Iraqi insurgents murder schoolchildren

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Earthman
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.

Hows that different from dropping bombs and cruise missiles in a heavily populated city?

Originally posted by Memnoch
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

Notwithstanding the personal insults pegged at me here( never a good sign )
I dealt with Ricardo Smiths post regarding the Bus.
Nobody knows what was in the bombers head, except I'd have to posit, that it was blind hatrid given his obvious disregard for his own people when expressing that hatrid through the bombing.
They would appear to have been acceptable collateral damage in his view.
If he was naive enough to be just the driver and not the bomb technician and didn't know what the bomb was capable of doing in that location then somebody did...
To assume otherwise would be naive

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Hows that different from dropping bombs and cruise missiles in a heavily populated city?

I never said it was any different.
I'm not here to defend American bombings.
But I do recognise Sands point to an extent that a suicide bomber should have more flexibility on who gets caught up in the bomb and as I said earlier that puts him on even shakier moral ground that the Americans in a case such as this.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Earthman
I never said it was any different.
I'm not here to defend American bombings.
But I do recognise Sands point to an extent that a suicide bomber should have more flexibility on who gets caught up in the bomb and as I said earlier that puts him on even shakier moral ground that the Americans in a case such as this.

nope its been pointed out that an American war plane pilot has a lot more flexibility on where hedrops the bomb, since he is a lot more level headed than someone who is about to commit suicide, not to mention trained and educated

Originally posted by Memnoch
nope its been pointed out that an American war plane pilot has a lot more flexibility on where hedrops the bomb, since he is a lot more level headed than someone who is about to commit suicide, not to mention trained and educated

Pointed out ?
What more flexibility can you have than if you are an arab driving your car past other arabs and then pressing the button?
At least wrong and all as it may be , a bomber at 30,000 feet cannot see who he is about to blow up.
He hasn't been eye ball to eye ball with them a few seconds earlier.

Sand

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.

Look at the GC - You cant target civillians, but the presence of civillians does not prevent military operations - which will in all probability lead to the loss of civillian lives. Thats a fine line but its fairly clear as well. If we were to look at it from the logical opposite of my point of view you would be guilty of terrorism if you launched an attack without *knowing* there was *no* civillians in the area. How do you know this? Youd have to search every single square centimeter of the target area personally - which would mean you would control the area which would mean thered be no point attacking in the first place.

Now I feel unhappy about the attack on Saddam at the resteraunt because I dont think it was moral because of the risk of civillian casualties, against the reward of killing Saddam who had lost already. But that risk accompanies all military actions. And there is no evidence that the Coalition knew there was any civillians there.

Thats no a coalition specific viewpoint like you claim it is - The police station could just as easily have contained as many civillians as any resteraunt but so long as the Insurgents did not *know* they were there then it cant be claimed they were targeting them. Again, Id consider it immoral for the same reasons as above. But it would be valid in terms of the GC.

My criticism of the insurgents as terrorists is because they knew there was civillians in that schoolbus and they blew it up anyway. Thats knowingly targeting civillians. Thats terrorism.




Earthman, help me out here - I left my glasses at home and I cant quite see the bus? Where is it? Im not embarrassed though, those things are so small youd miss them easy enough in broad daylight.

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
.....
My criticism of the insurgents as terrorists is because they knew there was civillians in that schoolbus and they blew it up anyway. Thats knowingly targeting civillians. Thats terrorism.....

So the biggest and most modern terrorists are the Americans as they do knowingly target civilian areas. Recent events in Felluja left 600 or maybe more dead and many wounded. You can see examples of their terrorist acts in last year's headlines. Going with your logic. don't forget Israel, they are a good sample of terrorists as targeting civilian areas knowingly is one their speciality too.

Sand

So the biggest and most modern terrorists are the Americans as they do knowingly target civilian areas.

Go read the 4th Geneva Convention.

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
Go read the 4th Geneva Convention.

