Iraqi insurgents murder schoolchildren

RicardoSmith

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!

Ummm did the coalition drive into Iraq in cars? I thought they bombed the cities with aircraft and cruise missiles then armed to the teeth they slaughtered the Iraq army and then occupied the cities by force.

WTF has it got to with cars? You get into a F16 loaded with bombs. You ain't going to be handing out food aid are you?

Originally posted by Sand
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.
[/B]

Whos primary target is civilians?

Originally posted by Sand
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?
[/B]

You'll have to wait. We're still waiting for the WMD that we were promised were definately there by the intelligence services (I use the term loosely) that were ready to fire in what under an hour.

Originally posted by Sand
So it wasnt convenient to not murder the civillians? Fair enough - good defence I must admit.
[/B]

That presupposes Civilian were the primary target. Which is the assumption you've been making all along. You've no proof of that either

Originally posted by Sand
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.[/B]

Did the coalition wait for the cities to be evacuated before dropping bombs on them?

Originally posted by Sand
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.
[/B]

Who's police force? The Coalitions? Now that wouldn't be a target would it!

Originally posted by Sand
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.
[/B]

How about theres no schoolbus (since there wasn't) theres a street full of cars and buses, and someones firing at them from one or more vehicles. Do they return fire or do they stand there getting their asses blown off waiting to ID which vehicles among a hundred is firing at them? Also take into account this is force that is known for targeting and blowing up its own troops & TV crews) despite them being marked as allied vehicles.

Originally posted by Sand
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.
[/B]

So reckon they had a timetable for the minibus (not a schoolbus) and were able to target it to within a couple of seconds in the middle of rush hour. Wow.

Originally posted by Sand
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.
[/B]

Jeez, Hes picking on the Gardai now. The've been putting their lives on the line to protect his sorry butt and thats the thanks they get!

We have been invaded and occupied in the past. We know what would happen. Its still happening in the North for petes sake.

So you reckon the "insurgents" should drive out into the desert and take the battle to the Coalition there. That would be your "plan". Of course that fine if you have the worlds largest and most advanced army on your side and the other side doesn't even have one tank left.

Originally posted by Sand
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?
[/B]

You mean if Saddam does something, then that does not give the coalition the right to do something back to him and Iraq? Then if any accidents happen then blame Saddam for them?

I don't get why they have a right to a military campaign. Politicial certainly?

Originally posted by Sand
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. [/B]

Theres grievences that go back centuries in that region. Just look a the lines on the Iraq map. Did you mean Iranian terrorists who murdered the Shah on a schoolbus? Of course the US supported the Shah, too!

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by 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.

Your forgetting that a highly intelligent and highly trained pilot in a F16 with Laser quided bombs isn't the worlds most accurate weapon. He can make mistakes. Which is fine.

A fanatic in a car (or walking if you like) sitting on a bomb that going blow himself up apparently is the most accurate weapon. Theres no possibility that he'll make an irrational decision or make a mistake.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
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?

Have you also missed the bit where no-one claimed responsibility - something which is unusual from the news reports I've been hearing of similar attacks.

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

About as good an excuse as when the US fired a cruise missile at what they thought might be an underground bunker that Saddam might be in, it wasn't convenient to not murder the civilians in the restaurant they knew in advance they would be hitting.

Given your defence above they clearly decided not to pause

No - they may have chosen not to pause.
They may have had reasons based on the situation which meant they could not pause and still carry out tehir mission and/or escape.
They may have never seen the kids - what if they were coming from opposite directions. THey may never even have had a line of sight with the van.

My "defence" - as you put it - is that we know so little about the details of the scene, let alone of the motives and intentions of the people involved that it is ridiculous to make a determination that this was an act of terrorism which deliberately killed children (premeditated, or opportunistic).

hence under their rules of engagement it can be assumed that civillians are valid targets.

Saddam Hussein, maybein a bunker, under a restaurant. The US decided civilians were 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.

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.

First gulf war - the US attacked a ministry building, knowing that there was a kids creche built in or next to said building. Their excuse - you cannot allow the use of a human shield of this nature to deter you from attacking a valid target. The target was considered valid as it was part of the targetted government's power infrastructure, and the innocent children who would be killed as a result of the attack were a cost which would have to be laid at Saddams feet because he put the building where it was, and put the creche there.

So do you think such office buildings should be built outside urban areas as well? That creches for the workers kids should be put a few miles away from the building? Police stations should be moved outside the urban areas as well?

If not, then either the US is equally wrong in attacking urban-located targets, or there is still a massive double-standard being applied here - that when the US do it, its the cost of war and the enemy's fault for putting whatever the target was in an "inappropriate" area, but when the US-friendly targets are hit, its the attackers fault for picking on a target located in an inappropriate area..

Its even worse - the US had advanced warning. They knew of the existence of this creche. There is still no proof - or even evidence - that there was a deliberate attempt to kill those kids in Iraq. No - just an insistance that it must be so.

And yet, the US' actions are excusable as the cost of war, while the Iraqi insurgents have perpetrated an undeniable act of terrorism?????

I still don't buy it.

