Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

[Hurkyl]

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.

I don't see how I could, since I don't know anything about it.

But let's say you told me that the boy and his family were specifically target so the coalition forces could parade him around and say how benevolent they are, I would consider it worse than the act in the original post.

However, if it is false that civilians were the target of the military action, then I consider the act neutral¹, and the caring for the child to be positive. So, on the whole, the event shines a positive light on coalition forces.


You seem to suggest that you do equate the two. On what grounds do you think they're so closely analogous?



1: Of course, learning more details about the situation could tip the balance either way.

 

[Art]

It seems to have been forgotten that the intended target of the suicide bomber was american armour occupied by US forces surrounded by children. In the attack by the US helicoptors I referenced earlier the intended target was unoccupied armour surrounded by children. Would one of the neocons here please explain how they can justify the US attack whilst condemning the Iraqi suicide attack. And in case somebody is of a mind to suggest I am not denouncing the suicide attack 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 and secondly because the US wasted innocent civilians for the sake of completing the destruction of an already wrecked vehicle whereas the suicide bomber was attacking an enemy occupied armoured vehicle.

 

[Hurkyl]

It seems to have been forgotten that the intended target of the suicide bomber was american armour occupied by US forces surrounded by children.

The reports I've read indicate that the bomber specifically waited until the children surrounded the vehicle.

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

You seem to suggest that you believe if two atrocities were committed under identical circumstances, except that one person risked his life to do it, and the other did not, that the person who risked his life is less condemnable than the person who did not.

I just don't see the relevance.

 

[Art]

The reports I've read indicate that the bomber specifically waited until the children surrounded the vehicle.

Do you have a credible source for that please? The report I heard said the bomber was driving at speed and approached suddenly from around a corner which is why the US troops did not have time to react. So will you now answer the question I asked?

 

[GENIERE]

...Any ideas for a good word?...

It is not necessary. The dictionary meaning(s) are necessarily broad to encompass all variations in usage. There is, believe it or not, an English word that is its own antonym.

The mental image evoked by a given word may vary greatly over a brief time period. The word “terrorist” in the UK of 10-15 years ago would have likely spawned an image of a member of the IRA planting a bomb in a car outside a crowded market.

Today’s use of the word “terrorist” universally evokes an image of a Muslim with a bomb strapped to his torso and is considered a despicable individual. In the Muslim world, no real sense of horror is felt but rather an image of a martyr doing the work of Allah. To get a feel for how the Muslim thinks, do search for, (I’m not kidding!) “Ask the Imam” or “Muslim advice” or similar. My favorite hit is:

Is it OK to have SEX with my SLAVES?




The liberal press knows well how to structure a sentence to evoke the desired mental image from their readers and now refer to the terrorist as an insurgent to avoid the automatic “Muslim-terrorist” connotation. The liberal press/individual does not favor one religion over another, deeming all religions to be an obstacle in the path of global socialism / Marxism. Right now Christianity is perceived to be the more dangerous of the two. 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.

Continue to use “terrorist”, everyone in the western world knows to what it refers despite the efforts of the liberal (aka Marxist) to replace the image of the psychotic Muslim bomber with that of a coalition soldier doing his duty.


...

 

[mathwonk]

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

 

[Art]

You seem to suggest that you believe if two atrocities were committed under identical circumstances, except that one person risked his life to do it, and the other did not, that the person who risked his life is less condemnable than the person who did not.

I just don't see the relevance.

This reeks of obfuscation. Are you going to answer my question or not? Both you and Russ were very quick to demand simple straight answers from TSM and I am now requesting the same of you.

 

[Evo]

Do you have a credible source for that please? The report I heard said the bomber was driving at speed and approached suddenly from around a corner which is why the US troops did not have time to react. So will you now answer the question I asked?

It would make sense that he knew the vehicle along with the soldiers would be there handing out treats. The fact that when he was ready to go that he came barreling at them so they had no time to stop him makes sense. You aren't suggesting that the bomber came barreling around the corner not knowing if there was a target?

 

[The Smoking Man]

1: Of course, learning more details about the situation could tip the balance either way.

I doubt it but here's the info:

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/ali.html

 

[Townsend]

So, why not just take all the definitions you have by placing the words. "except if performed by Americans" since it seems you are looking for a definition that 'forgives you your transgressions'?

