News Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    News
Click For Summary
A suicide car bomber targeted a crowd of children near an American military vehicle, resulting in numerous casualties. This attack was so egregious that Al Qaeda distanced itself from the incident. The discussion highlights the tragic consequences of military interactions with civilians, particularly children, and raises questions about the ethics of U.S. military actions in Iraq. Participants debated the moral implications of both the suicide bombing and U.S. military operations, emphasizing the need for accountability on all sides. The conversation also touched on the complexities of civilian casualties during military engagements, with some arguing that the U.S. military's approach may inadvertently endanger civilians while attempting to win their trust. The discussion reflects a broader concern about the cycle of violence and the impact of military strategies on innocent lives, questioning whether actions taken in the name of security ultimately contribute to further instability and suffering.
  • #31
The Smoking Man said:
Russ, because the USA declares somebody a Terrorist doesn't make it so.
Heh - I wasn't going on the US's declaration, I was going on yours. You said they were terrorists.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Heh - I wasn't going on the US's declaration, I was going on yours. You said they were terrorists.
Yes ... and then you proceeded to give the official US Government definition of the word.

Like I said, terrorists, like Americans in 1776 are called that until they win. Then they are called 'freedom fighters'.
 
  • #33
The Smoking Man said:
Like I said, terrorists, like Americans in 1776 are called that until they win.

:smile:

They were never called terrorist...unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...
 
  • #34
Townsend said:
They were never called terrorist...unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...
It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.
 
  • #35
Townsend said:
:smile:

They were never called terrorist...unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...
LOL

Have you ever read anything about the 'war in the colonies' that wasn't written in America?
 
  • #36
Danger said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.
Bravo.

Excellent example.
:smile:
 
  • #37
Danger said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.

Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas... :smile:
 
  • #38
The Smoking Man said:
Bravo.

Excellent example.
:smile:

An example of what though?
 
  • #39
Townsend said:
Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas... :smile:
Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.
 
  • #40
Townsend said:
An example of what though?
Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.
 
  • #41
The Smoking Man said:
Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.

Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading :-p
 
  • #42
The Smoking Man said:
Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.

In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,
 
  • #43
Townsend said:
Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading :-p

They fought for a country that did not exist.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.
 
  • #44
Townsend said:
In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,
No we are trying to prove that the definition of record is that of the American context and that is what you hold dear and can not divorce yourself from.

You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.
 
  • #45
The Smoking Man said:
They fought for a country that did not exist.

They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.
No, they did not actually attack...

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.
:smile: you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.
ok...

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.
This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.

It was an act of protest against their own government...the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?
 
  • #46
The Smoking Man said:
You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.

I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,
 
  • #47
Townsend said:
They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.
Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.


Townsend said:
No, they did not actually attack...
Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.


Townsend said:
:smile: you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.
Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.


Townsend said:
This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.
Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?



Townsend said:
It was an act of protest against their own government...the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?
Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?


Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.
 
  • #48
The Smoking Man said:
Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.

I never referenced any books...

Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.
They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.

Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.
The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.

Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?
Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.

Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?
The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...


Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.

Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light...
 
  • #49
Townsend said:
Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.
Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.

Townsend said:
I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,
Really?

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? :biggrin:)
 
  • #50
Hurkyl said:
Just to make sure I have it straight.

Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?

The Smoking Man said:
What would YOU say?


I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."
 
  • #51
The Smoking Man said:
Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?
The war in Iraq is an entirely different matter...I have reasons for feeling the way I do about it that are anything but mainstream.

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.

I agree

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.
I guess I will have to do some reading about that...

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.

I didn't dismiss it...the content of the link was such that I had a good reason to question where it came from. When I saw that I was wrong about my assumptions I said so. You can accept that?

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.
No...it would be all too easy. I have been around the world twice already you know.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? :biggrin:)

It wouldn't smack of draft dodging at all...I cannot be drafted so I cannot dodge the draft...

Canada does have an appeal but I had my eyes set on some place else, if the need were to ever come.

