Iraqi insurgents murder schoolchildren

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
the suicide bomber triggered knowing the bus was going to be hit by the bomb - he didnt care.

Any evidence to back that up? No. Thought not. You won't accept that according to people who were actually in Fallujah, US snipers might have been shooting at civilians, but you'll make up your own version of this event and actually have the gall to give us an amazing insight into what the suicide bomber was thinking at the time, because it suits your bizarre good vs evil view of reality. Like I said, you wanted this war, so don't start throwing the toys out of the pram when people get killed the wrong way. It's all worth it remember. And under Saddam, all the kiddies would have been raped/tortured/eaten etc etc anyway.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bonkey
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?
jc

Yes and no.
Yes it's wanton and wreckless, but no it is not terrorism, in my humble opinion.
There is at least some warning, some indication in most cases and at least some sanction when a country is doing the bombing, although I'll agree no sanction would work in the case of the States.
Theres beggar all sanction in the case of AlQueda or these "insurgents"
Democratic governments ordering a bombing (and I use the term loosely for Bush) can be kicked out of office, these insurgents cannot.
I fail to see the double standard in distinguishing between them.
If you re-read my last post you will see that I underlined the part where apoligies are no excuse in the case of the coalition, so I would have thought my opinion on their wrecklessness was clear enough)
To put it as simply as possible:
One is bad the other is worse.
I come to that view, considering that this "insurgent" activity especially in the south is rearing up now and not months ago,my suspicions being as pointed out earlier that they want to stop any progress towards democracy.

Sand

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?

Fighting battles in civillian areas is not a war crime, the 4th GC specifically states that the presence of protected persons does not mean an area cannot be fought in. It is a war crime to use civillians as human shields. It is a war crime to target civillians. How to reconcile all this? If you deliberately target civillians then youre a terrorist, if you dont then youre not - an accident may occur where civillians may die but that does not make you a terrorist. A premediated murder is not morally equivalent to an accidental death.

Oh the standards they are a doublin'

The only double standards I see applied are when civillians die due to a mistake or accident on the part of coalition forces and a hue and cry about war crimes rises up, and when civillians are murdered by terrorists suddenly I hear that terrorist attacks are the only means these poor people have available to them, how desperate they must be, how everyone would be a terrorist if they were in their shoes and so on and so forth - people have declared on this very board that they would be suicide bombers if they were palestinian.

So its a war crime if civillians die accidentially, but if a terrorist blows up a school bus deliberately then its just the way war is?

Yeah, I guess standards are doubling.

US attacks that deal as much damage to civilians are brushed aside as accidents.

The important distinction is that you approach a case without the preconception that Coalition troops *must* be committing war crimes, and thus its suspicious that a serviceman hasnt been convicted of war crimes. If the evidence suggests it was an accident and civillians werent the target then it was an accident and civillians werent the target. Ive yet to see any case where the evidence suggests Coalition troops deliberately and knowingly murdered civillians.

Its the difference between objectivty and subjectivty.

RicardoSmith

Theres no way of knowing did the bomber intentionally detonate the bomb or did it go accidentally. You would have thought he would have waited for a passing patrol to detonate his bomb. But its not unusual for home made bombs to go off accidentally when the bomber is handling the device or setting the timer etc.

I don't see how that is any different dropping a couple of 1000lb LGB's down a bomb shelter full of civilians and then going oops, sorry those things happen. (Actually if they weren't there in the first place it wouldn't have happened. )I'm sure theres people who think that was done deliberately too.

But hey lets all jump to conclusions 'cause we know all the facts.

halkar

Why does AQ gets blamed for everything these days:rolleyes: Same for Saudi bombings. I think they really made a big if not a huge thing out of AQ these days. If someone f@rts on the bus blame will be to AQ:D

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Fighting battles in civillian areas is not a war crime,

OK - lets remember that a bit further down here...

an accident may occur where civillians may die but that does not make you a terrorist. A premediated murder is not morally equivalent to an accidental death.

Lets also remember that....

The only double standards I see applied are when civillians die due to a mistake or accident on the part of coalition forces and a hue and cry about war crimes rises up, and when civillians are murdered by terrorists suddenly I hear that terrorist attacks are the only means these poor people have available to them, how desperate they must be, how everyone would be a terrorist if they were in their shoes and so on and so forth

Yes, I agree that these are double standards. But the only ones?

