NationStates Jolt Archive

At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed by a suicide car bombing in south-eastern Baghdad.
A US soldier is also said to have died in the blast. Another three US soldiers are reported to have been injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678207.stm

Anyone else want to argue that the insurgency is trying to free Iraq? Most revolutionaries don't kill their own children.

[its and waits for first "It's America's/Bush's Fault" post. makes silent wager as to how soon that would happen.]

I can't wait until the Iraqi police and military are up to full strength and the Iraqi people can deal with the vermin in their midst. That won't be a good time to be a terrorist.

Anyone else want to argue that the insurgency is trying to free Iraq? Most revolutionaries don't kill their own children.
Are you quite sure about that? Seems to me every revolution puts the civilians, children included, between them and the forces they oppose. Both groups target the civilians for supporting the 'other side'. The real losers, as always, are those caught in between.

At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed by a suicide car bombing in south-eastern Baghdad.
A US soldier is also said to have died in the blast. Another three US soldiers are reported to have been injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678207.stm

Anyone else want to argue that the insurgency is trying to free Iraq? Most revolutionaries don't kill their own children.

In their own misguided way i'm sure they believe that is what their actions will accomplish

A bomb blast in Baghdad in September last year killed at least 34 children.

This attack also saw the victims gather round US troops who were handing out sweets, to mark the opening of a water treatment plant.

Sad... when the "Freedom Fighters" are targeting children to get a couple of Americans... :(

Are you quite sure about that? Seems to me every revolution puts the civilians, children included, between them and the forces they oppose. Both groups target the civilians for supporting the 'other side'. The real losers, as always, are those caught in between.
while that is true, these attacks are deliberatly done while children are about. now, if they waited till the children left or hit the humvee's before the children arrived, then that's something else, but this... they saw the chilren around the Humvees, and blew themselves up. deliberatly killing the children to get to a couple of Americans.

Are you quite sure about that? Seems to me every revolution puts the civilians, children included, between them and the forces they oppose. Both groups target the civilians for supporting the 'other side'. The real losers, as always, are those caught in between.

Quite sure. This confirms that the foreign fighters are the problem.

:confused: I can't think of any revolution that thought killing their own children was a good idea. Cuba, Viet Nam, North Korea, shoot, even Jugoslavia... usually, it's the counter-insurgency that tries to decimate the opposition.

That's why I stand by the idea that the foreigner fighters and NOT the Iraqis (whom make up almost ALL of the suicide bombers) are the problem. The common Iraqi gains nothing from blowing up his own water/electric/oil plants and kids. All that does is keep the US & Allies there LONGER.

In their own misguided way i'm sure they believe that is what their actions will accomplish

If that is indeed their aim. I'm of the opinion that the insurgency (which isn't even led by an Iraqi!) DOESN'T want the US out. It wants a prolonged "Jihad zone" to give the US & Allies a black eye.

Lafier']while that is true, these attacks are deliberatly done while children are about. now, if they waited till the children left or hit the humvee's before the children arrived, then that's something else, but this... they saw the chilren around the Humvees, and blew themselves up. deliberatly killing the children to get to a couple of Americans.
Clearly, their target to them was more important than the civilian deaths that would occur. Messed up priorities, for sure, but that doesn't mean they don't think they're doing this for the 'greater good of Iraq'. Sadly.

Quite sure. This confirms that the foreign fighters are the problem.

:confused: I can't think of any revolution that thought killing their own children was a good idea. Cuba, Viet Nam, North Korea, shoot, even Jugoslavia... usually, it's the counter-insurgency that tries to decimate the opposition.


The children were not the target. They were 'collateral damage'. The target was more important than their lives.

And as for only the counter-insurgency killing civilians...the revolutionaries do it to if they think the civilians are against them. re: El Sendero Luminoso, Peru (the Shining Path Guerrillas), Mao's 'Cultural Revolution', the Khmer Rouge...civilians become 'the enemy' too. And the often get it from both sides.

Lafier']while that is true, these attacks are deliberatly done while children are about. now, if they waited till the children left or hit the humvee's before the children arrived, then that's something else, but this... they saw the chilren around the Humvees, and blew themselves up. deliberatly killing the children to get to a couple of Americans.
Perhaps they want to 'prove' to the US that they will stop at nothing, that they will even sacrifice their own people to get the US out. Fanatics tend to behave, well, fanatically. I can't imagine the parents of those children would agree with their tactics...even if they want the US out themselves.

