The Reality of Civilian Casualties in Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Thoughts
In summary: In War 3 we invaded Iraq, killing 2 million Iraqis...In War 4 we are bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have killed over 10,000 civilians thus far.
  • #1
Adam
65
1
Question: If you were involved in terrorism (although for your won cause you would probably call it freedom fighting), why would you attack innocent civilians?

Sure, the idiot answer is "to create terror". But "terror" is not the goal. It is a tool.

Surely they must realize that they will never gain international support if they target innocent civilians.

Do you think:
- They don't want support?
- They want support but are REALLY stupid?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think they don't CARE about international support. The goal of these terrorists (you don't say specifically who you are talking about, but I'm assuming you mean Middle Eastern terrorists) is mostly just killing Americans for the sake of killing Americans.
 
  • #3
Probably many of the low level "soldiers" just want to kill the evil others. But the people who deploy and arm them have more complex agendas. Hamas wants to eliminate the state of Israel. Many of the attackers in Iraq want to encourage the Americans and British to leave, and discourage the Iraqis from cooperating with the occupiers.
 
  • #4
Actually, without going into my personal definition of terrorism, I was referring to groups such as the twits who blew up some Iraqi civilians last night with a truck bomb, and the morons in the Philippines who kidnapped some tourists, and those idiotic Spanish gits who also blow up buses and such...
 
  • #5
Sure, the idiot answer is "to create terror". But "terror" is not the goal. It is a tool.
Terror is the goal. Hence the term, terrorists. Such groups cannot hope to annihilate each and every american - instead, their goal is to undermine and destabilise the entire american structure.

Actually, without going into my personal definition of terrorism, I was referring to groups such as the twits who blew up some Iraqi civilians last night with a truck bomb, and the morons in the Philippines who kidnapped some tourists, and those idiotic Spanish gits who also blow up buses and such...
The terrorists are more media savvy than you think. In general, each group probably has a target audience. In Iraq, it may be far right islamists who are growing disillusioned with the US handling. In the Philippines, it may be nationalist rural folk. In each of those cases, they know that to the majority of their audience, the biased public tends to play to their favour. In Iraq for example, poor domestic media and lack of faith in the admin means people can easily justify killings as "justice on collaborators" and suchlike. Mishandling of certain incidents heighten this. (Notice how many Iraqis are explaining Saddam's lack of resistance as due to use of drugs?) In the Philippines, most of their potential supporters don't care about the plight of tourists anyways...

In terrorism, as in politics, you can't please everyone. You pick the people you want to recruit, and press the right buttons. And people aren't always rational.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by FZ+
Terror is the goal. Hence the term, terrorists. Such groups cannot hope to annihilate each and every american - instead, their goal is to undermine and destabilise the entire american structure.
I really do think its more basic than that. I'm sure the Hamaas leadership knows a bunch of car bombs isn't going to kill EVERY Israeli, but I think its good enough to the individual bomber that they kill as many Israelis as possible.

Also, the religious aspect really needs to be considered: suicide is part of the goal for religious reasons.
 
  • #7
Because only blood is newsworthy as far as international relations goes, Terrorists get on the news by making blood.
 
  • #8
Don't forget that terror has several notable historical successes (in terms of the objectives of the terrorists), its role in the formation of the modern state of Israel springs to mind, for example.

Perhaps a PF member well versed in the history of the USA can tell us which parties employed terror as a deliberate tool during various turbulent times in the past few hundred years' history of what are now called the 'lower 48', and how successful such tactics were (in terms of attaining the objectives of the perpetrators)?
 
  • #9
Notable terrorist organizations that come to mind from US history are the Mollie McGuires, the No Nothings, and of course the Ku Klux Klan.

The Mollie McGuires were about labor abuses. They attacked scabs and businesses. I don't think they achieved their goal which was reform of labor laws.

The No nothings were anti-immigration. They attacked immigrants. They failed.

The Ku Klux Klan were against rights for Blacks. They also hated Catholics and Jews. They attacked all three. They were partly successful, turning back the post civil war rights of blacks and keeping them back for almost 100 years.
 
  • #10
All humans are terrorists. In War War 2, America nuked 100,000 civilians in Japan. Then America dropped fire bombs on Dresden in Germany right onto civilian residential areas. Eisenhower (I believe it was him) said that German civilians thought Americans were monsters, so we should thus play the role of monsters and terrorize civilians. 500,000 civilians were intentionally killed in Dresden and a few other German cities. PBS had a documentary on the WWII, they said America wanted to terrorize the German civilians so they would never again vote for national socialist politicians.