Well, lets just have a look here.

We have you, Sand, who has argued before that targetting valid military resources is not an act of terrorism. We have you, at the top of this post, saying that fighting in civilian areas is not explicitly a problem - after all the US do that too. We have you saying - here and elsewhere - that civilian deaths - when not the primary target - may be considered as inevitable casualties of war.

And yet, when some Iraqi insurgents attack a valid military resource located in/near a populated civilian area, with ensuing civilian casualties, you and others maintain that the people who caused it are terrorists, and that it is unacceptable because of the civilian deaths.

So its a war crime if civillians die accidentially, but if a terrorist blows up a school bus deliberately then its just the way war is?

So what you're saying is that the car-bomb aimed at a police station was deliberately targetting the civilians travelling on the same road, and not the police station that it blew up beside? Where, exactly, do you get this reliable information from?

Personally, I think that the insurgents acted irresponsibly - that they could use their existing technology to less effective military use, but with fewer civilian casualties.

Then again, I also maintain the same about the US military - that they choose to draw a line between effectiveness and care that isn't as close to the "care" side that their technology allows.

I criticise both sides equally for it - these attacks were wrong, but only to the same extent that many comparable US attacks are also wrong. [/i]Not enough care was taken for the civilians[/i]

The important distinction is that you approach a case without the preconception that Coalition troops *must* be committing war crimes, and thus its suspicious that a serviceman hasnt been convicted of war crimes.

One should also approach a case without the preconception that an attack at a police station was actually targetting the school-bus which happened to be on the road at the same time.

I generally don't assume that US attacks are deliberately targetting civilian casualties, or even that civilian deaths necessarily constitute a war-crime. I do assume - quite often - that the deaths could have been avoided or lessened, as I do in this case.

If the evidence suggests it was an accident and civillians werent the target then it was an accident and civillians werent the target.

And what suggests in his case that the civilians were the target? Why blow up the bomb outside a police-station, if what you were after was some civilian road-deaths?

Ive yet to see any case where the evidence suggests Coalition troops deliberately and knowingly murdered civillians.

They've done it plenty of times, where they have known that attacking valid military targets will result in civilian casualties, but refused to let a "human shield" deter them.

The coalition and their supporters are using police-stations in civilian-populated areas as "power-centres" - places from which they can apply their power to maintain or obtain control. They are now using the exact same "human shield" argument to proclaim how abhorrent the attacks on their resource was.

Its the difference between objectivty and subjectivty.

No - objectivity is when you apply your standards to both sides, not to the good guys instead of the bad guys.

jc

Sand

And yet, when some Iraqi insurgents attack a valid military resource located in/near a populated civilian area, with ensuing civilian casualties, you and others maintain that the people who caused it are terrorists, and that it is unacceptable because of the civilian deaths.

I thought I covered this ....

Fighting battles in civillian areas is not a war crime, the 4th GC specifically states that the presence of protected persons does not mean an area cannot be fought in. It is a war crime to use civillians as human shields. It is a war crime to target civillians. How to reconcile all this? If you deliberately target civillians then youre a terrorist, if you dont then youre not - an accident may occur where civillians may die but that does not make you a terrorist. A premediated murder is not morally equivalent to an accidental death.

The terrorists can target the police station. They can do so in a civillian area so long as they dont target civillians. It might be a stretch to describe cops as military forces but I can see how its arguable. It wasnt a car bomb that was used. If someone drove a car bomb up outside a police station and got out, walked away being reasonably sure that there was no civillians in the blast radius, but the bus then arrived just as it blew up then it would be a reckless act but he wouldnt have targeted the civillians.

But it wasnt a car bomb. It was a suicide bomber, a weapon system with the greatest amount of human oversight and override. When the suicide bomber triggered he could see everything around him - he knew that bus was there and he triggered it anyway. The civillians were targets as well.

He could have waited 60 seconds for the civillians to leave. The police station wasnt going to sprout legs and run off. He didnt. Its a war crime to knowingly target civillians. Thats what he did. Hes a terrorist.

Then again, I also maintain the same about the US military - that they choose to draw a line between effectiveness and care that isn't as close to the "care" side that their technology allows.

I agree that the coalition sometimes acts in a reckless manner, or a manner that indicates an absolute and often ill founded confidence in their technology, but Ive yet to see a case where theyve knowingly killed civillians. The terrorist in this case did.