Unfortunately, there is no 'united front' in terms of resistance. Some Iraqis want the US out soon, others want them out immediately, others are just nuts.

The children were not the target. They were 'collateral damage'. The target was more important than their lives.

And as for only the counter-insurgency killing civilians...the revolutionaries do it to if they think the civilians are against them. re: El Sendero Luminoso, Peru (the Shining Path Guerrillas), Mao's 'Cultural Revolution', the Khmer Rouge...civilians become 'the enemy' too. And the often get it from both sides.

...which I still don't think an Iraqi would do. Would a militant (Canadian) Sierra Club blow up an elementary class trip to get at the four guys that were clubbing baby seals to death? Laugh if you like, but I'm being serious.
I agree that some governments do "liquidate" their populace. But I really can't think of a revolutionary movement that does. By definition, they WANT popular support!

:confused:
Mao was already in control of the gov't at the point of the Cultural Revolution, thus he was the establishment.
Ditto the Khmer Rouge. They were (ahem) "relatively benign" before
1973, and didn't get nasty until liquidating the cities in 1975. At which point, they were no longer revolutionary.
I don't know much about the Shining Path.

BTW, I find it interesting that all 3 groups you chose were Communist. ;)

The attacks were on US soldiers- a legitimate target. It was unfortunate that several civilians died but that was not on purpose. They didn't say "hey lket's go murder us some children, that'll show the americans"

The attacks were on US soldiers- a legitimate target. It was unfortunate that several civilians died but that was not on purpose. They didn't say "hey lket's go murder us some children, that'll show the americans"

Did you even read the linked story?

It was unfortunate that several civilians died but that was not on purpose. "
Okay Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, whatever you say.

...which I still don't think an Iraqi would do. Would a militant (Canadian) Sierra Club blow up an elementary class trip to get at the four guys that were clubbing baby seals to death? Laugh if you like, but I'm being serious. Militant 'anything' people will often see their intended target to the exclusion of all else.
I agree that some governments do "liquidate" their populace. But I really can't think of a revolutionary movement that does. By definition, they WANT popular support! The Sendero Luminoso wasn't a government. And 'liquidate' is much different than 'blow up along with the intended target'. The insurgents are not committing genocide against all Iraqis.

I'm not entirely sure what you want to prove here...that the insurgents are not Iraqis because Iraqis were killed in this attack, or that the insurgents don't actually want freedom from the US they just want to terrorize (hence the name, terrorist)...or what? Clearly the kind of people that would blow themselves up, taking as many with them as possible are not rational beings, and yet you seem to be searching for a rationale?

And when I hear of a capitalist revolutionary group, I'll let you know. :D

Lafier']Sad... when the "Freedom Fighters" are targeting children to get a couple of Americans... :(

They must really, really want to get at those Americans. I think I'd steer well clear of any Americans walking down a street in Baghdad.

The attacks were on US soldiers- a legitimate target. It was unfortunate that several civilians died but that was not on purpose. They didn't say "hey lket's go murder us some children, that'll show the americans"


No, I think you got it all wrong. Now if this was a suicide bomber than they knew what they were targeting. You could say that to be different if a missle per se was targeted and they realised after the fact dozens of school children were around the target. Then I can see where a mistake can be made. But can tell you that they did this as much to kill Americans as to teach the Iraqis a lesson. These people are sick sick sick. It still amazes me the level of depravity that humans stoop to. Its really just amazing.

At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed by a suicide car bombing in south-eastern Baghdad.
A US soldier is also said to have died in the blast. Another three US soldiers are reported to have been injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678207.stm

Anyone else want to argue that the insurgency is trying to free Iraq? Most revolutionaries don't kill their own children.

They're not revolutionaries, they're terrorists. The only time they'll stop is when we leave. They intend on attacking their own population so that the civs. will want us out. There's nothing that will change that. They don't care.

I'm sure I'm misunderstood here...but; why give candy to children in the war zone? I'm under the impression the American soldiers give little gifts to kids who come to greet their vehicles. That is SO nice, truly. But in a war zone?! Wouldn't it be better they just did their job without a fuss..? I might be mislead by leftist media here too... *shrugs*, but the mission seems to be far from accomplished, so why not keep ALL people away from the armoured vehicles? Somehow that tactic seems logical to me...

EDIT: Before anyone else gets me for this... I mean; keep all people away from the vehicles! The deaths are a fault of the 'insurgents', not 'the coalition' soldiers... but still, those things aren't parade floats...

