Talk:2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing

Casualties
I wanna to create new section about the casualties of the this bombing. Please don't remove this section. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then make it more substantial than one sentence that copies the lead. WWGB (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism
As usual, people are doing original research and labeling this event as terrorism. We needed that label to be applied by a reliable source or two.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * pinging.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But what is terrorism?
 * "Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime."

- Terrorism in Wikipedia.


 * So how does this attack not fit under this definition? Not to mention that a lot of newspapers have reported it as terrorism. I give you that we don't know it's ISIS or not ... yet. We will soon, I guess. This is what Isis do.--Rævhuld (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Out of all the references cited, only this New York Times article contains the phrase "terror...," which is in the context of "Syrian state television said...in what it called a terrorist attack," and I do not believe that we should be in the business of repeating the claims of a blatantly partisan source. Also, I'm going to take this opportunity to point to the giant talk page and edit notices that say this article is under a 1RR sanction... The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are numerous newspapers, can we get a sentence in the article saying "the attack was considered terrorism" with those sources?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC):::
 * Just b/c a source is "blatantly partisan", doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong/lying *every* time. If NYT, RT, CNN, Fox, BBC, WSJ, or Al Jazeera told you that "the Earth is round", would you be like "I dunno, I need more sources before I can believe that". Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I mean, I pride myself on being *very* skeptical (hence the username), but there is such a thing as turning a virtue into a vice by taking it to an extreme, and calling "not terrorism" something that *any* halfway-reasonable person would classify as "terrorism" (b/c it fits the most broadly accepted definition) just b/c a "questionable" source classified it as such is taking skepticism too far, IMO. CitationKneaded (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism is threat to the entire humanity. Few so called religious people are misleading and misguiding unemployed youths to spread terrorism by killing innocent peoples. These religious believers are brain washing the youths and in the name of religion they are converting youths into human bombs. This kind of human bombs are named as jihadis. Appmarch (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? Er? What? Why are you questioning whether a suicide attack is terrorism or not? It's clearly got a terrorism box on the suicide attack page for that reason. Believe me, suicide bombings are terrorism and a very bad, terrible thing to do. The motives of such a person questioning this should be questioned. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do child deaths count more?
I hate to see it is explicitly stated 68 children are killed. It is never worth mentioning the number of innocent men being killed?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.237.61 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned because children are usually not legitimate targets in war. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither are civilian adults. Perfectly innocent grownups who invested more years into the lives they lost simply don't make people think of the children the same way dead children do. That sort of agist thinking is better suited to newspapers than Wikipedia, but if Wikipedia is a newspaper (I used to be surer it isn't), I guess it isn't a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * News outlets want to make money. A heartbreaking story where children died sells better then a stories where just some men died. And children are better for heartbreaking propaganda stories to legitimize a cause (eg. "Aleppo Girl") DerElektriker (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Child-Adult Differences

 * Child deaths are distinctly different from Adult deaths in the same way that children are different from adults in their capacity, power, authority, responsibility and accountability.


 * While adults are generally in a position to have some significant impact on their circumstances -- whether by deterring, avoiding, fleeing, cooperating with, or combating their opponents (almost universally adults) -- children have drastically far less capacity for such response, and, in any case, are normally subject to, and under, the control of adults who make their decisions for them.


 * It is generally assumed, in war, that children are, in ALL ways, innocent, helpless victims, who can never be blamed for the circumstances of war or violence -- whereas adults can be considered, in most cases, to have some influence over their own fate (again, by choosing to cooperate with, avoid, flee, deter, or combat their normally-adult opponents).


 * Further, the willful conduct of adults (acting with adult authority and capacity) is often argued (sometimes plausibly, sometimes not) to be justification for other adults making war upon them.


 * But there is absolutely no widely accepted notion that the conduct of chidren (who have little or no capacity or authority) is justification for adults making war upon them.


 * Further, the biological and psychological effects of war upon children are -- on average -- far more debilitating than such effects on adults, generally, with the result that children are far more vulnerable victims in war than adults -- resulting in disproportionately higher casualty rates for children than for adults when encounting the same violence.


 * Thes differences in the contexts of their deaths makes child deaths significantly separate biological, psychological, social, moral, religious, political and legal issues from adult deaths, and consesquently separate statistical issues in public affairs, journalism, education, and media -- including, of course, enclyclopedias, such as Wikipedia.


 * See:
 * * Machel G. The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children: Report of the Expert of the Secretary General of the United Nations, New York: United Nations; 1996, retrieved April 20, 2017.
 * * "Child Development and the Court: Justices Look to Science to Determine Children’s Culpability" - Office of Child Development - University of Pittsburgh, retrieved April 20, 2017.
 * * Pearn J., "Children and war". Journal of Paediatric Child Health. 2003;39:166–72. on PubMed, retrieved April 20, 2017.
 * * Scott, Prof. Elizabeth S., Columbia Law School, in “Children are Different”: Constitutional Values and Justice Policy,", Ohio State Journal of Crhimal Law, Vol 11:1, Ohio State University, pp.71-105, retrieved April 20, 2017.
 * * "Syllabus: MILLER v. ALABAMA: CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA," No. 10–9646. Supreme Court of the United States, Argued March 20, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012, retrieved April 20, 2017.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These people didn't have human opponents. Any adult skilled enough to deter, avoid, flee from, cooperate with or combat a sudden public explosion doesn't die. Same goes for exceptionally skilled children. These who died never seeing it coming and without asking for it are equally innocent. We're not talking about the effects of war here, only death. It's the same, psychologically and biologically, for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Western governments for silence
I have trimmed this addition of text down, as I think that it violates the principal of avoiding undue weight in articles to have a paragraph and very large quote regarding the opinion of one commentator. Also, the sentence about Iran's response was redundant to the line under the "Reactions" section, except for some speculative hypothesizing. I'm not certain that it's a good idea to be inserting political commentary at all, so I would appreciate other input. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * : Good edit. That addition had been largely a political opinion rant, running far afield of the core subject, rather than encyclopedic facts about this event. Thanks.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not even a rant against Western governments, it's a rant against the US government. Trump, particularly, I get that bashing Trump is sexy in the news, using any pretext, but don't see the point here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture of little girl eating
I notice a picture I added of a little girl from the area eating something (something that looked a bit like crisps) was taken down from the page. I would like to see it added back as although little girls holding signs is a good image, the one of the little girl eating is more relevant to the story of what actually happened and illustrates the page better. The look in her eyes says it all and more than a thousand words and who knows, maybe she was one of the kids that was killed. Would it be okay to put it back up? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)