I criticise both sides equally for it - these attacks were wrong, but only to the same extent that many comparable US attacks are also wrong.

From my perspective, that sounds like you making accidental deaths and murders morally equivalent.

One should also approach a case without the preconception that an attack at a police station was actually targetting the school-bus which happened to be on the road at the same time.

I didnt, but I cant quite understand how a person can miss a school bus - theyre fairly big and noisy. Its unlikely that on a morning, when visibility is at its best, that he wouldnt notice a bus.

When you eliminate that the the other option is that he was aware of the bus but considered civillians to be valid targets.

They've done it plenty of times, where they have known that attacking valid military targets will result in civilian casualties, but refused to let a "human shield" deter them.

When terrorists operate out of urban centers using civillians as cover for their attacks you face a choice - do you surrender urban centers and their populations to the mercy of terrorists who hapilly target civillians?

Or do you find and eliminate the terrorists, whilst not targeting the civillians? When you choose the second option youve got to accept there will be casualties amongst civillians - but as the 4th GC states conducting military operations in civillian areas is not a war crime ( the terrorists are probably guilty of using civillians as human shields if anything ) and if the coalition forces do not deliberately target civillians, as you agree they dont, then I dont see how you can say they deliberately and knowingly murdered civillians.

Theres not been a single case that Ive yet heard of where soldiers have executed civillians - many have died in crossfire or if heavy weapons missed, but no one fired a weapon knowing they would kill a civillian afaik.

No - objectivity is when you apply your standards to both sides, not to the good guys instead of the bad guys.

I thought I did?

RicardoSmith

Sand...

There no way of knowing that the bomb was deliberately triggered. It could have gone off accidentally. The fact that no Coalition troops were in the area makes this more likely, than he tried and succeed in targeting a moving vehicle with no value. Theres also the fact that a person sacrificed his life for this. Why would be pick a target that has no military, religious, or political value? It just doesn't make sense.

You assume that all weapons are clinical, surgical devices that the operator can aim with precision. Wereas in reality even with the most sophisticated weapons theres always the possibility that they'll go astray and kill civilians or at least not the intended target. Thats just the way it is.

If thats true for the Coalition then its true for the "terrorists" even more so in fact since the're technology is less accurate and they have little training.

Critising the "terrorists" for using urban centers is also a bit dim. War isn't about fighting fair. Thats war. Theres no rules. The Coalition knew they'd be fighting that kind of a battle when they entered Iraq. They also knew it would lead to civilian deaths. They made a decision to do it. So they did it knowing there would be civilian deaths.

I not making a value judgement, but everyone has blood on their hands.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
War "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties"

Terrorist "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism"

Terrorisim "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Rebel "To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sand

There no way of knowing that the bomb was deliberately triggered. It could have gone off accidentally.

Thats true, but unlikely given it was built, fitted and travelled all the way to this area without triggering accidentially.

Theres also the fact that a person sacrificed his life for this. Why would be pick a target that has no military, religious, or political value? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it does, to a terrorist. He blew up a police station and killed some school children - coalition troops rushing to help the survivors were stoned. It makes absolute sense to a terrorist to kill those children. It makes absolute sense to a terrorist to kill police officers trying to establish security. The more misery and chaos they can inflict on people, the more they can delegitimise the occupying powers, the more they can spark the Shias into retaliating against the Sunnis, the easier it is for the terrorists to sieze power.

Dont be so shocked that terrorists murder civillians or that they have a different mindset to us when it comes to acceptable conduct, it is afterall what defines them as terrorists.

You assume that all weapons are clinical, surgical devices that the operator can aim with precision.

No I dont - I absolutely do not assume all weapons are clinical, surgical devices that the operator can aim with precision. If that was true then there would be no accidental deaths.

But I do assume that a suicide bomber is a weapon with the greatest possible human override built in. It wasnt a thrown grenade and it wasnt a missile in flight with no chance to disarm it. The guy deliberately triggered it when he reached the target area and a split second later those kids were killed. I dont believe he could miss a school bus in the morning. I believe he could wait for 60 seconds for that bus to pass, but he didnt. They were valid targets under a terrorists reasoning. More shock value.

Critising the "terrorists" for using urban centers is also a bit dim. War isn't about fighting fair. Thats war. Theres no rules.