But can tell you that they did this as much to kill Americans as to teach the Iraqis a lesson.
As long as you realise this is just your theory, and it can never be proven...

As long as you realise this is just your theory, and it can never be proven...

Well it may be my theory. But I just look at it for what it is. It appears that these suicide bombers hold back nothing.

Well it may be my theory. But I just look at it for what it is. It appears that these suicide bombers hold back nothing.
Yeah, including their innards....


...sorry.

But you're looking at it with one interpretation. Others who have posted here have looked at it differently. None of us can really say, "This is fact, this is their intent, these are their goals". That's all I'm trying to say. There is no one TRUTH.

I'm sure I'm misunderstood here...but; why give candy to children in the war zone? I'm under the impression the American soldiers give little gifts to kids who come to greet their vehicles. That is SO nice, truly. But in a war zone?! Wouldn't it be better they just did their job without a fuss..? I might be mislead by leftist media here too... *shrugs*, but the mission seems to be far from accomplished, so why not keep ALL people away from the armoured vehicles? Somehow that tactic seems logical to me...

EDIT: Before anyone else gets me for this... I mean; keep all people away from the vehicles! The deaths are a fault of the 'insurgents', not 'the coalition' soldiers... but still, those things aren't parade floats...

The US traditionally does this, be it with 5 cent Hershey bars in Saigon or jars of peanut butter in Germany. It's almost a tradition, to make the lives of the kids in a bad place just a little brighter.

Are you quite sure about that? Seems to me every revolution puts the civilians, children included, between them and the forces they oppose. Both groups target the civilians for supporting the 'other side'. The real losers, as always, are those caught in between.

The French and American revolutionaries never targetted children, as far as I've ever heard. With the exception of the French royal line, of course, over time. I can't remember when the last dauphin was killed... anyway, people who like to call the Iraq insurgents "Minutemen" seem to forget that the real Minutemen targetted actual military forces, even if they only wore uniforms maybe 3/4 of the time.

Militant 'anything' people will often see their intended target to the exclusion of all else.
The Sendero Luminoso wasn't a government. And 'liquidate' is much different than 'blow up along with the intended target'. The insurgents are not committing genocide against all Iraqis.

Death is death. And aren't they? Depriving people of power and water and a stable place to live? :(

I'm not entirely sure what you want to prove here...that the insurgents are not Iraqis because Iraqis were killed in this attack, or that the insurgents don't actually want freedom from the US they just want to terrorize (hence the name, terrorist)...or what?

Both.

Clearly the kind of people that would blow themselves up, taking as many with them as possible are not rational beings, and yet you seem to be searching for a rationale?

Nope... just pointing out that the Jihadist Terrorists are fighting for their own gratification, not for the people of Iraq.

And when I hear of a capitalist revolutionary group, I'll let you know. :D

Fair enough, but I doubt it'll ever happen... they all have jobs. ;)

I'm sure I'm misunderstood here...but; why give candy to children in the war zone? I'm under the impression the American soldiers give little gifts to kids who come to greet their vehicles. That is SO nice, truly. But in a war zone?! Wouldn't it be better they just did their job without a fuss..? I might be mislead by leftist media here too... *shrugs*, but the mission seems to be far from accomplished, so why not keep ALL people away from the armoured vehicles? Somehow that tactic seems logical to me...

EDIT: Before anyone else gets me for this... I mean; keep all people away from the vehicles! The deaths are a fault of the 'insurgents', not 'the coalition' soldiers... but still, those things aren't parade floats...

That's the "hearts and minds" front, even in WWII, before the term was coined. I think it worked a little too well in the Philippines.. they've basically absorbed our culture, or at least products.. if we have 10% that level of success in Iraq with the kids, we'll be paid back with fewer dead soldiers.

The US traditionally does this, be it with 5 cent Hershey bars in Saigon or jars of peanut butter in Germany. It's almost a tradition, to make the lives of the kids in a bad place just a little brighter.
Yes. I'm aware of it.
EDIT: And that's what almost all advancing armies do/did (not including the 3rd Reich or the Red Army). The thing I was questioning was... Is it the right way to go in the situation that is Iraq now..? Pavlov and dogs... kids and tanks/other personnel carries... that sorta thing...

Did you think that there was some kind of rule against it?

Yes. I'm aware of it.
EDIT: And that's what almost all advancing armies do/did (not including the 3rd Reich or the Red Army). The thing I was questioning was... Is it the right way to go in the situation that is Iraq now..? Pavlov and dogs... kids and tanks/other personnel carries... that sorta thing...
As far as I know, the "Handing out candies" is only done by people on foot or in Humvees, the Tanks and other armored fighting vehicles they would rather the kids be (i hope) encouraged to stay away from.