Then consider bolshevism in Russia where the government killed millions of their own citizens.

Israel intentionally targets Palestinian civilians in order to terrorize them into moving out of the land. And Israel killed 20,000 civilians when they invaded Lebanon some 30 or 40 years ago. So, terrorism is not unique to any specific people: it's in the nature of all humans to kill enemy civilians to win the wars. For more data on human terrorism see the following:

http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.reportersnotebook.com/
http://www.rense.com/
 
Last edited:
  • #11
The USA Terrorist State

According to “The Random House Dictionary of the English Language”, Terrorism is;
“3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.”

If we start from the End of World War II. The Partisan Avengers in the former Balkan states, Italy, Greece etc. employed terrorist tactics after facing systematic extermination by the Americans in the immediate months following ceasefires.

However, Israel began the modern era of terrorism.
Zionist terrorism (how they formed the current Israeli state);
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_58.shtml
They were extremely successful, forming the State of Israel.

Heres the American style;
CIA and USA military Terrorist Actions since WWII;
http://www.word-power.co.uk/catalogue/1842773690
1. China 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-Tung just paranoid?
2. Italy 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally, Part one
12. Syria 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. The Middle East 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia 1957-1958:War and pornography
15. Western Europe 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana 1953-1964: The CIA's international labour Mafia
17. Soviet Union late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos 1957-1973: L'Armee Clandestine
22. Haiti 1959-1963: The marines land, again
23. Guatemala 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria 1960s: L'etat, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador 1960-1963: A textbook of dirty tricks
26. The Congo 1960-1964: The Assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil 1961-1964: Introducing the marvellous new world of death squads
28. Peru 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba 1959-1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno…and 500,000 others. East Timor 1975: and 200,000 more
32. Ghana 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay 1964-1970: Torture - as American as apple pie
34. Chile 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece 1964-1974: '**** your Parliament and your Constitution,' said the President of the United States
36. Bolivia 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala 1962 to 1980s: A less publicised 'final solution'
38. Costa Rica 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally, Part two
39. Iraq 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada 1979-1984: Lying - one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua 1981-1990: Destabilisation in slow motion
50. Panama 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990: Teaching Communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this man?

Blum has documented most American terrorist actions, I'd like to add a few.
Does anybody believe any other nation could beat this insanity?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Insert word Spoken by US President

My favourite incident is number 35.

“35. Greece 1964-1974: '**** your Parliament and your Constitution,' said the President of the United States”

Atypical. People should really study these incidents. Any of the above will do. You will see the VERY SAME successful tactics employed by the USA in most occasions.
 
  • #13


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
CIA and USA military Terrorist Actions since WWII
As left wing as that is, where exactly in that link does it call any of those "terrorist actions"?
 
Last edited:
  • #14


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)


However, Israel began the modern era of terrorism.
Zionist terrorism (how they formed the current Israeli state);
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_58.shtml
They were extremely successful, forming the State of Israel.

Edit: OOPS!...*self edited* Use your imagination!:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I'm Stunned

"Re: The USA Terrorist State
quote:

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
CIA and USA military Terrorist Actions since WWII

As left wing as that is, where exactly in that link does it call any of those "terrorist actions"?"

Are you Fair Dinkum Russ? Read the bloody book!

Russ, are you honestly trying to tell me that NOT 1 of those 55 examples of TERRORIST actions satisfies the definition of terrorist actions?

ANYBODY OUT THERE.
Can anybody give 10 examples (by any other nation under the sun – except the ex-Soviets) of terrorist actions by a State? Let's try.
Bet you can’t even name 10 for Iraq.
 
  • #16


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)

Bet you can’t even name 10 for Iraq.
Are you farkin nuts? Is that the 10 a week, 10 a day, 10 an hour, 10 a minute against it's own people?
and what the heck is a Fair Dinkum? and why are you continuously name calling?
 
