Gunmen drive students from newly rebuilt schools

[Barrett808]

Gunmen drive students from newly rebuilt schools
By Solomon Moore
Los Angeles Times
Published: Sunday, December 17, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's schools, long touted by American officials as a success story in a land short on successes, increasingly are being caught in the crossfire of the country's escalating civil war.

President Bush has routinely talked about the refurbishment and construction of schools as a neglected story of progress in Iraq. The U.S. Agency for International Development has spent about $100 million on Iraq's education system and cites the rehabilitation of 2,962 school buildings as a signal accomplishment.

But today, across the country, campuses are being shuttered, students and teachers driven from their classrooms and parents left to worry that a generation of traumatized children will go without education.

Teachers tell of students kidnapped on their way to school, mortar rounds landing on or near campuses and educators shot in front of children.

This month insurgents distributed pamphlets at campuses, some sealed inside an envelope with an AK-47 bullet.

(more)

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/12/17/a2.int.warschools.1217.p1.php?section=nation_world

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I am assuming these are the same new schools

the freepers love to brag about our soldiers helping to build?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Specifically, the schools that First Lady Laura Bush was praising

as examples of "successes" of the Iraqi War that the media doesn't cover.

(You did a heckava job there, Pickles!)

[butterfly77]

15. Since she is a teacher ...

why doesn't she go volunteer her skills.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. She really is awful.

I wish she'd just shut the hell up. The crap that she spews is utterly insulting.

[rocktivity]

3. At best, that's only breaking even.

After all, we're the ones who blew up the schools--why shouldn't we rebuild them?

:shrug:
rocknation

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. How about waiting until the war is over?

[rdarmand]

4. These animals are going to win

It's pathetic. We agonize over every move we make, while these animals simply choose a new target, or employ a new tactic more abominable than the last. They aren't squeamish about committing any sort of travesty. They don't count the innocent they kill; no, they attribute the blame for that to us. They are guiltless; they act for God, and they have a religious world-view that blesses them and makes heroes of them for slaughtering babies in His name.

They will win. Not because they have the higher moral ground, but because they have greater moral fiber. They believe that their cause is just and they simply will not quit. We, on the other hand, have been comfortable too long. They are focused on winning, and are willing to pay any price to get there, while we worry about relative inconsequentials, like whether we are causing prisoners psychological anguish. They kill and maim women and children indiscriminately without a second thought, and we simply stand there, flabbergasted.

It no longer matters whether or not this mission was originally undertaken by a fool and for the wrong reasons. The Islamofascists took over this conflict and made it their own. If they succeed in running us out of Iraq, as it appears they will, they will know we can be beaten; and the conflict with Islamofascism will go nuclear before it's over.

This matter is now beyond politics. This is about our survival.

[LostinVA]

7. What animals?

You mean the partisans fighting against an illegal occupying army?

[Selatius]

12. If they engage in blowing up/killing innocent people, then some ought to be called animals.

But if that were the case, it wouldn't be fair to call some of them animals and ignore the atrocities committed by some on the American side either.

[EFerrari]

33. Wtf, PEOPLE are the only animals that kill for profit.

And when did progressives begin to call other human beings "animals"?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Animals?

You mean the PEOPLE who oppose the illegal invasion and occupation of their country? And per your sig line, is this what we are to assume Hillary, who supported the invasion, thinks, too?

[rdarmand]

10. I don't know what Hillary believes ...

... but I believe she will defend this country when the need arises. And it will.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Maybe the best "defense"

is to stay out of untenable conflicts in the first place, and maybe to refrain from characterizing others as "animals." Of course some are committing horrendous, barbaric acts for which there can be no justification, but the insurgency is now comprised to a considerable extent of ordinary Iraqis, not Al-Qaeda members. What measures would we take if our country were invaded in such a way?

I'm not sure what is meant by "defense" in this context.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libnnc]

17. So....

"Don't you realize, they intend to bring that battle home to us, on American soil? What will you do when they start blowing up people and destroying cities here?"



