News Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

[Hurkyl]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/14/iraq/main709052.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.main/

A suicide car bomber attacked after waiting for a crowd of children to gather around an American humvee.

The act was so heinous, that Al Qaeda preemptively denied any connection with the attack. (I can't seem to find the link where I read that, though... I could have sworn it was the CBS article)



In other news, in case anyone missed it, insurgents killed an Egyptian diplomat, and attacked diplomats from Barhain and Pakistan.

 

[Jelfish]

Yeah - I was really shocked when I first heard. To think, young children gathering with the joy of receiving candy from a foreigner that they've grown to trust are now dead or hardened by the sight of their slaughtered friends who were too eager to befriend an American. I can't even imagine what sort of media response there would be if something like this happened in the USA.

 

[Burnsys]

i am not at all justifing this, but this make me remember cases like the one that an american helicopter opened fire over a destroyed tank crowded with civilians, everyone in this forum came up with the "They shouldn't be there" excuses.. the same when Us acuses the insurgent of operating in civilians areas for the civilian casualtis under us fire, what where the american soldiers doing giving candys to the kids.. don't they know they are putting in risk the live of the childrens?

anyway, blame still on the suicide bombers, i just want all of you to be fair when us kill civilians and not to blame it on the insurgents...

 

[kcballer21]

I don't know how this ties into the thread; opposite extreme I guess. I thought it was a pretty amazing story. It makes you think: "Would I do that?"
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php

 

[russ_watters]

Burnsys, the situations are not the same and your request is not a fair one. In the case you are talking about, the civilans (caveat: it is unclear how many were actually civilians and how many were insurgents/terrorists - they were looting a military vehicle for supplies) entered an in-progress battle. In this one, the bomber specifically targeted the civilians. Your attempt to use this act to attack the US's actions is as sickening as the act itself. And be careful trying to split that "I am not at all justifying this" hair. Moral people do not split hairs over the murder of children.

 

[Gokul43201]

But might it be that the troops are getting complacent or careless ?

I recently heard about a dozen (or so) bricklayers that were detained for interrogation in a police van. They were left there for several hours with no ventilation, and all but 3(?) of them died of suffocation. Is it time for replacements perhaps ?

 

[russ_watters]

But might it be that the troops are getting complacent or careless ?

I recently heard about a dozen (or so) bricklayers that were detained for interrogation in a police van. They were left there for several hours with no ventilation, and all but 3(?) of them died of suffocation. Is it time for replacements perhaps ?

Well, the situation you describe (I hadn't heard of it) is certainly one of carelessness, but in the case of handing out candy to children, that's part of their job. The terrorists exploited a catch-22: in order to gain the trust of civilians, the military must be nice to them - but that makes both the soldiers and civilians targets for terrorists who place no value on the lives of children.

 

[GENIERE]

But might it be that the troops are getting complacent or careless ?

I recently heard about a dozen (or so) bricklayers that were detained for interrogation in a police van. They were left there for several hours with no ventilation, and all but 3(?) of them died of suffocation. Is it time for replacements perhaps ?

Not troops but Iraqi police detaining suspected terrorists. I’d not be concerned about replacing the terrorists, there’s ample supply, at least in the near term.


…

 

[Hurkyl]

I do try to be fair when I lay blame.

For example, consider this situation:

Coalition forces killed civilians while engaging insurgents.

I can imagine four major possibilities that modify the situation:

(1) Did coalition troops engage insurgents in a public area because that's where they found insurgents? Or, did coalition troops seek a public area where they could engage insurgents?

(2) Did insurgents organize in a public area because that was a reasonable place to organize? Or, did insurgents organize in a public area for the human shields?

Whether I laid blame on coalition troops, insurgent troops, neither, or both would depend on the answers to these questions.



For another example, consider roadside bomb attacks on coalition convoys. Civilians often die in these. Again, I have two main questions:

(1) Did the convoy pass through a public area because that's how to get where they're going, or did the convoy pass through a public area for the human shields?

(2) Did the insurgents place the bomb in a public area because that's where they can attack it, or because they want people to see what they're doing?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Not troops but Iraqi police detaining suspected terrorists. I’d not be concerned about replacing the terrorists, there’s ample supply, at least in the near term.