Wrong - there are the Geneva Conventions which are created specifically to regulate military conduct in warfare. Militaries are expected to abide by them and punish breaches of them by their forces.

If there were truly no rules then the Coalition could just naplam bomb Fallujah until everyone in it was dead - then it would be pacified. You wouldnt have a problem with that? Youd argue then that there was no rules in warfare?

I not making a value judgement, but everyone has blood on their hands.

You should make a value judgement, this is when we have to make a value judgements rather than retreat to empty phrases like the world isnt black and white, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and so on. Whats the point in having values if were not going to use them as a reference to decide that this is wrong, or this is right?

RicardoSmith

The primary target was the police station. The mini bus was in the general traffic outside. It wasn't specifically targeted, but sure they weren't too concerned with who else got caught in the blast. Maybe he didn't see the bus?

Yes there are rules/agreements about what weapons are lawful, but then the US only abides by the rules that it wants to. The use of land mines, for example. Which the US uses in Korea and is planning to use in Iraq. Some say the use of cluster bombs, bomblets should also be banned. Also the Coalition is in the cities too! So surely they shouldn't be allowed to fight there either?

Fighting in urban areas was always going to happen once the Coalition entered the cities. If they weren't in the cities the're wouldn't be fighting. So eveyone accepts that. As for fighting in the open well, what army in the world could face the US in open battle so you'd want to be off your rocker to suggest that.

I don't agree with lots of things on both sides in Iraq. But then I don't agree with things in loads of other places around the world, like in Africa where genocide is common place, but theres no oil. But if you enter into an urban conflict and the opposing forces are massively out gunned and they get pushed into a corner you have to expect things to get very dirty.

Not an urban enviroment obviously but, in Vietnam the VC wouldn't hesitate to kill their own. in order to achieve their aims and to fight and hide in the villages. Why would Iraq be different? Maybe its all those WMD they've hidden away somewhere.

Sand

Maybe he didn't see the bus?

In the morning with good visibility, miss a large, noisy school bus? Nah.

the US only abides by the rules that it wants to. The use of land mines, for example.

I dont think land mines are covered under the genva convention...could be wrong. AFAIk the US isnt signed up to any anti-landmine pacts. You cant blame them for not adhering to a treaty they havent signed up to.

Also the Coalition is in the cities too! So surely they shouldn't be allowed to fight there either?

Theyre the occupying force - its their responsibility to provide security and enforce law and order. Also its not a war crime to fight in a city, but it is a war crime to use civillians as human shields as it leads to civillian casualties. I think even the greatest apologist for the terrorists would admit theyre using the civillians there as cover to strike at the coalition from.

As for fighting in the open well, what army in the world could face the US in open battle so you'd want to be off your rocker to suggest that.

An inabilty to wage war successfully in accordance with the GC doesnt give you the right to break the GC.

Africa where genocide is common place, but theres no oil.

The "oil explain everything" thesis doesnt explain why oil rich Sudan is enduring genocide of tribes of Africans by government backed Arab militias and yet the oil hungry military dictatorships of the world havent invaded.

But if you enter into an urban conflict and the opposing forces are massively out gunned and they get pushed into a corner you have to expect things to get very dirty.

Still doesnt absolve them of their responsibility for their own actions. You wouldnt be saying the same if some US platoon got stressed out from all the attacks and wasted some Iraqi civillians for revenge. You probably wouldnt be saying the same if a coalition shell missed its target and hit a mosque or something.

RicardoSmith

Its like you've got a gun and the other guys got a rock. You dictate the rules because you got a gun. You ask him to wear bright colours and stand out in the open. But he doesn't like those odds, and dresses up in disguise and hits you with the rock when you aren't looking. You say not fair, he says not fair. To me both sides are unfair.

Was it not a minibus in the middle of rush hour? Seems easy to miss to me, especially in a hot dusty city where you are trying not be detected and are intent on reaching your target. You might aswell say he waited for a school bus to come along. But in fact its all just fiction. Theres no way to know what his intentions were, just what the outcome was.

Ah so rules don't apply if you don't sign up for them. Somehow I doubt the Suicide bombers of the world sign these kinda pacts. But like I said, ignore the "rules" that don't suit yah. Very one sided.

The reason the coalition force got stoned afterwards was because the local population felt the coalition wasn't doing much of a job protecting them. Yes the insturgents were using the civilian polulation as cover. No its not fair. But then they see this as war and war isn't fair. No one fights a war in a way that best suits the opposing force. Yes thats no fair, but like I said they see it as war.