  • #17
We have to understand that what the CIA discloses to the American media is often different from what our government actually does. Do you recall Rumsfeld claiming that he was going to launch the Beauro of Disinformation, where the goal was to fabricate stories to push for various foreign and domestic policies. The story got out and Rumsfeld canceled the program, or rather kept the program secretly. The average american has no way of verifying what the CIA says, we are never eye-wittnesses to what really goes on, we simply assume that the CIA never lies, the complete opposite of human nature. Politicians are career politicians, meaning that their number one priority is keeping their political careers, not serving the interest of citizens. Yes, a small handful of politicians do have a morality that pushes them to be honest: these politicians usually get thrown out, leaving only dishonest/criminal/psychopathic politicians in the government. I read a paper in the past of how politicians test high on the personality trait of psychopathology, the personality trait found in criminals such as murderers, rapists, and armed robberors.

So, how did we ever arrive in this mess?

Well, if you look at the origins of humans, before the creation of large civilizations, we used to be hunter/gatherers in groups no larger than 150 people. Each member of the group could easily keep an eye on others in the small group and thus elites were watched and kept in check. Elites that were psychopathic/criminal were killed. Then came civlization and our brains never adapted to large nation-like civilizations. Now, elites are isolated and nicely hidden from public scrutiny, and criminal elites can't be identified. They can do what they want, and the average person has no way of finding out. We have 300 million people in America, far detached from the elites who occupy Washington D.C. The solution: alter the human brain from one that is still built to live in groups of 150 people to one that can deal with a 300 million nation, see http://www.neoeugenics.com/

Carlos Hernandez
 
  • #18
kat wrote: and what the heck is a Fair Dinkum?
AFAIK, 'fair dinkum' is an Australian expression, meaning 'true', 'honest', 'straight', 'genuine', etc. So Dogon is asking if Russ is giving him the straight scoop, or is instead just dissembling, being sarcastic, ...
http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/fairdinkum.htm
 
  • #19


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Russ, are you honestly trying to tell me that NOT 1 of those 55 examples of TERRORIST actions satisfies the definition of terrorist actions?
No. But that's not what I said, not what you said, and not what the page said.
...we simply assume that the CIA never lies, the complete opposite of human nature.
I doubt I have ever met anyone who assumes that.
 
  • #20
10 terrorist acts by states

1) England killing of heaps of Australian aborigines.

2) Europeans, then the USA after the war of Independence, killing off heaps of Americans Indians.

3) USA bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

4) Robert Mugabe's government terrorising the whites in Zimbabwe.

5) France blowing up the Rainbow Warrior.

6) Australian and USA intelligence groups assisting with the organisation and execution of the Indonesian takeover of East Timor.

7) USA and Britain bombing the hell out of Dresden, Duseldorf, Hamburg, and many other German cities.

8) NAZI Germany bombing civilian cities and exterminating huge numbers of civilians.

9) Japan's treatment of civilians during their occupation of Nanking.

10) China's massacre in Red Square a few years back.

Pick any country, and you can find a bunch of things which fall under my own definition of terrorism: attacking civilians, rather than the state or state assets. No nation has any moral high ground.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Nereid- Thanks!
:wink:
 
  • #22
Remember though, terror is a tactic not an entity. "War on terror" is nothing but rhetoric, period. The war in Iraq is a war on civilians, so when the tanks and bradleys go through the streets hosing down cars and buildings with machine-gun fire, civilians shoot back at them. You would too, if an occupying power suddenly dropped into your town and started busting down doors and imposing provisional government, and arrested the President (God forbid). Self defence is a sacred right, defending your country is a patriotic duty. Nationalist preservation motivates the insurgency, not loyalty to Saddam, obviously. Watch "Red Dawn" and you might see what I mean.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Remember though, terror is a tactic not an entity. "War on terror" is nothing but rhetoric, period.
War on drugs, war on poverty, war on crime. Physical entity or not, these ar things that exist and need to be stopped. Calling it a war is as good a description as any.
The war in Iraq is a war on civilians...
Huh? On what do you base that?
Nationalist preservation motivates the insurgency, not loyalty to Saddam, obviously.
You have that precisely backwards and you know it (or maybe you just separated two parts of the same thing - not sure what to call it exactly). The insurgents are Saddam loyalists. Yeah, they want preservation - preservation of the dictatorship that existed a year ago. So in that sense I guess I agree - but that also makes them Saddam Loyalists. The vast majority of the general public though are HAPPY that we deposed and captured him. We are giving them back their national identity (or rather allowing them to finally have their own, not the identity of their leader).
Watch "Red Dawn" and you might see what I mean.
Great movie. No relation to the current situation in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
You are so fun, Rus, it's like you work for the Democrats or something!
Calling it a war is as good a description as any.
Sure if you want to be false about it. Terror is a tactic. a "war on terror" makes as much sense as a "war on flanking maneuvers."
Huh? On what do you base that?
Uh, 9000+ civilian dead vs. 1000 combat troops dead, enemy. Civilians firing weapons at US troops & US troops firing back & killing civilians.
The insurgents are Saddam loyalists.
Untrue: the invasion has united Sunis and Shiites in a nationalist insergency against Coalition invaders.
The vast majority of the general public though are HAPPY that we deposed and captured him.
On what do you base this on? Was there a Zogby poll that everyone missed? Those guys waving red flags that you may have seen on the news just after the capture of Saddam are Communists, and they had just finished a convention at the time.
Great movie. No relation to the current situation in Iraq.
Yes, great movie. Of course, as a movie, it's not much like anything anywhere, but it has the relation of being an example of a nationalist insurgent resistance to an occupying power, like in Iraq.
 