However, no matter their aim (unless it's to just cause the most terror,) it's undermined when Children are hurt.

I can't wait until the Iraqi police and military are up to full strength and the Iraqi people can deal with the vermin in their midst. That won't be a good time to be a terrorist.

And let us hope that day won't be very far away.

If that is indeed their aim. I'm of the opinion that the insurgency (which isn't even led by an Iraqi!) DOESN'T want the US out. It wants a prolonged "Jihad zone" to give the US & Allies a black eye.

I really believe they want to start a civil war and for the allies to pull out. That way they can create a fundamentalist Islamic theocratic state and use it as a base to move toward world domination.

The attacks were on US soldiers- a legitimate target. It was unfortunate that several civilians died but that was not on purpose. They didn't say "hey lket's go murder us some children, that'll show the americans"

No, more like, "Let's go blow up some Americans who are giving stuff to the kids while the kids are around. That will piss the parents off and everyone will blame and stay away from the Americans." The insurgents are a bunch of sick bastards.

...The only time they'll stop is when we leave.

I disagree. The only time they will stop is when they control the people of Iraq.

No, more like, "Let's go blow up some Americans who are giving stuff to the kids while the kids are around. That will piss the parents off and everyone will blame and stay away from the Americans." The insurgents are a bunch of sick bastards.

Agreed. The terrorists are not after numbers. They are after the shock value of every attack.

I'm sure I'm misunderstood here...but; why give candy to children in the war zone? I'm under the impression the American soldiers give little gifts to kids who come to greet their vehicles. That is SO nice, truly. But in a war zone?! Wouldn't it be better they just did their job without a fuss..? I might be mislead by leftist media here too... *shrugs*, but the mission seems to be far from accomplished, so why not keep ALL people away from the armoured vehicles? Somehow that tactic seems logical to me...

EDIT: Before anyone else gets me for this... I mean; keep all people away from the vehicles! The deaths are a fault of the 'insurgents', not 'the coalition' soldiers... but still, those things aren't parade floats...

Part of the mission is to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people, and that's what the soldiers were doing. The insurgents don't want that. They want to paint us as Mr. Bad Guy because if the people see us as nice guys the insurgents loose.

Well it may be my theory. But I just look at it for what it is. It appears that these suicide bombers hold back nothing.

I agree with your theory.

I agree with your theory.

And myself as well. We delude ourselves if we think this brutality is only because of American presence. The US provided an opportunity more than it provided a motive for this kind of attack.

The insurgency's goal is almost undoubtedly the collapse of the current Iraqi regime, not kicking out the US per se. All attacks serve that end far more than any other explination.

If they wanted to dissuade US presence then they'd kidnap US soldiers and contractors far more actively. They'd drag out kidnappings as long as possible and go for different targets than they are now.

If the Iraq regime collapses then they have a much better chance of imposing their own style of government. Look at the Taliban in Afganistan; the same pattern emerges.

If the Iraq regime collapses then they have a much better chance of imposing their own style of government. Look at the Taliban in Afganistan; the same pattern emerges.

The liberals who want us out now can not grasp that concept. If we were to leave now, Iraq would implode, there would be a civil war, and the radicals would win. Isn't that exactly what happened in Afganistan?

The liberals who want us out now can not grasp that concept. If we were to leave now, Iraq would implode, there would be a civil war, and the radicals would win. Isn't that exactly what happened in Afganistan?

Indeed. With the war going on in ernest, pulling out now invites only disaster. I cannot find or formulate any good plans for withdrawl in the next few years. The region is in turmoil, the vaccum of power would be serious without the few troops we have there.

The war isn't being fought well, on that part I agree with the opposition wholeheartedly. But now that there IS a war, we have no choice but to fight it, despite the calls for withdrawl.

Killing civilians to make a political point is always terrible and wrong in my opinion.

However, there is a positive flipside to this event (if it is at all possible to find a positive flipside). If the Iraqi/foreign insurgents are killing Iraqi people, then this can only anger most Iraqis, and eventually turn the people against the insurgents. Only when the insurgents support amongst the people disappears will the suicide and other attacks stop. From the article, it would seem that the insurgents are only securing their own demise.

By the way, I wonder how many civilian children were killed by the US when they invaded Iraq?

