News Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

[Evo]

this is sad.

Yes, it's sad, and that was the point of the thread, originally. Unfortunately the original intent has been lost and people would prefer to argue over who's loss is greater and why.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Because no one here should have to. In the future, post the link to the news source you wish to reference and skip the personal opinion sites.

And the site you linked to failed to do that.

What you posted most certainly would be considered propaganda.

Nothing of the sort, I requested that you link directly to a valid news source. I suggest that you stop making things up. Other members have asked you to stop this also.

Pardon!?

The site I directed the person to simply stated fact as I posted on this site. See post #93

The site I posted was an appeal for donations to help the victims of war and stated nothing of political bias.

I will also point out to the other folks here that Evo has 'officially warned' me by IM and I now have a six rating.

Apologies to those of you who have personally written and offered support but I doubt I will be around much longer. You will have to weigh your fears over upsetting Evo and not getting help because you think she will hold a grudge and expressing your own opinions.

When a site allows 'mentors' to monitor sites and express opinions and condemn based on those opinions ... to delete posts contrary to those opinions and leave their responses well, I guess we have something akin to the Bush administration rules for the press corps.

I am sad Evo that you can put yourself into this position and control others who would like to express a contrary opinion to you. It says great things about the power you weild here.

 

[Evo]

I will also point out to the other folks here that Evo has 'officially warned' me by IM and I now have a six rating.

It's your decision, you can either conform to forum guidelines or not.

Langauge Guidelines:

Any foul or hostile language used in Physics Forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Huh? How did you get from "Hurkyl appears to have read 49 more words than Evo" to "Hurkyl is manifesting guilt"?

Well, since the site is politically neutral stating that 'all war is evil' ... that it states the facts in the case that you requested ... I can only assume that both you and Evo are projecting something onto this site that is not stated there.

There is merely a two paragraph discription of the event and then 15 links to new services and yet becasue it is a plea for contributions for funds to treat children injured in war, you have both condemned it as a biased site.

Why?

 

[Hurkyl]

you have both condemned it as a biased site.

I haven't evaluated it for bias, so I certainly can't condemn it as a biased site. Why would you think I have?

Even if I thought it was biased, it would have been counterproductive for me to condemn the site -- it would just give you a red herring to chase.

Well, since the site is politically neutral stating that 'all war is evil'

Um... I hope there's a typo in there...

 

[Evo]

Well, since the site is politically neutral stating that 'all war is evil' ... that it states the facts in the case that you requested ... I can only assume that both you and Evo are projecting something onto this site that is not stated there.

There is merely a two paragraph discription of the event and then 15 links to new services and yet becasue it is a plea for contributions for funds to treat children injured in war, you have both condemned it as a biased site.

Why?

Neutral? And you're making stuff up again, I am warning you to stop. Neither Hurkyl or I "condemned" this site. I asked you to post to a news site.

Look at the very first line at the site "WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?"

Yep, real neutral.

 

[GENIERE]

...Do you seriously believe that the majority of the Muslim world supports the actions of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise?

No.

do you believe that more Muslims were in favor of terrorism before the attack of Iraq, or after?

Whether 5%, 10% or 50%, it matters not one iota to me, 9/11 occurred, it was not met with unqualified condemnation from the Muslim community then nor now

...Remarkable. I am truly at a loss for words. Before I formally respond to this...

If only that were true.

I’m not in any way interested in the typical liberal response, but I will read it on the slight chance you may offer something different than the usual rant… Of all the posters I believe to be on the far left, only Vanesch has provided anything I thought worthy of consideration and he does it in less than 100 words. As a supporter of most of the Presidents policies I obviously have only a low IQ brain and believe “majority” means more people voted to elect the president then the other guy (what’s his name, you know the great rebater). I know of no genetic sequence that synthesizes proteins to endow the mind of man with the esoteric concepts of fair, humanity, equality, and other blathers. I am aware that the mind of man most definitely does posses the genetic trait of “fight or flight” and the man will do either contingent on circumstances. Don’t bother me with your nurtured cerebral, reflexive, responses; they’ll likely always differ from mine

 

[Archon]

I’m not in any way interested in the typical liberal response, but I will read it on the slight chance you may offer something different than the usual rant…

Read closely. I wasn't ranting: I was asking a question in an attempt to clarify your post, which, it seems to me, is far closer to a rant than mine. This was not out of malevolence. I'm trying to figure out what exactly your position is.

Of all the posters I believe to be on the far left, only Vanesch has provided anything I thought worthy of consideration and he does it in less than 100 words.

In the future, I'll try to conform to your exceptionally high standards.

As a supporter of most of the Presidents policies I obviously have only a low IQ brain

I've searched my post, and I can't find any trace of an attack on your intelligence.

and believe “majority” means more people voted to elect the president then the other guy (what’s his name, you know the great rebater).

My definition of "majority" is the same. Now, if only a majority of voters had actually chosen our current president both times he ran for office.

I know of no genetic sequence that synthesizes proteins to endow the mind of man with the esoteric concepts of fair, humanity, equality, and other blathers. I am aware that the mind of man most definitely does posses the genetic trait of “fight or flight” and the man will do either contingent on circumstances. Don’t bother me with your nurtured cerebral, reflexive, responses; they’ll likely always differ from mine

No argument here. But I was hoping for that clarification I asked for. Do you actually believe everything you wrote about liberals in your last post?