That is for the Coalition to read not for me. They have already broken many of those rules. Going with your logic and Geneva Conventions why are they terrorists? They are fighting a war too, don't forget they are invaded not freed. So they are fighting for their freedom too, you can call them terrorists but they are not attacking to you or to me thousands of miles away unlike Al-Qaida or other groups, they are fighting on their homeland with invading force.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Earthman
Pointed out ?
What more flexibility can you have than if you are an arab driving your car past other arabs and then pressing the button?
At least wrong and all as it may be , a bomber at 30,000 feet cannot see who he is about to blow up.
He hasn't been eye ball to eye ball with them a few seconds earlier.

They can put a bomb through a specific window of a bus if they wanted to. They use laser guided bombs. I don't agree that the point about the bus has been proved. Saying the bomber saw it and knowlingly targeted it can't be proven. Saying a suicide bomber in a car is an accurate weapon, is laughable. It will likely end in a civil war now anyway.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
They can put a bomb through a specific window of a bus if they wanted to. They use laser guided bombs. I don't agree that the point about the bus has been proved. Saying the bomber saw it and knowlingly targeted it can't be proven. Saying a suicide bomber in a car is an accurate weapon, is laughable. It will likely end in a civil war now anyway.

Again re-read my posts, my contention is not that they deliberately targeted the bus, but that they didn't care that the bus or who-ever else was there in their sights, would be caught up in the blast.
Their desire to blow up the police station outweighed their desire to keep fellow arabs including children who were innocent of their intent alive.
Just as pathetic really as aiming a cruise missile into a residential area on the off chance Saddam might be having dinner there.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Insurgents did not *know* they were there then it cant be claimed they were targeting them.

And the building with teh kids creche that I mentioned repeatedly from the First Gulf War? YOu know - the one you kept not referring to in your responses?

Was that ok because there was some "pigs may fly" probability that the building would be deserted when it was attacked in the middle of the working day?

No problem there either? That wasn't terrorism, because it was a sorta-kinda military target being related to a ministry of the government and hey - they couldn't see inside the building so it *might* have been empty - so surely thats ok too, right?

Sand - I'm really amazed that you apparently can't even see the contortions you have to pull with your equating of what is and is not known, of what can and cannot be assumed with reasonable certainty, and of what does and does not constitute a valid military target.

You should really go back and have a look at how you used to define terrorism. Say, the definitions you used to offer prior to the current war. You should see how far youve changed your stance. Because, to be quite honest....until you can explain why your previous stance was either incorrect, incomplete or just plain wrong, and exactly what your new stance is....well...I just get the feeling that I'm shooting at moving goalposts here.

My criticism of the insurgents as terrorists is because they knew there was civillians in that schoolbus and they blew it up anyway. Thats knowingly targeting civillians. Thats terrorism.
[/b]

And here's more of it......

If you're 99.99999% sure that civilians are in the area of your chosen target, and probably - to about the same probability - will be killed as a result of yoru actions....well, thats just unfortunately a cost of war.

if you get that extra .00001% of surity that civilians are in the area of your chosen target, and have the same determination that some are 99.99999% likely to get killed (because death aint a certainty until after the event).....that is terrorism.

You know.....for someone who has reduced the distinction to such a ridiculously fine point as how sure you are about the civilian casualties determining what your target is, and thus determining whether your actions are terrorist in nature or not....I'm amazed that you still see terrorism as a great evil and the actions of the military as a necessary and sad fact of life.

And you know whats even more amazing???

The logical progression from your stance is that the more you try and find out about the civilian cost you are likely to incur from a given military action....the more likely you are to cause that military action to be redefined as terrorism.

IN other words, military operations would be better off not considering the human cost, lest their actions be transformed into terorrism by the new and improved the Sand Terrorst Definition 2004.

