What a mess

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 20, 2003, 6:37 pm

People don't load trucks up with explosives, drive into a building and detonate it because they want to make a political statement.

Wrong. That's exactly why they do it.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 20, 2003, 6:44 pm

kyoukan wrote:People don't load trucks up with explosives, drive into a building and detonate it because they want to make a political statement. They do it because they want to kill people.

If they just wanted to kill people, a Russian sniper rifle and a little practice is a much more efficient way to do it. Driving a truck-bomb is a one shot deal, but you could pop and drop hundreds of UN/US personnel before getting killed sniping.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 20, 2003, 7:30 pm

you think a sniper is going to waste 50-100 people before getting caught?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 20, 2003, 11:17 pm

kyoukan wrote:you think a sniper is going to waste 50-100 people before getting caught?

Maybe if he had SOS

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 21, 2003, 1:50 am

The tecnicalities of a cease fire where all of the invading forces moved out and left a token security force there? Is that the technicality you are speaking of you Moron?

Truant thanks for the clarification

Voro the only question I am asking is what would be left of Iraq if the USA used the same mentality that Terrorists use?

USA "Hrmm, our troops keep being killed in Iraq, the world trade center has been attacked twice by Muslim Terrorists....etc etc etc. Let's nuke the middle east to pay them back."

"Why kill all of those innocent people?"

USA "They are all fucking Muslims. Thats why."

This is the mentality of Terrorists.

Oh and Kelshara you can't equate prejudice with random mass killing.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 21, 2003, 2:08 am

kyoukan wrote:
Atokal wrote:Well here is another thread that Kyoukan will disappear from because her opinion was exposed as uninformed and stupid, like the author.

Kindly point out your source that states the UN is at war with Saddams Iraq.
The UN security council never lifted its formal hostilities on Saddam Hussein after the gulf war. The cease fire that led to economic santions was just temporary. The security council is most definitely technically at war with Iraq until they state otherwise. Just because the UNSC or the USA doesn't formally "declare war" on another country like they used to do in the 1930s and 40s doesn't mean that they are not at war. Bullshit technicalities might work on you because you are a moron but I'm not as fucking stupid as you are.

You say BULLSHIT technicalities will work on me and you fucking use one in your damn argument. EL OH EL. The UN did not sanction this war remember? Economic sanctions are NOT a declaration of war either stated or implied.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2003, 2:09 am

I'm not talking about this war you fucking reject.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 8:15 am

The tecnicalities of a cease fire where all of the invading forces moved out and left a token security force there? Is that the technicality you are speaking of you Moron?

North and South Korea are still at war by a technicality.

Oh and Kelshara you can't equate prejudice with random mass killing.

Of course I can, one takes the feelings slightly further than the other. There really isn't that big of a difference between spitting on a Middle Easterner here or shooting a Westerner there. Just a couple of steps further down the same road.

And Atokal.. reading skills is a plus when you want to talk BS!

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 21, 2003, 9:11 am

Kelshara I really hope you were drunk when you posted that last gem. Only a little further down the same road? Spitting on someone and flying planes into the world trade center are you fucking mental??

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 21, 2003, 9:15 am

Hammerstalker PE wrote:Kelshara I really hope you were drunk when you posted that last gem. Only a little further down the same road? Spitting on someone and flying planes into the world trade center are you fucking mental??

His hockey helmet was a little tight this morning.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 9:53 am

[quote="Kelshara]There really isn't that big of a difference between spitting on a Middle Easterner here or shooting a Westerner there. Just a couple of steps further down the same road.[/quote]

Please place all of your computer equipment in a box. Someone with actual brains will be around to pick it up. Please let your management know that you are not to be near a keyboard, for fear of more outbreaks of stupidity.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 10:16 am

Sorry plenty of stupidity here already, quite a few have posted on this thread

Particularly the last 3 people, all that is missing is Atokal, Cartalas and Metanis to get the Happy Six!