  • #25
russ_waters

War on drugs, war on poverty, war on crime. Physical entity or not, these ar things that exist and need to be stopped. Calling it a war is as good a description as any.
1) War on Drugs? It puts a lot of people in prison, resulting in the USA having one quarter of the entire world's prison population. Meanwhile the government makes deals with people like Noriega to allow them to import the stuff. So, yeah, that's crap.

2) War on Poverty? With twenty million people in the USA living in poverty, the government spends hundreds of millions on taking Iraq's oil wells so Dick Cheney's old company can make a fortune?

3) War on Crime? See number one, about the USA's prison population.

Yes, the government pays lip service to causes and such. But in reality the only motivations for governments are control and money. To put it simply, governments can't afford to base their activities on altruism. They simply say they do, to get re-elected.

Great movie. No relation to the current situation in Iraq.
1) The operation scouring the farm for Saddam Hussien was called Red Dawn.

2) The two groups in that operation were called Wolverine One and Wolverine Two. Both named after the gun-toting kids in the movie Red Dawn.
 
  • #26


Originally posted by Adam
1) The operation scouring the farm for Saddam Hussien was called Red Dawn.

2) The two groups in that operation were called Wolverine One and Wolverine Two. Both named after the gun-toting kids in the movie Red Dawn.
My car is named "Eagle" but for some reason it can't fly. Strange.
Uh, 9000+ civilian dead
Wow, schwarz, you use even worse numbers than Adam.
Civilians firing weapons at US troops & US troops firing back & killing civilians.
A person firing a gun is NOT a civilian. He/she is an illegal combatant.
the invasion has united Sunis and Shiites in a nationalist insergency against Coalition invaders.
So they keep bombing each other's Mosques because they are united? Uh huh... Common goal of mutual annihilation?
 
  • #27
russ_waters

My car is named "Eagle" but for some reason it can't fly. Strange.
Well, you seemed to be asking about the connection between that movie and the current situation in Iraq. I gave the connection. If you don't want the answers, don't ask the questions.

Wow, schwarz, you use even worse numbers than Adam.
Once again: Apart from scoffing like any other dogma-blinded fanatic, can you give any rational reasons to doubt the sources I use for my figure of 8,000+ dead Iraqi civilians? Once again, I have shown you the resources...
 

What are the main motivations behind terrorist thoughts?

Terrorist thoughts are often motivated by a desire for power, revenge, or ideology. Some individuals may also be influenced by societal or psychological factors that drive them towards extremism.

How do terrorist thoughts develop?

Terrorist thoughts can develop through exposure to radical ideologies, personal grievances, or a sense of injustice. They may also be influenced by social media, propaganda, and interpersonal relationships.

Can terrorist thoughts be prevented?

While it is difficult to entirely prevent terrorist thoughts, efforts can be made to address underlying issues that may lead to radicalization. This includes promoting education, addressing social inequalities, and promoting tolerance and inclusion.

Do all terrorists have similar thoughts?

No, terrorist thoughts can vary greatly depending on the individual's personal experiences, beliefs, and motivations. However, they may share certain commonalities, such as a desire for power or a sense of grievance.

How can scientists study terrorist thoughts?

Scientists can study terrorist thoughts through various methods, such as analyzing propaganda and social media content, conducting interviews and surveys with extremists, and using psychological and sociological theories to understand radicalization processes.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
226
Views
21K
Replies
79
Views
10K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
161
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top