I mean..under Sand Definition 2003, Palestinians attacking border guards - even killing bystanders - was a legitimate act of resistance because it was a military target. Under Sand Terrorist Definition 2003, if the person doing the attacking can see that there are bystanders in range (assuming its a bomb), they are - once again - terrorists.

And whats even weirder....is that if a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up beside an Israeli tank, and a Palestinian civilian....Sands new definition makes this a terrorist act because a civilian was targetted and killed....despite no non-military Israeli people being targetted

jc

Redleslie

Dunno if it's been mentioned already and I'm sure someone like Sand will just ignore this point, (especially since I'm on his ignore list (/me raises hands in triumph) but according to reports, those 3 suicide bombs all went off roughly at 7:15 so it seems that there was an agreed time to detonate the bombs, which of course makes sense from a military point of view.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Earthman
Again re-read my posts, my contention is not that they deliberately targeted the bus, but that they didn't care that the bus or who-ever else was there in their sights, would be caught up in the blast.
Their desire to blow up the police station outweighed their desire to keep fellow arabs including children who were innocent of their intent alive.
Just as pathetic really as aiming a cruise missile into a residential area on the off chance Saddam might be having dinner there.

Well thats the point exactly. Both acts are likely to kill civilians. Both sides accept that risk.

Take the use of heavy machine guns in a city. Those rounds will travel through an entire building maybe two before they are spent, and for a mile or so if they don't hit anything.

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
Dunno if it's been mentioned already and I'm sure someone like Sand will just ignore this point, (especially since I'm on his ignore list (/me raises hands in triumph) but according to reports, those 3 suicide bombs all went off roughly at 7:15 so it seems that there was an agreed time to detonate the bombs, which of course makes sense from a military point of view.

Oh, that was pointed out. Sand kinda shifted from saying the minibus was the target to saying that because the terrorists knew civilians would get killed, and because they must have seen the minibus prior to setting off the bomb, then they must be considered to have targetted the children.

Apparently when you know details of your collateral damage prior to the attack, it is no longer collateral damage, but something you targetted, thus making the act terroristic.

As long as you retain some shred of uncertainty - no matter how small, apparently - the innocent dead remain classifiable as collateral damage.

Sand

That is for the Coalition to read not for me. They have already broken many of those rules.

No really, at least glance through the 4th Geneva Convention - it deals with how the miltiary should deal with civillians, especially when theyre the occupying power.

And the building with teh kids creche that I mentioned repeatedly from the First Gulf War? YOu know - the one you kept not referring to in your responses?

I did refer to it Bonkey.....

No problem there either? That wasn't terrorism, because it was a sorta-kinda military target being related to a ministry of the government and hey - they couldn't see inside the building so it *might* have been empty - so surely thats ok too, right?

Yeah, its perfectly valid under the GC. Targeting civillians is not okay, but the presence of civillians does not prevent military operations. There was a valid target which they were attacking and there was no certain knowledge that civillians would be there. Indeed it would be highly unlikely that in a time when war could break out any second that parents would leave their kids anywhere near a potential target.

You clearly disagree very much with my interpretation of how those reconcile so, for a change, how about venturing forth on how you feel these apparently ( to you anyway ) contradicatory rules of the GC reconcile?

Sand - I'm really amazed that you apparently can't even see the contortions you have to pull with your equating of what is and is not known, of what can and cannot be assumed with reasonable certainty, and of what does and does not constitute a valid military target.

I dont see how Im pulling contortions - I have no real problem with the police station being targeted, I have no real problem with the insurgents inadvertently killing civillians who happened to be in the police station at the time it was attacked - as you remember Ive no problems with suicide attacks against valid targets ( the Palestinians vs IDF you mentioned for eaxample ) even if they kill civillians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The problem I have is that targeting civillians is terrorism. I cannot believe they did not see the schoolbus. Its big enough and its broad day light. That they knowingly went ahead and blew up the bomb anyway is targeting civillians. A military is expected to take reasonable steps to avoid civillian casualties - this includes not knowingly and deliberately killing civillians. I fail to see how it can be argued the suicide bomber accidentially blew up the schoolbus? He must have seen it? That he failed to take the reasonable step of postphoning the attack means he did not meet the standards of a military operation - hes a terrorist in my eyes.

if you get that extra .00001% of surity that civilians are in the area of your chosen target, and have the same determination that some are 99.99999% likely to get killed (because death aint a certainty until after the event).....that is terrorism.