Also, if you plan to respond with more "subtle" attacks, please refrain. I'm still hoping that this thread will get back on track.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Neutral? And you're making stuff up again, I am warning you to stop. Neither Hurkyl or I "condemned" this site. I asked you to post to a news site.

Look at the very first line at the site "WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?"

Yep, real neutral.

Evo, you didn't ask me to post anything. I posted in answer to another person's request.

You have chosen to insert yourself into this exchange.

"WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?" is an attempt to get people to think of how the child would be helped if the Child was American. What are you reading into it?

In no place does this site blame America for what happened other than naming who dropped the bomb which is a fact.

It then states what the reprocussions were of the bomb including the deaths and the child's injuries.

It then states the fact that he is not alone in Iraq in his injuries and that many children like him will not be as 'lucky' as him in his treatment.

You have also chosen to tell me what I can and can not reference:

In the future, post the link to the news source you wish to reference and skip the personal opinion sites.

Well, I am sure you aware that most news sites and stories fall off the net after a time (this happened over 2 years ago) and often permanent web sites are the only places where news incidents are referenced.

Why are you creating rules to tie my hands?

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's your decision, you can either conform to forum guidelines or not.

Langauge Guidelines:

Any foul or hostile language used in Physics Forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments.

Any chance there might be something said in the area of the current exchange between Archon and GENIERE?

Or how about Here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=71256&page=3

You might want to start from message #35

So why has this thread turned into one big ad hominem attack?

and read backwards.

But yeah, if you think it is more important to stop me posting links to War Victim Charity sites, I can see your point.

 

[Evo]

Evo, you didn't ask me to post anything. I posted in answer to another person's request.

You have chosen to insert yourself into this exchange.

First of all, this forum is open to all and personal conversations are for PM, not for the forum. Second, I am the mentor here and I am responsible for keeping the forum on track.

["WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?" is an attempt to get people to think of how the child would be helped if the Child was American. What are you reading into it?

Exactly what you just stated. It is suggesting that Americans don't value the lives of non-Americans as much as they value one of their own. Why would an American child be helped any more than any other child? It is revolting to even suggest such a thing!

In no place does this site blame America for what happened other than naming who dropped the bomb which is a fact.

It's a war. No one is denying it was a war casualty. What's your point?

You have also chosen to tell me what I can and can not reference:

You were asked to give background information on what specifically caused the injuries to determine if it was an act of terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism.

Well, I am sure you aware that most news sites and stories fall off the net after a time (this happened over 2 years ago) and often permanent web sites are the only places where news incidents are referenced.

But that's not the case and you had no reason to post that link.

Why are you creating rules to tie my hands?

Actually I have been cutting you a LOT of slack. You have not been adhering to forum guidelines. You are aware of the guidelines, I suggest you decide if you wish to remain posting here.

 

[Evo]

Any chance there might be something said in the area of the current exchange between Archon and GENIERE?

Worry about your own behavior, I will take care of the forum. It is not for you to know what disciplinary action is taken with other members.

 

[Danger]

Evo, you know how much I love and respect you, but I have to side with Cancer Man on this. Anything done by Yanks in the mid-East is an act of terrorism because they have no right to be there in the first place. It is not a 'casualty of war' because there is no war. There is an illegal invasion of another sovereign state. Any deaths resultant of that are murder. It goes back to the Penguin objecting to me calling your ******* pilot Schmit a prick for deliberately murdering 4 Canuk soldiers and costing another his limbs even though his AWACS controller ordered him to break off because there were only 'friendlies' in the area. He had the firepower and wanted to use it on someone (preferably someone who wouldn't shoot back). To this day, he has not only not apologized, but continues to blame the innocent dead soldiers for their own demise. My beret is off to the rest of the US military who staged a very moving memorial to our lost bretheren. You'll notice that the afforementioned prick wasn't in attendance.
Your president is in the same boat. Someone who illegally took power in the first place, since he clearly lost the election, went on a power trip. How he got elected for his second term is a mystery to everybody on the planet outside of the US. I'm certain that the only reason he attacked Iraq this time was to get revenge for his old man screwing it up so badly during his term in office. And the only reason Bush Sr. did it was because he saw the oil fields on fire and realized that there would be nothing left for the US to profit from if it continued.

 

[The Smoking Man]

First of all, this forum is open to all and personal conversations are for PM, not for the forum. Second, I am the mentor here and I am responsible for keeping the forum on track.

By on track, you mean the 'quality' of the external links? Subject matter? Bias? What?

Exactly what you just stated. It is suggesting that Americans don't value the lives of non-Americans as much as they value one of their own. Why would an American child be helped any more than any other child? It is revolting to even suggest such a thing!

Exactly ... that is what I said, you have read something into the statement. You have imprinted your personal bias. The site states nothing of the kind but attempts to solicit funds for the treatment of the injured FROM AMERICANS because they have big hearts :!) .

It's a war. No one is denying it was a war casualty. What's your point?

Now you are refusing to look at the facts and that the incident was OUTSIDE of Bahgdad by 30 miles with no legitimate target in the area.

You were asked to give background information on what specifically caused the injuries to determine if it was an act of terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism.

I'm sorry ... dropping a bunker buster in a residential area outside of Bahgdad isn't terrorism?

But that's not the case and you had no reason to post that link.