Anyone else want to argue that the insurgency is trying to free Iraq? Most revolutionaries don't kill their own children.

O contrare... the really crazy fundamentalists will strap a bomb onto a child and tell him to walk up to a soldier, and then the crazy dude will remote blow the bomb, the kid and the soldier. you have to understand the mentality of those who are fighting in an insurgency and against American (and other nations as well) troops. They fight for one of two reasons : they somehow lost power and fear equality and a stable/free iraq (ie:sunnis), or, they've been brainwashed to believe that America is the anti-allah, and somehow dying in a cause to kill as many americans as possible will get them to heaven with 70 some-odd virgins. Just because a few fight back, does not mean we give up, it means we try harder, stay longer, and control the problems that we face. We will not be repelled by ignorant cowards who would place a child infront of them and then shoot at soldiers so there wouldnt be return fire (im actually refering to fundamentalist Palestinians in Israel... but im sure this occurs in Iraq too). We fight while there's still a fight to be fought.

By the way, I wonder how many civilian children were killed by the US when they invaded Iraq?

There is a bit of a difference between people who deliberately target innocent civilians and people that target legitimate military targets and unintentionally kill innocent civilians in the process.

O contrare... the really crazy fundamentalists will strap a bomb onto a child and tell him to walk up to a soldier, and then the crazy dude will remote blow the bomb, the kid and the soldier.

Er... that's true, but my point was that REVOLUTIONARIES don't target their own children, not that fundamentalists aren't *ssholes. I'm pointing out that what's going on in Iraq isn't a grass-roots "Sons of Liberty" thing.

you have to understand the mentality of those who are fighting in an insurgency and against American (and other nations as well) troops. They fight for one of two reasons : they somehow lost power and fear equality and a stable/free iraq (ie:sunnis), or, they've been brainwashed to believe that America is the anti-allah, and somehow dying in a cause to kill as many americans as possible will get them to heaven with 70 some-odd virgins.

Yep.

Just because a few fight back, does not mean we give up, it means we try harder, stay longer, and control the problems that we face. We will not be repelled by ignorant cowards who would place a child infront of them and then shoot at soldiers so there wouldnt be return fire (im actually refering to fundamentalist Palestinians in Israel... but im sure this occurs in Iraq too). We fight while there's still a fight to be fought.

And that's all in keeping with why I started the thread. Thanks.

At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed by a suicide car bombing in south-eastern Baghdad.
A US soldier is also said to have died in the blast. Another three US soldiers are reported to have been injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678207.stm
I think it's disgraceful how the Americans are still luring crowds of kids to their armoured vehicles by handing out candy. They should know by now that they are a target every time they stop their vehicles. So why do it? Those kids were pretty much a human shield, no different to the alleged siting of AA guns in residential areas by the old regime.

Those kids were pretty much a human shield, no different to the alleged siting of AA guns in residential areas by the old regime.

I seriously doubt the soldiers were purposely using the children as a shield. In WWII GI's would give kids bubble gum and chocolate bars to local kids from their own rations, just to be nice to the children. I think this is the case. They may be soldiers but they are people too. Most of them have families, so they get a kick outta interacting with the Iraqi kids from what I hear.

That's why I stand by the idea that the foreigner fighters and NOT the Iraqis (whom make up almost ALL of the suicide bombers) are the problem. The common Iraqi gains nothing from blowing up his own water/electric/oil plants and kids. All that does is keep the US & Allies there LONGER.
I disagree. IMO, ALL of the insurgents are the problem, because I still contend that the majority of IRAQI insurgents (not talking about imported insurgents) are Baathists trying to destabilize the new government in order to seize back power at a later time.

There is a bit of a difference between people who deliberately target innocent civilians and people that target legitimate military targets and unintentionally kill innocent civilians in the process.

I doubt the parents of dead children would agree with you.

I doubt the parents of dead children would agree with you.

Of course they would! If they didn't, that would make them traitors. :rolleyes:

At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed by a suicide car bombing in south-eastern Baghdad.
A US soldier is also said to have died in the blast. Another three US soldiers are reported to have been injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678207.stm

Anyone else want to argue that the insurgency is trying to free Iraq? Most revolutionaries don't kill their own children.

the insurgents loved the power they had under Saddam... they can't bear the thought that the 80% of Iraqis who are Shi'a/Kurds now have an equal say in how the country is run.

the insurgents warrant no sympathy whatsoever.