That would be the difference between knowing and guessing wouldnt it? And like I said unless you *know* there are civillians there, the possibility that civillians are there does not prevent military operations. On the other hand, once you know civillians are there then you cant target them. How would you propose to reconcile it Bonkey?

And whats even weirder....is that if a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up beside an Israeli tank, and a Palestinian civilian....Sands new definition makes this a terrorist act because a civilian was targetted and killed....despite no non-military Israeli people being targetted

If the bomber saw the civillian and went ahead anyway, yes - if not, no - the civillian would simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thats how I reconcile it.

Others would reconcile it that the suicide bomber is Palestinian, and thus is exempt from reproach for just about anything short of voting Bush. I find that a bit insulting towards Palestinians, and thus apply slightly higher standards but thats thats the difference between me and them.

Again, Im dying to hear how you reconcile it?

(especially since I'm on his ignore list (/me raises hands in triumph)

Nobody has ever made it on to my ignore list as far as I can remember, no one is there now anyway. I just dont respond to your posts usually because they ( and I stress your posts, not you personally of course ) are usually moronic drivel that are a sad indictment of the Irish education system.

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
No really, at least glance through the 4th Geneva Convention - it deals with how the miltiary should deal with civillians, especially when theyre the occupying power.
....

No Sand, you should glance through GC and compare with the latest headlines. There are a lot of Oooops and collateral damages despite their advances. But its ok for them to kill civilians because they are Occupying Powers!

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Redleslie
....I'm sure someone like Sand will just ignore this point,....but according to reports, those 3 suicide bombs all went off roughly at 7:15 ....

..and of course he did. Hes been ignoring most of mine.

Now hes says its ok to kill civilians if they are in the station and not if they are outside of it.

The coalition knew that Saddam would use civilians as human shields. But yet they bombed those targets anyway. Surely that is "knowingly and deliberately killing civillians.

Redleslie

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
..and of course he did. Hes been ignoring most of mine.

Now hes says its ok to kill civilians if they are in the station and not if they are outside of it.

The coalition knew that Saddam would use civilians as human shields. But yet they bombed those targets anyway. Surely that is "knowingly and deliberately killing civillians.

Dunno if cluster bombs have been mentioned either but I suppose Sand could have a go at claiming how they only target evil doers.

Originally posted by Redleslie
Dunno if it's been mentioned already and I'm sure someone like Sand will just ignore this point, (especially since I'm on his ignore list (/me raises hands in triumph) but according to reports, those 3 suicide bombs all went off roughly at 7:15 so it seems that there was an agreed time to detonate the bombs, which of course makes sense from a military point of view.

Just curious but...
An agreed time?
How exactly would that excuse the bomber on the ground from responsibility for those around him being caught up in the blast?

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Earthman
Just curious but...
An agreed time?
How exactly would that excuse the bomber on the ground from responsibility for those around him being caught up in the blast?

No ones disputing the responsibility or that it was a horrific attack.But the timing would dispute the claim that the minbus was targeted deliberately. No ones disputing that the bomber knew there could be civilians killed in the blast. The debate is really how does his action differ from the coalition bombing and fighting in populated urban centers knowing this will also cause civilian casualities even though they are not being targeted deliberately.

Sand says one is deliberate and the other accidental.

Spacedog

In the age of laser guided missiles, innocent people still get killed. if you don't want dead children, why not stop killing them? do the sums...