Iraqi insurgents murder schoolchildren

Rock Climber

The other side of the coin is revealing itself, where Iraqi insurgents are showing they couldn't care less about their own people and like to maim and murder their own people including Children with impunity.

A police colonel said about 10 elementary school students whose bus had been passing at the time of the blast were among the dead.

The breaking news story can be found here

Distraught Iraqis stoned coalition forces trying to help

Which kind of goes to show the coalition are blamed for everything now, which waters down much of what I see as so called eye withness reports that the Americans are responsible for all the deaths.
AFP are now reporting at least 61 Iraqi's dead so far in this incident at the hands of their own people or possibly even non Iraqi Arabs assuming this has some Alqueda involvement.

Sleipnir

or possibly even non Iraqi Arabs assuming this has some Alqueda involvement.

Pure speculation on your part and therefore, not relevant.


I would imagine the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans because this sort of thing didn't happen before the Americans invaded Iraq.

I wonder if you'd care to provide a link to some information on how many children the American's have killed?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Pure speculation on your part and therefore, not relevant.

It's very relevant actually as the target was Iraqi police stations so we know it was not the americans that did the bombing.

I would imagine the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans because this sort of thing didn't happen before the Americans invaded Iraq.

No people were quietly taken away and murdered instead in dark rooms if they didn't agree with Saddam:rolleyes:

I wonder if you'd care to provide a link to some information on how many children the American's have killed?

Heh!
It's interesting that you should take that line.
I don't have to provide links to that, its well discussed in other threads here.
Are you suggesting two wrongs make a right?
It's ok for the insurgents to do this because its justified due to the americans doing it?
They are both wreckless and thats a fact.
I'm pointing out here that the insurgents are hypocrites as they are showing a blatant disregard for their own people by placing bombs where their own women and children are being killed.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well you know!

Sleipnir

Pure speculation on your part and therefore, not relevant.

Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

No people were quietly taken away and murdered instead in dark rooms if they didn't agree with Saddam

So how are they're better off now?
Tell the families of those poor children;
"Terible I know but it's possible they would have been murdered by Saddam in the future and this is a much better way of being killed"


Of course It's not ok for these fighters to kill children but they have a right to defend their territory against invaders. They French Resistance did the same during WW2 and they would have been called 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' by Germany but they were fighting against invaders.

I don't have to provide links to that, its well discussed in other threads here.

Ah well, that's ok then. Just add them to the statistics.


My whole point is, it would not have happened if America had not invaded Iraq for oil


Tell me, why do you think the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans? What reasons would they have for doing so, in your opinion? Because it's fun?

pork99

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

I think it's more than just speculation;
'Al-Qaeda' tape urges Iraq civil war

They have admitted they are targreting Shi'ites. The attacks in Basra today are completely consistent with this

A MAN claiming to be a senior al-Qaeda figure that the United States believes is operating in Iraq has released a tape calling for the country's Sunni Muslims to fight Shi'ites and claiming responsibility for high-profile attacks there.

On the tape, the speaker said Shi'ite Iraqis were not true Muslims and were "the ears and the eyes of the Americans" in Iraq.

Also I think theOnion is being prophetic again. (Remember this ?)

Of course It's not ok for these fighters to kill children but they have a right to defend their territory against invaders.

Except the Nazis never gave a date for handing over power and withdrawing. You are unbelievable. If the Americans renaged on handing over power to an Iraqi government and cotinued to occupy Iraq without allowing elections then there would be some justification for an armed uprising but as it is now they are just screwing up their own country and it is dysfunctional.

They French Resistance did the same during WW2

Did they really? Any evidence?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

Of course it's speculation regarding Al Queda, but then my point was in relation to the insurgents disregarding the lives of ordinary iraqi's when they are doing their attacking....
Just like the americans get accused of the same thing ...
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander there.

So how are they're better off now?

I'm not addressing whether they are better off or not here, I'm addressing the wreckless attitudes of the insurgents.
And clearly if they waited for a hand over of soveireignity and elections, they would be much better off, at least a lot more people would be alive.
What have they to fear about elections?
I doubt that there could be a place now at this stage where the electoral process would be more open to scriutiny and fair, given that the whole worlds eyes are upon it.
The fact that the insurgents want to continue to go around promoting mahem, without waiting for the elections is plenty evidence of their wrecklessness.
Clearly they want fire fights with the americans and don't give a damn who gets in the cross fire.
Thats both wreckless and intransigent in my humble opinion and shows up their hypocrisy and fear of what their own people might vote for.

