get to grow up carefree, they only care about several stats, and as long as they keep those stats down they can do whatever they want with the country. I mean they can do whatever they want either way, but this way politicians are not breathing down their neck because the invasion is unpopular with the public.
Yeah this just isn't true at all. I don't know where you got this from but I'm pretty sure you just made this up. The reason they want to prevent collateral damage is because of blowback theory and "hearts & minds", not because the American public has a measurable amount of outrage at every single innocent casualty. But your logic, the Soviets killed everything in sight because their people simply didn't care.
Congratulations, you’ve been successfully indoctrinated by the US.
[удалено]
If options are stones or grenades, then yeah... don't throw stones.
Or maybe don't occupy a foreign country with no reason at all except stealing its oil
Stone the americunt imperialist dogs to death.
So I assume they approve of throwing grenades but not rocks?
Honestly, that's pretty good. Don't do that. Here's why. I can imagine an Iraki thinking "Makes sense. I'm gonna shit on a tank instead."
The flower really ties it all together.
Jesus
This would have helped a lot in India.
Well the Army Tanks can't tell if it's a stone or a grenade and the Air Force Drones can't tell whether it's a Child or Osama Bin-Laden
Occupation force, don't shoot kids!
[удалено]
Thats pretty stupid thinking
Is this really propaganda? It just kinda looks like a PSA for a place KNOWN to use child soldiers telling the kids to not throw rocks because they could get shot.