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 do you believe the attack on the embassy in Iraq in the first gulf war was a war crime?

If not, then it can only be because you can think of some mitigating circumstance (like "no way to hit the building without hitting the creche, even though creches aren't open 24 hours a day"). If so, then consider that you do not know the details of how those kids died. YOu know they were on the road. You know the bombers were on the road. YOu know the kids were killed. Thats about it. Pretty much everything else - situation, awareness, decisions, traffic conditions, security awareness on both sides, and so on and so forth - you do not know.

You are the one deciding that given the lack of proper information, it is ok to decide that this is a war-crime and/or an act of terrorism. Normally, conclusions work the other way around - you find the information in order to reach a conclusion, and in the absence of fact, we acknowledge that conclusions which rely on the missing fact cannot be reached.

The police arent a miliatary force by most definitions -

Neither is a government building with a creche outside it.....but it was a valid target as well.

Theres no evidence that the coalition uses civillians as human shields

They blamed the Iraqis for putting the creche beside the building packed with civilians which they had decided was a valid target. They said they could not allow such a human shield to deter them.

Apply the same standards.

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.

So the US bears all the responsibility for the suffering and violence ensuing directly as a result of its invasion. They can't shift the blame and say that Saddam is the ultimate cause, or that he made them do it, or that if he hadn't been so terrible.....

OK. Fair enough. Interesting change of stance for you, but I'll accept that with no problems.

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.

So what you're saying is that if it doesn't wear a military uniform, or isn't a piece of military hardware, then its an act of terrorism.

There's an awful lot of US terrorism going on by those standards, Sand.

As for ultimate responsibility we can play a not so fun game with that

You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

I never took the stance that it is or is not correct to hold someone accountable - ultimately or otherwise.

I pointed out that the US actions - when distasteful - are constantly being excused as being necessary because of something that someone else did. The very same people also generally seem to insist that the terrorists must be held accountable for their actions.

I pointed out that there is a double-standard of accountability being applied here - that one side aren't to blame because the other side gave them no option...but the other side is wrong, because, well, we all have to shoulder the responsibility for our actions.

If you weren't rigidly applying each standard to one side only, I'd understand the point you're trying to make, but when A can always blame B but B must always be responsible for its actions, and when A cannot be guilty without a conviction, but B can be judged efven without proof....it reads more as a bias than anything else.

jc

Sand

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.

They are in principle and principles are what were dealing with here. Cars kill innocents and so do wars. If wars are immoral on that basis then so are cars and we should go back to walking everywhere. Probably be healthier too.

If we dont then were saying that we consider our cars more important than innocent peoples lives. What about the children, think about the children.

Who's police force? The Coalitions? Now that wouldn't be a target would it!

The provisional governments actually. I can *see* howd they might be a target for a force opposing the provisional government but I dont see that theyre a military force either.

How about theres no schoolbus (since there wasn't) theres a street full of cars and buses, and someones firing at them from one or more vehicles. Do they return fire or do they stand there getting their asses blown off waiting to ID which vehicles among a hundred is firing at them? Also take into account this is force that is known for targeting and blowing up its own troops & TV crews) despite them being marked as allied vehicles.

They take cover and ID the shooter and then return fire targetting that shooter. Now if they follow your policy of simply firing as heavily as they can at the buses and cars, reckoning theyre bound to hit the shooter eventually then theyre committing a war crime as theyre targeting civillians.

You mean if Saddam does something, then that does not give the coalition the right to do something back to him and Iraq? Then if any accidents happen then blame Saddam for them?

The coalition is responsible for its own actions. Invading Iraq to depose Saddam was just and right. The prescence of Saddam does not mean though that the Coalition can simply ignore its responsiblity for its own actions. If it does the wrong thing then it is its fault, not Saddams. If Saddam does the wrong thing then it is his fault, not the Coalitions.

There are wives out there who dread football games. Their husbands go out, get drunk, see their team lose to a hated rival and come home and beat their wives up to get their frustration out.

Whose to blame for that woman being beaten up? Her husband of Van Nistlerooy for scoring that controversial penalty? Van Nistlerooy by your logic.

About as good an excuse as when the US fired a cruise missile at what they thought might be an underground bunker that Saddam might be in, it wasn't convenient to not murder the civilians in the restaurant they knew in advance they would be hitting.

Ive quoted that case myself to give an example of what I see as wrong with the US rules of engagement. The only reason that would make me think that wasnt a war crime is that the coalition did not *know* absolutely 100% that there were civillians there, whereas the suicide bomber did.

They may have never seen the kids - what if they were coming from opposite directions. THey may never even have had a line of sight with the van.

But youve also argued that they were keeping an eye out for police and security as they approached the target...surely theyd have a pretty good idea of who and what exactly was in the area, even if only to discount it as a police or security presence? this is what Im talking about when i say a suicide bomber has the greatest human over ride of any wepon in modern use....The human is actually on the target when its triggered.

The US decided civilians were valid targets.

They knew there was a resteraunt there. They did not *know* that there was any civillians in it. It was certainly possible , but it was also possible there wasnt. Hence the civillians werent targetted. The Suicide bomber was *there*. I very much doubt he missed a school bus. He *knew* there was civillians there. He proceeded anyway, He targetted the civillians.

