• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"Saddam's Lion Cubs" CHILD version of the Fedayeen... great, now we will be forced to kill child soldiers

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Here is a Google search for supporting info

Saddam trains kids to kill
8,000-strong army of children ready to take on U.S. forces

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Reminiscent of the Hitler Youth of World War II, Saddam Hussein has trained an 8,000-strong army of children to face coalition forces in Baghdad.

In a report by the New York Daily News, Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution explains the children are considered a junior Fedayeen Saddam ? the paramilitary forces Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has dubbed "death squads" for the atrocities they commit.

The child army is called Ashbal Saddam, or Saddam's Lion Cubs, according to the report.

"Whatever the Fedayeen has been willing to do, you can extrapolate that these children will do the same," Singer told the paper.

After the first Gulf War, says Singer, Saddam began forcing boys as young as 6 into military boot camps. By age 10 the children are trained in the use of small arms and basic infantry tactics. Their uniform includes shirts with the inscription "Ashbal Saddam," according to the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights.

So, what can U.S. forces expect to see from the Lion Cubs?

"Ambushes, sniping, hit-and-run tactics are the most likely things we'll see," Singer said.

In northern Iraq, said the Daily News report, U.S. troops may find themselves fighting in the trenches alongside children. There are an estimated 3,000 children serving with Kurdish opposition forces opposed to Saddam, according to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.

Facing child warriors is nothing new for U.S. forces, having battled them in Vietnam, Somalia and Afghanistan.

U.S. military personnel are taught tactics to use when fighting children.

Keni Thomas, an Army Ranger who fought in Somalia, said that in the heat of battle, a soldier is a soldier.

"At the time, it is not a difficult decision to make," he told the paper. "In the end, only you know what you see down your sight. Whether it's a man, woman, child or machine firing at you, it's a threat."

In a December 2002 report titled "Iraq: A Population Silenced," the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor disclosed that Saddam Hussein forces "children between the ages of 10 and 15 to attend 3-week training courses in weapons? use, hand-to-hand fighting, rappelling from helicopters, and infantry tactics. These children endure 14 hours of physical training and psychological pressure each day." If families object to having their children turned into soldiers for Saddam, said the State Department report, they're "threatened with the loss of their food ration cards."

Saddam's recruitment and cultivation of child warriors is not surprising considering his close ties with the Palestinian Authority. As WorldNetDaily has reported, under the direction of PA leader Yasser Arafat, Palestinian children are commonly taught to hate Jews, to glorify jihad, violence, death and child martyrdom almost the earliest ages. Use of children as warriors, human shields and as suicide bombers is an essential part of the Palestinians' war strategy against Israel.

Saddam has routinely paid $25,000 to families of youthful Palestinian "martyrs" who died killing Israelis.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31869
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
Most of them will crap their pants and run once confronted.
If not they die.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
France was right, we should have allowed as much time as needed for the inspections, so this man stayed in power.......
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Those kids had no one to attack. Now we have kindly provided targets, who are obligated to kill them. Every ones fault but the invaders.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
notice the blame once again is the "invaders", not the guy training children for suicide missions.....

Did you miss the part where the family's food rations would be cut off if their children did not participate, give us your children for war, or starve to death...

but that's the US's fault too..............
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Did you miss the part where we have to shoot them since we are invading?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Also you might want to remove the quotes around invaders. We are and you know. We did not participate in the "liberation" of Normandy. We invaded it. Enough newspeak
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
We HAVE to shoot children, why would we have to? because they are shooting at us? well who gives guns to children?

I find it quite appropriate you also think this is perfectly fine.......
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
"Believe me, not only I, all the people of Iraq, not the people in the government, like Americans," Mohammed said. "They want to help the Americans, but they are all afraid."

you want a link to the rest of the article?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
You choose to miss the point. No it is not fine. However the US choose to invade. Do you thing Saddam had a huge magnet to suddenly suck in armored divisions? What a suprise! Again, if we had not started this and invaded (Yes, we did do this on purpose) then people would not have been forced to do this. Perhaps if there was no attacking army, people would be standing around shooting at shadows?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Hay did you see the latest terror attack, apparently a pregnant woman was forced to get into a vehicle loaded with explosives and drive to a check point.

