# data[].attributes.body
Who cares man

# data[].attributes.body
X -ref:

Typicality:
They were too young too judge correctly what had happened during the war as it happened 25 years ago. Thus, their knowledge of the war came from their respective countries, which may be biased towards their own countries and may not be reliable. Hence, they could be biased towards their own country and it does not prove that Hitti was wrong.

Higher analysis:

# data[].attributes.body
X-ref
What Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong because most of their points can be corroborated with each other. For example, Shawaf said that "it was hard for them to stay in Kuwait when so many countries were against them" and Hitti said that "The war ended after the international forces intervened". This shows that when the other countries intervened, Iraq ended the war against Kuwait. Thus, what Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong.

Typicality
What Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong because both Shawaf and Hitti were too young to understand the situation and had to rely on information provided by their own country. Thus, what they said may be false information fabricated by their countries to show that they were right. Therefore, Shawaf does not prove that Hitti is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
X-ref
Shawaf is contradicted by Hitti in terms of the reason for Iraq to invade and occupy Kuwait. Shawaf states, "Oil was the main target for the Iraqi invasion." It is evident that Iraq only invaded Kuwait because of their greed for oil and money. However, this is contradicted by Hitti. Hitti said, "It was the work of America and Iran." It is evident that America and Iran had planned to invade Kuwait, and it was an inside job, not the intentions of Iraq. As such, Shawaf and Hitti contradict each other, and Shawaf is not that reliable. Hence what Shawaf said does not totally prove that Hitti is wrong.

Higher Analysis

# data[].attributes.body
Shawaf does not prove that Hitti is wrong. Both Shawaf and Hitti agree that Iraq attacked Kuwait which caused Kuwaitis life miserable. Shawaf said that "Kuwait was attacked by Iraq, not Iraq attacked by Kuwait" and Hitti said that "Iraq attacked Kuwait and looted their homes and wealth." Both sources corroborate as they agree that Iraq were aggressive towards Kuwait. So Shawaf does not prove that Hitti is wrong

Higher analysis:
Hitti is omitting some information and is over generalising which he said that  "During the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, the Iraqi army occupied Kuwait, but I don't know why they pulled out. I don't know what happened". He is an Iraqi and he might be biased towards his own country hence he might be omitting to reveal what specifically that Iraqis have done. Since Hitti is over generalising it cannot be compared that Shawaf proves Hitti to be wrong

# data[].attributes.body
Does what Shawaf said prove that Hitti is wrong?

Cross-reference:

What Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong.  Shawaf and Hitti both agreed that international forces were the ones that managed to end the war between them. Shawaf said that "
Just six or seven countries were on Iraq's side, but all other countries were with us, so it was hard for them to continue", showing that they had support from international forces. What Hitti said supports this as well, as he said that "The war ended after the international forces intervened", agreeing with Shawaf that international forces ended the war. Since what the both of them said corroborates with one another, what Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
What Shawaf said does not proves that Hitti is wrong, as they do corroborate.
Shawaf implies that Iraq was the aggressor. This can be seen from the source, 'Kuwait was attacked by Iraq, not Iraq attacked by Kuwait.'. This shows that Kuwait did not wage war and they were the victims of the war.
This can be supported by Hitti, who also implies that Iraq was the aggressor. This can be seen from the source, 'Iraq attacked Kuwait and looted their homes and wealth.'. This shows that Hitti also believes that Kuwait was a miserable victim of war and suffered due to the aggressive intentions of Iraq.
Since Shawaf and Hitti corroborates, Shawaf does not prove that Hitti is wrong.

However, Shawaf does not prove that Hitti is wrong due to his purpose as well. Shawaf wants to raise awareness to an international audience that Kuwait was a victim of the war that Iraq waged, as can be seen in 'Kuwait was attacked by Iraq, not Iraq attacked by Kuwait'. This shows how Iraq was the aggressor and made Kuwaitis' lives miserable, hence Shawaf would be biased towards his own country. Due to his identity, a Kuwaiti, it is expected that his words favour his own country. Through his interview, he hopes that people will understand that Kuwait is the victim and sympathize with Kuwait instead of blaming them. Therefore he has a hidden agenda, making him unreliable and hence unable to prove that Hitti is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Cross-ref-
typicality-
As neither was old enough to remember anything first-hand about the war, their knowledge comes from history books, stories passed down, and the lessons they learned in school.Their view might not reflect the true situation of the war as the information sources might be manipulated