And yet, the US' actions are excusable as the cost of war, while the Iraqi insurgents have perpetrated an undeniable act of terrorism?????

See above for the difference of knowing theres a civillian building next door to the target, and knowing there are civillians there.

but it was a valid target as well

Politicians send people to die, they and their ministeries are just as valid a target as the poor bastard on the frontline in my eyes. If politicians were targetted more, and privates less then youd have a lot fewer wars I think.

So the US bears all the responsibility for the suffering and violence ensuing directly as a result of its invasion. They can't shift the blame and say that Saddam is the ultimate cause, or that he made them do it, or that if he hadn't been so terrible.....

*sigh*

If the coalition murder someone then they murdered that person and theyre guilty of it, not the terrorists.

If the terrorists murder someone then they murdered that person and theyre guilty of it, not the coalition.

Simple enough really.

There's an awful lot of US terrorism going on by those standards, Sand.

Actually, the GC is pretty generous in its terms of what constitutes a uniform to protect POWs who arent in a nice and neat uniform from being declared spies and shot. The coalition is well within the rights of the GC to execute as a spy anyone bearing arms out of uniform, so even if they were doing that it wouldnt be terrorism - bearing arms being the important distinction. Ive yet to hear of the coalition targetting non military targets?

If you weren't rigidly applying each standard to one side only, I'd understand the point you're trying to make, but when A can always blame B, but B must always be responsible for its actions....it reads more as a bias than anything else.

Im confused - reviewing my argument the only part i can think of that you might be referring to is where I argued that because the coalition is the lawful authority and is expected to provide law, order and security that they have to be in urban enivroment to do so. They have to be there independant of terrorist activity - if there was no terrorist activity they would still have an obligation to fufill. They have been *very heavily* criticised for not fufilling that obligation previously.

The terrorists have no such obligation. No one expects them to provide law, order or security. They have no obligation to fufill that means they have to launch attacks in the urban areas on civillians or coaliation forces. There are plenty of valid targets outside the civillian centers.....like oil pipelines for example.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The only reason that would make me think that wasnt a war crime is that the coalition did not *know* absolutely 100% that there were civillians there, whereas the suicide bomber did.

How, as a matter of interest, do you know that the US didn't know this for certain?

I'm just wondering...because I fail to understand how they could have had information which told them that Saddam was at this location with enough timing and accuracy to be able to target a missile, without being able to also find out if there were any civilians in the area.

But its enlightening to see that you're willing to make the assumption of what they knew and didn't know, and then turn that assumption into an argument for possibly excusing them. No double standards at all, then, when you make assumptions about the facts concerning the mini-bus and turn those assumptions into an arguemnt for condemning them. No indication that you're trying to fit the facts to a predetermined and desired conclusion at all there, rather than trying to come to an honest conclusion based on the facts.

But youve also argued that they were keeping an eye out for police and security as they approached the target

No, I've argued that they may have been doing this. I've argued that there are a myriad of things they should have been doing, a myriad of things they might have been doing, and a myriad of things that they may not have been able to do.....none of which we know.

I've argued that in the absence of all of this information, it is nothing but presumptious in the extreme to make any sort of final judgement.

And I am arguing that those who are rushing to make such a final judgement are typically those who will quite willingly also use the absence of information in making a judgement about the US' actions but do so to constantly excuse the US, or that they are typically those who will willing use the absence of information to conclude that it would be wrong to judge the US in the absence of all information.

I'm not arguing that this wasn't an act of terrorism. I'm arguing that there is no way we can make that determination, and that coming to a conclusion on such minimal evidence only shows bias when we do not apply the same standards in the same manner to both sides.

They knew there was a resteraunt there. They did not *know* that there was any civillians in it.

They should have known, given that they had the area under surveillance.

Hence the civillians werent targetted.

And the ministry building in Gulf War One that you have assiduously avoided so much as referencing?

The Suicide bomber was *there*. I very much doubt he missed a school bus.

I've lost track fo the number of times that people have had to correct you on this. It was not a bus. It was a mini-bus. The difference is about the same as between a "large truck" and a "van", which is not inconsiderable.

I'm trying to figure out if you are simply not reading those who have the impertinence to point out that you are repeatedly misrepresenting the situation, or if you are deliberately ignoring them because the facts don't carry as much emotive or logical weight.

He *knew* there was civillians there. He proceeded anyway, He targetted the civillians.

I just don't get you, Sand.

The US launch an attack - take your pick. Here, the target was what was attacked, and the civilians were not targetted, but simply unavoidable collateral casualties.

The Iraqi's attacked several police stations. Here, you say the target was the civililans on the road, and it was an act of terrorism because they knew people would be killed when they set the plan into action.

In neither case do you know the actual intentions, nor the full details, yet in one case you make the decision that the collateral damage - which would be clearly unavoidable because of the location of the target - was inexcusable, and indeed have decided that the collateral damage was part of the (unstated) target.

In the other situation, you say that the collateral damage was unaboidable and therefore must be excused as a necessity of war.