Let me guess, they wouldn't have to blow up pregnant woman if we didn't have checkpoints....?

I know all about that, I've been invaded by checkpoints before, bullets flying everywhere...

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
The point is there are internationally accepted laws regarding this, as well as universal basic human morals and values that see this as nothing less than absolutely indefensible. Go ahead, keep condoning actions like this. It only makes you look like more of a troll than usual.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Im sorry I missed where people were randomly blowing themselves before the invasion. You will cite example after example of what should not be happening, but will ignore that no matter if by choice or by force, this would not be happening. Saddam is an SOB. Now you wish to ignore that there are events that did not happen before, but are now, and you will not face the fact that we started this war. No BS about what happened 12 years ago. As far as the international community is concerned, NOTHING has happened, although he has been incredibly cruel to his people. This is not about liberation, but 1441 though, remember?

I challange you to get me to say Saddam is a nice guy, but you will not consider the fact that invading is the trigger.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Im sorry I missed where people were randomly blowing themselves before the invasion. You will cite example after example of what should not be happening, but will ignore that no matter if by choice or by force, this would not be happening. Saddam is an SOB. Now you wish to ignore that there are events that did not happen before, but are now, and you will not face the fact that we started this war. No BS about what happened 12 years ago. As far as the international community is concerned, NOTHING has happened, although he has been incredibly cruel to his people. This is not about liberation, but 1441 though, remember?

I challange you to get me to say Saddam is a nice guy, but you will not consider the fact that invading is the trigger.
That woman didn't blow HERSELF up, she was forced into that situation, BIG DIFFERENCE. Would you blow yourself up? No, If I put a gun to your head and told you to drive a vehicle a mile down the road instead would you, hell yeah. What would you do when you got in the vehicle and saw it loaded with explosives, besides be a dead man?

Did you miss the part where people have been tortured for decades? Did you miss the THOUSANDS that have been gassed?

You say these atrocities WOULD NOT be happening if we had not invaded, sorry, they would have continued on and on as they have for decades, WE WILL STOP THINGS LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
thanks con, lol...

sorry trolls get me going, can you believe anyone would have such a lack of moral value they could argue any position where children were forced from their families to train to kill, even at 6 yrs of age....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
IMHO it's worth the few hundred Iraqi civilians, possibly thousands though, that Saddam has killed in this 2 week effort. He killed millions during the sanctions alone just due to not providing adequate food and basic medical care, not too mention the genocide, the rapes, the tortures, mass executions, etc.. At least all that will stop very soon.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Did you miss the part where we have to shoot them since we are invading?
Did I miss the part where we gave them guns, trained them to kill, and sent them in harms way?

Did I miss the part where we put a scared pregnant woman in a taxi cab filled with explosives and blew her up?

Did I miss the part where we loaded a van full of women and children and ordered them to run a blockade knowing that they would probably be killed and to get them to do this we told them that we would kill their family if they resisted?

Enlighten me, please.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Im sorry I missed where people were randomly blowing themselves before the invasion. You will cite example after example of what should not be happening, but will ignore that no matter if by choice or by force, this would not be happening. Saddam is an SOB. Now you wish to ignore that there are events that did not happen before, but are now, and you will not face the fact that we started this war. No BS about what happened 12 years ago. As far as the international community is concerned, NOTHING has happened, although he has been incredibly cruel to his people. This is not about liberation, but 1441 though, remember?

I challange you to get me to say Saddam is a nice guy, but you will not consider the fact that invading is the trigger.
That woman didn't blow HERSELF up, she was forced into that situation, BIG DIFFERENCE. Would you blow yourself up? No, If I put a gun to your head and told you to drive a vehicle a mile down the road instead would you, hell yeah. What would you do when you got in the vehicle and saw it loaded with explosives, besides be a dead man?