Indeed, if they had any sense, they'd realise that the people of Iraq wouldn't necessarilly vote for a pro western government, but then they don't want an elected government probably at all by the looks of things,

Sleipnir

And clearly if they waited for a hand over of soveireignity and elections, they would be much better off, at least a lot more people would be alive.

Will they be better off though?
Let's be honest, America are the ones who will decide who is even running in the election. They obviously won't do this in an obvious way but we know they won't leave Iraq unless there is someone 'in power' who they can control. They will not leave the 2nd largest oil reserves in the hands of someone completely independant of them. I know I wouldn't if I was in their position.

And yes, that was completely reckless of the insurgents to bomb in locations like that but, unfortunately, that is how guerilla warfare is fought. We know ourselves the collateral damage and civilian casualties it can cause, however this is the only way they can fight as they certainly cannot face the coalition forces on the open battlefield.

It's not a question of the Iraqi people not voting for a pro-western government, they won't be given that choice. There may be a few names on the ballot paper, but there will only be one option.

pork99

And yes, that was completely reckless of the insurgents to bomb in locations like that but, unfortunately, that is how guerilla warfare is fought.

Not insurgents, terrorists.

I may be a bit thick but I don't understand how setting out to start a civil war as those scumbags obviously are given their targets is an act of national liberation.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir

Let's be honest, America are the ones who will decide who is even running in the election. They obviously won't do this in an obvious way but we know they won't leave Iraq unless there is someone 'in power' who they can control.

Aren't you being a bit previous there?
It might be better to conclude what the candidates are when the elections come about.
I find it interesting that all this so-called insurgency flared up so close to the date of the soveireignity hand over.
It hardens my view that they don't want a transparent government, they want their own thing.
I say let the balolot box decide.

They will not leave the 2nd largest oil reserves in the hands of someone completely independant of them. I know I wouldn't if I was in their position.

I agree with you all taxes and profits from the oil should go to the Iraqi people.
I've no doubt that the taxes will and that their economy will benefit once normality is restored.
But that might take a while as those insurgents/terrorists don't want to hurry up normality, its not on their agenda.

Heck the Iraqi's might end up getting more out of their natural resources than we do out of ours!!
As far as I'm aware all the income from that gas field off our North west coast is practically going to the operating company...
And the last I heard planning permission was refused for a land base to process it!
And not one U.S soldier involved in that rip off of natural resources here on our own doorstep.
( I'll provide links for that if you want them, later when I've time )

Sleipnir

Originally posted by pork99
Not insurgents, terrorists.

I may be a bit thick but I don't understand how setting out to start a civil war as those scumbags obviously are given their targets is an act of national liberation.

in·sur·gent
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

That definition is fine when all they are doing is attacking U.S forces etc, but it doesn't hold very well when they are carelessly killing children, they are terrorists in my book.

"I saw a minibus full of children on fire - 15 of the 18 passengers were killed and three badly wounded."

Thats from the BBC above.
The IRA might have described themselves as insurgents too, but many episodes eg Enniskillen gave them a more accurate title-terrorists.
But at least the IRA have shown they can be open to reason.
These Insurgents/terrorists seem to have geared up their fight when it looked like elections were getting closer.
That kind of firmly places them more in the terrorist grouping in my opinion with suspect motives.

Lex_Diamonds

The people who carry out these attacks are very clever in so far as they know exactly which buttons to press. Its a methodical and effective approach in turning the populace against the coalition. The Iraqi people will look for someone to blame and and we all know who is visible on the ground. Id say those involved in the latest attack were foreign militants.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Sleipnir
I would imagine the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans because this sort of thing didn't happen before the Americans invaded Iraq.

I wonder if you'd care to provide a link to some information on how many children the American's have killed?

I have to say Sleipnir, I think that is one of the most biased and downright childish posts I have ever had the misfortune to read on this board. Your reply to this topic is "Look how many children the US have killed!!!". I think that is frankly outrageous. I'm anti-US Gov. myself, but I think trying to stencil some kind of blame onto the US for this is apalling.

Having said that, I think the ordinary Iraqis are none too bright in stoning soldiers going to help the few remaining children who hadn't been blown to smithereens. I fail to agree with Sleipnir's logic on that one. The soldiers were British, by the way, not American.

Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

And it is speculation. With the number of Iraqi's that are armed, and disgruntled with Coalition occupation it could be any number of groups that could have done this. AQ, is attributed with just about everything, when something happens.

Except the Nazis never gave a date for handing over power and withdrawing. You are unbelievable. If the Americans renaged on handing over power to an Iraqi government and cotinued to occupy Iraq without allowing elections then there would be some justification for an armed uprising but as it is now they are just screwing up their own country and it is dysfunctional.

True abt the Nazi's. But you're forgetting one thing. The Coalition have made promises that they would improve the standards of living, pacify the area completely and stop all the violence thats been occuring. They've failed so far to do any of these things. Also, Iraqi's are beginning to wonder if this is just another example of the West trying to take over completely. AQ is a huge influence, but so too is the coalitions' lack of prgression.

Originally posted by klaz
Also, Iraqi's are beginning to wonder if this is just another example of the West trying to take over completely. AQ is a huge influence, but so too is the coalitions' lack of prgression.

It's a pity more of them wouldn't wonder about the boné Fidé's of the insurgents that are promoting all the mahem.
They aren't interested in law and order, it might mean normality, which might mean elections,which might mean....what might it mean....?
Ah yes, winning a popular vote.
Not very likely if you are blowing up children.

Not very likely if you are blowing up children.

Which applies to just abt every group in Iraq, - AQ, the coalition, insurgents etc. Its sad, but after a year of occupation, I really haven't seen much change from when the Coalition first went in there.

dathi1

The other side of the coin is revealing itself, where Iraqi insurgents are showing they couldn't care less about their own people and like to maim and murder their own people including Children with impunity.

You mean Al Quida.....The National Arab Socialist regime that your freinds removed used to throw these people from the tops of buildings. Al Quida murders women and children everywhere but the yanks are beating their quota in Iraq every day. Freedom loving people...Stay the Course...Killers....Kill the Evil Doers...Kill anything that moves.

RicardoSmith

For some reason armchair generals forget that the innocent always get killed and injured in any form of warfare. Whats the body count on both sides now?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Earthman
That definition is fine when all they are doing is attacking U.S forces etc, but it doesn't hold very well when they are carelessly killing children, they are terrorists in my book.

Thats from the BBC above.
The IRA might have described themselves as insurgents too, but many episodes eg Enniskillen gave them a more accurate title-terrorists.
But at least the IRA have shown they can be open to reason.
These Insurgents/terrorists seem to have geared up their fight when it looked like elections were getting closer.
That kind of firmly places them more in the terrorist grouping in my opinion with suspect motives.

Well the American forces in Iraq are referring to them as insurgents so I'd rather use their book than yours.

Sand

Its a horrific crime with an utter contempt for civillian life but is anyone surprised? Im not - the forces fighting against the coalition are terrorists and thugs who represent only themselves. The terrorists/insurgents are as quick to target their "fellow" Iraqis as they are the coalition forces, western civillians and the Iraqis police force.

Even those who claim their terrorism is somehow representitive of the Iraqis as a whole cant be serious. Theyre simply grasping at straws to try and find something to support their views on the coalition, and if they seriously examine the insrugents and their goals theyll agree, if only to themselves, that its ludicrous to think there is such a thing as an Iraqi resistance.

There might be Sunni terrorists, there might be Shia militias, the Kurds have practically their own army and state. Are Sunni terrorists, terrified of being in a Shia dominated state ( much as Unionists were in pre-Free State Ireland ) representitive of Shias. Are Shia Islamic extremists who want to set up a theocracy representitive of the Kurds?

arcadegame2004

Of course the bombers are terrorists. They intentionally targeted buses full of children going to kindergarten and playschool. The most defenceless of potential victims. They are truly sick. And they did it to their own people, not the Americans. There was nothing "patriotic" in this. There is plenty barbaric in it though.

Some here seem to be equating the Baathist regime and the bombers with the Americans. I strongly disagree with this, in the sense that the Baathists deliberately killed innocents, as the discovery of at least 300,000 (I kid you not) bodies in mass-graves the length and breadth of Iraq testify. However many the Americans have killed, it definitely does not compare to that figure. 600,000 alone were killed by Saddam as retaliation against the Shia rebellion in 1992. And I doubt that the Americans were deliberately targeting innocent civilians.