Again, I am asking you if I am constrained anywhere in this site as to what I must link to? I chose this site because to me it appears neutral and has 15 links to various news sites. Unlike you, I believe people should be capable of clicking further links from within a referenced sites since the words BBC and Guardian or prominent in their listing on that site.

Actually I have been cutting you a LOT of slack. You have not been adhering to forum guidelines. You are aware of the guidelines, I suggest you decide if you wish to remain posting here.

Yes, I have read the guidlines but more important, I have observed the postings of people like Townsend who seems to get away with murder because he posts in sympathy with the bias I sense from the mentors here.

He even declared a site to be 'garbage' and non-DOD but when it was proved as such he changed his tune but still condemned the contents out of hand with no reference to the actual facts other than it all contradicted his opinion.

Even you were forced to appologize in regard to the source of a posting relative to the 'official' disposition on the Columbia werbsite.

Now I watch as pitched verbal battles are being waged in various boards here and I am getting trashed for posting a link to a legitimate site and rules are being made for me to only post links to news sites.

Why am I defending myself against attacks like this:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82327&page=5&pp=15

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.

Interesting ... most of my education came from textbooks printed in the USA and then continued at Trinity College for my Masters.

What are you assuming is "your government"?

You don't believe he was referencing the fact that I live in China? You don't believe that this was a personal attack?

 

[Art]

My details of the US attack are fuzzy, so I apologize if I make any gross errors.


Basically, the fundamental principle I use to condemn the Iraqi suicide attack does not apply to the US attack. The objective was not "Let's blow up a humvee", it was "Let's blow up a humvee once it's surrounded by children"^*.

However, the objective of the US attack was "Let's destroy this vehicle", not "Let's destroy this vehicle once it's surrounded by people".

Are you suggesting then that the suicide bomber's target was the children and the american armour was 'collateral damage'? This hypothesis seems somewhat unlikely and definitely unprovable.
It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire. Note they not only used missiles which were more than adequate to destroy the humvee but also opened fire with cannon which suggests the civilians were indeed targeted in what would appear Prima Facie to be a cowardly act of spite.

The two events are clearly unequal, whether or not the US attack is justifiable.

On the inequality we agree but based on the actual facts available, the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation (ref the 2 passes over the vehicle) as opposed to the unproven intent of the suicide bomber to kill civilians.

To state all this another way that I think is relevant: just as the ends do not justify the means, the ends do not condemn the means.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying that the american end goal of destroying an already wrecked vehicle did justify the killing of the civilians?

Ok, let me try it more bluntly: killing yourself while performing a condemnable act does not make it any less condemnable.

In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker. However this is a separate discussion about the character of the perpetrators. I wonder would the US pilots have pressed home their attack if they knew the cost of successful completion of their mission was their certain deaths?
BTW I appreciate your answering the question I posed. I am surprised by the silence emanating from those so quick to jump on the bandwagon to demand condemnation of attacks upon civilians from TSM.
As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?

 

[Happeh]

The complete destruction of all traditional values is the goal of the liberal as the smallest deviation from socialist dogma is destructive to the system.
...

The activities you describe are going on all right. You are blaming the wrong people. That is the goal of Israel. The deviation is not from socialist doctrine, it is deviation from zionist propaganda.

 

[alexandra]

is anyone interested in a moment of silence for all innocent victims harmed in this conflict, of all nationalities?

Well said, mathwonk - I think people often lose sight of the issue when discussing current events. In my opinion (for what it's worth), there is no justification for killing and maiming civilians, no matter who is doing the killing and maiming. It's plain and simple: no violence against innocent civilians is acceptable, not under any circumstances, not by any 'side'. Killing and maiming children is completely barbaric, and whoever is responsible for carrying out such acts (and I mean whoever/whichever side) has already, by my books, crossed the line between 'human' and 'monster'.

 

[vanesch]

Killing and maiming children is completely barbaric, and whoever is responsible for carrying out such acts (and I mean whoever/whichever side) has already, by my books, crossed the line between 'human' and 'monster'.

Oh, well, I don't see what's so special about children: after all it is statistically proven that THE BIG MAJORITY of all corrupt politicians, terrorists and criminals 20-50 years from now ARE ALL CHILDREN now. So that's where we should strike if we want a more secure world tomorrow

 

[alexandra]

Oh, well, I don't see what's so special about children: after all it is statistically proven that THE BIG MAJORITY of all corrupt politicians, terrorists and criminals 20-50 years from now ARE ALL CHILDREN now. So that's where we should strike if we want a more secure world tomorrow

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am surprised by the silence emanating from those so quick to jump on the bandwagon to demand condemnation of attacks upon civilians from TSM.
As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?

Cheers. It's nice to see a couple of people appreciate the direction I come from!

I would also like to point out at this time that the Japanese Class A War Criminals and the Nazi Administration were executed for Crimes Against Peace established because they violated http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm aka The Multilateral Pact - "Renunciation of War".

I do hope that Yale Law's Avalon Project is still a suitable source.

With all other things that have been brought to the fore, this one document, created in the USA and ratified by 55 nations:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.

WHEREAS a Treaty between the President of the United States Of America, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotontiaries at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, the original of which Treaty, being in the English and the French languages, is word for word as follows:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE GERMAN REICH, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY, HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC,

Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind;

Persuaded that the time has, come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;

Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its ts national interests by resort to war a should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty;

Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering to the present Treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy;

Have decided to conclude a Treaty and for that purpose have appointed as their respective

This 'pact' was enough to condemn the people who broke peace in the world during WWII to death.