See above for the difference of knowing theres a civillian building next door to the target, and knowing there are civillians there.

That would be more along the lines of the Ministry building I referred to frequently then, which you consisntely ignored. Whats wrong - that it was a different Bush makes the point invalid relative to the nation or something?

Politicians send people to die, they and their ministeries are just as valid a target as the poor bastard on the frontline in my eyes.

So the police...being a part of the ministry of justice....are a valid target???? I thought a minute ago they weren't valid because they weren't military???

I guess I'll just wait with this one until you offer a clarification where you wiggle your words so that only some groups who support the government and help it run are valid targets, while other groups who support the government and help it run aren't......becayse lets face it...we both know in advance that this is what you're going to have to do on this one.

If politicians were targetted more, and privates less then youd have a lot fewer wars I think.

History would beg to differ.

If the coalition murder someone then they murdered that person and theyre guilty of it, not the terrorists.

If the terrorists murder someone then they murdered that person and theyre guilty of it, not the coalition.

Simple enough really.

Sure, except when one death gets classified as "unavoidable, ergo not murder" whilst the other gets classified as "deliberately killed, ergo murder", apparently based on who does the killing rather than how.

Actually, the GC is pretty generous in...

I wasn't referring to the GC. I was referring to your continued allegation that the attack on the police station was terrorist in nature because the target wasn't military (which is strangely at odds with your "or related to a ministry" as seen above).

But its nice to see that when the US attacks non-military targets, you have the conditions of the GC nicely lined up to offer the explanations of why its ok that you don't cede to the Iraqis.

Ive yet to hear of the coalition targetting non military targets?

Really? Those mosques that the AC-130s shot in the last two nights are military mosques now, are they? Populated by uniformed soldiers?

Of course not....but thats exactly my point.

When it comes to the US actions, there is room for wiggling in order to explain why what they've done isn't really against the rules. When its the Iraqi's, it has to be against the rules, even when such a conclusion involves making some groundless assumptions, misstating some key points repeatedly (its a mini-bus), and so on.

Im confused - reviewing my argument the only part i can think of that you might be referring to is

Its your whole argument, Sand. You are applying entirely different standards to both sides, and using almost-diametrically-opposed arguments to excuse/condemn each sides actions appropriately.

Even the rant subsequent to this last comment shows it.

All you refer to are the US, and the terrorists, despite the fact that the entire argument is over whether or not it is justifiable to call what happened terrorism, and the (unknown) group who carried it out as terrorists.

We don't know if the perpetrators have been responsible for anything else...and if you can excuse the bombing of a restaurant because the bombers couldn't be 100% sure whether or not it was populated, then how can you possibly not excvuse the perpetrators of this on the grounds that you cannot be 100% of your allegations, nor can you be 100% sure that they have carried out any other act?

But no...they are terrorists....and you are confused why I'm saying that there are double standards at play here??????

You don't even go with "alleged terrorists", despite being one of the people who generally objects to the US being declared guilty of actions it hasn't been convicted for.


jc

mr_angry

Originally posted by Sand
They knew there was a resteraunt there. They did not *know* that there was any civillians in it. It was certainly possible , but it was also possible there wasnt. Hence the civillians werent targetted. The Suicide bomber was *there*. I very much doubt he missed a school bus. He *knew* there was civillians there. He proceeded anyway, He targetted the civillians.

Is that really the crux of your argument Sand? I find it hard to believe that even you think that makes sense. If you really believe that to be the case, then I have just lost any shred of respect for any of your arguments ever, because you clearly don't consider "logic" to be the same thing as I do. That statement, frankly, I find to be laughable.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
They are in principle and principles are what were dealing with here. Cars kill innocents and so do wars. If wars are immoral on that basis then so are cars and we should go back to walking everywhere. Probably be healthier too.

And when someone - anyone - recklessly kills someone with their car we take away their license and imprison them. But when some people, most notably Americans, recklessly kill innocent people with military force it is apparently just fine with you.

Clearly, principles don't apply to the Good Guys.

What about the children, think about the children.

Is there a reason you keep saying this to me?

RicardoSmith

Three questions for sand.

1) Do you read your own posts?

2) What school bus?

3) Seriously you can't see the double standards you are applying?

shotamoose

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
I don't think anyone can be that naive.

no, he actually believes this stuff.

Sand

But its enlightening to see that you're willing to make the assumption of what they knew and didn't know, and then turn that assumption into an argument for possibly excusing them. No double standards at all, then, when you make assumptions about the facts concerning the mini-bus and turn those assumptions into an arguemnt for condemning them. No indication that you're trying to fit the facts to a predetermined and desired conclusion at all there, rather than trying to come to an honest conclusion based on the facts.

I dont know how good or complete the intel for that attack was, it could simply have been an informer telling them that Saddam was going to be at such and such a place at such and such a time and thats it. They lauched the invasion of Iraq with missle strikes on the basis of very similar information. That info doesnt include civillian presence which is only a guess.