Oil hungry military dictatorships of the world havent invaded....yet.

Actually your saying its ok its a genuine mistake, I'm saying its never ok if by accident or not. As soon as you decide to use force, civilian casualties always happen. Thats the nature of modern warfare. The way to minimise that is not to take the battle to the urban centers, which the coalition have done.

vorbis

RicardoSmith an occupying army kinda does need to be in the urban areas. Still like Sand I await with interest your comments on any future mistake by the Americans that leads to civilian casualties. By an extension of you logic, the US should napalm Falujah, after all if they're proving a pain to fight, then use what weapons you have to eliminate the problem.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by vorbis
RicardoSmith an occupying army kinda does need to be in the urban areas. Still like Sand I await with interest your comments on any future mistake by the Americans that leads to civilian casualties. By an extension of you logic, the US should napalm Falujah, after all if they're proving a pain to fight, then use what weapons you have to eliminate the problem.

Just like Churchill when he tried to gas the Kurds?

Fortunately internal US politics ties the US hands.

Basically my comment would be sh*t happens. But on both sides. My problem is with Sands viewpoint of when the Arabs do it, its intentional when the Coalition (actually usually just the US) its an accident. Thats when the suicide bomber is using low tech to do it on his own and the US is using a couple of million dollars worth of targeting gear to achive the same mistake.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
I dont believe he could miss a school bus in the morning. I believe he could wait for 60 seconds for that bus to pass, but he didnt.

Just a point of information, it was a mini-bus.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Basically my comment would be sh*t happens.

Doesn't mean it's acceptable.

RicardoSmith

Doesn't mean it's acceptable....whomever does it

Sand

Ah so rules don't apply if you don't sign up for them. Somehow I doubt the Suicide bombers of the world sign these kinda pacts. But like I said, ignore the "rules" that don't suit yah. Very one sided.

The GC defines the conduct of militaries - if you dont abide by them then youre not a military, youre a terrorist, which is my point regarding the deliberate targeting of civillians by the terrorists in Iraq.

The land mines treaty is just that, a treaty - adhered to by those who have signed up to it. It has no bearing on classification of military and terrorists forces. The UN peacekeepers in Cyprus patrol landmined borders between the Greeks and Cypriots dont they? Are the UN terrorists too?

My problem is with Sands viewpoint of when the Arabs do it, its intentional when the Coalition (actually usually just the US) its an accident.

Arabs? I think youll find there are plenty of Arabs in the Iraqi police force who oppose terrorism - dont confuse politics with race. When terrorists deliberatley and knowingly kill civillians, then theyre terrorists. Thats what defines them. Ive yet to see a case of coalition soldiers deliberately and knowingly kill civillians.

Sorry. I cant say theyve committed war crimes just because the terrorists theyre fighting have. Its certainly possible that coalition forces *may* have committed a war crime - but Ive seen no evidence of it. On the other hand theres plenty of evidence that the terrorists are targeting civillians, in this case and others.

Just like Churchill when he tried to gas the Kurds?

Im sorry, was there a note of distaste in that remark? Surely, as you say, **** happens in war, there are no rules after all. War isnt fair. Churchill reckoned those kurds were a problem - youre not going to make a value judgement on what he had planned?

Doesn't mean it's acceptable....whomever does it

Agreed, but its the terrorists who are doing it.

Memnoch

the problem with arguing with sand is that even if you present to him convincing evidence he will just deny it or dismiss it off hand...

more so he refuses to see basic commen sense pointed out to him
and refuses to see the obvious paradox in his arguements, so Sand is the first person to go on my ignore list... i just can't read his posts any more they enrage me too much with the obvious blindness, purposefull though it may be

RicardoSmith

Launching air and missile attacks against Iraq was going to kill Civilians. Invading Iraq was going to kill civilians. The coalition knowingly did those things yes? Your making a distinction on killing civilians by accident, vs killing them deliberately. But you don't invade a country by accident. You don't drop bombs on a city by accident.

Look at all the cities that have been bombed from the air, your definition would make all those airmen terrorists. The Blitz, Japan, Desden, Bagdad. They were attacks on civilian centers. Theres no such think as a 100% precision attack. In war mistakes happen. Yet the force that be make a deliberate decision to make an attack even though they KNOW there will be civilian deaths because of that decision.