…

Interesting.

The use of the words 'suspected terrorists'.

Are you trying to mitigate the result by casting doubt?

I am worried that in your world, suspicion seems to carry the death penalty.

It was similar statements that startled me about Abu Ghraib. People said, 'Well, they behead their prisoners.'

Then they released 4,000 without charge.

 

[The Smoking Man]

(2) Did the insurgents place the bomb in a public area because that's where the convoy was going, or because they want people to see what they're doing?

Or because the 'non-public' areas frequented by troops are fortified so well that they can't get to them so they attack where they can?

 

[Hurkyl]

Or because the 'non-public' areas frequented by troops are fortified so well that they can't get to them so they attack where they can?

Thanks, I had forgotten that's what I had wanted there. I've corrected my post.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well, the situation you describe (I hadn't heard of it) is certainly one of carelessness, but in the case of handing out candy to children, that's part of their job. The terrorists exploited a catch-22: in order to gain the trust of civilians, the military must be nice to them - but that makes both the soldiers and civilians targets for terrorists who place no value on the lives of children.

It's true.

As soon as you say that anything is their job it automatically becomes the terrorists job to disrupt it.

How many parents just said to their children, "Don't hang around with the soldiers or you might get blown up"?

As much as we see the kindness of giving candy to kids (hopefully they have toothpaste too) as a way of 'winning hearst and minds', the terrorists/resistance fighters see it as a way of teaching non-collaberation to the young.

There is a form of f-ed up logic in what they do.

So what is the solution?

I'd say ... stop giving the kids candy.

To the first person who says 'then the terrorists have won', I say, 'let them win this one. Don't try and win points over the lives of children.'

 

[GENIERE]

Interesting.

The use of the words 'suspected terrorists'.

Are you trying to mitigate the result by casting doubt? :

Argue with the media, not me.

I am worried that in your world, suspicion seems to carry the death penalty. :

My world would be free and peaceful, and one wherein convoluted logic would be a rarity.

It was similar statements that startled me about Abu Ghraib. People said, 'Well, they behead their prisoners….

I’m sure you are often startled as a result of real and imagined events.


...

 

[Hurkyl]

As soon as you say that anything is their job it automatically becomes the terrorists job to disrupt it.

Just to make sure I have it straight...

Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Just to make sure I have it straight...

Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?

Well, let's see.

I did call them terrorists.

I called their logic 'f-ed up'.

What would YOU say?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Argue with the media, not me.

I would if you had seen fit to post a quote but you expressed these thoughts in your own words.

My world would be free and peaceful, and one wherein convoluted logic would be a rarity.

Then how can you use the words 'suspected terrorists' and then, without even breaking stride state "I’d not be concerned about replacing the terrorists, there’s ample supply, at least in the near term."? THAT kind of logic seems to take a major leap.

I’m sure you are often startled as a result of real and imagined events...

And what would THOSE be?

 

[Les Sleeth]

For the most part, all the quibbling over how we could have been smarter about avoiding this situation seems superficial to me. Yes, we have a lot to learn about how to lookout for evil, but if we start doubting the value of loving children then the terrorists have won.

Think about the terrorist strategy. "I'll kill the children (or whomever) if you don't submit the the TRUTh, which is represented by us."

Okay, logic time.

WITHOUT power, you guys are willling to kill, oppress, force, ignore all individual expression contrary to your beliefs, etc. . . Now that you've killed my kids, of course I am totally enthusiastic about giving you even MORE power!

Morons with guns, the worse possible terror.

 

[Hurkyl]

What would YOU say?

I'll take your response as a no, then. If I thought it was clearly no, I wouldn't've asked, and certainly not the way I asked. (I can elaborate if you want, but I don't imagine it matters)

 

[edward]

All I can say is: "welcome to rummy world". We opened this can of disaster and now we can't close it.

 

[Pengwuino]

All I can say is: "welcome to rummy world". We opened this can of disaster and now we can't close it.

Yes, freeing a nation from a murderous dictator sure was a disaster. I suppose nothing that can fit into a MTV-centered world is worth pursuing.