My point about the human override of suicide bombers is that they are *there*. They can see their target because they are there, so they have detailed information on who exactly theyre going to hit. Unless theyre blind, which is entirely possible, I dont believe they could miss a school bus that was close enough to be wiped out in the exsplosion.

I think the Coalition were wrong to launch that attack on Saddam because it was a resteraunt and whilst they did not know there was civillians there, it was immoral and wrong to gamble on it. It was however in total accordance with the rules of war as defined by the GC.

If the insurgents had hit the police station, and unknown to them there were civillians inside it, which is highly likely as civillians would be reporting crimes or being arrested for them then it would be a similar situation. The insurgents would be in accordance with the rules of war, but it would still be immoral in my eyes. But what actually happened was that they *knew* there was civillians in the area and they blew them up deliberately. Thats terrorism, and the people who do it are terrorists. End of story to my mind.

I'm not arguing that this wasn't an act of terrorism. I'm arguing that there is no way we can make that determination, and that coming to a conclusion on such minimal evidence only shows bias when we do not apply the same standards in the same manner to both sides.

Ive got a bomb going off, Ive got insurgents who managed to navigate to the target so we can assume can see, weve got a schoolbus close enough that it is destroyed in the exsplosion, its morning time which is usually a time of good visibility, weve got insurgents who are probably keeping a lookout for security rather than asleep at the wheel. The one thing Ive not got is a single statement from the insurgents that indicates they view the deaths of the kids as a problem whatsoever.

Sure - Lets not rush to conclusions here, there could be a perfectly good explanation. But on the other hand lets not abandon common sense either.

In the other situation, you say that the collateral damage was unaboidable and therefore must be excused as a necessity of war.

Collateral damage doesnt give troops a liscence to kill civillians just cause its inconvenient not to. Soldiers are expected to make every reasonable attempt to limit civillian casualties. First and foremost dont try to kill them. I dont see how it can be argued that the insurgents took any action to limit civillian casualties? I dont see any sign that the insurgents view civillian casualties as a concern or an issue for them? Afterall, theyve got a whole host of people willing to blame the Coalition for the terrorists killing civillians.

So the police...being a part of the ministry of justice....are a valid target???? I thought a minute ago they weren't valid because they weren't military???

What I said was I could see how they were a valid target to those who oppose the government, much as the RIC was targetted by the IRA in Ireland, but I dont view them as a military force. If you think my issue with calling them terrorists is because they were trying to blow up a police station then youve not been reading my posts.

History would beg to differ.

How many nuclear wars have there been? India and Pakistan are perhaps the two most confrontational nuclear powers but even they dont want to spoil the game by killing off each others elites with nukes - better to let the privates do the dying.

Sure, except when one death gets classified as "unavoidable, ergo not murder" whilst the other gets classified as "deliberately killed, ergo murder", apparently based on who does the killing rather than how.

I agree , but im not the one arguing that the Insurgents are somehow not responsible for their own actions, or that the insurgents have no choice as theyd lose if they fought a non terrorist campaign. People arguing that point are the ones who are questioning who did it, rather than what was done.

Really? Those mosques that the AC-130s shot in the last two nights are military mosques now, are they? Populated by uniformed soldiers?

I dont know, were they? Were there militants in those mosques? Link?

The coalition has been respectful of mosques in general, to the point where in the initial invasion the US troops decided to bypass a mosque held by militants rather than attack it, in accordance with the wishes of the locals who understandably didnt want a battle to break out in their place of worship.

The problem is of course that sort of stuff doesnt happen. It never happened. no, that doesnt fit with the political line.

Its your whole argument, Sand. You are applying entirely different standards to both sides, and using almost-diametrically-opposed arguments to excuse/condemn each sides actions appropriately.

No, Im not. Looking at this case I ask is it terrorism? And I think it is based on whats known. Im not the one saying well, the Coalition is doing x, y, or z so its not really the insurgents fault. Im not the one saying that this is what happens in war, that there are no rules or that nothings fair in war so its not really that bad.

Is that really the crux of your argument Sand? I find it hard to believe that even you think that makes sense. If you really believe that to be the case, then I have just lost any shred of respect for any of your arguments ever, because you clearly don't consider "logic" to be the same thing as I do. That statement, frankly, I find to be laughable.

Oh no - someone on a message board who I dont know doesnt agree with me. I quite possibly may never recover from this emotional blow.

And when someone - anyone - recklessly kills someone with their car we take away their license and imprison them. But when some people, most notably Americans, recklessly kill innocent people with military force it is apparently just fine with you.

If you stay within the rules, and adhere to them then youll be okay as a driver or a soldier, even though you may still kill an innocent by accident. Its not okay for coalition forces, or indeed *any* force, even "freedom fighters" to target civillians. The coalition didnt break any rules here, the insurgents did. Is that so hard to accept?

And Ricardo, tbh, youre the one claiming that there are no rules in war and no standards of conduct. Ill grant you dont apply double standards, because you reject that there are standards in the first place.

RicardoSmith

I'm not saying their aren't rules. I'm saying the rules are (in general) dictated by the victor or whomever has superior force. They can dicate the terms of the battle. However if you are backed into a corner you will use what ever mean possible to fight back. If you are desperate enough.

