kids, candy, First Cav, sewage plant, 35 kids dead

Most "inaugurations" of new plants, generators, etc. are actually shams in the respect that they have been running for at least a little while. Its simple CYA, I mean the last thing you want is to hit the on switch and have nothng happen.

For this you would explode two car bombs with the intent to kill as many people as is possible? While at the same time hiding yourself to be sure that you aren't hurt? What pure hipocritical bunk!!! What cowardace! Pull your head out Fanoose!

I can't believe there are actually people here who would say the blame does not rest with the fanatical morally bankrupt slime who would plan, build, and explode a car bomb in a public place with the express intention of killing as many humans as possible! My god people, step back and look at what you are saying! Shame on you!

The responsibility for an act lays at the feet of the people who caused it to come about. Cars don't blow up on thier own.

Its obvious that the responsibility of the bombings is from the ones who made it.

But the authorities of any city or country are responsible for the security of their citizens. If there was a possibility of an attack, they should have taken protective measures.
Unless they where sure there was not danger, the authorities, whoever they are in this case, are responsible for not organising that celebration with security of the citizens in mind, so they are responsible, at least of negligence.

I don't believe you should hold the military responsible for these children's deaths but I do have a question.

Mothers all across this country have taught their children not to take candy from strangers. And, I would kind of be upset if a group of people who I didn't know or trust came into my neighborhood with loudspeakers blasting "Free Candy!!!" I tend to believe that the Iraqis might feel the same way. This isn't to say that the troops aren't acting with good intentions, especially when they develope a relationship with the child in the family's presence and drop off a few bags filled with candy, netebooks, ect. That seems to indicate that they are respecting the family's right to determine who the child should associate with and what should be given to that children. But, well, the person on the street offering your child candy might have good intentions also, why do you teach the child to say no......if not because you know there is a possibility that the person might not have good intentions.
Aren't they teaching these children a behavior that our own society feels is dangerous?

Dwnstar I, like you, was told as a child not to accept candy from strangers, but were we ever told not to accept candy from policemen?
see my point?

Originally posted by dawnstar
I don't believe you should hold the military responsible for these children's deaths but I do have a question.

Mothers all across this country have taught their children not to take candy from strangers. And, I would kind of be upset if a group of people who I didn't know or trust came into my neighborhood with loudspeakers blasting "Free Candy!!!" I tend to believe that the Iraqis might feel the same way. This isn't to say that the troops aren't acting with good intentions, especially when they develope a relationship with the child in the family's presence and drop off a few bags filled with candy, netebooks, ect. That seems to indicate that they are respecting the family's right to determine who the child should associate with and what should be given to that children. But, well, the person on the street offering your child candy might have good intentions also, why do you teach the child to say no......if not because you know there is a possibility that the person might not have good intentions.
Aren't they teaching these children a behavior that our own society feels is dangerous?

That is one of the reasons that makes me think that there was not the US military but some other entity with who the Iraqis where more at ease.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Dwnstar I, like you, was told as a child not to accept candy from strangers, but were we ever told not to accept candy from policemen?
see my point?

Yet, I remember my mom telling me not to go into the catholic church anymore when she found out that one of the people in the church was giving me candy and toys!! (it wasn't a preist, maybe someone involved with the school)
Guess what, I never told her this, but she was right!!!

US army isn't Iraqi police force, and well, the fact that they are bombing the heck out of us seems to indicate that at least some of the Iraqi's don't trust us, like my mom didn't trust the guy in the church.

Unfortnately the US forces in Iraq are the police force there at the moment. But I do see your point.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Well, my understanding of the situation is Americans are getting shot at, regularly.

Excuse me, where's the logic in drawing kids TOWARDS people expected to be shot at?

DE

WHEN I was a young boy, I learned the Baltimore catechism. It helps to be able to assess degrees of culpability. Let us use an analogy. YOU are known as an upstanding and fine community leader and dothings like boy scouts and the like. In fact youa re viewed as amain source of positive potection in a really bad neighborhood. Parents trust you, because of things such as we all know apply to most of our soldiers. I agree that our soldiers are mostly (every group has its excepttions) well-trained, disciplined, moral and instinctively generous and good-natured. That is not at issue here.

In a bleak environment when you know there is danger all around and parents know that too, you are ordered by a senior authority to bring a bunch of people just like you into the neighborhood and trumpet what is, after all, a pr event. Come on out and gather here kids, when you know that the bad elements in the neighborhood hete the sight of you and like minded friends. The inevitable happens.

Is that guy who ordered you to run this event in no way culpable?

What if any of those thirty-five kids were yours? How would you feel right now?

Now is the time for you all to gas off again about how stupid I am, how unrealistic.

If there were no culpability why is Lt. Col. Boylan saying, "We are going to reassess whether we should hold such events again."

That is military speak for "We #ed up on this one and I had better cover my ass."

