In Which The Gorilla Admits ...

That I've always rather liked "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath. Then somebody found a version of it on youtube and sent me a link to it. Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of death's construction In the fields the bodies burning As the war machine keeps turning Death and hatred to mankind Poisoning their brainwashed minds Oh lord yeah! Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait 'til their judgement day comes Yeah! Now in darkness world stops turning Ashes where the bodies burning No more war pigs have the power Hand of God has struck the hour Day of judgement, God is calling On their knees the war pig's crawling Begging mercy for their sins Satan laughing spreads his wings All right now! markfromireland

Children Have Been Killed When Vehicles Offload Rubbish Many Die of Disease

Both Erdla and I have written repeatedly about the plight of Iraqi widows, families, and children of how they are so desperate for food that they scavenge rubbish dumps for food, of how they are at risk from disease, of how they are at risk of abduction and torture, of how their educational prospects are being ruined. The list of damage done by the American war against Iraq is endless. The two pictures above taken on - Thursday June 15th 2006, show children at work sorting through rubbish at a dump just south of Najaf. More than 120 families live beside the dump and work their during the day salvaging food and anything they might be able to sell. Several children have been killed when vehicles offload rubbish many die of disease. I've listed below most of the postings. You'll find plentyu more information in the comments Mission accomplished. Well done. Now go. Tuesday, May 30, 2006 Lost In Land That Cannot Provide - Yet Another Update. Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12 years old - hauled off the street whipped with electric cables, violated with an electric drill, shot, body dragged through the streets Monday, May 15, 2006 President George W. Bush described militias as one of Iraq's main challenges Wednesday, May 10, 2006 The position of women in Iraq and Iran Thursday, April 27, 2006 Lost in Land That Cannot Provide - Update Friday, April 21, 2006 Are you hungry? Thursday, April 13, 2006 We'd Rather Kill 'Em Off By Peaceful Means Tuesday, April 04, 2006 Cause and Effect Friday, March 31, 2006 Women and Children First Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Aromatic, Joyful, Singing (See the comments as well) Wednesday, February 01, 2006 An Intervention for Good Thursday, January 26, 2006 No Child Left Behind Part 1 Sunday, January 15, 2006 Lost in land that cannot provide markfromireland