You still refuse to accept that a mini bus (NOT A SCHOOL BUS) in busy traffic would be hard to see. The Coalition has managed to target its own troops even though they were in clearly marked vehicles. This has happened on the ground and in the air. It has happened in the urban battles that have happen recently. You can't see that if the worlds most advanced and experienced army can do that they its just as easy for some crazed fanatic to do the same thing.

You can't accept that both sides are prepared to accept collateral deaths amongst civilians. If its dropping a bomb from 5000ft or by stapping it to your body, only changes the delivery method not the outcome.

If the history of war teach you anything is that in the heat of battle the plan always goes to pieces and if someone is put in extreme situations they will react with extreme measures. Look at the Japanese in WWII, look at the russians in WWII look at the VC etc etc.

The coalition didn't remove Saddam the first time was mistake no1.
That they choose to invade a 2nd time with the world worst intelligence about the threat of WMD and of the general state of the Iraq armed forces was mistake no2.
Having invaded they didn't put a neutral force in charge and get the hell out as fast as possible is mistake no3. Now we're on mistake no.4 they are fighting in urban areas with Tanks and an army. They are loosing M1's to RPG fire. Thats just terrible tactics never mind the collateral damage and deaths it will cause and will lose them any good will that was left to them. To compound on that now we have these reports of mistreatment prisoners by Coalition forces. Even they aren't true, the PR battle is lost forever.

Basically sand you ignore the facts that don't fit with your one sided view, and completely distort the known facts to suit your arguement. No one disputing the fact blowing up children intentionally is horrific, or indeed that there are terrorists in Iraq. But the US line that everyone thats against them is a terrorist is not the full story. Theres a lot going on here than simply bad guy, good guy, good vs evil.

Was Sadam evil when he was at war with Iran, and he was being supported by the west? If he managed to win the war against Iran and invaded and occupied Iran would there be a coalition in Iraq now?

Memnoch

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Basically sand you ignore the facts that don't fit with your one sided view, and completely distort the known facts to suit your arguement.

which is why he is on my ignore list

Originally posted by RicardoSmith

Basically sand you ignore the facts that don't fit with your one sided view,

I disagree to be honest.
Having been around here, the past couple of years I enjoy reading the Bonkey Versus Sand exchanges.
You might take Sand as expressing a one sided view but from what I can see he debates as a counterbalance to other views.
Thats what debate is about and from my standing it is better to logically engage viewpoints rather than dismiss them out of hand as being one sided.
Some of Sands arguements may indeed be put possibly from a devils advocate position.
I think it would be unfair to the discussion to ask him whether or not, that is the case as it would spoil in my view the dynamic of the discussion.

Of course what I say there doesn't apply to any poster who openly declares their dislike of one side or another as their actual stated personal position.
In that case it's perfectly valid to say that they are one sided as they have openly admitted to being so.

and completely distort the known facts to suit your arguement.

I would have thought that the objective of the opposing side in a debate would be to show that as the case and to deconstruct in this case Sands argument to show that as the case.
Thats what I see Bonkey doing and Sand in a lot of cases comes back with an equally valid retort.
Thats the beauty of debate and is lost if one simply dismisses the style of debate rather than tackle the content of the arguments.

RicardoSmith

No one has a problem with debate or with an alternative view point. But Sand repeatedly ignores facts, (there was no school bus for example) and applies two different value judgements on the same situation. You can't have a rational debate with someone who is completely bias and unrational about the facts in front of them.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
But Sand repeatedly ignores facts, (there was no school bus for example) and applies two different value judgements on the same situation..

Well he may be calling it a school bus still when it was in fact a minibus full of school children,I fail to see the distinction my self unless the school children were hiding under the seats or something.
I know from my experience, school children are more likely to be jumping up and down on a bus throwing things at one another, they're certainly not usually un noticeable.
You also seem to have missed where Sand said

My point about the human override of suicide bombers is that they are *there*. They can see their target because they are there, so they have detailed information on who exactly theyre going to hit. Unless theyre blind, which is entirely possible, I dont believe they could miss a school bus that was close enough to be wiped out in the exsplosion.

So I don't see your point to be honest in the case of the school bus.
By the way, the kids here locally are brought to school in a mini bus, it is known by everybody as the school bus, nobody calls it the mini bus that may or may not be carrying children, it's always obvious who is on board.

RicardoSmith

Well imagine it was Dame street at rush hour when theres hundred of vehicles passing through every minute. The difference between a school bus which is marked and easily identifiable as a school bus, and one mini bus amongst a 20 others, considering that it would pass by the police station in about 20 sec is a big deal. By constantly referring to it as a school bus is putting a "spin" on the story and creating a scene where the bomber deliberately targets the "school bus".

The US has managed to bomb its own vehicles in the open desert and target them in urban areas even though those vehicles had allied markings as in a big coloured sheet draped over it. They also had TV screens in their aircraft and in there tanks where they can magnify the target and make a positive ID. So if the US can do its obviously even easier to miss a minibus amongst a whole load of other minibus'es in a busy street. If you've even been in some of these countries you'd know that rush hour is a 100 time louder and more confusing than it is Dame street.