Its part of the game plan. Make the civilian population believe that if they surrendered attacks on them (even if they are not directly targeted) will stop. At the end of a day when a 1000lb comes through your roof, if its there by accident or on purpose is not really going to make a lot of difference is it. The local population is not going to see it in that light are they?

What and whoms classification of terrorists are you referring to?

My point about churchill was that he was prepared to use the weapons that he had to hand. Just like "terrorists" do. I'm saying both are wrong. I'm not making a distinction.

I should have used an alternative term like insurgents or rebels not Arabs in my post. My point was not to distinguish the coalition from everyone else in the region. Of course there are Arabs in the coalition too so it was poor choice of word to use. But my point is still valid even if Sand tried to drag it OT, in that when one side makes a mistake its an accident, but when the other side does it its deliberate. That just not a balanced viewpoint.

So its the "Terrorists" alone who are killing civilians. The coalition hasn't killed any?

AmenToThat

Originally posted by Rock Climber
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.

Paul Bremmer has already stated that if he doesnt like who wins elections or he deems any laws (sharia) not to be what he considers to be right he has the poer of veto over and above any Iraqi authority.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
In the morning with good visibility, miss a large, noisy school bus? Nah.

Or maybe, given that they were in a moving vehicle themselves, they arrived at the police-station at teh same time, and had a choice of either explode on target, or ignore the target, continue on, do a u-ie somewhere, come back, hope the police hadn't noticed any of this as suspicious, check to make sure none of the other vehicles could be holding innocent civilians, see that they are, go around again, repeat ad infinitum.

There is still absolutely no reason to assume that the children were the target, other than a basic pre-determination that the "bad guys" are engaged in acts of terrorism, so it must have been an attack targetted at the victims, rather than an attack with innocent bystanders as victims.

And given that there were multiple attacks in multiple areas, [/i]at multiple ploice-stations[/i], it seems to take some seriously warped logic to conclude that - in actual fact - the police stations were not the target.

but it is a war crime to use civillians as human shields as it leads to civillian casualties. I think even the greatest apologist for the terrorists would admit theyre using the civillians there as cover to strike at the coalition from.

Just like few, if any, apologists for the US are likely to admit that placing police stations from where to base a "controlling force" from near to dense population points (such as a road where kids clearly travel on to go to school) is as effective a use of "human shields" as any similar use of the urban environment is by the insurgents.

But again, when the US kill insurgents in populated areas, with civilian losses, thats collateral damage. When the insurgents do it to teh US and/or the Iraqi police force assisting them....thats terrorism which was targetted at the innocents killed, and not at the target which was using an urban area in the knowledge that an attack on it would result in civilian deaths.

An inabilty to wage war successfully in accordance with the GC doesnt give you the right to break the GC.

So, using human shields is a war crime. Not being effective is not an excuse to commit war crimes. Explain again why the location of military/police within urbanised areas is ok, but why its wrong for the terrorists to effectively use human shields by hiding in an urban area again?

Still doesnt absolve them of their responsibility for their own actions.

Let me see if I understand this....

Its not the US' fault for invading, its the insurgents fault for not accepting that the US won.

Its not the US' fault for situating assets near civilians, except when the insurgents do likewise, they are to blame for the resultant deaths.

But - and here's the kicker - nothing absolves the terrorists from the responsibility of their own actions.

So that statement only applies for suitable definitions of "them", obviously.

Why Sand? Why, when the US can lay the blame for all its actions at the feet of the group who provoked them into acting, can the insurgents not do likewise? None of this would be happening if the US hadn't invaded, but I don't see you accepting that this means the US carries the ultimate responsibility for everything which has ensued.

I know you'll be all to happy to give them the credit if and when this all turns into a big win, but you seem quite willing to slide all the resonsibility for bad stuff onto other groups' shoulders....whilst still telling us that nothing absolves "them" from the responsibility of their actions.

jc

vorbis

bonkey, you have some justification for saying that the casualties were justified as it was a genuine target. However, I think the point being made is that a bomber could have waited the 10 or so seconds for a schoolbus to leave the area. they could still have hit their target. For instance if the US napalmed Falujah in order to kill the insurgents, then most people would agree that that would be a war crime. due to unneccessary force. The same surely applies here.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by vorbis
bonkey, you have some justification for saying that the casualties were justified as it was a genuine target. However, I think the point being made is that a bomber could have waited the 10 or so seconds for a schoolbus to leave the area. they could still have hit their target. For instance if the US napalmed Falujah in order to kill the insurgents, then most people would agree that that would be a war crime. due to unneccessary force. The same surely applies here.