Regards,
 
  • #52
Townsend said:
I never referenced any books...
Come now. You state in your own profile that you are a student of history, among other things and unless you picked up your knowledge through osmosis, oral tradition or the A&E network, your perceptions came from books written in America.

Townsend said:
They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.
Iraqi terrorists invaded their own country? Interesting concept.


Townsend said:
The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.
LOL ... Now you are getting it. "The word I would use"... Exactly! And the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan know when they have found an Al Qieda training camp when they come across photocopies of the CIA training manuals in Guerilla tactics.


Townsend said:
Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.
Then stop twisting them. It is merely your 'opinion' again that is keeping you from applying the word correctly. In your 'opinion' the 'revolutionaries' were correct so the nice terms of 'guerilla warrior' and 'freedom fighters' spring to mind because you automatically assume the actions of terrorists to be something that 'evil people' do.

I'd be interested in your opinion of 'The Patriot' by our Aussie friend, Mel Gibson. What do you think of the opinion the character held of his own actions at the beginning of the movie? When did he become a 'patriot' in your eyes after watching the superior forces kill both his sons?

When was he a traitor, when was he a patriot and to which country?


Townsend said:
The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...

Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light...
The archetypal definition is one who invokes terror in others through his actions.

Are you telling me that firing on camped soldiers and their entourage day and night from the trees under the cover of darkness and while wearing no uniforms, in clothing of a colour meant to camouflage is the act of a regular soldier of the day?

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.
 
  • #53
Hurkyl said:
I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."
You'd be wrong then.

It was a terrible act.

Happy?

What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.

I think the actions of the terrorists is terrible and the acts of the Americans in the same light.

I do remember the young boy who lost both his arms and his own family too who was featured on the news ... but I guess you wouldn't equate the two.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
The archetypal definition is one who invokes terror in others through his actions.

Are you telling me that firing on camped soldiers and their entourage day and night from the trees under the cover of darkness and while wearing no uniforms, in clothing of a colour meant to camouflage is the act of a regular soldier of the day?

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.

You convinced me to give it a second look...I will get back to you, fair enough?

p.s.-don't wait for me...I need to read some Harry Potter...but I will get back to you in good time... :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Townsend said:
The war in Iraq is an entirely different matter...I have reasons for feeling the way I do about it that are anything but mainstream.
Care to share?

Townsend said:
I guess I will have to do some reading about that...
I am surprised you have not already done so.

Townsend said:
I didn't dismiss it...the content of the link was such that I had a good reason to question where it came from. When I saw that I was wrong about my assumptions I said so. You can accept that?
I do accept that.

Townsend said:
No...it would be all too easy. I have been around the world twice already you know.
Living in countries as an independent citizen or on military bases?

I have not seen 'home' in 15 years ... not even on vacation.

Townsend said:
It wouldn't smack of draft dodging at all...I cannot be drafted so I cannot dodge the draft...

Canada does have an appeal but I had my eyes set on some place else, if the need were to ever come.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you would be a draft dodger just that for a military person, this would be a thought in the back of your mind ... People who previously fled what they thought was an unjust government ... etc.
 
  • #56
The Smoking Man said:
Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.

Now... i don't like jumping into conversations after i get 2 or 3 pages behind in it... but really, what in gods name are you thinking when you wrote this. Dumping tea is an act of terrorism? Ok ok... if that's TERRORISM... then i suppose my friend who helped out in a protest against walmart needs to be labeled a terrorist and sent to gitmo right?

And if your definition of "terrorist" is someone who doesn't attack exactly like the mainstream armies do... then i suppose the French and British and Japanese were allllllll terrorists because they used this insane concept of aerial warfare and rocket attacks.
 
  • #57
Pengwuino said:
Now... i don't like jumping into conversations after i get 2 or 3 pages behind in it... but really, what in gods name are you thinking when you wrote this. Dumping tea is an act of terrorism? Ok ok... if that's TERRORISM... then i suppose my friend who helped out in a protest against walmart needs to be labeled a terrorist and sent to gitmo right?