Did you miss the part where people have been tortured for decades? Did you miss the THOUSANDS that have been gassed?

You say these atrocities WOULD NOT be happening if we had not invaded, sorry, they would have continued on and on as they have for decades, WE WILL STOP THINGS LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING.

Glad to see you are part of the Final Solution

(gratuitous troll)
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
better than your solution, defending the morality that forcing pregnant woman and children into warfare is ok....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
I love how you defend his curent actions and forget his past atrocities that make our action justified....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Please point out where I approve of this, and I do not and never have liked the man.

Next, I have disagreed with your position, but did not start name calling. You call troll because you do not like the message. I do not like yours, but you insist on taking the low road. If you wish to do this and violate the rules of the forum then fine. I am not going to, although I was tempted to do so earlier. Keep on though if it makes you feel better. I am not going to scream for protection. I will take my lumps. I will take you on about specific points and issues though.

In context of threats and wrongdoings in the rest of the world, this war is an overblown response. If you know the history of the region, you know this scenario has been played out time and again by super powers of the day who were convinced it was the right thing to do without question, going back to the crusades. We will get rid of Saddam no question. I question how we do it. You probably were not there back in the days of Vietnam. Well, we 'did the right thing" there too, but the fact that we did not win is not the problem, but that we were there for the wrong reasons, convinced by the moral rightness of our actions. There too were atrocities, and bad people. Perhaps one day, history will be revised and Vietnam will be hailed by people as a wonderful attempt at liberation. Until those of my generation die though, some of us will remember the truth.

This has Vietnam written all over it, and not in a military sense. You are a Johnson and McNamara supporter, and I am not. So history repeats itself. You seem to have no doubt about these actions, but I am not certain I am right. You just might be. It is not your position that bother me, but the certainty of it, at least that is how you present yourself.

If I disagree or point out alternate explanations in ways that get attention, that defines me as a troll. So be it. Well, if you were open, you would see that there are points I am trying to make, whether you consider them correct or not. It may suprise you, but there are those who take the position that this is necessary with whom I have a good relationship and have many lively but respectful discussions. One in particular has a service record in combat in Vietnam as long as your arm. He is a man who deserves far more respect than you or I. He has seen more than I have. Yet he has doubts.

Well, you are going to get your wish. We have made war on a non agressor nation for our theoretical defense. Too bad we are not dropping theoretical bombs anymore. I am saying that in this forum, if bad things happen, I am going to hold peoples feet to the fire and not let them get away with blaming others however evil they may be for this invasion.

Time and again I hear about how people attack because they fear Saddam. While in part this is true, it is not always. Have you listened to the mainstream opinions of Arabs there? They are not for Saddam, but feel that invasion by the US is as great an evil if not more. So you say they do not live in Iraq, so cannot know what it is like. Well, yes they can because Iraq trades with people from Syria, Jordan etc. People there know exactly what Iraqis think, but the US is so superior in military and morality that you seemingly believe can and indeed are obligated to shepard these ignorant savages into enlightenment. The new White Mans Burden. Can you not imagine that people will fight passionately for their land, if not their leader? That they may be willing to die to repulse invaders? No, they are forced in all cases by the evil Saddam and we will either "teach" them to respect their betters or kill them. And all the time we are doing this you will blame Saddam as the sole reason for all that is bad. Well, Saddam did not put ALL those people into resisting, and neither is he shooting all the Iraqis. Want him out? Then at least be honest enough to say that wiping out the Iraqis is worth it, and stop all the liberating propaganda. No matter who is at fault, these people would not be blowing themselves up if we had not attacked. You wanted this, and those of like mind in power are in part responsible. Take the blood on your hands like a man, and not say in effect "Saddam made me do it" You will claim victory and beat your chest when this is over, but I will not let you and those like you turn away at the cost in Iraqi lives WE took. Blame Saddam for whatever. Justify it all you want, but your kind is revelling in this. WE ARE KILLING THOSE WHO NEVER DID US HARM AND NEVER REALLY INTENDED TO.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Take the blood on your hands like a man, and not say in effect "Saddam made me do it" You will claim victory and beat your chest when this is over, but I will not let you and those like you turn away at the cost in Iraqi lives WE took. Blame Saddam for whatever. Justify it all you want, but your kind is revelling in this. WE ARE KILLING THOSE WHO NEVER DID US HARM AND NEVER REALLY INTENDED TO.
Complete BS.