And no, I am not kidding. They are all different stages of hatred. Calling somebody a towelhead, spitting on them, beating somebody up beacause of religion/race, shooting someone.

It is not THE same level of hatred, but it is all hatred. Different stages or levels is all.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 11:05 am

It is not hatred. It is suspicion and distrust. I get labeled as a racist for being honest about my distrust for people I don't know personally. Yes, I will try to pay more attention to people of middle eastern descent and their activities around me. I do the same thing with white who are dressed in certain ways, blacks that are dressed in certain ways, pretty much anyone who appears to be a punk or just does not seem quite right.

The fact that I am cautious and attentive around these people doesn't mean jack or shit aboot personal feelings, ie hatred or love, towards them. I am watching out for my safety in a time when things are just fucked up. Your confusing hatred with caution is just so far past ridiculous that it makes you appear to be even more of a moron than you have shown in the past.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 11:18 am

Read my post, Oh Stupid One.

I said spitting on, beating up etc. Not paying more attention to. But I guess in your ignorant redneck circles "spitting on and beating up" is called being cautious. Would explain a lot.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 21, 2003, 11:21 am

Kelshara wrote:Read my post, Oh Stupid One.

I said spitting on, beating up etc. Not paying more attention to. But I guess in your ignorant redneck circles "spitting on and beating up" is called being cautious. Would explain a lot.

Did some Tracking Damn Kilmoll your fast Fed Ex is already at Kelshara's door.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 11:37 am

Forthe wrote:How can you call any attack by Iraqis within the borders of an *occupied* Iraq an act of terrorism?

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The same way we can call the bombing of a US federal building inside an occupied US by a citizen of the US a terrorist act. Or the mail bombings by the Unibomber. Or the sniper shootings in DC. All acts of terrorism and people are getting the death sentence for committing them.

Did any of those events take place in a war zone?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 21, 2003, 11:54 am

kyoukan wrote:you think a sniper is going to waste 50-100 people before getting caught?

not a single sniper, but if you paired about 2 or 3 snipers together along with maybe... someone with explosives, you could have him set one off and in the insueing confusion the snipers could pick off quite a few peoplel, not 50-100 but maybe like 10-20

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 12:09 pm

Regardless, bombing the UN was not a millitary action, it was a political target.

Killing paper pushers in the UN accomplishes no millitary goal, no reduction in hostile forces, no breakdown in chain of command, nothing. What is does accomplish is fear on the part of said paper pushers and tests the will of the UN to keep people in country.

It was a terrorist act, both by the method of execution and what it accomplished.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 21, 2003, 12:26 pm

Sionistic wrote:
kyoukan wrote:you think a sniper is going to waste 50-100 people before getting caught?
not a single sniper, but if you paired about 2 or 3 snipers together along with maybe... someone with explosives, you could have him set one off and in the insueing confusion the snipers could pick off quite a few peoplel, not 50-100 but maybe like 10-20

Not all at once, but in a war torn city, a sniper duo could easily kill 50 a week, and keep doing that for a while.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 21, 2003, 12:49 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Atokal wrote:Well here is another thread that Kyoukan will disappear from because her opinion was exposed as uninformed and stupid, like the author.

Kindly point out your source that states the UN is at war with Saddams Iraq.
The UN security council never lifted its formal hostilities on Saddam Hussein after the gulf war. The cease fire that led to economic santions was just temporary. The security council is most definitely technically at war with Iraq until they state otherwise.

This is for Kelshithead and Kyoukan.

The UN stated emphatically that they were against further hostilites with Iraq when they failed to support the US led invasion. Granted, as Voro said the sanctions could be considered hostile. However attacking civilians and even suggesting it had any military significance is bordering on retarded.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 1:10 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Regardless, bombing the UN was not a millitary action, it was a political target.

