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

Just a reminder TO ALL. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please try to keep to the topic at hand.

Thank you for your attention to this matter
FredT

reason to celebrate sewage treatment plant openning: it may have been one that was reported bombed back in the early to mid-90's and was never rebuilt by Saddam.

individual soldiers would never adhere to an order to cause the death of children, for the specific reason of causing the death of children.

Originally posted by fanoose
Yep, you've got it right Now. . .

because you said:
Yes, I consider that the responsible of the deaths of all people who dies in an air strike are the ones who ordered the air strike, or the ones who did it, if they did not do it in the way they were supposed to do it.

I was thinking something like this:

You are ordered an air strike, but you do not have the chance to reach the target, then you choose another one, so you can return with your mission "accomplished".

This happened many times during WWII, when British planes returned from bombing their targets in Germany. As it was dangerous to land with bombs still on the plane, they would drop any bombs left from the real target anywhere. Usually, the targets were cities near the German border.

In those cases, the responsible was the one who decided to drop the remaining bombs in a random target, not on a target decided by those above him in the chain of command.

What i'm telling you is that all the time they were targeting the soldiers not the people. if they were targeting people they would lose any support from them. you didnt state they were targeting the celebration you stated this 'plowed into the area' and you followed it by 'so I did not saw that as a sign that the insurgents were aiming at the soldiers' which of course this 'area' was a mile away from the celebration and was targeting Iraqi National Guard checkpoint.

Yes, I said that, but I said before:

In all versions that I saw, they say that 2 bombs were 1 in a car, apparently parked and the other on the side of the road.

My intention was to show that the first 2 bombs were, as far as I can understand it, already in place when they exploded, what made me think that they were targeting the celebration.

If you mean the news, then what you said was wrong because you stated 'A third bomb was in a car that plowed into the area' which of course was 'a second car bomb plowed into the area' and the one who said it is the Interior Minister. which he again stated 'two car bombs and a roadside bomb exploded in swift succession as the convoy was passing' and in another news it stated 'At least three bombs exploded near a U.S. convoy' all these news contradict each other specially when the military stated no convey passed when the exploding happened.

I meant the news, sorry for not making that clearer.
I think I got confused with the strange way, at least to me, that those news were written.

I was never good at writing, not even in Portuguese, and in English I have some difficulties with the way I should make the sentences, so I think that I will reduce my participation in this forum to less "dangerous" threads.

Originally posted by ArMaP
so I think that I will reduce my participation in this forum to less "dangerous" threads.






You were in the wrong time wrong place. you were'nt the target here, torque was locked on my radar screen all the time, you just happend to be in the same 'airspace' . . . as usual *poof* she ran with the wind.

Originally posted by ArMaP


This happened many times during WWII, when British planes returned from bombing their targets in Germany. As it was dangerous to land with bombs still on the plane, they would drop any bombs left from the real target anywhere. Usually, the targets were cities near the German border.

No they didn't, they would drop all their bombs at once, if they did return with bombs they would drop them in designated zones in the English Channel.


[edit on 9-10-2004 by mad scientist]

It's a setup. Al queda terrorists pulled this one off for sure. Trying to smear the american troops for sure!!!

No they didn't, they would drop all their bombs at once, if they did return with bombs they would drop them in designated zones in the English Channel.

They would drop all bombs if they could.

That was the reason for the existence of those designated places to drop the remaining bombs.

And as I was saying, they may had orders to drop the bombs in those places but they choose to drop them before they reach those places because the plane would be lighter and faster, and so they would have more chances of escaping being caught by German fighters.

The Germans did the same, dropping the remaining bombs on the British coast, not the Ocean.

[edit on 9/10/2004 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by Teiresias
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 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.

You obviously were not taught correctly, or else you did not fully learn your lesson: Do the Right Thing.

Refuse to escort the children into an area that you know is unsafe.

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

I would not call you stupid as much as I would say that you are very naive and not fully formed intellectually. No flame intended.

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 take back my previous statement. You are simply a fool. The officer was reassessing whether the dangers to the civilians outweigh the goodwill his men are tring to spread.

Originally posted by jsobecky


Refuse to escort the children into an area that you know is unsafe.

I don't think there is a 'safe' area in the whole country!?!

As I understand it, this was in the same neighborhood these kids lived in already, they weren't being taken anywhere. I guess I still don't undestand how this could be the soldier's fault. Seems like blaming someone for another's actions to me.

You're right - there is no such thing as a safe area in Iraq these days.

But I was referring to the hypothetical place and situation that Tereirias had put forth in his attempt to assign degrees of culpability, not Iraq.

And I further agree with you that this was in no way the soldiers fault. You might as well blame the candy manufacturer for making such a tempting snack.