I disagree. IMO, ALL of the insurgents are the problem, because I still contend that the majority of IRAQI insurgents (not talking about imported insurgents) are Baathists trying to destabilize the new government in order to seize back power at a later time.

yep, which is why we need to kill or detain them all, lest they succeed in ruining the newfound freedom for the other 80% of Iraqis who didn't have any under Saddam.

As for the people bemoaning the deaths of civilians, here are the facts:

Americans are targeting insurgents/terrorists, not civilians

The insurgents/terrorists do not seem to discriminate. Because they intend to hit civilians, they are the bad guys.

I doubt the parents of dead children would agree with you.

i disagree... especially those who voted. they know who's right and who's wrong, and the insurgency took a blow with every vote cast. I wonder how many votes were cast by the parents of children targeted and killed by the insurgency.

I seriously doubt the soldiers were purposely using the children as a shield. In WWII GI's would give kids bubble gum and chocolate bars to local kids from their own rations, just to be nice to the children. I think this is the case. They may be soldiers but they are people too. Most of them have families, so they get a kick outta interacting with the Iraqi kids from what I hear.
I agree it was unlikely to have been deliberate, but it was incredibly irresponsible. They know they are targets, so why do stuff likely to attract a crowd of kids? FFS.

I agree it was unlikely to have been deliberate, but it was incredibly irresponsible. They know they are targets, so why do stuff likely to attract a crowd of kids? FFS.

Certainly you realize that unless the US does SOMETHING to improve their image in Iraq, they'll be regarded as occupying thugs with no concern for human life. This is an image an occupying force can ill afford.

Hearts and minds is not just a pithy saying; without SOME goodwill from the people, the US would have to leave for fear of outright resistance from the general populace, not just a gurrellia insurgency. No matter how friendly the government is, without active participation from the populace, US forces cannot operate effectively in there.

The problem is that the Insurgency knows this too, and targets collaberators with US forces at every opportunity. If they can drive a wedge between US forces and those they are protecting, the insurgency becomes that much stronger.

This is a very real possibility! Unless the US forces find a tactical solution for this kind of thing, the strategic outlook in Iraq will continue to degrade. It remains to be seen if they can.

i am sickened whenever people die needlessly. These terrorists are scum and nothing more. Killing innocents cannot be justified.

But come on, those troops should not have allowed the children near the vehicle. They knew they were a target. I've read what people have said about, troops doing the same thing in Germany, etc... But that was a different situation. After that war the germans wanted more than anything to rebuild and build a better future.
An all this heart and mind stuff is mental in my opinion. The US blew my neighbourood to pieces but I got a hershy bar, yay. :headbang:

The attacks were on US soldiers- a legitimate target. It was unfortunate that several civilians died but that was not on purpose. They didn't say "hey lket's go murder us some children, that'll show the americans"
The attack was on US soldiers- but it was obviously timed to maximize civilian casualties. They didn't wait till the soldiers run out of sweets and move on away from the crowd did they?

Personally i don't think they gave a shit whether some people around the troops died or not.
I'm willing to bet its the bombers supporters have made a point of letting anyone/everyone know that if your near the ennemy when they attack, tough shit. Your fault for being there. Whether they used a stick of TNT or a nuke.

I think it's disgraceful how the Americans are still luring crowds of kids to their armoured vehicles by handing out candy. They should know by now that they are a target every time they stop their vehicles. So why do it? Those kids were pretty much a human shield, no different to the alleged siting of AA guns in residential areas by the old regime.

You have got to be kidding. :rolleyes:

The attack was on US soldiers- but it was obviously timed to maximize civilian casualties. They didn't wait till the soldiers run out of sweets and move on away from the crowd did they?

Of course they didnt wait. See, by doing what they did, they get all the liberal soft-hearted (for lack of a better term) pussies to turn on the US soldiers who were really only attempting to show the civilian population that they mean them no harm. Anyone who thinks the US soldiers were really attempting to use the children as shields needs to go spend a year in Iraq and see what it's really like...but...that would probably require more testicular fortitude than could be mustered by those who need it most.

Excuse the somewhat heated reply here, it makes my blood boil for people to completely ignore the definition of terrorism and thus attack the US military - terrorism is by definition a highly public attack . Merely blowing up US soldiers isnt all that spectacular anymore - it's been happeneing for how long now? - but blowing up kids the soldiers were attempting to show kindness to is quite spectacular and by turning people in the homelands against the US military, the terrorists have succeeded in their attack. The target of a terrorist attack is never what's hit - it's the people that are left behind.