Killing paper pushers in the UN accomplishes no millitary goal, no reduction in hostile forces, no breakdown in chain of command, nothing. What is does accomplish is fear on the part of said paper pushers and tests the will of the UN to keep people in country.

It was a terrorist act, both by the method of execution and what it accomplished.

What training did you recieve that allows you to read the minds of these people and come to such an absolute understanding of their motives?

The UN, especially after the last resolution which basically endorsed the occupation, could easily be percieved as the enemy. Bombing the HQ of your enemy during a war isn't a terrorist action.

We are already seeing countries reconsider deploying personel to Iraq since the bombing. If the bombing makes the occupation more difficult then it is a perfectly reasonable combat\resistance tactic.

Or maybe they were going after a specific target and the rest was colateral damage. We all know how easily you have been able to justify colateral damage.

It is all about perspective.

But a basic fact is these people are on thier own land attacking foreign occupiers and hence are not the aggressors.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 1:28 pm

Forthe, I can call it a terrorist attack because they attacked the headquarters of a neutral entity. It was not a United States building, it was a United Nations building. Bombing a building of representatives from around the world is not an act of war, it is an act of stupidity and cowardice.

What was the point of bombing that building? They just wanted to kill any non-Muslims they could. What is the point of them sabotaging their own water supply line or oil fields that are being used to generate income for themselves? These are not actions of war, they are terrorists who only want to cause disruptions.

Kelshara, when was the last time you saw someone spit on anyone of middle easter descent in the US? The stupid actions of some hick that you heard about in some liberal rag from your cousin's wife's sister in law's daughter's kindergarten teach does not equate to everyone in America stoning every middle eastern person to death because they wear their towel hat to work. Let me put it to you like this, I hate middle eastern, blacks, whites, british, etc all an equal amount. I probably harbor more disdain for european caucasians and the typical white American and politican more than any other race or nationality because I know the atrocities they did when coming to and establishing this country. So if you want to call me a racist, that is fine. But you damn well better get it right when you try and tell me who I am racist against.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 21, 2003, 1:36 pm

Kelshara, when was the last time you saw someone spit on anyone of middle easter descent in the US? The stupid actions of some hick that you heard about in some liberal rag from your cousin's wife's sister in law's daughter's kindergarten teach does not equate to everyone in America stoning every middle eastern person to death because they wear their towel hat to work. Let me put it to you like this, I hate middle eastern, blacks, whites, british, etc all an equal amount

What does this have to do with Kelshara's assertion that it's the same mindset? Nothing. And she is right in her assertion that abusing a group of people is on the same path as indiscriminate terrorism against said group. Sure she said it was a few short steps which is not the case, but the basic assertion is one I have to agree with.

As for people arguing that the bombing of the UN in Baghdad is not a terrorist act - wtf? It self-evidently is and motivation doesn't enter into it.
If it was Saddam-supporting Iraqis it's a terrorist attack against a neutral party.
If it's the mainly Saudi Al-Qaeda who have "flocked" to Iraq since the war it's even more clear cut.
If it's a bunch of average hard working Iraqis who are pissed off with the US occupation, it's STILL terrorism and they hit the wrong target.
To take this line of argument any further is pointless hairsplitting.

So what were we arguing about other than that? Fucked if I can remember.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 1:49 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:What does this have to do with Kelshara's assertion that it's the same mindset? Nothing. And she is right in her assertion that abusing a group of people is on the same path as indiscriminate terrorism against said group. Sure she said it was a few short steps which is not the case, but the basic assertion is one I have to agree with..