Even so, I cannot absolve the Americans from all blame for the problems currently engulfing Iraq. Their soldiers are far too triggerhappy. Responding to slingshot attacks with helicopter-gunship rockets (according to one claim made by an American soldier in Iraq) is clearly the height of overreaction. They need to emulate the tactics of the British in Basra, where negotiation and dialogue has helped keep the situation there quiet, at least in terms of preventing rebellion by the Shia population in that area. I am also strongly critical of the Americans' exit-strategy from Iraq. They plan to hand over a peculiar version of "sovereignty" to Iraq in June. I say so-called, because it will be a puppet-government, hand-picked by Paul Bremer, Americas Viceroy in Iraq. It is unelected, and can claim no mandate from the Iraqi people. Furthermore, the Americans will retain much control over certain aspects of the Government, including over security. Then elections will have to wait another year. I firmly believe that this cannot enjoy the support that handing over full control to an elected government could have. The Americans should have moved quickly towards elections after the invasion, with the compilation of a register of electors. Instead they long-fingered this in favour of the interests of Halliburton (Dick Cheney's former company) and other American oil-companies (especially regarding the privatisation of the Iraqi oil-industry - which, while possibly a good idea, is too important not to be left to an elected Iraqi government). This plays into the hands of conspiracy-theorists who believe that America simply invaded Iraq to poach its natural-resources. I personally believe that Iraq was already successfully disarmed by the UN, and that the real imperative for this war was Bush's desire to finish "the job that his father started". On balance the removal of a dictatorship has to be a good thing, and I actually supported the war. But I have been greatly disappointed since both by the failure to uncover the nonexistant WMD, and at the cynicism of the US in longfingering the promised democracy in favour of the oil-interests of Cheney and Bush's cronies in Texas. Hopefully Blair will be urging caution to the American administration in terms of urging them to follow the UK's Basra approach in the rest of Iraq, but with such a self-righteous and downright arrogant American Government in charge I am not very confident this advice will get the attention it merits.

RicardoSmith

Good balanced psot there arcadegame2004. However I think people use the term terrorists too easily these days. Look at our own countries history. You can't drive past castles and bullet pocketed buildings in Dublin, and not reflect on that.

arcadegame2004

Ricardo I think you can't really compare the 1916 rebels with the Basra bombers. Remember the Republican heroes of 1916 and 1919-1921 did not target civilians.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Ricardo I think you can't really compare the 1916 rebels with the Basra bombers. Remember the Republican heroes of 1916 and 1919-1921 did not target civilians.

...but the non-heroic republicans did. Read Tom Barry's book.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Ricardo I think you can't really compare the 1916 rebels with the Basra bombers. Remember the Republican heroes of 1916 and 1919-1921 did not target civilians.

I'm just making the comment that we have been occupied a number of times in our history. Every time those that fought against the occuping forces are labelled terrorists. I'm not justifying the killing of innocent, but both sides do it. In everywar the innocent get killed. Usually unintentionally, but that doesn't change the fact, if it be a very inaccurate car bomb or mine, or a highly accurate smart bomb that does it.

Would you say the "insurgents" murdered the school children intentionally. In that they were the primary target?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
Its a horrific crime with an utter contempt for civillian life but is anyone surprised?

Yes indeed, wars of conquest tend to be nasty businesses with utter contempt for civilian life.

Im not - the forces fighting against the coalition are terrorists and thugs who represent only themselves.

Didn't you once preach here that "Being moral has never been dependant on being the majority." Rofl. :rolleyes: Bit of the old doublethink there. If you don't take what you say remotely seriously, why the bloody hell should anyone else?

The terrorists/insurgents are as quick to target their "fellow" Iraqis as they are the coalition forces, western civillians and the Iraqis police force.

You wouldn't accept that US troops are deliberately killing Iraqi civilians but seem 100% sure that insurgents are. If it's ok for US troops to kill 600 civilians while trying to get a high value target like Al Sadr, then surely from the other side's point of view, it's ok to kill a few kiddies while trying to bag a few evil invading troops and collaborating cops. Some people demanded this ridiculous war, so why should they start whining when people get killed by the wrong side in an improper fashion? Surely every single death is part of the price that's worth paying for a democratic westernised Iraq? Either accept the consequences or shut up.

Even those who claim their terrorism is somehow representitive of the Iraqis as a whole cant be serious. Theyre simply grasping at straws to try and find something to support their views on the coalition, and if they seriously examine the insrugents and their goals theyll agree, if only to themselves, that its ludicrous to think there is such a thing as an Iraqi resistance.