If I saw a particular car driving down the road I could call it a car and be correct. If on the other hand I knew the make model and year of the car I could describe it more exactly.

My point is that the actions that were preformed by 200 + years ago can be called terrorist actions. Of course using that definition we can most any country or group of people throughout history terrorist. But they are not all the same and I think it is obvious that some are much worse than others.

As such a better, more precise word would do well to make the important distinction between the actions.

Regards

 

[Evo]

I doubt it but here's the info:

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/ali.html

Sites like this won't cut it. Please post a news source.

 

[Hurkyl]

I doubt it but here's the info:

Knowing the attack happened 30 miles outside of Baghdad has no affect on my assessment of it.

 

[Townsend]

Continue to use “terrorist”, everyone in the western world knows to what it refers despite the efforts of the liberal (aka Marxist) to replace the image of the psychotic Muslim bomber with that of a coalition soldier doing his duty.


...

I just read this...I see what your saying. Its kind of like the true liberals being force to concede to label of liberal to avoid appearing alined with the New Deal. So they adopted the term conservative instead. But yeah, I think everyone in the western world has a pretty good idea of the differences between the Boston Tea Party and 9/11 or London bombings.

Regards

 

[Art]

Sites like this won't cut it. Please post a news source.

There is a link to a BBC news report re the incident on the referenced site.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If I saw a particular car driving down the road I could call it a car and be correct. If on the other hand I knew the make model and year of the car I could describe it more exactly.

My point is that the actions that were preformed by 200 + years ago can be called terrorist actions. Of course using that definition we can most any country or group of people throughout history terrorist. But they are not all the same and I think it is obvious that some are much worse than others.

As such a better, more precise word would do well to make the important distinction between the actions.

Regards

LOL

Tome changes the definition of terrorism? ... Pull the other one.

Okay going with the car analogy ...

Let's say 'Moslem Car' and 'American Car' ... Well, istht better now? Are the cars now not cars? Do they perform different functions than the American car has cruise control and air conditioning?

 

[Evo]

There is a link to a BBC news report re the incident on the referenced site.

Thanks Art.

So, this is about a victim of war. Tragic and sad, as all are, but not a victim of terrorism, if that was the point being discussed?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sites like this won't cut it. Please post a news source.

Why don't you click page down once and follow the 15 links to news sites then?

Or why don't you enter the words 'Ali Ismail Abbas' into Yahoo?

I also didn't post in reference to your request but the request of another who wanted to read about the details with relevence to the definition of Terrorism I placed earlier.

Does this not equate to the aspect of 'propaganda' in the definition supplied?

Why do you consistently perform Ad Hominem attacks on sites rather than addressing the evidence supplied there?

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you going to answer my question or not?

Impatient, aren't we? I hadn't even written anything between this and your previous post in which you wanted me to answer a question.

please explain how [one] can justify the US attack whilst condemning the Iraqi suicide attack.

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".


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


I cannot carry out the request that involved an actual justification of the US attack, but I have answered the main point of your question: explaining why there is no cognative dissonance.


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.

This reeks of obfuscation.

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




*: Yes, I realize you contest this statement.

 

[Evo]

LOL

Tome changes the definition of terrorism? ... Pull the other one.

Okay going with the car analogy ...

Let's say 'Moslem Car' and 'American Car' ... Well, istht better now? Are the cars now not cars? Do they perform different functions than the American car has cruise control and air conditioning?

The Boston Tea party was a non-violent act of revolt, I don't recall any civilians being killed. I don't believe that anyone was killed.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Knowing the attack happened 30 miles outside of Baghdad has no affect on my assessment of it.

Wow, apparently you read 49 more words than Evo.

I'm impressed!

 

[Hurkyl]

Wow, apparently you read 49 more words than Evo.

You think this is likely to be accurate? If so, does this have relevance to anything?

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Boston Tea party was a non-violent act of revolt, I don't recall any civilians being killed. I don't believe that anyone was killed.

So you now attempt to change the definition of what it is to terrorize?

Evo ... you're stooping to new lows.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You think this is likely to be accurate? If so, does this have relevance to anything?