It is way way past a few short steps. It is not even in the same fucking continent. Let me ask you this : Have you ever been flipped off someone or made other rude gestures at someone? Lets just say that you dislike bad drivers. Would you randomly shoot and kill anyone you saw that made an improper lane change? Fuck no, a sane person would not do that. A sane person sure as hell might flip them the bird or give them some choice words....maybe (and I would say this is a pretty extreme case) spit at them. Even so, there is a huge fucking line between being an asshole towards someone and ending their life without provocation.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 1:50 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
Kelshara, when was the last time you saw someone spit on anyone of middle easter descent in the US? The stupid actions of some hick that you heard about in some liberal rag from your cousin's wife's sister in law's daughter's kindergarten teach does not equate to everyone in America stoning every middle eastern person to death because they wear their towel hat to work. Let me put it to you like this, I hate middle eastern, blacks, whites, british, etc all an equal amount
What does this have to do with Kelshara's assertion that it's the same mindset? Nothing. And she is right in her assertion that abusing a group of people is on the same path as indiscriminate terrorism against said group. Sure she said it was a few short steps which is not the case, but the basic assertion is one I have to agree with.

As for people arguing that the bombing of the UN in Baghdad is not a terrorist act - wtf? It self-evidently is and motivation doesn't enter into it.
If it was Saddam-supporting Iraqis it's a terrorist attack against a neutral party.
If it's the mainly Saudi Al-Qaeda who have "flocked" to Iraq since the war it's even more clear cut.
If it's a bunch of average hard working Iraqis who are pissed off with the US occupation, it's STILL terrorism and they hit the wrong target.
To take this line of argument any further is pointless hairsplitting.

So what were we arguing about other than that? Fucked if I can remember.

*We* percieve the UN as neutral. *We* also assume it was a "wrong target".

This may not be the same for Iraqis after more than a dozen years of extremely damaging UN sanctions and then UN endorsement of the occupation. Others may view the UN as a puppet tool of the US.

btw I'm a huge fanboy of the UN and the principles it is supposed to represent, and the attack upset me, but I still try to see things as others may percieve them.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 1:58 pm

Forthe,

Why don't you try applying a little reason to the action. Believe it or not, even people who do not have a Western mindset do things for a purpose.

What purpose did blowing up the UN building serve?

1. It did not harm any combatant, so the action was not designed to reduce the number of hostiles.

2. It did not disrupt any chain of command, therefore the action was not designed to soften enemy troops.

3. It did not accomplish any millitary goal whatsoever.

Filling a truck full of explosives and detonating it in a building full of noncoms who are in no way involved in battle (not intelligence gathering, not communication, nothing) is a textbook example of a terrorist act. WHERE it happened is totally irrelevant.

Terrorism is the targetting of non-millitary targets by a smaller entity to illicit a desired response from a larger entity. Location has nothing to do with it, intention and execution are key.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 21, 2003, 2:02 pm

It is way way past a few short steps. It is not even in the same fucking continent. Let me ask you this : Have you ever been flipped off someone or made other rude gestures at someone? Lets just say that you dislike bad drivers. Would you randomly shoot and kill anyone you saw that made an improper lane change? Fuck no, a sane person would not do that. A sane person sure as hell might flip them the bird or give them some choice words....maybe (and I would say this is a pretty extreme case) spit at them. Even so, there is a huge fucking line between being an asshole towards someone and ending their life without provocation.

Your analogy is a poor one. Me flipping off someone who has cut me up is different from spitting at an arab because of the actions of a small group of arabs have made you angry at all of them. This is the point Kelshara was making.
When you hate a group of people you dehumanise them (call them barbarians whatever) and once they're dehumanised the less bright and more emotional segments of society start hate crimes of a more serious nature. If that isn't stamped on it snowballs and eventually you have massacres/genocide/terrorism. Rwanda is a good example.

There is a huge line, yes. But spitting at a random passer-by because of their race is way past being an asshole to someone, too.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 21, 2003, 2:02 pm

Fallanthas-

how can you say where it happened is irrelevant?

what was irrelevant about the location of targets chosen on 9/11? Pretty sure the target specificity was the most important part of the whole thing....

you are talking out of your ass

bottom line is this, you don't know what the motives were or were not. Neither do I.

you are right, the act was intended to achieve a result. I would speculate the result was to embarrass the U.S. and make it appear that the U.S. does not have good control over the situation in Iraq.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 21, 2003, 2:05 pm

*We* percieve the UN as neutral. *We* also assume it was a "wrong target".