Is that another quote from your new hero Mr.Goebbels with a few words substituted? I think maybe you've been overdosing on your nazi propaganda there a bit sunshine.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Of course the bombers are terrorists. They intentionally targeted buses full of children going to kindergarten and playschool.

Who said anything about them intentionally targetting buses full of children?
What is your source for that information?
What is the proof that the bus was the intended target?
Or is that an assumption you're making in order to apply the term 'terrorist'?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Who said anything about them intentionally targetting buses full of children?
What is your source for that information?
What is the proof that the bus was the intended target?
Or is that an assumption you're making in order to apply the term 'terrorist'?

Well I'm sure the Omagh bombers didn't intentionally target the roughly 30 people they murdered there either:rolleyes:
The fact remains that leaving a car bomb in that location with total disregard for anyone passing and on a school bus route and with no warning qualifies fairly well to be described as an act of wanton wreckless terrorism.
One can add total hypocrisy into that too considering it was fellow Iraqi's/moslems that they Blew to bits arising out of their( the bombers ) thinking that their rights/opinions counted for more than some of their co-religionists.
I believe 20 children died.
It happens on the other side too of course, but at least you will usually get an expression of regret from the coalition ( which does not excuse their actions either by the way ) I wonder will there be an expression of regret from these bombers:rolleyes:
That said, there is as clear as day been an escalation of this type of stuff in the last few weeks and it's obvious that it's came about due to the soveireignity transfer and elections coming up.
They don't want them and it's as simple as that, otherwise they would have been blowing their fellow citizens to bits in Basra months ago.

Sand

but the non-heroic republicans did. Read Tom Barry's book.

Then they were terrorists. It doesnt matter if that makes us uncomftable with our history, or with the commemorating of them. If they deliberately targetted civillians then they were terrorists.

Arcade is right that the 1916 revolutionaries did not target civillians in general, afaik anyway - they can be viewed as guerillas/military whatever. The IRA of the War of Independance fought a much more bitter war - civillians were targetted, especially protestant landlords and supposed informers.

Every time those that fought against the occuping forces are labelled terrorists.

Thats true, and the the forces fighting an occupying force or government always label themselves as freedom fighters. Both sides are attempting to win a propaganda war.

Past that name calling, if terrorist or freedom fighter is to mean anything at all then you have to ask what defines a terrorist and to my mind, it is the deliberate, premeditated and intentional targeting of civillians. In wars accidents happen, soldiers can panick, shells can miss their targets or intelligence can be bad. Civillians can die from these mistakes and accidents. For terrorists these problems dont exist, as civillians are just as good a target as anything else. Perhaps even the best target for their purposes.

Would you say the "insurgents" murdered the school children intentionally. In that they were the primary target?

The method of attack was a suicide bomber apparently. That is the smartest bomb around, able to evade all manner of defences, get to the target and trigger to kill dozens. A bomb so smart that it could determine that the school bus would be in the blast range, and yet not intersted in waiting the 60 seconds it would take for civillian traffic to pass by before triggering. As such, those civillians were very much the target.

Who said anything about them intentionally targetting buses full of children?

See above - the suicide bomber triggered knowing the bus was going to be hit by the bomb - he didnt care. He could have waited 60 seconds. He didnt. Civillians are just as good a target as anything else for terrorists.

bonkey

Originally posted by Rock Climber
The fact remains that leaving a car bomb in that location with total disregard for anyone passing and on a school bus route and with no warning qualifies fairly well to be described as an act of wanton wreckless terrorism.

So you would also have to agree that dropping bombs, firing missiles, using cluster munitions etc. in civilian areas are also showing a total disregard for anyone innocent who may be in the area, and with no warning such actions must also be classified as wanton, reckless terrorism?

This is what I don't get. The US uses serious hardware on valid targets, innocents get killed, and thats regrettable but unerstandable and even acceptable because the innocent people weren't the targets, just unavoidable collateral damage, and hey - this is war, people die.

The rebels/insurgents/whatever-you-decide-to-call-them do likewise for their valid targets, with the technology available to them, innocents get killed, and thats nothing but reckless terrorism.

Oh the standards they are a doublin'

jc

Oh the standards they are a doublin'

Bonkey, for once i find myself agreeing with you.

Take Israeli attacks on Palestinian areas. Any attacks that result in civilian casualties are criticised here, and yet, US attacks that deal as much damage to civilians are brushed aside as accidents. Its one of those things i never really understand abt posters opinions....