THE STORY OF ALI ISMAIL ABBAS

WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?
No child on Earth deserves this - war is evil no matter the cause.
Ali's story is not unique...there are hundreds more Iraqi children just like him.

30 Miles from Baghdad on March 30th a U.S. bomb changed 12 year old Ali's life forever. When the bomb struck, Ali was sitting on his pregnant mums lap. Sixteen family members including his mum, the unborn baby, his dad, his brother, three cousins and an aunt were killed. Ali lived but lost both his arms and suffered 60% body burns.

Ali Ismail Abbas received world attention and became 'the poster child' of the Iraq war. His nurse even wrote a letter to Bush and Blair asking for Ali to be airlifted out to save his life. Ali said he will go anywhere for treatment except the U.S. "because they did this to me." On April 16th, Ali was flown to Kuwait and had his first surgery and skin grafts. Ali will live. Untold numbers of children left behind in Baghdad, and elsewhere throughout Iraq, will not.

Sorry, Hurkyl, I am having problems finding anything in the above story that indicates anything but a description of the event and the subsequent actions that followed.

Even this, "Ali said he will go anywhere for treatment except the U.S. "because they did this to me."" is a quote of the boy himself.

What followed was links to 15 news articles and an appeal for funds to help the victims of war ... not 'American war' ... but war. It even states that war is evil no matter what the cause.

Are you manifesting some form of guilt?

 

[Hurkyl]

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

 

[Evo]

Why don't you click page down once and follow the 15 links to news sites then?

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.

I also didn't post in reference to your request but the request of another who wanted to read about the details with relevence to the definition of Terrorism I placed earlier.

And the site you linked to failed to do that.

Does this not equate to the aspect of 'propaganda' in the definition supplied?

What you posted most certainly would be considered propaganda.

Why do you consistently perform Ad Hominem attacks on sites rather than addressing the evidence supplied there?

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.

 

[mathwonk]

i was afraid of that. (re post 76.) apparently you would rather argue.

 

[Evo]

So you now attempt to change the definition of what it is to terrorize?

Evo ... you're stooping to new lows.

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.

 

[Archon]

Wow. Your entire post veritably reeks of generalizations and racism.

Today’s use of the word “terrorist” universally evokes an image of a Muslim with a bomb strapped to his torso and is considered a despicable individual. In the Muslim world, no real sense of horror is felt but rather an image of a martyr doing the work of Allah. To get a feel for how the Muslim thinks, do search for, (I’m not kidding!) “Ask the Imam” or “Muslim advice” or similar. My favorite hit is:

Is it OK to have SEX with my SLAVES?

Do you seriously believe that the majority of the Muslim world supports the actions of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise? After you've (hopefully) answered this, consider another question: do you believe that more Muslims were in favor of terrorism before the attack of Iraq, or after?

The liberal press knows well how to structure a sentence to evoke the desired mental image from their readers and now refer to the terrorist as an insurgent to avoid the automatic “Muslim-terrorist” connotation. The liberal press/individual does not favor one religion over another, deeming all religions to be an obstacle in the path of global socialism / Marxism. Right now Christianity is perceived to be the more dangerous of the two. 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.

Continue to use “terrorist”, everyone in the western world knows to what it refers despite the efforts of the liberal (aka Marxist) to replace the image of the psychotic Muslim bomber with that of a coalition soldier doing his duty.
...

Remarkable. I am truly at a loss for words. Before I formally respond to this, could you perhaps confirm my suspicions regarding your post? You seem to be saying that liberals are all, somehow, in league with the terrorists, and that they necessarily believe that all religions are equally is evil (But Christianity more so. Of Course.) and that any hint of nonconformity is destructive and horrible.

WHAT?!?

I am a liberal by any standard, and from my perspective, this is a fair description of many conservatives I have known and seen (minus the part about Christianity). I hope you were being sarcastic.

Edit: Forgot to attribute quotes. My apologies.

 

[Evo]

I have no idea to whom you are referring, but the modern use of the word terrorist has nothing to do with muslims, in my opinion, if you think that, you are sadly mistaken.

The IRA bombers are terrorists. Anyone that takes it upon themselves to randomly harm innocent people to further their own cause is a terrorist.

 

[mathwonk]

this is sad.

 

[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...