120 Killed in 19 Car Bomb Explosions in Baghdad

al qaeda is believed to be behind it, just like the mess that went on in the US with the bombs last week... i highly enjoy how the media keeps first (publicly do mind you) announcing that the AL QAEDA MAY AND IS BELIEVED to be behind things (without full knowledge) and second how they are calling these people stupid... that is really smart things to do, call these capable killers, madmen, who do not give a fuck about you, your mother, and especially the ground you walk on..stupid.. they my friend are the stupid ones.

 

We can’t very well allow them to be seen as islamic patriots following the mandate of the koran or they’ll rally more and more to their cause.

.... so we in the west call them cowards


Hotwater

 

On the other hand -- it's much easier to die thinking you'll get a boatload of virgin concubines, then to live with the consequences of your actions.

I definitely see both sides of the coin, and would respect their acts more if they didn't kill themselves like pussies.:2thumbsup:

 

30,000 troops are going to work where when they return to the states?..

atop the 100,000 college grads.. ?/

 

Still a cowardly exit. And I'd say the compassion they have for their family is nothing next to the lack of compassion they have for their targets. All of their targets have families too.

A skewed focus of what's happening

 

By smearing a group with the label of coward the propagandists are cultivating hatred and disrespect for them... and non thinking people eat it up. Nurturing antipathy against a group helps to ensure there won't be as much resistance to any planned military operation against it. Dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air constitutes bravery while strapping a bomb to your person in support of something you passionately believe in is cowardice... I agree that it doesn't follow. It shows that too many people do not use critical reasoning to process information- they'd rather think what the establishment tells them to... it takes less effort.

 

Could it not be, that both are cowards?

 

It's possible but I think Skip's point is that strapping a bomb to yourself knowing that detonating it will result in your death takes a good deal of guts. You really have to believe in your cause to drum up the courage to use yourself as a disposable weapon delivery system.

 

While on one hand it does take guts to strap a bomb to your chest and make yourself the epicenter of a large explosion, on the other it's cowardly in the fact it goes against all rules of fighting. You mark yourself as a civilian who appears not to be armed, walk into a place with no security, and blow up a bunch of unarmed people in a non combat zone.

 

I agree that that was his point, and I think I've already addressed that.

But, I shall do so again, and in another way:
Mutually-assured destruction is an act of hatred; hatred is the a path of ignorance and cowardice, when compared with understanding and love. (And I will admit, that in this regard, I am a coward at times too)

 

how does that differ from someone who uses a different weapon to attack innocent victims? Somehow this is more brave than some other way to attack?

Seems like justification is beside the point really - a biased qualifier from both sides is in play. One is expected either to consider them a coward or a martyr when in fact, neither is likely the case and simply the term "killer" is more appropriate. Its interesting to see which side of the fence everyone comes down on! :mickey:

 

one suicide bomber could also be. the only surviving member of his or her family that was killed by coalition air raids.. you have nothing left to live for, why has Allah forsake you./me?.. domino effect.. this bomber kills someones family the cycle repeats..

the civil unrest will continue, til the oil runs dry.. and then some.. This has nothing to do with oil, nothing to do with the US occupation, its meant to disrupt the way of life to all.. consider this, if these 12 attack were only targeting civilians. If its not a military target, youre not really killing anyone but your own sometime. media may play the organized attack card. some of the times its opportunist and copy cats..
Who is financing these terrorist?, what type of explosives have been used?.,. Some explosives can be traced back if they are sophisticated..
Though making a trunk bomb is much simpler., :Aka McVey bombs, and takes no real knowledge to create.

 

Yet, you regard the killers on the other side as brave?

That's not completely true. If you don't respect the enemies' strength, you will underestimate the enemy. And it's not like there is much of a protest base they need to squander.

So you are saying that suicide bombing innocents based on religious dogma is just; but targeting terrorists based on political dogma isn't?

How is calling them cowards raising fear? If anything, that's lowering fear.

Skip, this whole post reeks of an anti-American/anti-nationalist bias.

You call them brave, you call them just, simply because they are the enemy.

 

Terrorism is made to be thought as the targeting of innocent civilians- people who are unable to protect themselves and in this manner they are characterized as cowards... yet our "brave" military targets areas that are likely occupied by innocent civilians- but by denying that we're targeting civilians we can rationalize our military aggression as bravery.

In my opinion, labeling someone as a coward isn't meant to cultivate fear- it's meant to foster disrespect and hatred... part of a propagandist arsenal to create a reluctance to resist an illegal war... even support it.

 

Terrorism IS targeting innocent civilians. There's an understanding that military targets are supposed to avoid civilian casualties.
It isn't that we target civilians, it's we deny that the civilian death; mostly a matter of wording, but I think that makes an important difference.
Interesting statistics on this subject:

I can maybe see gaining support -- but there's virtually no resistance to squash, hell, even resistance to Iraq dried up eventually.
Personally, when said comments came out my thoughts were "great, piss them off more", and I couldn't see any other likely result.

 

Well- the difference in debate here could fall along the lines of defining what is innocent. If it is seen that the civilians support the military aggression then it can be argued that they are not innocent... and those not in support of their government aggression can be seen as martyrs at the hands of terrorists. Much hinges on the packaging and not their ideological "content" at the time of their demise-- and more importantly, who determines what that content is- posthumously..