How are "they" going to get here to blow us all up?

You don't make much sense.

Enjoy your time here at DU.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libnnc]

21. Right. Stick around. Hopefully you'll learn something.

Or not.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libnnc]

26. You're most welcome.

:hi:

[Selatius]

23. Just a question.

Do you subscribe to the notion of fighting them in Iraq so that we don't fight them here?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

31. Then how do you propose we go forward in Iraq at this point forward?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

35. Wait. What is an "Islamofascist"?

I mean, besides a soundbite for Junior?

:rofl:

[Webster Green]

22. Islamo-fucking-fascism?

That's a good one. Where did you hear it?

I remember the chimp using that expression. Did you get it from him.

Do you believe what he says?

It sounds like you do.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

53. It's a bushism, and not a very accurate one..

There is nothing remotely "fascist" about the insurgents who are fighting the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Our government, under the war-chimp, however, is increasingly Christo-Fascist. They are the ones you should worry about.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Define "Islamofascist."

That's a nice little neocon buzzword that doesn't mean anything. Yes, there are Muslim extremists who believe they have a religious obligation to drive Westerners out of the Middle East; and yes, they are dangerous. But they aren't fascists. Fascists generally promote government by a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of the state and corporations. Al Qaeda and its ilk, in contrast, have no state at all, let alone a monolithic, dictatorial, authoritarian, corporatist state.

The extremists who are resorting to terrorism were, at least originally, Wahhabists originating mainly in Saudi Arabia who advocate an extremely austere, strict, medieval form of Islam. They regard non-Wahhabists (not just non-Muslims) as heretics. Al Qaeda's terrorist acts stemmed from the presence in Saudi Arabia of American military bases; this was Bin Laden's stated reason for 9/11. They want us the hell out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq and they don't like our support of Israel, which they believe wrongfully occupies land belonging to Muslims. They are fanatics and extremists but, lacking an authoritarian, corporatist state, they are not fascists.

I am not in the least defending them or their actions, which are indefensible, and of course they will try to attack the U.S. or our interests again. But they don't hate us for our freedom; they hate us for our foreign policy. Furthermore, they can't destroy us -- and of they know this. But *if we let them,* they can scare us, which, of course, is the whole point of terrorism. The Bush Administration has done a fine job of fear-mongering, and you seem to have bought into it.

Furthermore, I am all in favor of fighting against the extremists who did 9/11 and who continue to pose a danger, but it needs to be done intelligently. Right now it isn't, and nothing is added to the debate by conflating Iraq's home-grown insurgency with Al Qaeda. The insurgency is the direct result of the incompetence of the CPA, Rummy's DoD, and Abu Ghraib. If invaders did to us what we are doing to Iraq, who among us wouldn't become an insurgent, too?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

36. This isn't about Iraq?

ATTENTION K-MART SHOPPERS:

THIS IS THE MOST CALLOUS STATEMENT I HAVE EVER READ AT DU. TELL IT TO THE THOUSANDS OF GRIEVING IRAQIS WHOSE FAMILY MEMBERS WE'VE SLAUGHTERED.

And, btw, :puke:

[libnnc]

24. *snicker* You sound really convincing.

:dunce:

[leftchick]

14. "The Islamofascists" ?? ROFL!

Islamofascists isn't even a word and as far as killing innocents and not counting them I thought at first you were talking about the US Occupiers who have not bothered to count the close to ONE MILLION Iraq innocents killed as a direct result of the US illegal invasion and occupation.

And your other seriously misguided comment: "while we worry about relative inconsequentials, like whether we are causing prisoners psychological anguish."??? Think about that the next time a US soldier is captured by anyone anywhere. We have set new standards in detention and torture that would make our Fore Fathers weep.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

27. do you realize

what you wrote makes no sense? Apparently not. No wonder you failed to address the slaughter of Iraqis by the US occupiers.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

34. Tautology anyone?

[EFerrari]

32. "Animals"?

You mean, like this animal?



How entitled are you?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

46. You mean, how many shots did he get off trying to defend his home

from an illegal foreign invasion?