I'm sure the decision making process is alot different standing beside a police station being a human bomb and being 10,000ft in the air above it.

mr_angry

Likewise, I would imagine that the thought process of a man/woman about to commit suicide in an act against the Americans is hardly rational. If you were about to perform such an act, would you really be on the lookout for possible collateral damage? I imagine this person was very much focused on their target, their own death, and not much else.

That does not excuse their actions in any way, but I find it hard to accept the assumption that this attack was deliberately targeted at the children in the school bus.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by mr_angry
....school bus.

A mini bus on a busy street in rush hour.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
However, I think the point being made is that a bomber could have waited the 10 or so seconds for a schoolbus to leave the area.

You could make that point, if you posit that

1) they both saw and correctly identified the mini-bus, whilst keeping an eye out for anyone actually trying to stop them and

2) made a judgement call that the delay was both feasible and possible. (After all, its not like there's any security around police-stations who might spot a vehicle acting suspiciously) and

3) made another judgement call about the effective range of the bomb they were about to set off to know when the minibus was out of range of the blast, allowing for all that was in between them and it, and

4) made at least one more judgement call that children's lives were more important than the civilians who would be in whatever vehicle took the place of the minibus.....

they could still have hit their target.

Probably, yes.

I have no qualms saying that this was a tragedy.

I have no problems saying that the insurgents are not exercising all possible care with their available weapons, which is leading to tragedies of this nature.

However, I also make the same allegation about the US - that when militarily convenient, they sacrifice absolute care in the name of expedience.

My problem is not with criticising the bombings. My problem is with people happily criticising teh bombings as an act of terrorism, whilst being all too willing to excuse US' "expedient neglect" as being necessary because to use all possible care just isn't practical in a war.

jc

Sand

Launching air and missile attacks against Iraq was going to kill Civilians. Invading Iraq was going to kill civilians. The coalition knowingly did those things yes? Your making a distinction on killing civilians by accident, vs killing them deliberately. But you don't invade a country by accident. You don't drop bombs on a city by accident.

People drive cars everyday. They do so knowing that every day people will get hit and killed by cars. Thus by your logic everytime you get into a car youre deciding to murder someone. Whether youre a bad driver or not. Whether you ran down that pedestrian and drove off cackling, or if the pedestrian ran out in front of you. You got in that car, knowing you could kill people - you filthy murderer!

My point about churchill was that he was prepared to use the weapons that he had to hand. Just like "terrorists" do. I'm saying both are wrong. I'm not making a distinction.

Yes, its very clear youre unable or unwilling to make a distinction of any kind, between those who target civillians and those who dont for example.

when one side makes a mistake its an accident, but when the other side does it its deliberate.

What reason do you have to believe that the terrorists view what happened as a mistake? Ive missed their apology/regret and promise to review their operational procedures?

they arrived at the police-station at teh same time, and had a choice of either explode on target, or ignore the target, continue on, do a u-ie somewhere, come back, hope the police hadn't noticed any of this as suspicious, check to make sure none of the other vehicles could be holding innocent civilians, see that they are, go around again, repeat ad infinitum.

So it wasnt convenient to not murder the civillians? Fair enough - good defence I must admit.

There is still absolutely no reason to assume that the children were the target,

Given your defence above they clearly decided not to pause - hence under their rules of engagement it can be assumed that civillians are valid targets. The civillians were targetted. Targeting civillians is terrorism. That they were targets of opportunity rather than premeditated in the strictest sense doesnt factor heavily for me.

Just like few, if any, apologists for the US are likely to admit that placing police stations from where to base a "controlling force" from near to dense population points (such as a road where kids clearly travel on to go to school) is as effective a use of "human shields" as any similar use of the urban environment is by the insurgents

They are a police force - they tend to be based in the areas where they enforce law and order. Theyre ideally part of the urban enviroment.

But again, when the US kill insurgents in populated areas, with civilian losses, thats collateral damage. When the insurgents do it to teh US and/or the Iraqi police force assisting them....thats terrorism which was targetted at the innocents killed, and not at the target which was using an urban area in the knowledge that an attack on it would result in civilian deaths.