I nowhere say that the terrorists are not evil. I do not believe however they are cowards. I have had long talks with military people who were laughing at Iraqi regulars who would come out directly into overwhelming American firepower and get basted by every manner of ordinance. I said, "Isn't that a form of courage?" My friends just laughed and called it stupidity.

Well, if bravePolish-cavalry style facing up to superior mechanized force is not honorable, why are guerilla tactics dishonrable.

But more to the point, We all agree that drunk drivers are morally reprehensible. If I then at 2 AM on a saturday morning when all the clubs are emptying out, call 35 kids to cross a speedway of cars driven by drunks,am I not guilty of stupidity in creating the situation in which theyw ere killed?

Or are you one of the 'bring em on' home in front of the tube patriots?

Originally posted by Montana
For this you would explode two car bombs with the intent to kill as many people as is possible? While at the same time hiding yourself to be sure that you aren't hurt? What pure hipocritical bunk!!! What cowardace! Pull your head out Fanoose!

I can't believe there are actually people here who would say the blame does not rest with the fanatical morally bankrupt slime who would plan, build, and explode a car bomb in a public place with the express intention of killing as many humans as possible! My god people, step back and look at what you are saying! Shame on you!

The responsibility for an act lays at the feet of the people who caused it to come about. Cars don't blow up on thier own.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Its obvious that the responsibility of the bombings is from the ones who made it.

But the authorities of any city or country are responsible for the security of their citizens. If there was a possibility of an attack, they should have taken protective measures.
Unless they where sure there was not danger, the authorities, whoever they are in this case, are responsible for not organising that celebration with security of the citizens in mind, so they are responsible, at least of negligence.

Many thanks. Why i it so hrd to look at something like this with ome subtlety of mind without being accused of being an obtuse supporter of terrorism, a denier that the bombers arethe ones who do the killing and so on. That kind of rsponse is justa s myopic as those who think we have created no legitimate animosity against us by dropping 7 million tons of bombvs on Vietnam, and supportingall manner of rightist force in Latin America, supporting the military junta for 9 years in Greece--and then we wonder why people whose parents were imprisoned by the colonels now have anti-Ameircan sentiments.

Originally posted by cargo
I think that portraying this event as the soldiers fault for drawing the kids into the area for whatever reason, is ludicrous. Give them a bit more damn credit. These kids flock to explosions, it is the highlight of their week to see such a thing, to pick through the debri and interact with the soldiers.

This is just an unfortunate incident. Nothing more should be made of it.

Whoever thought up the stunt that put them in harm's way like this is culpable.

Let us assume what all the rest of those who think 35 children dead should be shrugged off as the misfortne of the 'it's not a real war, it's mission-accomplished, and it's govt. handed over and it's free elections on the horizon' assume.

If even one of those kids would not have come out at that time without the lure of loudspeakers and candies and the reassuring presence of American troops, then whoever dreamt up the stunt is culpable.

'first do no harm'.

It's a sad reality that some of you live in where giving out candy makes the US the bad guys (MAN, I guess I should reconsider Halloween...)

The people that made the bomb and detonated it are responsible for the deaths. Their reaction to the current situation was to kill aimlessly.

Sorta like a bumper stick I saw the other day..


"If guns kill people, then spoons made Rosie O'Donnell Fat. "

yeah yeah yeah... twist and turn it, so that it fits your idea of it was the U.S. troops fault...

listen and hear me...


THEY DID NOT "LURE" THOSE KIDS INTO DANGER PURPOSLY !!!

hell, the whole country is a danger zone..

it was a tragedy and I feel for those children and the families, but don't blame the troops !!!!!!!!

One article said the Iraqis were responsible for securing the area and thought they had done so. A few different takes on it:

"What kind of resistance is this?" Majeed Hameed, who lost a child, shouted again and again at the hospital. "Why do they attack children?"

www.washingtonpost.com...


"I don't blame the Americans for this but these terrorists are doing these things because the Americans are here," he said. "We need security. We want to be able to go in the streets and feel secure. We want jobs, we want to get rid of the terrorists."

www.globalsecurity.org...


"The message -- dated September 30 and posted shortly after 3 p.m. ET -- said "three knights from the Martyrs Brigades of the Tawhid and Jihad have performed three heroic attacks."

www.cnn.com...


"They are killing citizens and spreading horror. They have no aims except killing as many Iraqis as they can," Kamal told The Associated Press.

www.foxnews.com...

_________________________________________________

I'm surprised that it's been two pages already and nobody has mentioned Bush Hitler yet.

The bombers are responsible. I agree with the man above saying "What kind of resistance is this?". The bottom line is, no matter what their reasons are or who they are "resisting", they set off bombs where they knew there would be civillians. The Iraqis should stop trying to push us out so hard and start turning these a-holes in. They know who they are, and I bet plenty of them know WHERE they are. If they want to get rid of terrorists, they should get rid of terrorists, not the US. If they think they will stop being killed once we leave, they're very naive. More will be killed when the different groups start struggling for power over the country. These people can't keep getting away with killing civillians and pointing to the US or anyone else and saying "They made us do it!". That's not going to cut it. If the Iraqis were smart, they'd crush these insects and get their country's skat together.