This may not be the same for Iraqis after more than a dozen years of extremely damaging UN sanctions and then UN endorsement of the occupation. Others may view the UN as a puppet tool of the US.

btw I'm a huge fanboy of the UN and the principles it is supposed to represent, and the attack upset me, but I still try to see things as others may percieve them

You're stretching your hypotheses too far here.
As an act it's almost completely analogous to the Oklahoma bombing.
In short, stop wasting time arguing about whether or not it was a terrorist act. It was

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 21, 2003, 2:07 pm

you are right, the act was intended to achieve a result. I would speculate the result was to embarrass the U.S. and make it appear that the U.S. does not have good control over the situation in Iraq

I speculate that your speculation is correct. Occam's Razor etc

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 2:09 pm

Where it took place IS irrelevant.

Are you telling me that there is a difference in intent between the 9/11 incident and the bombing of the UN building in Iraq?

I think not. The intent of terrorism is to terrify and destabilize.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 21, 2003, 2:09 pm

3. It did not accomplish any millitary goal whatsoever.

Yes it did. I suggest you read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" sometime. War is political and financial, as well as military. The Vietnamese drove us out of their country due in large part to altering popular opinion and placing great pressure on our political leaders. They did it by doing things that we would not. They refused to play by the "rules" of war. They eventually won.

Guerilla tactics are all the Iraq's have, and they will be using them. Hitting a UN Building in the middle of Bahgdad is a statement that no one is safe. It's the same reason the oil pipeline was hit twice in 2 days, in 2 seperate spots. It is a message meant to show us that they are still very capable of hitting us at will. A poor man's "shock and awe" if you will. They want the leaders and people of America to say "fuck it, this ain't worth it" and leave. Nothing more and nothing less. Just like Vietnam, only time will show when we've had enough.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 21, 2003, 2:11 pm

Guerilla tactics are all the Iraq's have, and they will be using them. Hitting a UN Building in the middle of Bahgdad is a statement that no one is safe. It's the same reason the oil pipeline was hit twice in 2 days, in 2 seperate spots. It is a message meant to show us that they are still very capable of hitting us at will. A poor man's "shack and awe" if you will. They want the leaders and people of America to say "fuck it, this ain't worth it" and leave. Nothing more and nothing less. Just like Vietnam, only time will show when we've had enough.

Either that or to force the US to bring in more troops and enforce martial law more stringently which would very likely be another victory for them.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 2:14 pm

This is for Kelshithead and Kyoukan.

The UN stated emphatically that they were against further hostilites with Iraq when they failed to support the US led invasion.

Not sure where in your wonderful mind you conjured up the image that I called it anything but a terrorist act. It was. However, I also understand the reasoning of why they did it.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Oh and as for the last part, with the new UN resolutions that basicly support the occupation, I can clearly see how either Hussein supporters or Al Qaeda can see UN as anything but impartial.

What was the point of bombing that building? They just wanted to kill any non-Muslims they could. What is the point of them sabotaging their own water supply line or oil fields that are being used to generate income for themselves? These are not actions of war, they are terrorists who only want to cause disruptions.

- Point of bombing building: Bring attention and fight back with what limited resources they got. Same point as why Palestinians blow up Israelis. They want to spread uncertainty, fear and keep the situation as chaotic as possible.

- What is the point of them sabotaging their own water supply line or oil fields that are being used to generate income for themselves?: Fairly simple. The people who did this are A. Hussein supporters or B. Al Qaeda terrorists, mostly non-Iraqi. Hence they got nothing to lose by blowing up these resources, they are not THEIR resources atm.