Jones v. Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and others

The House of Lords (Britain's supreme court) has overturned the Court of Appeal and ruled that four britons Ron Jones, Les Walker, Bill Samson and, Sandy Mitchell Who were imprisoned and tortured in Saudi Arabia do not have the right to sue the Saudi authorities. The Lords allowed an appeal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against the October 2004 Court of Appeal decision [EWCA Civ 1394] granting the Jones permission to sue for damages for their treatment at the hands of the Saudi authorities. The court accepted the appelants contention that the State Immunity Act[1978] protected Saudi officials from proceedings brought in the United Kingdom. The Lords' Judgement can be found here. The case is considered likely to go to the European Court of Human Rights. At first sight the Lords appear to have relied excessively on Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait (No 2) (1996) 107 ILR 536. And to have made a narrow judgement that ignores the thrust of recent international law and of the intent of the Human Rights Act 1998 The Lords moreover appear to consider that the principle that actions of the appelants agents and servants be attributed to the apellant does not hold:Prosecutor v Blaskic (1997) 110 ILR 607, 707 "Such officials are mere instruments of a state and their official action can only be attributed to the state. They cannot be the subject of sanctions or penalties for conduct that is not private but undertaken on behalf of a state. In other words, state officials cannot suffer the consequences of wrongful acts which are not attributable to them personally but to the state on whose behalf they act: they enjoy so-called 'functional immunity'. This is a well-established rule of customary international law going back to the 18th and 19th centuries, restated many times since." Saying: 68. Despite the undoubted authority for expressing the rule in this way, I do respectfully think that it is a little artificial to say that the acts of officials are "not attributable to them personally" and that this usage can lead to confusion, especially in those cases in which some aspect of the immunity of the individual is withdrawn by treaty, as it is for criminal proceedings by the Torture Convention. It would be strange to say, for example, that the torture ordered by General Pinochet was attributable to him personally for the purposes of criminal liability but only to the State of Chile for the purposes of civil liability. It would be clearer to say that the Torture Convention withdrew the immunity against criminal prosecution but did not affect the immunity for civil liability. I would therefore prefer to say, as Leggatt LJ did in Propend Finance Pty Ltd v Sing (1997) 111 ILR 611, 669, that state immunity affords individual employees or officers of a foreign state "protection under the same cloak as protects the state itself". But this is a difference in the form of expression and not the substance of the rule. This narrow distinction seems to me to be highly artificial and contrary to the thrust of the Lords' own recent judgements and to the provisions of the 1998 act. I hope to write more on this when I have had time to have read the judgement more thoroughly. markfromireland Begin Notes: — Relevant sections of the Act United Kingdom STATE IMMUNITY ACT OF 1978 An Act to make new provision with respect to proceedings in the United Kingdom by or against other States. to provide for the effect of judgments given against the United Kingdom in the courts of States parties to the European Convention on State Immunity; to make new provision with respect to the immunities and privileges of heads of State; and for connected purposes. [2Oth July 1978] PART I. PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED KINGDOM BY OR AGAINST OTHER STATES Immunity from jurisdiction 1.--(1) A State is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom except as provided in the following provisions of this Part of this Act. (2) A court shall give effect to the immunity conferred by this section even though the State does not appear in the proceedings in question. Exceptions from immunity 2.--(1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings in respect of which it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom. (2) A State may submit after the dispute giving rise to the proceedings has arisen or by a prior written agreement; but a provision in any agreement that it is to be governed by the law of the United Kingdom is not to be regarded as a submission. (3) A State is deemed to have submitted-- (a) if it has instituted the proceedings; or (b) subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, if it has intervened or taken any step in the proceedings. (4) Subsection (3)(b) above does not apply to intervention or any step taken for the purpose only of-- (a) claiming immunity; or (b) asserting an interest in property in circumstances such that the State would have been entitled to immunity if the proceedings had been brought against it. (5) Subsection (3)(b) above does not apply to any step taken by the State in ignorance of facts entitling it to immunity if those facts could not reasonably have been ascertained and immunity is claimed as soon as reasonably practicable. (6) A submission in respect of any proceedings extends to any appeal but not to any counterclaim unless it arises out of, the same legal relationship or facts as the claim. (7) The head of a State's diplomatic mission in the United Kingdom, or the person for the time being performing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to submit on behalf of the State in respect of any proceedings; and any person who has entered into a contract on behalf of and with the authority of a State shall be deemed to have authority to submit on its behalf in respect of proceedings arising out of the contract. 3.--(1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to-- (a) a commercial transaction entered into by the State or (b) an obligation of the State which by virtue of a contract (whether a commercial transaction or not) falls to be performed wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. (2) This section does not apply if the parties to the dispute are States or have otherwise agreed in writing; and subsection (1)(b) above does not apply if the contract (not being a commercial transaction) was made in the territory of the State concerned and the obligation in question is governed by its administrative law. (3) In this section "commercial transaction" means-- (a) any contract for the supply of goods or services; (b) any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation; and (c) any other transaction or activity (whether of a commercial, industrial, financial, professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority; but neither paragraph of subsection (1) above applies to a contract of employment between a State and an individual. 4.--(l) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to a contract of employment between the State and an individual where the contract was made in the United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly or partly performed there. (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, this section does not apply if-- (a) at the time when the proceedings are brought the individual is a national of the State concerned; or (b) at the time when the contract was made the individual was neither a national of the United Kingdom nor habitually resident there; or (c) the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing. (3) Where the work is for an office, agency or establishment maintained by the State in the United Kingdom for commercial purposes, subsection (2)(a) and (b) above do not exclude the application of this section unless the individual was, at the time when the contract was made, habitually resident in that State. (4) Subsection (2)(c) above does not exclude the application of this section where the law of the United Kingdom requires the proceedings to be brought before a court of the United Kingdom. (5) In subsection (2)(b) above "national of the United Kingdom" means a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a person who is a British subject by virtue of section 2, 13 or 16 of the British Nationality Act 1948 or by virtue of the British Nationality Act 1965, a British protected person within the meaning of the said Act of 1948 or a citizen of Southern Rhodesia. (6) In this section "proceedings relating to a contract of employment" includes proceedings between the parties to such a contract in respect of any statutory rights or duties to which subject as employer or employee. 5. A State is not immune as respects proceedings in respect of-- (a) death or personal injury; or (b) damage to or loss of tangible property, caused by an act or omission in the United Kingdom. 6.--(1) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to-- (a) any interest of the State in, or its possession or use of, immovable property in the United Kingdom; or (b) any obligation of the State arising out of its interest in, or its possession or use of, any such property. (2) A State is not immune as respects proceedings relating to any interest of the State in movable or immovable property, being an interest arising by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia. (3) The fact that a State has or claims an interest in any property shall not preclude any court from exercising in respect of it any jurisdiction relating to the estates of deceased persons or persons of unsound mind or to insolvency, the winding up of companies or the administration of trusts. (4) A court may entertain proceedings against a person other than a State notwithstanding that the proceedings relate to property-- (a) which is in the possession or control of a State; or (b) in which a State claims an interest, if the State would not have been immune had the proceedings been brought against it or, in a case within paragraph (b) above, if the claim is neither admitted nor supported by prima fade evidence. … … Supplementary provisions 14.--(1) The immunities and privileges conferred by this Part of this Act apply to any foreign or commonwealth State other than the United Kingdom, and references to a State include references to-- (a) the sovereign or other head of that State in his public capacity; (b) the government of that State; and (c) any department of that government, but not to any entity (hereafter referred to as a "separate entity") which is distinct from the executive organs of the government of the State and capable of suing or being sued. (2) A separate entity is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom if, and only if-- (a) the proceedings relate to anything done by it in the exercise of sovereign authority; and (b) the circumstances are such that a State (or, in the case of proceedings to which section 10 above applies, a State which is not a party to the Brussels Convention) would have been so immune. (3) If a separate entity (not being a State's central bank or other monetary authority) submits to the jurisdiction in respect of proceedings in the case of which it is entitled to immunity by virtue of subsection (2) above, subsections (1) to (4) of section 13 above shall apply to it in respect of those proceedings as if references to a State were references to that entity. (4) Property of a State's central bank or other monetary authority shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) of section 13 above as in use or intended for use for commercial purposes; and where any such bank or authority is a separate entity subsections (1) to (3) of that section shall apply to it as if references to a State were references to the bank or authority. (5) Section 12 above applies to proceedings against the constituent territories of a federal State; and Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the other provisions of this Part of this Act to apply to any such constituent territory specified in the Order as they apply to a State. (6) Where the provisions of this Part of this Act do not apply to a constituent territory by virtue of any such Order subsections (2) and (3) above shall apply to it as if it were a separate entity. l5.--(l) If it appears to Her Majesty that the immunities and privileges conferred by this Part of this Act in relation to any State-- (a) exceed those accorded by the law of that State in relation to the United Kingdom; or (b) are less than those required by any treaty. convention or other international agreement to which that State and the United Kingdom are parties. Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for restricting or, as the case may be, extending those immunities and privileges to such extent as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate. (2) Any statutory instrument containing an Order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 16.--(l) This Part of this Act does not affect any immunity or privilege conferred by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 or the Consular Relations Act 1968; and-- (a) section 4 above does not apply to proceedings concerning the employment of the members of a mission within the meaning of the Convention scheduled to the said Act of 1964 or of the members of a consular post within the meaning of the Convention scheduled to the said Act of 1968; (b) section 6(1) above does not apply to proceedings concerning a State's title to or its possession of property used for the purposes of a diplomatic mission. (2) This Part of this Act does not apply to proceedings relating to anything done by or in relation to the armed forces of a State while present in the United Kingdom and. in particular, has effect subject to the Visiting Forces Act 1952. (3) This Part of this Act does not apply to proceedings to which section 17(6) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 applies. (4) This Part of this Act does not apply to criminal proceedings. (5) This Part of this Act does not apply to any proceedings relating to taxation other than those mentioned in section 11 above. 17.--(1) In this Part of this Act-- "the Brussels Convention" means the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning the Immunity of State-owned Ships signed in Brussels on 10th April 1926; "commercial purposes" means purposes of such transactions or activities as are mentioned in section 3(3) above; "ship" includes hovercraft. (2) In sections 2(2) and 13(3) above references to an agreement include references to a treaty, convention or other international agreement. (3) For the purposes of sections 3 to 8 above the territory of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to include any dependent territory in respect of which the United Kingdom is a party to the European Convention on State Immunity. (4) In sections 3(l), 4(1), 5 and 16(2) above references to the United Kingdom include references to its territorial waters and any area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964. (5) In relation to Scotland in this Part of this Act "action in rem" means such an action only in relation to Admiralty proceedings. end notes

US President Possessed

By the ghost of Rod Hull that is: Didn't anyone warn the chimp that emu's can be difficult to control? markfromireland

No Room At the Hospital - Part 2

This is an update to the posting I made on Sunday, June 11, 2006 Gorilla's Guides: No Room At the Hospital In that posting one of my readers, Maryam, made the following comment: Wounded people being turned away from hospitals is very common now. I work in an emergency department and we have no space. There are no beds in the wards. They are all taken with badly wounded people. We cannot get plasma. We cannot get drugs. We cannot even get normal saline. We have to wash surgical gloves that are meant to be thrown away after one use. The list is endless. I go home now and I am to exhausted and numb to do anything but sit and stare. — Emphasis added by me - mfi The photo above taken today in Samarra about half an hour after a market was bombed. [The bomb targetted a police patrol but missed them, three civilains were killed and eight injured - mfiI] llustrates Maryam's point perfectly. The doctor in the photo is treating one of the injured on the floor because there's no space to do it anywhere else in the A&E department. His efforts to save his patient's life were unsuccessful. The unfortunate man died about 30 minutes after the photo was taken. markfromireland

Gorilla's Guides: What Was That We're All Meant To Be "Pro" Again? Part 2

I blogged about this episode on Wednesday May 31st. Gorilla's Guides: What Was That We're All Meant To Be "Pro" Again? Here's part of what I said back then: "The caption for this photo reads as follows: A young boy riding a bicycle looks across at a newly-erected warning sign put up Wednesday, May 31, 2006 on a road around 100 metres from the maternity hospital which Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, a pregnant woman and her 57-year-old cousin Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were driving to for Jassim to give birth when they were killed in Samarra, Iraq Tuesday, May 30, 2006. U.S. forces apparently shot to death two Iraqi women, one of them pregnant, when they fired at a vehicle that failed to stop at an observation post in the town, Iraqi officials and relatives said." [Emphasis added by me, pay particular attention to that figure 100 metres, 100 m = 328' - 1" (feet, inches and tenths-of-an-inch) or to round it off 100 metres is a little bit over 109 yards. - mfi] Dahr Jamail working with Arkan Hamed has further updates to this story. The article which can be found here confirms the many of the details previously known such as the US army's initials statement: "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," the military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. "Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant." As I said at the time there was no "may have been about it" - the US army admitted killing both Nabiha Nisaif Jassim and her cousin Saliha Mohammed Hassan. As Nabiha was being raced to the maternity hospital to give birth to her third child. The US army statement made two claims: It claimed that the checkpoint was clearly marked. It claimed that the driver failed to stop "despite repeated visual and auditory warnings." Both points are disputed by the driver of the car Nabiha's brother Khalid Nisaif Jassim, and two local residents back his version of events up. "The brother of the pregnant woman, Redam Nisaif Jassim, who was driving the car, told IPS that he neither saw nor heard any warnings by the U.S. military. Two men who witnessed the incident from a nearby home also said they saw no signs of any warning." Dahr Jamail's and Arkan Hamed's report again confirms what I wrote back on May 31st. That the checkpoint as is almost invariably the case with US checkpoints took place at a concealed checkpoint. It wasn't easy to see, it wasn't meant to be. "The area where they were killed by the Americans was completely unmarked," the human rights investigator told IPS. A warning sign at the place was put up after the two women were killed, he said. The report confirms moreover that in this case as in so many others the victims were shot from behind by a concealed American sniper and that US troops made no attempt to help their victims. "I investigated this incident myself, and both of these women were shot from behind," said the investigator. "Nabiha's brains were splattered on her brother who was driving the car, since she was in the back seat." According to the investigator, the U.S. troops who killed the two women made no attempt to assist them after the shooting. "The next day Redam Jassim was summoned to a local police station. "The Americans offered me 5,000 dollars, and told me it wasn't compensation but because of tradition," Jassim told IPS. The U.S. military pays usually 2,500 dollars compensation for killing an Iraqi. Jassim says he refused the payment. [These are the so-called "Solatia Payments" and are not an admission of liability see notes at the end of this posting - mfi] In short we still have a situation where a mother of two being rushed to give birth in the local maternity hospital was, together with her 57 year old cousin shot from behind by a concealed sniper, and died as a result. Efforts to save her baby were unsuccessful. The incident took place at what appears to have been a concealed checkpoint, the existentce of which was not notified to the public at the time it was erected, and was indeed only signposted the next day. Moreover all witnesses specifically contradict the US version of events and at the very least questions as to why payment was offered. There are good grounds for suspecting that as in Haditha [see in particular note 4 in the notes below] the motive was not "to express sorrow" but rather it was species of "hush money." markfromireland Notes Note 1: "The availability of the CERP funds provides commanderswith the capability and flexibility to take immediate action to positively impact their area of responsibility. Commanders can use the CERP for (1) reconstruction assistance;(2) the CERP small rewards program; or (3) compensation for economic loss due to death or serious bodily injury. The CERP funds also continue to pay otherwise meritorious claims that may not be paid under the FCA." See: Notes from the field. For general legal background on Solatia. [ One of the particular examples used is a vehicle approaching a checkpoint at a high rate of speed. If soldiers fire on that vehicle that is a combat-related incident, and cannot be compensated under the Foreign Claims Act, but if innocent civilians are killed, the local Commander can make a payment from what are called CERP funds to compensate victims/relatves. Briefly the legal situation is that while foreign nationals may claim for injury or damage caused by the the US under the Foreign Claims Act, such claims may not be made under the FCA for combat injuries or death. In such a case "Solatia" payments are made as "an expression of sorrow" they are discretionary and ex gratia " made under the "Commanders Emergency Response Program" (CERP). CERP Payments have have rocketed in the the last year. Particularly from the United States Marine Corps (USMC.) To an extent this reflects the intensity of combat in al-Anbar (Samarra is in Salah ad Din.) Note 2: See: Condolence payments to Iraqis soar Military gave nearly $20m to families of civilians By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe | June 8, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The amount of cash the US military has paid to families of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed in operations involving American troops skyrocketed from just under $5 million in 2004 to almost $20 million last year, according to Pentagon financial data The dramatic spike in what's known as condolence payments -- distributed to Iraqi families whose loved ones were caught in US crossfire or victimized during US ground and air assaults -- suggests that American commanders made on-the-spot restitution far more frequently, according to congressional aides and officials familiar with a special fund at the disposal of military officers in Iraq. Note 3: also see: Civilian Losses Compensation Payments Rising, Especially by Marines By DAVID S. CLOUD New York Times | WASHINGTON, June 9 Almost half of the more than $19 million in compensation that the American military allocated last year to compensate for killing or injuring Iraqis and damaging property came from Marine-led units in Anbar Province, Defense Department records show. The $9.5 million in "condolence payments" by the Marines reflects the persistent fighting against insurgents in violent Anbar, but it also provides a reminder of the heavy toll that the conflict has taken on civilians, mostly from insurgents but also from American units. Note 4: A particular point to note is no money is paid to Iraqi's killed by insurgents. This was, to me at any rate one of the first indisputable indications that a cover up in Haditha had been attempted by the local commanders. The payments are made solely as a result of US actions and are made at the discretion of the local commander. In Haditha the US army first claimed that the 24 in Haditha had been killed by insurgents and then paid them. Clearly a HUGE discrepency between policy and what was done. The question immediately arose in my mind as to why the money was paid. The only reasonable explanation is as "hush money." Note 5: Readers should also note that given that the payment for a death is US$2,500.00 payments in the order of US$19 million implies a massive number of civilian deaths many thousands of civilians deaths. Yet the admitted total of civilian deaths is considerably less than 1,000 - in the order of 600. markfromireland cross posted to markfromireland

Sounds Like The Bush Administration To Me

"Madrid, 12 June (AKI) - The National Court - Spain's terrorism and organised crime tribunal - on Monday announced it will investigate the alleged use of Spanish airports by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) flights for the illegal transfer of terrorism suspects to secret jails around the world. … … … " [emhasis added - mfi] Full story here. Terrorism and organised crime eh? Sounds like the Bush administration to me. Well if the cap fits … … … markfromireland

We You They

"They hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets," base commander Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris told reporters in a conference call from the US base in southeastern Cuba. "They have no regard for human life," he said. "Neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us." Source [emphasis mine - mfi] "a good PR move" — Senior State Department spokesman Colleen Graffy Source 1 Source 2 in a little more detail: "They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," said Rear Adm. Harry Harris Jr., the commander at Guantanamo. "They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us." Source "We" on the other hand panic when civilised people react with outrage every time we display our naked contempt for human life and civilised values: "I wouldn't characterise it is as a good PR move." — Cully Stimson, deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Detainee Affairs. Source: Source 2 Above and we have been here before: "Orientals don't place the same value on human life as we do." — General William Westmoreland. You lost that one too. markfromireland

This Is Seriously Bad News

"Oil discovery size sends DNO stock soaring Share prices for stock in Norwegian oil company DNO jumped Monday after the company said its oil discovery in Iraq will amount to at least 100 million barrels. DNO earlier had confirmed its discovery of oil in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, but hadn't disclosed its size. On Sunday, company officials and officials in Iraq said DNO had found at least 100 million barrels. … … … Source: Aftenposten English Web Desk" Related stories from Aftenposten: DNO confirms oil discovery - 05.05.2006 Rising oil prices boost stocks - 11.04.2006 DNO strikes oil in Iraq - 10.04.2006 In the current climate this is not good news … … … markfromireland

No Room At the Hospital

What do you think of when you see a headline like this? Attacks, bombs kill 24 people across Iraq BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Two bombs aimed at police patrols exploded Saturday in Baghdad as another spate of insurgent attacks killed at least 24 people countrywide on Saturday, while insurgent groups offered condolences for the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and warned they would continue his campaign of violence. The first explosion missed the police patrol but struck the al-Sadriya market in a mixed Shiite-Sunni Arab neighbourhood in central Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 27, police said. … … Al-Sadriya's a vegetable market the area it's in is mixed but mostly Shi'ite and on a Saturday morning it'd be very busy. This particular bomb was left in a plastic bag and the target apparently was a police patrol. The bombers missed them but "got" plenty of civilians. Reports vary but all agree that something in the region of thirty people - including children were wounded, while, depending on which report you believe, either three or four people died. It's difficult to describe the aftermath of a bombing to someone who hasn't experienced it. There's a moment of numbed shock, followed by horror, fear, nausea, and frenetic activity. Most people recover fairly quickly and then either run away or rush to help the wounded as can be seen in the photo here of the immediate aftermath of yesterday's market bombing. Then there was the bombing in in al-Karradah. I've written about al-Karradah recently: "Karada's a fairly up-market southern suburb of Baghdad with relatively good security." It's a popular shopping area in downtown Baghdad people still come from all over Baghdad to shop there.That particular bombing killed five people and wounded another 14 according to police. Just another day in Baghdad really. But what of the aftermath. What happens to the people whose photographs I post being rushed to hospital or being put into ambulances. What in particular happens to the children? Abdullah Mohammed, is 12 years old,he was injured in the Karradah bombing. He was brought by ambulance to the Ibn al-Nafees hospital and treated. Esra Mahmoud, aged 13, was brought to the Ibn al-Nafees hospital in Baghdad, and treated. The third child Ibtisam Mahmoud is aged 9. She was injured by the bomb targeting a police patrol in the Al-Sadriya market. Her condition isn't known but isn't thought to be very serious. She's being carried away from the hospital by her brother*. Ibtisam was not treated at the hospital. She was turned away. The hospital was too full to take any more patients so her brother had to carry her through a neighbourhood that's now regularly bombed, on foot, in scorching heat, to see if he can find a hospital that will treat her. *One report describeb him as her uncle — mfi markfromireland