Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Awful news in Iraq

  1. Jul 15, 2005 #1

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/14/iraq/main709052.shtml
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.main/

    A suicide car bomber attacked after waiting for a crowd of children to gather around an American humvee.

    The act was so heinous, that Al Qaeda preemptively denied any connection with the attack. (I can't seem to find the link where I read that, though... I could have sworn it was the CBS article)



    In other news, in case anyone missed it, insurgents killed an Egyptian diplomat, and attacked diplomats from Barhain and Pakistan.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2005 #2
    Yeah - I was really shocked when I first heard. To think, young children gathering with the joy of receiving candy from a foreigner that they've grown to trust are now dead or hardened by the sight of their slaughtered friends who were too eager to befriend an American. I can't even imagine what sort of media response there would be if something like this happened in the USA.
     
  4. Jul 15, 2005 #3
    i am not at all justifing this, but this make me remember cases like the one that an american helicopter opened fire over a destroyed tank crowded with civilians, everyone in this forum came up with the "They shouldnt be there" excuses.. the same when Us acuses the insurgent of operating in civilians areas for the civilian casualtis under us fire, what where the american soldiers doing giving candys to the kids.. don't they know they are putting in risk the live of the childrens?

    anyway, blame still on the suicide bombers, i just want all of you to be fair when us kill civilians and not to blame it on the insurgents...
     
  5. Jul 15, 2005 #4
  6. Jul 15, 2005 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Burnsys, the situations are not the same and your request is not a fair one. In the case you are talking about, the civilans (caveat: it is unclear how many were actually civilians and how many were insurgents/terrorists - they were looting a military vehicle for supplies) entered an in-progress battle. In this one, the bomber specifically targeted the civilians. Your attempt to use this act to attack the US's actions is as sickening as the act itself. And be careful trying to split that "I am not at all justifying this" hair. Moral people do not split hairs over the murder of children.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2005
  7. Jul 15, 2005 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But might it be that the troops are getting complacent or careless ?

    I recently heard about a dozen (or so) bricklayers that were detained for interrogation in a police van. They were left there for several hours with no ventilation, and all but 3(?) of them died of suffocation. Is it time for replacements perhaps ?
     
  8. Jul 15, 2005 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, the situation you describe (I hadn't heard of it) is certainly one of carelessness, but in the case of handing out candy to children, that's part of their job. The terrorists exploited a catch-22: in order to gain the trust of civilians, the military must be nice to them - but that makes both the soldiers and civilians targets for terrorists who place no value on the lives of children.
     
  9. Jul 15, 2005 #8

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not troops but Iraqi police detaining suspected terrorists. I’d not be concerned about replacing the terrorists, there’s ample supply, at least in the near term.


     
  10. Jul 15, 2005 #9

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I do try to be fair when I lay blame.

    For example, consider this situation:

    Coalition forces killed civilians while engaging insurgents.

    I can imagine four major possibilities that modify the situation:

    (1) Did coalition troops engage insurgents in a public area because that's where they found insurgents? Or, did coalition troops seek a public area where they could engage insurgents?

    (2) Did insurgents organize in a public area because that was a reasonable place to organize? Or, did insurgents organize in a public area for the human shields?

    Whether I laid blame on coalition troops, insurgent troops, neither, or both would depend on the answers to these questions.



    For another example, consider roadside bomb attacks on coalition convoys. Civilians often die in these. Again, I have two main questions:

    (1) Did the convoy pass through a public area because that's how to get where they're going, or did the convoy pass through a public area for the human shields?

    (2) Did the insurgents place the bomb in a public area because that's where they can attack it, or because they want people to see what they're doing?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2005
  11. Jul 15, 2005 #10
    Interesting.

    The use of the words 'suspected terrorists'.

    Are you trying to mitigate the result by casting doubt?

    I am worried that in your world, suspicion seems to carry the death penalty.

    It was similar statements that startled me about Abu Ghraib. People said, 'Well, they behead their prisoners.'

    Then they released 4,000 without charge. :frown:
     
  12. Jul 15, 2005 #11
    Or because the 'non-public' areas frequented by troops are fortified so well that they can't get to them so they attack where they can?
     
  13. Jul 15, 2005 #12

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks, I had forgotten that's what I had wanted there. I've corrected my post.
     
  14. Jul 15, 2005 #13
    It's true.

    As soon as you say that anything is their job it automatically becomes the terrorists job to disrupt it.

    How many parents just said to their children, "Don't hang around with the soldiers or you might get blown up"?

    As much as we see the kindness of giving candy to kids (hopefully they have toothpaste too) as a way of 'winning hearst and minds', the terrorists/resistance fighters see it as a way of teaching non-collaberation to the young.

    There is a form of f-ed up logic in what they do.

    So what is the solution?

    I'd say ... stop giving the kids candy.

    To the first person who says 'then the terrorists have won', I say, 'let them win this one. Don't try and win points over the lives of children.'
     
  15. Jul 15, 2005 #14

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Argue with the media, not me.
    My world would be free and peaceful, and one wherein convoluted logic would be a rarity.
    I’m sure you are often startled as a result of real and imagined events.


    ...
     
  16. Jul 15, 2005 #15

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just to make sure I have it straight...

    Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?
     
  17. Jul 15, 2005 #16
    Well, let's see.

    I did call them terrorists.

    I called their logic 'f-ed up'.

    What would YOU say?
     
  18. Jul 15, 2005 #17
    I would if you had seen fit to post a quote but you expressed these thoughts in your own words.
    Then how can you use the words 'suspected terrorists' and then, without even breaking stride state "I’d not be concerned about replacing the terrorists, there’s ample supply, at least in the near term."? THAT kind of logic seems to take a major leap.
    And what would THOSE be?
     
  19. Jul 15, 2005 #18

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    For the most part, all the quibbling over how we could have been smarter about avoiding this situation seems superficial to me. Yes, we have a lot to learn about how to lookout for evil, but if we start doubting the value of loving children then the terrorists have won.

    Think about the terrorist strategy. "I'll kill the children (or whomever) if you don't submit the the TRUTh, which is represented by us."

    Okay, logic time.

    WITHOUT power, you guys are willling to kill, oppress, force, ignore all individual expression contrary to your beliefs, etc. . . Now that you've killed my kids, of course I am totally enthusiastic about giving you even MORE power!!!!!!

    Morons with guns, the worse possible terror.
     
  20. Jul 15, 2005 #19

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll take your response as a no, then. If I thought it was clearly no, I wouldn't've asked, and certainly not the way I asked. (I can elaborate if you want, but I don't imagine it matters)
     
  21. Jul 15, 2005 #20
    All I can say is: "welcome to rummy world". We opened this can of disaster and now we can't close it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Awful news in Iraq
  1. Iraq's government (Replies: 22)

  2. Theocratic Iraq (Replies: 45)

  3. Progress in Iraq? (Replies: 98)

  4. Iraq WMDs (Replies: 11)

Loading...