- These are not actions of war, they are terrorists who only want to cause disruptions. During WWII the Norwegian resistance forces blew up railroad tracks, buildings, ships, factories etc to make life as hellish as possible for the occupating Germans. This is no different, and expect more of it.

Kelshara, when was the last time you saw someone spit on anyone of middle easter descent in the US?

I've seen people get into argument with foreigners, seen people spit after them and have had people tell me to get the fuck out and calling me an America hater (which I am clearly not, in fact I love the basics that USA is built on. The interesting thing is that those very same basics that I love and use, are the same basics the "oh so patriotic" people want to deny others). When was the last time? This spring, considering I just returned after being 3 months overseas.

Would you randomly shoot and kill anyone you saw that made an improper lane change?

I wouldn't, but it happens. I don't waste my energy on bad drivers etc, because I am intelligent to know that flipping them off etc wont make them better drivers. And even if I did, that person had done something directly to me. Spitting at random Arabs is completely different.

Even so, there is a huge fucking line between being an asshole towards someone and ending their life without provocation.

You probably don't see how the Israeli provoke the Palestinians either do you?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 2:15 pm

Hitting a UN Building in the middle of Bahgdad is a statement that no one is safe.

See above. The intent is to terrify and destabilize, which is a textbook description of a terrorist op.

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

terrorism: "...the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective. Terrorism has been used by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and ethnic groups, by revolutionaries, and by the armies and secret police of governments themselves."

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 2:15 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Your analogy is a poor one. Me flipping off someone who has cut me up is different from spitting at an arab because of the actions of a small group of arabs have made you angry at all of them. This is the point Kelshara was making.
When you hate a group of people you dehumanise them (call them barbarians whatever) and once they're dehumanised the less bright and more emotional segments of society start hate crimes of a more serious nature. If that isn't stamped on it snowballs and eventually you have massacres/genocide/terrorism. Rwanda is a good example.

There is a huge line, yes. But spitting at a random passer-by because of their race is way past being an asshole to someone, too.

Kelshara's entire post should be disregarded as a fable to start with, thereby rendering all of the argumentation about it invalid and non-existant. I have not said that there are not morons in the US who are hate mongers and would be violent towards entire groups of people based on race or religion. What he tries to paint with his broad brush is that this is typical in the US and it is most certainly not the case. The KKK and other supremecist groups are generally very poorly regarded by a large percentage of Americans. You might find some racial prejudices, but rarely will you find homicidal hate groups these days.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 2:16 pm

The US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Washington had no plans to add to the more than 140,000 troops already in Iraq.

The Baghdad bombing may be deterring, rather than encouraging, other countries to send troops.

In Japan, government officials say the planned deployment of Japanese troops in Iraq to help in post-war reconstruction may be postponed given the dangerous security situation in the country.

Last month, the Japanese parliament approved controversial plans to send up to 1,000 soldiers to Iraq, for what would be the largest deployment of Japanese troops overseas since World War II.

Thailand has also said it may cancel plans to send more than 400 troops to help rebuild Iraq after the attack, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has said, AFP news agency reports.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund - organisations involved in rebuilding Iraq's economy - have ordered their staff out. The European Commission is also recalling some of its staff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3169425.stm

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 2:19 pm

Kelshara's entire post should be disregarded as a fable to start with, thereby rendering all of the argumentation about it invalid and non-existant. I have not said that there are not morons in the US who are hate mongers and would be violent towards entire groups of people based on race or religion. What he tries to paint with his broad brush is that this is typical in the US and it is most certainly not the case.

Yeah that was so obvious right after 9/11...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 21, 2003, 2:27 pm

kilmoll why don't you split that hair about Kelshara's road metaphor a little finer. Cause after 20 posts, it is really relevant and i think this back and forth between the two of you is really going somewhere....