There has been a grave violation of this peace in Iraq.

The original document was created at the instruction of Herbert Hoover, President of the USA.

What a pity it seems to be used as toilet paper in the oval office now.

 

[Burnsys]

Exactly what you just stated. It is suggesting that Americans don't value the lives of non-Americans as much as they value one of their own. Why would an American child be helped any more than any other child? It is revolting to even suggest such a thing!

This is so evident.. haven't you ever seen, "The wildest police videos" or reality tv, How police men handle a hostage situation, or an escaping vehicle? the do everything they can to avoid civilians get harmed, but in irak they kill tens of civilians just to destroy a destroyed vehicle... or they destroy a a full convoy of sheep truks becouse they thougt "saddam was there"... Of course that Americans don't value the lives of non-Americans as much as they value one of their own.

Nothing of the sort, I requested that you link directly to a valid news source. I suggest that you stop making things up. Other members have asked you to stop this also.

And what is a "valid news source" evo? you mean a Fox news link? or somenthing like that? some link from a "Fair and Balanced" news source.. would that be valid evo?

We're discussing "terrorists" under the current definition, not the dictionary definition of the old meaning of the word terrorize. Two hundred years ago the word didn't carry the same meaning.

And who has set the new definition of terrorist? you? the american people? Bush? clarify please...

 

[russ_watters]

And who has set the new definition of terrorist? you? the american people? Bush? clarify please...

I think you missed the point, Burnsys. The word "terrorize" is the root of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the word "terrorist/ism" has only been in common use for 20 years or so. It has not changed recently (ie, during the Bush admin) - Bush has nothing to do with that definition.

And again - you're arguing over the definition of a word instead of simply condemning the specific act. Yeah, I wanted an acknowledgment that the act was terrorism, but I'll settle for an acknowledgment that the act was just unequivocably wrong. Can you even do that?

 

[russ_watters]

...Do you seriously believe that the majority of the Muslim world supports the actions of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise?

No.

do you believe that more Muslims were in favor of terrorism before the attack of Iraq, or after?

Whether 5%, 10% or 50%, it matters not one iota to me, 9/11 occurred, it was not met with unqualified condemnation from the Muslim community then nor now.

A similar exchange a few weeks ago resulted in name-calling. But this is an issue where perception can actually be compared to reality: all you have to do is ask Muslims if they support terrorism. And people do...New thread forthcoming...

 

[Burnsys]

I think you missed the point, Burnsys. The word "terrorize" is the root of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the word "terrorist/ism" has only been in common use for 20 years or so. It has not changed recently (ie, during the Bush admin) - Bush has nothing to do with that definition.

And again - you're arguing over the definition of a word instead of simply condemning the specific act. Yeah, I wanted an acknowledgment that the act was terrorism, but I'll settle for an acknowledgment that the act was just unequivocably wrong. Can you even do that?

I know the word is the same. i was asking evo becouse of this:

We're discussing "terrorists" under the current definition, not the dictionary definition of the old meaning of the word terrorize. Two hundred years ago the word didn't carry the same meaning.

Yes. i can accept this act was terrorism, in the same way destroing a wreked humbee rounded by civilians and childrens is terrorism too.(between a lot of other cases) I never denied that, and no one denied it either, is just you and bush suporters who doesn't want to aknowledge that when us kills civilians is terrorism to.
Yes i know, the objective of us forces was to destroy the vehicle, and the "Terrorist" was to kill the kids, well show me proff of both, and not from a biased source like fox news or the washintong post.. (I know you wouldn't find any beocuse of us censorship in the war zone.)

 

[russ_watters]

Yes. i can accept this act was terrorism, in the same way destroing a wreked humbee[correction - it was an APC) rounded by civilians and childrens is terrorism too.

In that case, you must be using a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary, because these two acts were not identical and under the typically accepted definition, destroying the APC fits the definition of "battle", not "terrorism". Could you please post your definition and explain how that act fits?

edit: for the record, http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html is how the United States defines terrorism:

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

As you can see, this definition does not fit the APC incident even remotely: the civilians weren't the target, the attack was not done to send any message (influence an audience), and the attack was not politically motivated (to understand that, you need to understand the difference between "tactical" and "strategic"). Specifically, virtually every definition of terrorism holds that the target must be civilian in nature and in the case of the APC, it was not. That's a critical flaw in your reasoning.

Lots of discussion of the definition(s) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

And while the UN has adopted no definition, it works with several similar ones: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

One thing I always find telling about this issue is who is willing to take a definition and stick to it and who is never willing to accept any definition for fear of having to actually use it fairly. That makes it clear to me that terrorists know they are terrorists and the supporters of terrorism know they support terrorism.

 

[Burnsys]

Russ. i still don't see any proof that the suicide bombers had the kids as their target.

In cnn says:

"The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

Now, i guess those who opened fire twice over the destroyed apc also saw the kids and the civilians around it, and they opened fire anyway, a complete disregard for civilian life in that attack to.

Again, there is no proof that the suicide bombers objective was to kill the kids, , we can also say that us marines was using kids as human shields. there is no proof of anything, so as far as i know, both are acts of terrorism, becouse maybe as the terrorist want to send a message that kids should not mix with us soldiers, us soldiers wanted to send a message that civilians should not be around destroyed apc...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ. i still don't see any proof that the suicide bombers had the kids as their target.