So saying School Bus repeatedly instead of minibus, and ignoring the fact that its rush hour in a busy arab street makes all the difference.

Its like me saying US planes murder defenceless Iraq women and children in first aid shelter. When in fact they were in a military bunker that could be easily confused with a military installation and not marked as a first aid station.

Thats the difference.

Man breaks leg.
Man breaks chair leg.

Funny the tricks you can play with just changing the odd word.

Also using paintball as an example trying to hit some one less than 50 ft away whos running at 90 degs to you is very difficult. Hitting a moving target is hard. The odds of hitting the minibus with a window of 20 sec is very slim. Thats the reality of it. Which is why car bombs and suicide bombs are notoriously inaccurate and thus indiscriminate about their targets. Thats the reality. Its not hollywood where a you can shoot the hairs off a fly back from a mile away, or hit a moving car with a thrown bomb. If you do manage to do it, its blind luck.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith

Funny the tricks you can play with just changing the odd word.

I still don't see the point you are making though.
I mean, the school children are emphasised in the thread title but not the bus.
But the article linked on the first post by the thread starter from BBC news actually says:

Many of the dead and injured were children travelling in passing buses on their way to school.

Now with that in mind, I think it's perfectly valid point to emphasise as Sand did that the bomber was on the ground and could have been more selective in who was caught up in the incident if of course he wanted to be and apparently he didn't.
When you put it like that , this bomber morally would be on even shakier ground than a coalition bomber who, while wrongly targeting a building where there is more than likely to be "innocent" ( where I mean that as people un related to whomever or whatever that they were targeting ) victims as opposed to the suicide bomber being able to pick out in front of him who more precisely lives or dies.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
I still don't see the point you are making though.
I mean, the school children are emphasised in the thread title but not the bus.
But the article linked on the first post by the thread starter from BBC news actually says:

Now with that in mind, I think it's perfectly valid point to emphasise as Sand did that the bomber was on the ground and could have been more selective in who was caught up in the incident if of course he wanted to be and apparently he didn't.
When you put it like that , this bomber morally would be on even shakier ground than a coalition bomber who, while wrongly targeting a building where there is more than likely to be "innocent" ( where I mean that as people un related to whomever or whatever that they were targeting ) victims as opposed to the suicide bomber being able to pick out in front of him who more precisely lives or dies.

you are blind or stupid or both...

its been pointed out many many times in this thread and the others...

that the bomber had no way of knowing who was in those buses. He attacked a police station, I doubt he knew who would be caught in the blast radius..

his actions are no different from that of the american army...

in fact i'm sure the american army KNOWS the radius of their munitions and KNOW that there WILL definately be buildings near by blown up.

This guy is a fanatic who probably has no clue what the blast radius of his bomb is. He is probably pissing his pants contemplating his own death as he sacrifices his life.

Thats not the same as some pilot flying a jet, knowing that no harm is going to come to him, cooly dropping bombs as he pleases.

if you can't see the simple point that ricardo, bonkey and others have clarified so many times so clearly then you are blind or stupid or both...

or maybe just dismissing the obvious arguement because it doesn't suit your arguement..

this "I still don't see the point you are making " is typical of your arguements. He's made his point, most of us can see it. Its fairly simple

vorbis

that the bomber had no way of knowing who was in those buses. He attacked a police station, I doubt he knew who would be caught in the blast radius..

so a guy right next to the minibus had NO WAY of knowing what was in the bus. What about using his eyes? :rolleyes: I'd say its reasonable to assume he did see who was in it and decided that it wasn;t worth delaying exploding his bombs. Interesting use of the word sacrifice. What was he sacrificing his life to other than stupidity?

RicardoSmith

I give up. Its like Father Ted but not as funny.

"Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These (pointing to plastic cows on table) are very small; those (pointing out of the window) are far away..."

vorbis

relevance?? :rolleyes:

I'll remember this line of thinking for the next alleged coalition atrocity thread. How could the coalition be expected to see the people they're shooting within 15 feet of them? An outrageous demand!

RicardoSmith

So the minibus was within 15ft. What proof do you have of that? Or are you just making that up? Was there a footpath? How wide was it. Did the bomber drive the bomb to the door, did he walk up to it? What lane was the minibus in? How many lanes where there etc etc.

So in 20 sec the bomber is meant to be able to ID every person in every vehicle in the street that might possibly pass the Police station in the next 20-30sec. Unless you are claiming that the minibus was stationary outside the police station within 15ft of the bombers vehicle. If so what proof do you have of this?

Trying be accurate with a car bomb or suicide bomb is like trying to revove teeth with a hammer. Its just not going to end well.