Fallanthas-

wow i didnt know dictionary.com provided warfare tactics briefings as well...

sorry i stand by what i said. you are totally talking out of your ass when you say the target of a terrorist attack is irrelevant.

sometimes terrorism is random. But not all the time. apparently you like to have concepts in nice tight packages (a la your dictionary definition of terrorism - incidentally i'm sure Al Queda guys memorize this on Day 2 of training so they make sure they execute it properly).

I don't want to get too much into 9/11, but this conversation is so simplistic, that it has to be the only way to go. The only thing about that day that was random was what people besides the hijackers would be killed. The planes were going to be destroyed, and their passengers, and the buildings were going to be hit. Those were specific symbolic targets. That you can't see the WTC and Pentagon as things besides an average office building is baffling.

I'm not saying that the bombing of the UN building in Baghdad is anything like the WTC. THey are different incidents. You and I can only speculate on why that target was chosen.

You seem to thing that the guy loaded up a truck, threw a dart at a map and drove it there to detonate it.

Some terrorist acts simply go after targets of opportunity. Suicide bombs on buses in Israel for example, but you don't load up a truck with military grade explosives without a specific target in mind.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 21, 2003, 2:31 pm

The intent is to terrify and destabilize, which is a textbook description of a terrorist op.

And Art of War 101. However, The Art of War has been around just shy of 2400 years and everything in the past 5 years has been labeled terrorism by the current administration.

Dubya may have proclaimed the war was over several months ago, but it seems that the Iraqi's didn't get the memo. It is still war to them. There are no rules. Defining their actions does not change the fact that they are fighting a war.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 2:31 pm

Where did I say the target was irrelevant, Vor?

I said it was irrelevant that the target was in a war zone. The target itself was very relevant, in that it was in no way attached to supporting the millitary action there.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 21, 2003, 2:33 pm

ok you said the "location was irrelevant"

i understand what you mean by that word choice now.

i was interpreting location as specific place of the attack, while you were meaning the general vicinity, ie "war zone"

thanks for clarifying =)

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 2:50 pm

Doh.

I was responding to Forthe's assertion that since the attack took place in a war zone, it was a millitary action.

Sorry for the confusion.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 2:52 pm

Iraq the ungovernable

Foreign powers have always found Iraq ungovernable.

Britain discovered that in the 1920s. With Winston Churchill's approval, it even used gas bombs against Kurdish tribesmen who would not pay their taxes.

The Americans and a new generation of British occupiers are now discovering the old truth.

And so is the United Nations.

The UN has been in a difficult position in Iraq - one which, if not redefined, may become impossible.

It has been subservient to the US and UK and has not restricted itself to humanitarian operations only. If it had, there might not have been an attack.

But, using its mandate under Security Council resolution 1483, it has played an advisory role in setting up the Iraqi Governing Council, many of whose members are anti-Saddam veterans.

Vieira de Mello was closely linked with the Iraqi Governing Council
According to Iraq specialist Toby Dodge, Senior Research Fellow at Warwick University, UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello himself, who died in Tuesday's bomb, was "clearly associated with the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council.

"This helped to make the UN a target," he told BBC News Online.

"The attack might also have been intended to block off any American retreat using the UN. This was a potent and diabolical message - that even the UN is unacceptable."

More or less UN?

The decision has to be taken therefore about whether the UN does more in Iraq or does less.

If it does more, it lays itself open to further attack. If it does less, it shows itself to be irrelevant.

The British Government is now ready to consider an amendment to the UN mandate in Iraq, according to informed sources.

One said that it was "opportune to shake up the kaleidoscope".

By this he meant that the concerns of those countries worried about the secondary role of the UN would have to be addressed.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says he is "open minded" on the issue, a diplomatic signal that he is ready for a negotiation.

He will be in New York this week on a previously planned visit and hopes to meet Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The ambiguous position of the UN has already been the rock on which efforts to bring other countries in as peacekeepers had foundered. India, for one, said that it would not help unless there was a peacekeeping mandate and a strong one.

