chicot

People came out to see what was going on - I've seen countless images and footage of crowds around burning vehicles in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time they have actually been bombed. Yes, there were some on the track (stupid, but I'm not sure if they deserve to die for that). Others were just milling around in the vicinity and the news crews were simply reporting on the event (I'm sure US news crews would never do such a thing). If it was simply US policy then why did they change their story a few hours later to say they were taking ground fire? The situation in Iraq is somewhat different from most wars - the US presence is supposed to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people and they are supposed to be working in consultation with the Iraqi "government". Events like this (whether policy or not) are a gift in recruiting terms to the insurgents and pretty embarrassing for the Iraqi interim government.

Sorry to hear that. Hope she recovers soon.

So it is actually policy to destroy vehicles even when they are surrounded by a crowd of civilians? In that case, I am suprised this sort of incident has not happened before since this sort of scenario has surely been played out many times before.

"Please pay careful attention to this......Their most beautiful young women are on the internet, selling themselves as "Russian Brides." As much as I am for personal freedoms, this is something that I wish that our government would make illegal." But then what would LABillzFan use for an avatar?

Helicopter targets crowd of civilians Eyewitness account Ok, so hopefully the crew just had a rush of blood to the head (I like to think that the US doesn't have a policy of deliberately targetting crowds of civilians, including children) and, apparently, there is going to be some sort of inquiry but why all the bs? The first explanation was that the Bradley was destroyed to prevent looting and "harm to the Iraqi people" (so they were killing them to prevent them from being harmed?). The second explanation (a few hours later) was that the helicopter was fired on, which is contradicted by all the TV footage and press teams on the scene. Just say an inquiry is taking place and leave it at that.

It's all well and good to pour scorn on polls, but how else is someone living in the US to get any idea of the state of overall opinion in Iraq?

My understanding of what's happening in Sudan (without checking) is that those being killed are also muslims.

I suppose he neglected to mention the 1982 massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in which some 2000 Palestinian old men, women and children were slaughtered by Christian militias. No religion or ethnic group has a monopoly on atrocities.

Nope. Zarqawi can hardly claim to be a freedom fighter - he's not even Iraqi. As I recall, a couple of Iraqi groups have threatened to kill him if he doesn't leave Iraq. Shame they haven't got him yet.

From what I've read, it seems most Chechens are pretty tired of the conflict and just want to see an end to it, which is unsuprising considering how long it's been going on for. I would guess that most Chechens do want independence, although I'm not sure that they'd be that crazy about a fundamentalist Islamic republic, but, even so, I doubt that any but the most hardcore would support what happened in Beslan the other week.

The question is which came first - Russian repression of the Chechens or Chechen terrorism? I don't know enough about the history of that region to say (assuming there is in fact a definite answer to the question), but it seems to me that there is little difference between those who would advocate the deliberate killing of civilians (not saying you advocated this) as a response to Chechen terrorists killing Russians, and Chechen terrorists advocating the killing of Russian civilians as as response to Russian atrocities. Both are advocating the killing of civilians in order to achieve an aim. To my mind, there can be no justification for the deliberate killing of civilians without coming pretty close to the terrorists' own way of thinking.

That's a fair question - I'm just as capable of bias as the next man. However, I don't believe that is the basis of my argument, and, yes, I would be against the deliberate targetting of civilians in the example you cited. All other considerations aside, the problem with such a response is that it simply doesn't work. As Darin points out, how is a person to react if their loved ones are killed because of something someone else did? Besides which, those that advocate Russia getting "tougher" on Chechnya are ignoring the fact that, according to independent human rights organisations, Russia has already been guilty of numerous atrocities and human rights violations in Chechnya. How on earth are they going to come down any harder on them than they already have done?

The best response would be one that comes from the head and not from the heart. Revenge may be emotionally satisfying but if it does nothing to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again and instead makes a repitition more likely, then it is a very hollow sort of victory. The perpetrators of this atrocity must have known that a heavy-handed indiscriminate response was a likely outcome, indeed they may well have been counting on it. The more that innocent Chechens are killed or punished for the actions of these maniacs the more likely it is that ordinary Chechens will take up arms against Russia. What is needed is a two-pronged approach - it must be made clear that Russia's quarrel is not with ordinary Chechens but with the monsters that would carry out such actions, while at the same time pursuing the terrorists will full vigour.

I thought you weren't actually suggesting that Russian troops might be deployed in Iraq? Won't happen. They have enough to deal with in Chechnya - it's not getting much press in the UK (nor in the US, I would imagine) but I read an article that stated they're losing an average of 15 men a week down there and it's more than likely that they will be increasing the amount of troops they have in that region. No, they have enough to deal with without getting dragged into Iraq.

Hopefully he will be arrested for incitement.

Ah, another of your cryptic posts

So let me get this straight. You are actually proposing the murder of children? In that case, how are you any better than the terrorists that committed this atrocity? I have no problem whatsoever with sending the actual culprits to meet their maker, but the killing of each and every person they knew makes no sense whatsoever. Extending this logic to 9/11, would you kill anyone who cut the hair of the hijackers or served them in a bar?

I did find the concept of a "pubic announcement" quite interesting though

If you don't want a debate then don't bother to post on a message board. So you are planning to kill "relitives, friends, neighbors, business associates, lovers, ex-friends, ex-lovers, bankers, bearddressers, doctors, lawyers (especially lawyers) and anyone who ever knew or had contact with these sons of bitches." And what of the children of these people? Are you planning to kill them or just deprive them of their parents? If the latter, what do you think the children are going to do when they're old enough? Congratulations, you've just created the next generation of terrorists.

Keep dreaming. Russia isn't going anywhere near Iraq. They have their own quagmire in Chechnya, where they are losing soldiers virtually daily.

Last I heard they had been transferred from a foreign group to a Iraqi group that were in favour of freeing them. It seems like they might be released soon.

Who the hell is apologising for their actions? Nothing justifies such an atrocity. Attempting to understand the history behind the conflict rather than adopting the terrorists' mindset and advocating a "kill 'em all" solution is not equivalent to "apologising for these scumbags".

Cheap shot. I have never justified the killing of innocent civilians, whatever the cause. Richio asked for examples, I gave them.

And what of the example I quoted - which is only a couple or so decades ago. Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers? They are a Hindu separatist movement in Sri Lanka and have been responsible for appalling massacres in the last couple of decades. And what of the violence between Sikhs and Hindus in India (I'll leave out Hindu/Muslim violence since you'll undoubtedly assume that it must be all the fault of the muslims). Maybe you should do a bit more research.

There are numerous examples of innocent people being blown up by terrorists in both Britain and Ireland during the troubles - just do a search for "Birmingham pub bombings". True, the perpertrators didn't actually blow themselves up but I hardly think that makes them morally superior. To me the crime of blowing up innocent people is equally repugnant whether or not the terrorist blows themselves up in the process.