Proof? Is that what this is about - you want absolute proof before you believe anything done against the US was terrorism, but will make assumptions and backhand accusations about the US's motives? Forget proof: tell me what you believe. Do you believe the attack was intentionally timed based on the presence of the children? Do you believe that a suicide bomber would select a Humvee with children around it instead of any other of half a dozen higher value military vehicles in the same convoy? What you suggest does not make any sense.

Now, i guess those who opened fire twice over the destroyed apc also saw the kids and the civilians around it, and they opened fire anyway, a complete disregard for civilian life in that attack to.

You "guess"? You're willing to make a guess in this case but not in the other? WHY do you refuse to be consistent? In any case, even if what you just said were true, it still isn't terrorism. - Unless you want to post the definition of terrorism you're using that allows you to make such broad generalities...

And no, as a matter of fact, it is not likely that whoever destroyed the APC knew what sort of people were around it - he would have been too far away. But besides, even if both knew or both didn't, they are still different circumstances. One was a battle and the other wasn't.

Again, there is no proof that the suicide bombers objective was to kill the kids, , we can also say that us marines was using kids as human shields. there is no proof of anything, so as far as i know, both are acts of terrorism, becouse maybe as the terrorist want to send a message that kids should not mix with us soldiers, us soldiers wanted to send a message that civilians should not be around destroyed apc...

Well, I appreciate the acknowledgment that you just plain make this stuff up as you go along. You're making no attempt whatsoever to apply a consistent standard or even any logic at all and using any holes in any scenario to paint whatever picture seems good to you. But this is consistent with your approach to the issue: you believe whatever you want, no matter how implausible, that allows you to support terrorism without explicitly admitting it (perhaps even to yourself).

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well, I appreciate the acknowledgment that you just plain make this stuff up as you go along.

Now if you'll just admit it, we can all sleep tonight.

The fact is that since it was an illegal war in contravention of Kellogg-Briand and not sanctioned by a UN majority makes anything you did there an act of terrorism.

Tell me Iraq wasn't about a) oil and b) an object lesson to all states the USA has a beef with. (Axis of Evil)

 

[ron damon]

it was an illegal war... not sanctioned by a UN majority

You know, the UN has only sanctioned three (3) wars since its foundation. The fact that a war is "illegal" is totally meaningless...

 

[Art]

BTW I appreciate your answering the question I posed. I am surprised by the silence emanating from those so quick to jump on the bandwagon to demand condemnation of attacks upon civilians from TSM.
As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?

The absence of comments apart from Hurkyl's suggests that the neocons demanding instant condemnation of terrorist atrocities committed by muslims do indeed have tunnel vision when confronted with atrocities in general.

 

[russ_watters]

Now if you'll just admit it, we can all sleep tonight.

How can you say that with a straight face right before saying this?:

The fact is that since it was an illegal war in contravention of Kellogg-Briand and not sanctioned by a UN majority makes anything you did there an act of terrorism.

Please cite the specific definition of "terrorism" where that comes from.

 

[russ_watters]

The absence of comments apart from Hurkyl's suggests that the neocons demanding instant condemnation of terrorist atrocities committed by muslims do indeed have tunnel vision when confronted with atrocities in general.

You equated two acts that were not equal and then asked us to admit they were equal. Yeah, sure: right after you admit that 5=6.

The absence of replies to your intentional obfuscation (save for one that very correctly exposed it) should not be surprising.

late edit split to 2 posts because of reply...

 

[Art]

You equated two acts that were not equal and then asked us to admit they were equal. Yeah, sure: right after you admit that 5=6.

The absence of replies to your intentional obfuscation should not be surprising.

I believe my post was crystal clear at least to those who actually wanted to understand it. There is certainly no obfuscation in my post. In fact I specifically requested that the situations be judged on known facts and suppositions be excluded. Now if you still believe the 2 incidents are not equatable please explain factually why not, as opposed to sarcastic comments such as

Yeah, sure: right after you admit that 5=6.

Don't you think the use of inanities only serves to lower the tone of intelligent debate and makes it impossible to derive conclusions on topics, or is that your intent?

 

[russ_watters]

I'll tell you what, though: if you can show, with a chart, that the two acts really were equivalent, and that they fit an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, then I'll concede that the act by the US was terrorism and condemn them equally. That's fair, right? Here, I'll even start it for you:

Incident A: US bombing of its own APC, killing some civilians.
Incident B: Bombing of a US Humvee, killing some civilians.

------------------------A-----------------------------B-------
Target of attack: US military vehicle.----Civilians surrounding a US military vehicle.

hmm, damn, already not the same. Perhaps you can do better...

 

[russ_watters]

I believe my post was crystal clear at least to those who actually wanted to understand it. There is certainly no obfuscation in my post. In fact I specifically requested that the situations be judged on known facts and suppositions be excluded.

Great - then you won't mind actually walking us through the facts with a nice little chart to show how they're equal. You can't just say they are equal and call that an argument, then demand others prove you wrong (actually, I and Hurkyl already did show why you're wrong...) - that's burden of proof shifting. You must make your own arguments.

And actually, I'm not really sure what post you're referring to - the first I see on the subject (77)doesn't contain a question, only a thinly veiled insult.

edit: actually, it did have a question - "will you explain...?" Answer: No. it is up to you to make your point.

Now if you still believe the 2 incidents are not equatable please explain factually why not...

See above.