Originally posted by torque
I'm surprised that it's been two pages already and nobody has mentioned Bush Hitler yet.

The bombers are responsible. I agree with the man above saying "What kind of resistance is this?". The bottom line is, no matter what their reasons are or who they are "resisting", they set off bombs where they knew there would be civillians. The Iraqis should stop trying to push us out so hard and start turning these a-holes in. They know who they are, and I bet plenty of them know WHERE they are. If they want to get rid of terrorists, they should get rid of terrorists, not the US. If they think they will stop being killed once we leave, they're very naive. More will be killed when the different groups start struggling for power over the country. These people can't keep getting away with killing civillians and pointing to the US or anyone else and saying "They made us do it!". That's not going to cut it. If the Iraqis were smart, they'd crush these insects and get their country's skat together.

You are assuming they know who the terrorists are. Maybe they do not know that. If someone you know killed your family and/or neighbours, would you let them go killing more people or would you do all that you could to bring him punishment? The Iraqi are not different, they are born, they get married and have children. Some may love their children more than others, but I not think that they would let children killers go get away with it.

Oh, and Bush Hitler is the responsible.

I didn't say these specific Iraqis know, but many there DO know. They've already said that they're not turning them in because they feel they'd be turning in "their own".

In many ways they are like us, but in many ways they are not. The differences are part of the problem. For myself, if one of the terrorists was my own father and I was opposed to what he was doing, I'd turn him in. They don't think that way.

Originally posted by Teiresias
I nowhere say that the terrorists are not evil. I do not believe however they are cowards. I have had long talks with military people who were laughing at Iraqi regulars who would come out directly into overwhelming American firepower and get basted by every manner of ordinance. I said, "Isn't that a form of courage?" My friends just laughed and called it stupidity.

Well, if bravePolish-cavalry style facing up to superior mechanized force is not honorable, why are guerilla tactics dishonrable.

But more to the point, We all agree that drunk drivers are morally reprehensible. If I then at 2 AM on a saturday morning when all the clubs are emptying out, call 35 kids to cross a speedway of cars driven by drunks,am I not guilty of stupidity in creating the situation in which theyw ere killed?

Or are you one of the 'bring em on' home in front of the tube patriots?

Your friends were right, it was stupidity!

Your analogy is pretty lame, but i'll bite. If you called 35 kids out to a place where they have no right or reason to be, you darn right you would be responsible. However, these kids were in thier own neighborhood, at a celebration for the opening of a sewage plant that was going to significantly improve thier living conditions. They had every right to be there and every right to celebrate.

The lowdown scum who exploded those car bombs entered the KID'S neighborhood and KILLED them for thier own selfish reasons. That doesn't make them brave (notice they didn't stick around to enjoy the privilege of being blown to bits), it just makes them scum.

Now, before you happen to stick your foot any farther into your mouth, I happen to be a USN vet. Did my time to protect my rights and my neighbor's. How about you, loudmouth?

Originally posted by Teiresias

'first do no harm'.

First don't explode two car bombs in a residential neighborhood.

Sheesh!

(sorry for the double post, just saw this.

Originally posted by Teiresias

Many thanks. Why i it so hrd to look at something like this with ome subtlety of mind without being accused of being an obtuse supporter of terrorism,

It's not that we believe your an "obtuse supporter of terrorism" as you put it, but you seem more interested in finding any reason to bash Americans. Instead of condemning those directly responsible for the deaths of children , you decide to ignore them completely and go after those attempting to put a smile on kids faces who haven�t seen many reasons to smile lately. Yes, they need to revaluate this behavior, since it seems to put civies in danger, but to condemn them and completely ignore those who pulled the trigger shows where your loyalties lie (or at least where they don't).

Are you a supporter of terrorism only you & your comrades would know. Maybe you're just one of those people who don't believe in personal responsibility. Do you blame the automakers for deaths in car accidents, blame the ski resort operators for deaths in avalanches, blame the liquor purveyors in alcohol related deaths, blame the amusement parks for the guy who jumps off a ride to his death, blame the tobacco companies instead of the guy who put it in his own mouth, blame gun companies for the deaths of people instead those who purchased, loaded the weapon aimed at a target & pulled the trigger?

How many times do you think soldiers have given kids candy that have not been blown up? More than you can count, I bet. If you've ever been in any poor or 3rd would country you'd know what these soldiers were going through. I can remember going through some places and children would seem to come out of nowhere and swarm around you with huge smiles and yes what they wanted was candy.

There's plenty of things to bash Americans about that they are responsible for, so I suggest you stick to those instead blaming them for assisting Islamic terrorist in killing children.


[edit on 5-10-2004 by outsider]