You'd think the Coalition would know their own armoured vehicles. Its not like you can confuse a bradley AFV with a Hiace van is it? Or even a Russian tank, they look completely different. Distance is irrelevent if you are looking though a optical sight and using precision weapons. However anyone can make a mistake. Once bombs and guns are involved that mistake is usually permanent.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
so a guy right next to the minibus had NO WAY of knowing what was in the bus. What about using his eyes? :rolleyes: I'd say its reasonable to assume he did see who was in it and decided that it wasn;t worth delaying exploding his bombs. Interesting use of the word sacrifice. What was he sacrificing his life to other than stupidity?

so you know his exact position, where he was standing when he blew up that bus?

especially when his target was the police station?

how do you know he wasn't standing next to the police station?

stop making up rubbish to support non-existent arguements

vorbis

well RicardoSmith, making what I think is a reasonable assumption in that he caould probably see farther than the radius of the bombs he was carrying. Therefore its logical to say he'd be able to see most of what was in the blast radius. Also a minibus whilst not as big as a school bus is still a bit larger than a car and thus should be recognised by the bomber. tbh its frightening that you allow the bomber this much leeway with his targetting. I certainly would be worried if the Americans adopted the same approach.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
you are blind or stupid or both...

Ah now come on Ted....

No personal attacks please.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
My point about the human override of suicide bombers is that they are *there*. They can see their target because they are there, so they have detailed information on who exactly theyre going to hit. Unless theyre blind, which is entirely possible, I dont believe they could miss a school bus that was close enough to be wiped out in the exsplosion.

Again. Minibus. Not bus. Mini. Bus.

And why is this important? Because if you're driving in traffic, and are behind a reasonable-sized vehicle (bear with me here), and there's a reasonable-sized vehicle coming towards you (again, bear with me)....exactly how well can you identify the occupants of the second vehicle coming towards you? If it was a big vehicle like a bus...sure...you'd spot it from a good ways away, barring it being behind something equally massive....but a mini bus will be hard to identify (let alone the nature of its occupants) in the scenario I've suggested until it is pretty much right on top of you.

The point I'm making - which I was hinting at earlier when I mentioned how little we know about the acual situation - is that there is no reason at all to believe that it is reasonable to assume the bombers must have seen the kids.

You are also ignoring the fact that despite having a human guide, there is rather little known of the inner mindset of the successful suicide bomber in his final moments - for rather obvious reasons. So again, your insistence even of them "being there and able to decide to stop" is by no means on unassailable ground.

But ultimately, none of that is terribly significant. It only changes the nature of the complete disregard for human life. Whoever planned this bombing must have known that - in all reasonable probability - civilians would be killed. The disregard started there. What you seem to be arguing, Sand, is that some assumptive reasoning about what occurs moments before the explosion changes the nature of the attack. It doesn't show any more, or less, disregard for human life - it simply shows the willingness to accept or disregard the cost which was hithertofore merely a presumption.

Your new definition (at least from what I can see, its changed) of the distinction between terrorist and non-terrorist activity is that when attacking valid targets, the activity is terrorist if you know there will be civilian casualties, but non-terrorist if you just don't bother checking to be sure, despite logic telling you that the odds are pretty high that you will kill civilians.

Even when there's no customers, Sand, restaurants are generally staffed unless they're closed. It wouldn't have been that hard to check - or a decision was made not to bother checking because the risk to human life wasn't worth the potential cost (whatever that cost may have been). The less time from information to execution - even allowing for your "tip-off scenarion" over surveillance - the less surity in the information which could have been had, which only heightens the disregard for the potential cost.

But ultimately, what you seem to be saying is that one form of total disregard for the sanctity of human life makes an act terrorist in nature, whilst another form of total disregard for human life makes an act "simply" wrong but not terrorist???

I don't get it.

jc

Bonkey.
The last image here is one of the bus's

It has fairly large windows , certainly big enough for anyone on the ground to see who is inside

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
Bonkey.
The last image here is one of the bus's

It has fairly large windows , certainly big enough for anyone on the ground to see who is inside

yes certainly IF the person making the attack on the police station happened to be looking careful at every single vehicle on the road and concentrating on who was inside rather than at his intended target and people who might be trying to intercept or catch him out?

If the bus had been riddled with bullets, I would agree with you, seems intentionaly, hard to accidentaly shoot something.

but if he blows up another building and numerous vehicles in the area are caught in the explosion, this cannot be taken as evidence that ONE of teh vehicles was the intended target.

also if you look at all the pictures in the link you provided, one can see that it was a fairly large area that was caught in the explosion.

Originally posted by Memnoch
yes certainly IF the person making the attack on the police station happened to be looking careful at every single vehicle on the road and concentrating on who was inside rather than at his intended target and people who might be trying to intercept or catch him out?

But thats not my contention here at all.
My contention is that the bomber had a wreckless disregard for his fellow arabs and innocents around him.
He must have known that the area was busy and had the ability to be a little more carefull.
Unless it was like a scene from the movie The Truman show and the traffic and people suddenly appeared...
Blind hatrid comes to mind rather than carefull planning.

RicardoSmith

The point is really was the minibus the primary target, was it intentionally targeted. You either believe it was or it wasn't. I believe it just got caught in the blast. Theres no proof of anything else. The police station was obviously the primary target.

However anyone being killed is terrible, especially children. But I don't see how the coaltion accidentally killing children is difference from an insurgent killing accidentally killing children.

Fighting in an urban enviroment thats populated you are accepting there will be civilian casualities. Both sides are doing this.