...as opposed to sarcastic comments such as Don't you think the use of inanities only serves to lower the tone of intelligent debate and makes it impossible to derive conclusions on topics, or is that your intent?

Pot:kettle, Art. The post of yours I responded to had two separate insults in it. If you want respect, act like you deserve it. You're in my house, not the other way around.

 

[Art]

Great - then you won't mind actually walking us through the facts with a nice little chart to show how they're equal. You can't just say they are equal and call that an argument, then demand others prove you wrong (actually, I and Hurkyl already did show why you're wrong...) - that's burden of proof shifting. You must make your own arguments.

I have responded to Hurkyl's post and am awaiting his reply and I do not see anything in your response to refute my contentions in any factual way.

And actually, I'm not really sure what post you're referring to - the first I see on the subject doesn't contain a question, only a thinly veiled insult.

Insult? to whom pray tell? My question btw was would those who aggressively challenged TSM to condemn the attrocity committed by the Iraqi suicide bomber show consistancy by themselves condemning the actions of the helicopter pilots and all other acts of savagery and murder. As for formulating charts, the limited word processing capabilities of this forum would make that task too difficult but I think I supplied enough information already in any case.

See above. Pot:kettle, Art. The post of yours I responded to had two separate insults in it.

Please advise what the 2 insults are as I take this charge seriously. If you continue to make unfounded accusations I will be forced to report your post.

If you want respect, act like you deserve it. You're in my house, not the other way around.

Are you saying I am not deserving of respect? Does this comment of yours not fall under the site definition of a personal attack? Also would you ellucidate on your comment "You're in my house" as I am unsure what you mean by this.

 

[Hurkyl]

Now you are refusing to look at the facts and that the incident was OUTSIDE of Bahgdad by 30 miles with no legitimate target in the area.

Emphasis mine. Is that a fact? When did you present this fact? Or are you assuming that, because it's a residential area, that there is not a legitimate target in the area?

Do you hold insurgent activities to the same standard? Do you consider any bombing that occurs in a residential area illegitimate? (Even if a coalition convoy is passing through?)

I'm sorry ... dropping a bunker buster in a residential area outside of Bahgdad isn't terrorism?

No, it's not. Unless civilians were the target of the bombing, of course.

Technically, even that's not enough to classify the event as terrorism, but it's the major component that you, Art, and others consistently ignore, so ATM I don't consider it worth bringing up the other details.


==== begin of response to Art ====

On the inequality we agree but based on the actual facts available, the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation (ref the 2 passes over the vehicle) as opposed to the unproven intent of the suicide bomber to kill civilians.

Your sentence is missing an essential phrase: you assert the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation to do what?

By the way, the form of your argument suggests that you believe the bombing was not a premeditated act. Are you suggesting that the bomber spontaneously decided to blow something up, and just happened to have a car full of explosives nearby, and just happened to spot an American humvee?


Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.

Originally Posted by Hurkyl
Ok, let me try it more bluntly: killing yourself while performing a condemnable act does not make it any less condemnable.

In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker.

No, you most certainly have not. Let me remind you, from post #72:

I will add for the record I find both actions utterly despicable with the US attack if anything slightly more so for two reasons.
First it was cowardly; the murderers who fired the missiles and cannon fire were never in any danger themselves while they committed their carnage whereas at least the suicide bomber sacrificed his own life

But I'm content that you have changed your tune on this point.


(P.S. since we're tossing around labels for their connotation, consider that a suicide bombing is an extreme act of cowardice: one does not have to live with the consequences of the action)

As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?

Yes. I would like to make a counter-question: is it possible for people here to consider the intent behind an action, before leaping to the conclusion that it is an "act of savagery and murder"? (Recall that intent is part of the very definition of murder!)

 

[The Smoking Man]

How can you say that with a straight face right before saying this?: Please cite the specific definition of "terrorism" where that comes from.

LOL

Why YOU Russ ...

America decalred war illegally and invaded a sovereign nation.

All people killed as a result of that act are deemed to have been killed by terrorists who struck at civillian targets which is what ALL OF IRAQ WAS!

America is guilty of exactly what Japan was guilty of doing.

In fact, Japan uses almost exectly the same words on the brochures at the disputed Tokyo Shrine ... 'We were just trying to 'liberate' Asia from Western influence'.

An information booklet produced by the shrine puts it all in context. "Some 1,068 people, who were wrongly accused as war criminals by the Allied court, were enshrined here," the pamphlet says. "War is a really tragic thing, but it was necessary in order for us to protect the independence of Japan and to prosper together with Asian neighbours."

http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s763517.htm

When that excuse was used the last time, 14 Class A war criminals lost their lives because of 'crimes against peace'.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you really think a passage from information booklet in a shrine is sufficient justification to equate the Japanese invasions in WWII with the American invasion in Iraq?

I didn't realize the Japanese invasions (or even Germany's invasions!) were acts of terrorism anyways, so this weak analogy doesn't even support your assertions.

 

[Art]

Your sentence is missing an essential phrase: you assert the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation to do what?

To press ahead with their attack on a low value military target despite knowing there would be civilian casualties. BTW You have not given any reason why they used missiles to destroy the target and then opened fire with cannon?

By the way, the form of your argument suggests that you believe the bombing was not a premeditated act. Are you suggesting that the bomber spontaneously decided to blow something up, and just happened to have a car full of explosives nearby, and just happened to spot an American humvee?