Higher analysis- Shawaf is a Kurdish

# data[].attributes.body
X-ref
What Shawaf says does not prove that Hitti is wrong as they both agree that Iraq attacked Kuwait, making their lives miserable. Shawaf says "There was no food, no water, no electricity, no communications; fathers and mothers didn't know what would happen to their children when they left their homes. Also, many buildings were damaged." This shows that during Iraq occupation, their quality of life was low and that the invasion caused devastation. This is supported by Hitti, who says " Iraq attacked Kuwait and looted their homes and wealth." This shows that Iraq invaded Kuwait and stole their fortunes and robbed them of their prized possessions. Hence since it is supported by Hitti, what Shawaf says cannot prove Hitti wrong.

Higher Analysis
Shawaf is a radio broadcaster in Kuwait and he aims to inform the citizens

Hitti is a government worker

# data[].attributes.body
x - ref
Both sources agree that
Shawaf said that ""
Hitti said that ""
Both sources corroborate with each other, therefore, what Shawaf said did not prove that Hitti was wrong.

Both of them disagree on the reason why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Shawaf said that "Oil was the main target for the Iraqi invasion...It was all about oil.", which showed that Iraq invaded Kuwait as they wanted their oil resources. However, Hitti said that "It was all an American plan. The Americans do what they want. It was the work of America and Iran. ", which shows how the Americans were behind the war. Both sources do not corroborate with each other, therefore, what Shawaf said proves that Hitti was wrong.

higher analysis

Shawaf is a Iraqi, therefore he

# data[].attributes.body
Shwaf proves that haiti is
wrong as shawaf Is reliable. Shawaf claims that Kuwait was heavily impacted by the attack on kuwajt by iraw. The evident is "we werent prepared fkr yhe situation "this shlws that yhe kuwaities were caught off guard by the sudden attack andp many emotikna of confusionl and frustration were ramlan
Converely

# data[].attributes.body
What shawaf said does not prove that hitti was wrong. both sources agree that the war ended due to intervening countries. Shawaf said, " most of the countries were with us, so it was Hard for (Iraq) to stay in Kuwait when so many countries were against them" this shows that there were many opposing countries against Iraq which caused them to leave thus ending the war. This is corroborated by what hitti said, "the war ended after the international forces intervened." This shows that hitti also that external forces were the reason the war ended. Thus both sources corroborate each other and therefore what shawaf said does not prove that what hitti said was wrong.

What shawaf said also does not prove that Hutu was wrong. Shawaf was a radio presenter from Kuwait.

# data[].attributes.body
Does what Shawaf said prove that Hitti is wrong?
No, what Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong as they corroborate on how devastating the Gulf War was on Iraq. This can be seen in "The Iraqi citizens were oppressed by their regime. Their government made the war and they paid the price." This shows that Shawaf feels that the Iraqi people suffered unfairly, having to pay for a war waged by their government. This corroborates with what Hitti says. From Hitti "Life was good for Kuwaitis even after the war. They had a secure and luxurious life. They also suffered, but not as much as Iraqis suffered from problems such as sectarianism. Kuwait stayed as one country." From this, it can be inferred that Hitti felt that the Iraqis suffered greatly from the war and could not even have a stable government. Hence, what Shawaf said does not prove that Hitti is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
What Shawaf does not prove that Hitti is wrong. Some of the things said by Hitti was supported by Shawaf. For example, both of their comments on the question on what led to the end of the conflict were similar. Hitti had said that "The war ended after the international forces intervened." This means that the reason why the conflicted ended was due to international intervention. This could be supported by what Shawaf had said, "Most of the countries were with us, so it was hard for them to stay in Kuwait when so many countries were against them." This means that Iraq left Kuwait as there was foreign intervention. As the two corroborate, Shawaf proved Hitti to be correct in that aspect.

However, both Hitti and Shawaf could have been wrong as their knowledge was not a primary source. In the background information, it is stated that "As neither was old enough to remember anything first-hand about the war, their knowledge comes from history books, stories passed down, and the lessons they learned in school." This means that neither Hitti nor Shawaf were old enough to remember what had happened in the war,