Devils advocate: A coalition platoon sees some building in which there are insurgents that are firing on them. Between them and the building is a school bus, packed with children. The Coalition troops could maneuvere around the building, but they might take fire and they dont want to - its inconvenient. They decide instead to fire through the bus at the building with all the firepower they have....modern bullets shouldnt have too much problem turning the bus into swiss cheese. Someone hearing about this decries it as a war crime. Theyre targetting civillians.

You post that it wasnt? That they werent targetting the children? That the kids in that bus were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I dont think so.

So, using human shields is a war crime. Not being effective is not an excuse to commit war crimes. Explain again why the location of military/police within urbanised areas is ok, but why its wrong for the terrorists to effectively use human shields by hiding in an urban area again?

The police arent a miliatary force by most definitions - certainly I wouldnt expect the Gardai to put up much of a fight if were invaded tommorrow. Theres no evidence that the coalition uses civillians as human shields - if anything they have moved their bases out of the cities as violence has continued, taking a responsible attitude to the threat of civillian casualties from the attacks of the terrorists on them.

Why Sand? Why, when the US can lay the blame for all its actions at the feet of the group who provoked them into acting, can the insurgents not do likewise? None of this would be happening if the US hadn't invaded, but I don't see you accepting that this means the US carries the ultimate responsibility for everything which has ensued.

Youre responsible for your own actions Bonkey. If someone steals from you or kills a member of your family that does not give you the right to steal from someone else or kill someone else and then absolve yourself of guilt by claiming your actions are the fault of the person who you originally had a grievance with. If the Sunnis disagree with the idea of Shia dominated state then they have the right to wage a military campaign ..... but they do not have the right to carry out terrorist attacks. And they cannot claim that those terrorist attacks are the fault of anyone but themselves. No more than I can be responsible for your actions Bonkey, or vice versa. You might ban me, and I might consider that unfair - are you then responsible for my actions?

As for ultimate responsibility we can play a not so fun game with that... The coalition wouldnt have invaded if Saddam hadnt invaded Kuwait. Saddam wouldnt have invaded Kuwait if he didnt have western support. Saddam wouldnt have western support if the Iranians hadnt been seen as a threat. The Iranians wouldnt have been seen as a threat if the revolutionaries hadnt overthrown the shah. So clearly by your logic, if the coalition decide to liquidate civillians in a final solution the people up for war crimes trials will be the Iranian revolutionaries.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
People drive cars everyday. They do so knowing that every day people will get hit and killed by cars. Thus by your logic everytime you get into a car youre deciding to murder someone. Whether youre a bad driver or not. Whether you ran down that pedestrian and drove off cackling, or if the pedestrian ran out in front of you. You got in that car, knowing you could kill people - you filthy murderer!

Well there is that argument - 500,000 people a year die in road traffic accidents.

However there is a big difference in the two situations (a) with driving, the ojective is pretty much to get from a to b, but the is a small risk of killing or injuring someone, but you don't *know* you will kill someone (b) when bombing someone, your very objective is to kill them, if you don't the first time you will try again and again, you *know* someone is going to die.

Sand

However there is a big difference in the two situations (a) with driving, the ojective is pretty much to get from a to b, but the is a small risk of killing or injuring someone, but you don't *know* you will kill someone (b) when bombing someone, your very objective is to kill them, if you don't the first time you will try again and again, you *know* someone is going to die.

Actually I wouldnt see it *quite* like that....

In a car as you say youre trying to get from point a to b. Killing people is not an objective, but sometimes it happens. You are expected to make every reasonable effort to avoid it, or you can be convicted of dangerous driving and sent to jail.

In a war a military is not trying to kill civillians ( or theyd be terrorists ), theyre trying to kill military targets. Killing civillians is not an objective, but sometimes it happens. Military forces are expected to make every reasonable effort to avoid it, or they can be convicted of war crimes and be viewed as terrorists.

In both cases, your objective is valid. In both cases there is chance civillians will die. In both cases you dont *know* they will, but given the amount of cars on the road and military activity in a theatre then its practically certain they will. This doesnt mean that all people killed by cars are murdered, no more than it means all civillians killed in a war are murdered.

shotamoose

When you make a car journey, there's a tiny chance you'll kill an innocent person.

When you bomb an urban area, there's an incredibly high chance you'll kill an innocent person.

They're not the same.