Of course the attack on the US convoy was intended and premeditated in that a car had been stuffed full of explosives ready to take advantage should an opportunity arise. I was under the impression it was you who thought it was purely coincidental that a convoy happened to be on the spot when the bomber launched his attack against a group of civilians.

Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.

You are incorrect I have already addressed this point

It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire.

No, you most certainly have not. Let me remind you, from post #72:

But I'm content that you have changed your tune on this point.

(P.S. since we're tossing around labels for their connotation, consider that a suicide bombing is an extreme act of cowardice: one does not have to live with the consequences of the action)

I haven't changed my tune one iota. I stand by what I said. Both actions are despicable derived from twisted ideals with the US slightly worse based on the facts available for the aforementioned reasons. As for what constitutes bravery and cowardice I notice you didn't answer my question so I'll repeat it. "Do you think the US helicopter pilots would have pressed home their attack if they knew it would result in their certain death?"

Yes. I would like to make a counter-question: is it possible for people here to consider the intent behind an action, before leaping to the conclusion that it is an "act of savagery and murder"? (Recall that intent is part of the very definition of murder!)

Does your first word "Yes" signify you do condemn all acts of savagery and murder no matter who commits them? If so then we are at least on the right track.
As for your counter question based on what you have said above I presume you are suggesting that this 'benefit of the doubt as to intent' is only to be afforded to the US forces and not to insurgents fighting an army of occupation.

In summary I now have the answer to my original question. It seems that the neocons are not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces thus relinquishing the high moral ground they were trying to preach from.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Do you really think a passage from information booklet in a shrine is sufficient justification to equate the Japanese invasions in WWII with the American invasion in Iraq?

I didn't realize the Japanese invasions (or even Germany's invasions!) were acts of terrorism anyways, so this weak analogy doesn't even support your assertions.

Hurkyl, There is one thing you are overlooking, that passage and the actions that inspired it were enough to execute the 14 highest ranking people in Japan after the emperor.

Bush et al, have used almost the exact same justification.

Maybe it is just too simple for you to understand, Hurkyl.

Bush broke the same laws as the Japanese when he went into Iraq.

 

[alexandra]

Also would you ellucidate on your comment "You're in my house" as I am unsure what you mean by this.

Yes, Russ - I, too, would like to know what you meant by this. I think your meaning may be important. Although I have some ideas about what I think you meant, I'd rather you state your meaning yourself (just in case I'm wrong).

 

[Anttech]

No, it's not. Unless civilians were the target of the bombing, of course.

The American Army needs to be held better accountable of its miss-fire, friendly fire, badly trainned fire, whatever you want to call it... The Brits had more friendly fire deaths in the first stages of the Iraq war from the US than from Sadams army... I remember seeing John Simpson, almost get blown up by US planes that attacked his convoy, and of course there was the friendly fire incident with the Italian report Giuliana Sgrena who was released from being a hostage and almost died, and nothing happened to the soliders... I can understand the situation however. Pointless war, foregin land, undertrainned and under equipt soliders trying to "beat" an enemy that is unbeatable using force (just like Veitnam). An enemy that would prefer to kill themselfs and take out a few of you than live under the US Flag, or a Flag condoned by the US... Would make me seriously nevous...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm

The Iraq war was a Bad idea...

 

[Hurkyl]

You have not given any reason why they used missiles to destroy the target and then opened fire with cannon?

For good reason: I have no idea. Since you seem intent on having me analyze it, could you help me out with a few links about describing what happened?

I was under the impression it was you who thought it was purely coincidental that a convoy happened to be on the spot when the bomber launched his attack against a group of civilians.

Ah. What I think, and what seems to be the popularly attributed motive, is that the bomber specifically wanted to kill civilians in the act of fraternizing with coalition forces.

Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.

You are incorrect I have already addressed this point

It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire.

Yet you still haven't answered my question... can you establish a reasonable doubt of the charge that the bomber was targetting civilians?

I haven't changed my tune one iota.

So you were lying when you said the following?

In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker.

Does your first word "Yes" signify you do condemn all acts of savagery and murder no matter who commits them?

I am always uneasy about making universal statements, so I'll have to insist on qualifying this: I don't, at the moment, see a reason why I should not.

As for your counter question based on what you have said above I presume you are suggesting that this 'benefit of the doubt as to intent' is only to be afforded to the US forces and not to insurgents fighting an army of occupation.

Then you presume wrongly.

It seems that the neocons are not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces thus relinquishing the high moral ground they were trying to preach from.

Why do you think that neocons are preaching, and that they're not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces?


==== End of response to Art ====

Hurkyl, There is one thing you are overlooking, that passage and the actions that inspired it were enough to execute the 14 highest ranking people in Japan after the emperor.

I think the actions of the Japanese are what was enough for their execution -- the passage has nothing to do with it.

Bush et al, have used almost the exact same justification.

Maybe it is just too simple for you to understand, Hurkyl.

The fact it's too simple is the entire problem. There is nothing in your analogy that permits the condemnation of Japanese acts to be translated into a condemnation of coalition acts.

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.

 

[Art]

For good reason: I have no idea. Since you seem intent on having me analyze it, could you help me out with a few links about describing what happened?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3652174.stm

Ah. What I think, and what seems to be the popularly attributed motive, is that the bomber specifically wanted to kill civilians in the act of fraternizing with coalition forces.