Of course the reverse is true. Would you accept the blood on your hands for the deaths of Iraqi people because of our inaction to remove Saddam?

Your pretense for caring for the Iraqi people is a farce--you do not care about them. Their suffering at the hands of Saddam was perfectly acceptable to you. How many times have you protested (on the streets or just here at the forum) against the treatment of the Iraqi people by Saddam? You claim Saddam to be a "bad" man.......wow, isn't that nice of you.

We are not responsible for Saddam blowing up civilians, Saddam and his murdering supporters are solely to blame. Typical liberal reasoning though, no one is really responsible for thier actions, it's always someone else's fault: We made Saddam blow up an innocent pregnant woman.

Typical. :disgust:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Take the blood on your hands like a man, and not say in effect "Saddam made me do it" You will claim victory and beat your chest when this is over, but I will not let you and those like you turn away at the cost in Iraqi lives WE took. Blame Saddam for whatever. Justify it all you want, but your kind is revelling in this. WE ARE KILLING THOSE WHO NEVER DID US HARM AND NEVER REALLY INTENDED TO.
Complete BS.

Of course the reverse is true. Would you accept the blood on your hands for the deaths of Iraqi people because of our inaction to remove Saddam?

Your pretense for caring for the Iraqi people is a farce--you do not care about them. Their suffering at the hands of Saddam was perfectly acceptable to you. How many times have you protested (on the streets or just here at the forum) against the treatment of the Iraqi people by Saddam? You claim Saddam to be a "bad" man.......wow, isn't that nice of you.

We are not responsible for Saddam blowing up civilians, Saddam and his murdering supporters are solely to blame. Typical liberal reasoning though, no one is really responsible for thier actions, it's always someone else's fault: We made Saddam blow up an innocent pregnant woman.

Typical. :disgust:

Of course it is BS, you say it is and it must be true. You cannot doubt anything. You are Rightous, are part of the new Master Race, in effect. You suppose to tell me what I feel. Well you need to start a new TV series. You can make millions on private appearances. BTW, I voted for Bush. Interesting how those who are agains this have to be liberal. You nicely pigenhole people for your own purposes.

Now the question is this, and answer is yes or no if you have the wit. If US troops were not invading, would people be blowing themselves and US soldiers up?

"Typical liberal reasoning though, no one is really responsible for their actions, it's always someone else's fault" Saddam is to blame for numerous atrocities. We are invading and killing and dont really give a flying fsck about the Iraqis except when it politically convient to do so. If that were not so, we would have been in Zimbabwe. Oh forgot about Bush's statement on that one? This is a matter of self interest ONLY. The fact that Iraqis will not have to live under him is an incidental to the administration. If anyone cared for the Iraqis, and I did not give much consideration to it before the current situation being a typical self absorbed American, as I am sure you were, I did not see it.
We are killing people there for all the good you claim will come from it. Where is that big magnet I mentioned before? Bush decided to attack. He did it. No one MADE him.
You however exempt youself from that though. Saddam made you do that. He is so powerful you lost all control and clamoured for this by his stunning mind control. No you and yours want this, and you have to take both credit and blame. Except, you cannot be blamed. I forgot


Funny, I didnt have you pegged for a liberal, thank you for saying you are.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY