Horrific attack all right but they aren't the only ones murdering children on a grand scale.
Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iraq that led to the deaths of 500, 000 people, the majority of them children and he gets a red carpet welcome practically everywhere he goes.
Bush and Blair have the blood of a million on their hands, and Israel mass murders children for fun without hardly a whisper from the west.
Maybe I'm being a little naive but to me the difference here is that these b**tards carried out this atrocity on purpose whereas Clinton, etc were trying to make things better whether they made major mistakes or not.
There is really no in between here. Children were killed in 2 different circumstances.
Yesterday in horrific circumstances, and via the US and the UK, a long slow death.
If you think Clinton was trying to make things better then you are way of the mark.
The deaths of 500,000 due to his sanctions is not a major mistake. It's genocide. There's a big difference
Madeleine Albright in an interview with 60 minutes said "the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo
How outraged would we be if a Taliban fighter apperared on TV and said the deaths of those children was worth it?
If you get a chance, read this article by John Pilger who witnessed the slow deaths of children in Iraq due to brutal sanctions imposed by the US and the UK via a corrupt UN Security Council.http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9