By popularly attributed motive you refer of course to the US propaganda. Now what was that you said about giving the benefit of the doubt re intent?

Yet you still haven't answered my question... can you establish a reasonable doubt of the charge that the bomber was targetting civilians?

The onus is on you to prove his primary target was civilians as it is your assertion. Comes under the innocent until proven guilty maxim.

So you were lying when you said the following?

Throwing insults around will only lead to a degeneration in the discussion, as a super mentor you should know better and should be setting an example.

I am always uneasy about making universal statements, so I'll have to insist on qualifying this: I don't, at the moment, see a reason why I should not.

You seem to have no problem in making universal statements attacking the insurgency or indeed whan supporting the US military. It appears you only have a problem when you realize that doing so will tar each side with the same brush.

Then you presume wrongly.

I won't call you a liar as you did me, I will simply refer you to your response above which directly contradicts this statement.

Why do you think that neocons are preaching

I say preaching because they expect readers of their posts to take everything on faith.

and that they're not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces?

Uh! because they haven't?

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.

I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law also applies to Bush and his administration?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think the actions of the Japanese are what was enough for their execution -- the passage has nothing to do with it.

The fact it's too simple is the entire problem. There is nothing in your analogy that permits the condemnation of Japanese acts to be translated into a condemnation of coalition acts.

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.

Hurkyl, then you display an ignorance of what a Class A War Criminal actually was.

Class A Crimes were and are reserved for the heads of state and are referred to as 'crimes against peace'.

I will think that you will also find that even Godwin's law is waved when the actual data involved is identical because we do have this nagging little thing in law which states precidence.

If you actually look at the testimony of the Tokyo trials, you will find that the 14 were executed for using false statements to insite their population into an illegal war. "Crimes against Peace"

A simple viewing of the Downing Street Memo and what it lays out for the creation of this war IS proof of that complicity on the part of the American and British Governments.

Don't you understand that?

The wording of the 'excuses' being almost identical is just an eerie and scary coincidence.

 

[Hurkyl]

By popularly attributed motive you refer of course to the US propaganda.

No, I mean by all the reports I have read, and everyone who has discussed the issue without taking a "But how can we possibly know what he was thinking?" attitude.

The onus is on you to prove his primary target was civilians as it is your assertion.

There are two primary pieces of evidence supporting this assertion. (Which wasn't mine, but given what I know, I support it)

First off, there is motive: civilians in the area were beginning to become friendly with the coalition troops.

Secondly, there is the act itself. What I've read suggests not only that the coalition vehicles had been in the area for a while, but they even formed stationary targets, giving plenty of opportunity for a strike.


This (or any other crime, incidentally) could certainly be explained away by an amazing string of coincidences, but I'm asking if there's cause for reasonable doubt.

Throwing insults around will only lead to a degeneration in the discussion, as a super mentor you should know better and should be setting an example.

I don't think I acted wrongly: report my post and bring in a third party if you want.

You've said the US act was worse, then in no uncertain terms you said you viewed them equally, then, in no uncertain terms, you said you found the US act worse. I repeat my query: were you lying when you made one of these statements?

You seem to have no problem in making universal statements attacking the insurgency or indeed whan supporting the US military

I don't?

I won't call you a liar as you did me, I will simply refer you to your response above which directly contradicts this statement.

It does?

I say preaching because they expect readers of their posts to take everything on faith.

Who is? Could you give examples?

Uh! because they haven't?

Who hasn't? And why does that mean they're not prepared to do so?

I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law also applies to Bush and his administration?

That assumes that it will happen, doesn't it?


=== End of response to Art ===

Hurkyl, then you display an ignorance of what a Class A War Criminal actually was.

...

Don't you understand that?

You still missed my point. You can't conclude that the actions of the two parties are analogous just because some other aspect of the two parties is analogous.

 

[Art]

Here's an interesting new report by a US-UK non-gov't group on deaths of civilians in Iraq which runs contra to the US gov't propaganda in relation to insurgents prime targets being civilians;

Over 8,000 Iraqis killed in ’03 attack: NGO releases survey

BAGHDAD, July 19: US-led forces, guerillas and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians, police, and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by a US-British non-government group.

Nearly half the deaths in the two years surveyed to March 2005 were in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq’s 25 million people live, according to media reports monitored by Iraq Body Count.

Of the total, nearly 37 per cent were killed by US-led forces, the group said.

The survey found that almost a third of civilian deaths – over 8,000 people – occurred during the invasion itself, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, when US-led forces carried out their ‘shock and awe’ bombing campaign on Baghdad.

In the first year after the invasion, around 6,000 civilians were killed, a number that nearly doubled in the second year, indicating a general increase in violence. The group said deaths caused by insurgents and criminals had risen steadily.

US-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths, with criminals a close second at 36 per cent, while guerillas accounted for a surprisingly small 9.5 per cent.

Note the 9.5% includes police and recruits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm http://www.iraqdaily.com/

 

[The Smoking Man]

You still missed my point. You can't conclude that the actions of the two parties are analogous just because some other aspect of the two parties is analogous.

You seem to miss the point that there is but one crime above all others that has been comitted and that all other crimes are moot points.

Once you rule out the war itself as being legal, all other actions beyond that point are illegal when they are performed to support the initial crime.

That crime was originally penned as The Kellogg-Briand Pact and later re-stated in the Charter of the UN.

It was used to prosecute the Class A Criminals of WWII and has not been repealed.