You don't know.

[scarletwoman]

39. Speaking of animals, please try to not be such an ass.

I quote:

They kill and maim women and children indiscriminately without a second thought...

The only difference between these "animals" and US is that we have a newspeak term for that particular type of event. WE call it "collateral damage" when our bombs ("surgical strikes") come screaming down into some family's home. A family of human beings just trying to hold themselves together.

War does not "discriminate". This is OUR war of choice. It was utterly unnecessary. War ALWAYS involves atrocity, ALWAYS. If you dare deny that then I declare that you are utterly ignorant of history and of human nature. NOT animal nature -- no animal has ever engaged in mass killings of its own kind!

We brought this war to a people living in a sovereign nation. They had a fucked up government (gosh, so do we), but for the most part they were able to go about their daily lives.

The U.S. roared in -- "shock and awe" -- and either directly destroyed or allowed to be destroyed ("Freedom is messy" -- Donald Rumsfeld) a HUGE portion of Iraq civil society.

When you reduce a once-functioning society to chaos, the darkest factions of that society will erupt. There is NO human on earth that does not contain within her/himself the capacity to succumb to one's absolutely basest instincts.

The Iraqis doing bad things are no less human than the U.S. citizens who lynched blacks and made picture postcards of the event. HUMANS have the capacity to do incredibly horrific things to their fellow humans. This is proven throughout history.

The awful, horrific things being done by humans to other humans in Iraq is a direct result of our destruction of their country. Any denial of this essential fact does not merit any serious consideration whatsoever.

sw

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libnnc]

42. you're skating on thin ice with that icon remark...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

44. Excuse me. I do hope you will explain precisely what about the invasion of Iraq

was an "accident".

Take your time, I'll keep checking back.

Nice icon. Are you really a scarlet woman? Good for you.

Yes, but not necessarily good for you.

sw

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

50. THIS war was completely, utterly, unequivocally "unnecessary".

And when you intiate a war of choice, then NO "collateral damage" is an "accident". If you had not initiated the war, there would be no "collateral damage".

Are you being this dense on purpose?

sw

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

52. Bullshit. And I notice how you keep changing your arguments.

Yes, there are some Islamic fundamentalists involved in Iraq, but they are not at all the main problem. The main problem is POLITICAL, not religious. The Shia segment of the population wants their shot at being in power. The Sunnis are not happy about losing their power.

And such projection! You invoke the label "hegemonistic" about a religion! Are you truly that unable to see just WHO is acting out of "hegemonistic" interest here?

Exactly WHY are we in Iraq, hmmm? Do you wish to invoke the "White Man's Burden" in order to shore up your current argument? "...free liberal civilization of the West", indeed.

As Gandhi said, there is no people on earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the government of an alien power.

sw

[Rex]

49. Oh no, nice try but this is exactly politics!

This is the politics of stupid people who wanted to go to war and make money. They drum up the exact same amount of hatred and blame in the same God who supposedly the Iraqis worship. Funny that. All these stupid people killing each other over the same God. This is what happens when you mix guns with religion and stupidity.

You get this shit in Iraq.

We are going to lose Iraq just like we did Vietnam and still have the same stupid people say we could have won.

Sad and pathetic.

[jmowreader]

6. Okay, let's see if I got this right...

In February 2003, Iraq had lots of schools. They didn't have all that many bullet holes in them, children could attend them without fear of violence, teachers could work in them with little fear, and boys and girls sat next to each other in class.

In March 2003, we went to Iraq and blew all of them up.

In December 2006, some of the schools are back open. Boys go to one school, girls to another. They have to use buckets to catch the rainwater that comes through the bomb holes in the roof, and if you try going to one you might learn what your teacher sounds like when the Shia are assassinating her.

And they wonder why we don't call this a success story.

[tanyev]

9. And then the insurgents will start using these nice new buildings

as bases, and we will have to blow them up all over again. WTG, George.

[Disturbed]

11. Laura and the Twins should go to Iraq and

defend the schools.