 

[Townsend]

I suppose nothing that can fit into a MTV-centered world is worth pursuing.

nice

 

[Pengwuino]

Is/did this get much news attention? This is disgusting and should be enough to convince people exactly what our troops are doing over there. I also find it interesting that something like this happens and people come out of the woodwork saying "well... the US is hypocritical, they do worse probably" or something of the sorts.

 

[edward]

Yes, freeing a nation from a murderous dictator sure was a disaster.

A single bullet could have gotten rid of Saddam, if that had been our goal.

 

[Pengwuino]

A single bullet could have gotten rid of Saddam, if that had been our goal.

Aren't a student of history or... anything else are you?

 

[russ_watters]

As soon as you say that anything is their job it automatically becomes the terrorists job to disrupt it.

Terrorists, by definition are illegal combatants. Saying something is "their job" is not a justification of what they did any more than saying its the job of a thief to steal things. It's still immoral. It's still wrong.

There is a form of f-ed up logic in what they do.

So what? You seem to put the emphasis on "logic" - I put the emphasis on "f-ed up". But it is nice that you are clear about where you stand on the issue: Killing children is ok as long as you can figure out an f-ed up way to blame it on someone else.

 

[PerennialII]

There isn't a question about everyone here feeling it's "f-ed up" or immoral ... arguing against each other and over-simplifying the issue doesn't really help ones understanding about anything around the event ... just a trivial way to get this sorted. Or is this one of those threads ...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Terrorists, by definition are illegal combatants. Saying something is "their job" is not a justification of what they did any more than saying its the job of a thief to steal things. It's still immoral. It's still wrong. So what? You seem to put the emphasis on "logic" - I put the emphasis on "f-ed up". But it is nice that you are clear about where you stand on the issue: Killing children is ok as long as you can figure out an f-ed up way to blame it on someone else.

Russ, because the USA declares somebody a Terrorist doesn't make it so.

The Brits called the Green Mountain Boys terrorists when you were fighting for independence. Had they not been at war with France at the time, you'd still be paying taxes to the Queen and they would still be called Terrorists instead of 'freedom fighters'.

Most of the world is starting to perceive the USA as illegal combattants in Iraq but since you have all the weaponry, what you say goes ... RIGHT!?

The evidence is that the decision to enter Iraq was a 'done deal' or 'moot point' way before the presentation to the UN over bogus WMD according to documents like the Downing Street Memo.

We've also got Video of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell making the statement at the time the Downing Street memo was written that Iraq was free of WMD and that Saddam was effectively neutralized.

In other words, you were led to war on a pack of lies concocted to justify entry into an independent nation against both world and US law.

Now regardless of what you have to say about the eventual 'ends' to the conflict, the 'ways' to those ends were illegal and still make you illegal combattants... By your own definition ... TERRORISTS.

Bandying words about as you do is merely a matter of perception.

And NO, I don't believe in killing Children any more than I believe the USA should be dropping 'Bunker Busters' on market places.

 

[Art]

The slaughter of civilians and especially children is a despicable action whoever the perpetrators are. To criticize heavy handed US tactics leading to civilian deaths does not suggest that the critic is trying to justify mass murder by terrorists just as criticising terrorist actions resulting in high civilian deaths does not justify civilians deaths brought about through US actions.
In fact people who condemn murderous actions by all sides show a consistency of thought and purpose sadly lacking in some of the more neocon contributors to this forum. Whose typical argument seems to be when terrorists kill children it's because they are evil and when US forces kill children it's because the elusive they made us do it.

Our troops are part of the problem

Heavy-handed occupation is not a solution to the Iraqi insurgency

Robin Cook
Friday July 15, 2005
The Guardian

In the single week since the London bombings there have been 11 suicide attacks in Iraq. One car bomb this week wiped out 30 children, one as young as six, who had gathered to plead for western chocolates from American soldiers.
I do not draw a parallel between London and Baghdad to diminish the pain and horror caused by the crime on our own shores, but because that appalling experience should give us some insight into the violence that is now a daily occurrence in Iraq. And as the occupying force we bear responsibility for its security. There may be room for debate over whether there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the London bombings, but there is no escaping the hard truth that the chaos in that country is a direct result of the decision to invade it, taken in defiance of the intelligence warning that it would heighten the terrorist threat...