Rallying round

The early indications are that there will be rallying round the UN and that support for a greater role, perhaps one of more equality with the Coalition Provisional Council, will be forthcoming.

But it will take time. And it is not certain.

"I have always argued that the UN needs to do more in Iraq, and this attack has not changed my mind," Toby Dodge said.

"American troops are the focus for resentment and greater internationalisation would help defuse that.

"The US lacks experience in nation-building verging on the incompetent. It needs more troops but doesn't have them.

"However the roadblock to the UN doing more lies in Washington among the neo-conservatives. Until they accept that it is more attractive for the UN to take more responsibility, nothing will happen," he warned.

"In any case, not much will happen before November or December given the way the UN works."

And given that the UN is itself a target, there are no easy answers.

A former British ambassador to Iraq, Sir John Moberly, said that there should be "more UN, not less".

But he also said that the aim should be to speed up the process of handing over power to the Iraqis themselves.

"It's been very difficult to bring Iraqis in and we have gone very much for those who came from outside. We've got to think about all the political forces in Iraq," he advised.

"The fact of this disaster will make the Americans want to keep the political reins in their own hands, but we should still pursue the main aim of getting Iraqis involved themselves."

Sir John, who was on a UN mission to examine the humanitarian situation in Iraq in 1991, also said that there should be a UN peacekeeping force, though he doubted if one could be set up in the near future.

Race against the clock

The timetable is not encouraging. The Coalition Authority talks about holding elections next year.

But that still gives the Iraqi resistance, whether nationalists or Islamists, plenty of time to spread chaos.

And chaos is their main weapon. Attacks against foreign troops and contractors, oil pipelines, water mains and electricity pylons lead to destabilisation - out of which they hope to take power.

The answer to chaos is not just order. Saddam Hussein ran an "orderly" regime. It did not produce stability.

The Coalition's plan is that democratic political activity will gradually lead to stability.

But this will not happen quickly - so it is a race against time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3166797.stm

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 3:01 pm

Voron, if it were not for hair splitting, where would anyone get VVs from? So in the immortal quote from Scream, fuuuuuuuuuuck you.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 3:13 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Doh.

I was responding to Forthe's assertion that since the attack took place in a war zone, it was a millitary action.

Sorry for the confusion.

It may not be a direct one such as knocking out an enemies communication system. It may not be the direct elimination of troops standing across the field from your army.

But we have already seen positive results, from a resistance perspective, from the UN bombing. World Bank and IMF pulling out, nations hesitating to send their troops to aid the US. All adding hardship to the US occupation.

Were these the aims of the bombing? Or was this...?

"The attack might also have been intended to block off any American retreat using the UN. This was a potent and diabolical message - that even the UN is unacceptable."

I have no idea but it is entirely reasonable to consider that they may have been.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 3:19 pm

Forthe, I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

The target was political. The bombing achieved a political aim by targetting noncombatants. That is the definition of a terrorist act, no matter where it was committed.

Once again, an attack against a noncombatant target for the purpose of manipulating a larger political entity in a desired direction is a terrorist act.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 3:23 pm

Once again, an attack against a noncombatant target for the purpose of manipulating a larger political entity in a desired direction is a terrorist act.

Ok call me stupid and I am probably missing something here.. but by your definition, wasn't the bombing of the restaurant where they thought Hussein was and the killing of his two sons then terrorist acts?

As I said, I am probably missing something.. would you define them as combatant tagets, even when you are not sure if they are there at all and innocent people die?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 3:25 pm

I would classify that as a millitary target as the purpose was to directly affect the chain of command of the opposing force.

Then again, I am not what you would call impartial in this thing. I am sure others will interpret it to their own advantage.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 3:30 pm

I can understand the killing of the two sons.. I am a bit more dubious about the restaurant though. I also don't really understand the difference between dropping a hugeass bomb on a building to kill a state leader and using a sniper for it...