And if your definition of "terrorist" is someone who doesn't attack exactly like the mainstream armies do... then i suppose the French and British and Japanese were allllllll terrorists because they used this insane concept of aerial warfare and rocket attacks.
Now I am sure you have some sanitized version of the 'Boston Tea Party' that you refer to however there is an awful lot that seems to be missing from that retelling.

Can you give me reasons along with the schoolboy tale? Why disguises? Who was there? Do you imagine a loaded ship with a valuable cargo was sitting at dock without guard, watch officers and the obligatory representative of the King? This was a port and subject to taxation and smuggling. Who was there to enforce the law?

As far as your juvinile association of the French, British and Japanese, they all still recognize that actions of this type with no uniforms or identifying marks and the penchant for blending into the population ARE indeed acts of a terrorist.

You know as well as I do that a 'terrorist' resorts to these methods when they are unable to direct a frontal assault on a superior force. That IS after all why you feared Saddam had WMD is it not? That's what was said to the UN.

Do you believe that if Bin Laden could supply his men with the same armaments the US forces have, guns, body armour, cruise missiles, etc. you would be facing 'terrorists'?

Remember, when Bin Laden was fighting the USSR who held an opposing ideology than you, he was given Stinger Missiles training manuals and called a freedom fighter. Let's not lose sight of context here. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

Both he and Saddam owe America a lot for securing their positions and dominance in their own cultures. The Iranians, in fact, are of the opinion that the USA should be sitting in the box beside Saddam for the satellite intel they supplied to Saddam that allowed him to release gas with such devastating effect. (Especially since the new government has appologized to Iran and stated they were the agressor in the war)
 
  • #58
Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population. Civilians not working in military applications are not to be targeted and when they are, this constitutes acts of terrorism. The military is suppose to fear a bomb hitting their bases or an attack on a convey. Civilians are not suppose to fear a bomb at a local market or an attack on a school. The latter would constitute terrorism.

Oddly enough, I do wonder what you believe actually happened in Boston that day. What has your government told you? Were we throwing babies overboard as well? Did we burn people alive? And exactly what does it matter what the Iranians think? For a nation that retaliated with their own chemical weapons and kidnapped US citizens, i don't think their opinion should matter much.

Also, the UN TOLD US that Saddam had WMD's. We also did not fear him using WMD's against us as it would have been painfully obvious that our retaliation would have been with nuclear weapons. The fear was that Saddam would engage another nation in a rather unstable region. I mean, he does kind of have a history of invading other nations.
 
  • #59
Hurkyl said:
A suicide car bomber attacked after waiting for a crowd of children to gather around an American humvee.

Let's look onto it on the positive side: some of these kids would probably have become suicide bombers 10 years from now, so that was a pre-emptive elimination of terrorists :devil:
 
  • #60
Pengwuino said:
Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population.
'Insults'? LOL

The term "terrorism" comes from the French 18th century word terrorisme based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to tremble) and deterrere (to frighten from). It dates to 1795, and originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobins in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". The Jacobins are even said to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves, although that is not certain. Note that the method employed was in most cases simply the arrest, and sometimes execution, of opponents. Terrorism and terror therefore originally referred to methods employed by regimes to control their own populations through fear, a tactic seen again in many totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The terms did not refer to bomb attacks, but rather to what is now called a police state. The current use of the term state terrorism, and the use of the term "terrorist", have much broader meanings.

Many definitions include a proviso that the action must be "unlawful" or "illegitimate". This is by far the least objective of the criteria, in the absence of any objective interpreter of international law. For example, the laws of war generally exclude the deliberate targeting of civilians, yet in World War II it is unquestioned that acts such as the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden were carried out with the knowledge that civilian casualties would greatly exceed military ones. Whether the actions were legally justified, either in self-defense or on the grounds that they actually minimised civilian suffering by bringing the war to an earlier end, is not a question that can be objectively determined.

No definition of terrorism has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. However, the "academic consensus definition", written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, defines terrorism as follows:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
64K