Heavy-handed US occupation is not the solution to the insurgency but a large part of the problem. US army rules of engagement appear to give much greater weight to killing insurgents than to protecting civilian lives. It is alarming testimony to its trigger-happy approach that statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry confirm that twice as many civilians have been killed by US military action as by terrorist bombs. The predictable result is that the US occupation breeds new recruits for the insurgency at a faster rate than it kills existing members of it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1528954,00.html

 

[The Smoking Man]

In fact people who condemn murderous actions by all sides show a consistency of thought and purpose sadly lacking in some of the more neocon contributors to this forum. Whose typical argument seems to be when terrorists kill children it's because they are evil and when US forces kill children it's because the elusive they made us do it.

You have to wonder:

Iraqi envoy accuses U.S. of killing his cousin
Ambassador to U.N. says Marines shot unarmed relative in the neck

Updated: 2:53 a.m. ET July 2, 2005

UNITED NATIONS - Iraq’s U.N. ambassador accused U.S. Marines of killing his unarmed young cousin in what appeared to be “cold blood” and demanded an investigation and punishment for the perpetrators.

In an e-mail to friends obtained Friday by The Associated Press, Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said the killing took place in his ancestral village in western Anbar province, where U.S.-led forces have been conducting a counterinsurgency sweep aimed at disrupting the flow of foreign militants into Iraq.

His cousin Mohammed Al-Sumaidaie, 21, a university student, was killed June 25 when he took Marines doing house-to-house searches to a bedroom to show them where a rifle which had no live ammunition was kept, the ambassador said. When the Marines left, he was found in the bedroom with a bullet in his neck.

Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said acting U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson received a call from the Iraqi ambassador “and expressed her heartfelt condolences on this terrible situation, and contacted senior State Department and Pentagon officials to look into the matter immediately.”

The U.S. military issued a statement in response late Friday.

“The events described in the allegations roughly correspond to an incident involving Coalition Forces on that day in that general location; therefore a military inquiry has been initiated,” the statement said.

“We take these allegations seriously and will thoroughly investigate this incident to determine what happened,” the statement quoted Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson as saying. The investigation could take several weeks, the statement said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8437692

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, because the USA declares somebody a Terrorist doesn't make it so.

Heh - I wasn't going on the US's declaration, I was going on yours. You said they were terrorists.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Heh - I wasn't going on the US's declaration, I was going on yours. You said they were terrorists.

Yes ... and then you proceeded to give the official US Government definition of the word.

Like I said, terrorists, like Americans in 1776 are called that until they win. Then they are called 'freedom fighters'.

 

[Townsend]

Like I said, terrorists, like Americans in 1776 are called that until they win.

They were never called terrorist...unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...

 

[Danger]

They were never called terrorist...unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...

It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.

 

[The Smoking Man]

They were never called terrorist...unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...

LOL

Have you ever read anything about the 'war in the colonies' that wasn't written in America?

 

[The Smoking Man]

It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.

Bravo.

Excellent example.

 

[Townsend]

It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.

Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas...

 

[Townsend]

Bravo.

Excellent example.

An example of what though?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas...

Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.

 

[The Smoking Man]

An example of what though?

Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.

 

[Townsend]

Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.

Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading

 

[Townsend]

Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.

In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading

They fought for a country that did not exist.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,

No we are trying to prove that the definition of record is that of the American context and that is what you hold dear and can not divorce yourself from.

You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.

 

[Townsend]

They fought for a country that did not exist.

They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.

No, they did not actually attack...

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.

you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.

ok...

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.

This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.

It was an act of protest against their own government...the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?

 

[Townsend]

You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.

I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.

Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.

No, they did not actually attack...

Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.

you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.

Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.

This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.

Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?

It was an act of protest against their own government...the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?

Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?


Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.

 

[Townsend]

Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.

I never referenced any books...

Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.

They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.

Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.

The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.

Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?

Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.

Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?

The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...

Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.

Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.

Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.

I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,

Really?

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? )

 

[Hurkyl]

Just to make sure I have it straight.

Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?

What would YOU say?

I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."