Terrorism as "collateral damages"

[S.A.M.]

Whether or not they are "collateral damage" (an absurd term from the get-go) depends on the objective of those inflicting them. If it were, say, a Syrian planting bombs in a Sunni or Christian quarter just to kill civilians, one might then call those deaths "murder". If it were an Iraqi man planting bombs to blow up Iraqi policemen of another faith, then civilians killed in the attack could be considered "collateral damage". But the nationality of the perpetrator shouldn't matter, whether Syrian men, Iranians, Libyans, Pakistanis or even Malaysians. If there were any credible evidence that Americans or Brits had done so - unmodified by the political interests of the supposed observers - then that would be more properly called "false flag" overall, and would be murder. There is none, at the moment, of course.

How hard did you look?

3 second google search

British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested

Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005

In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.

What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.

The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.

This has all the indications of a frame up.

This is made all the more interesting by the fact that early reports cited as originating from BBC World Service radio stated that the car used contained explosives. Was this another staged car bombing intended to keep tensions high? As you will discover later, the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.

The BBC reports that the car did contain, "assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations."

...The only outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."

Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,

“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.

“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners”.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/200905stagedterror.htm

I haven't read all the posts so I'm sorry if I'm repeating someone else.

Terrorism, as we in the UK would define it, is the deliberate murder of civilians for political or idealogical reasons. A simple case in point would be a bomb exploding in a busy shopping street in Northern Island. No attempt was made to hurt soldiers, it was designed to hurt civilians. You can argue the validity of such tactics in war....perhaps killing civilians is effective, but history doesn't show this.

I hate war as much as anybody, however I do understand the difference when a US missile hits a residential area by mistake. I don't like it of course, but there is a difference.

Who is the US missile aiming for otherwise? What is their target in Iraq? Other than a "residential area"?

 

[GeoffP]

How hard did you look?

No, no, I've seen your evidence before. But it's all speculation: what kind of explosives? Who fired first at the checkpoint, and why? The link you cited is inutterably wrong here:

The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.

No, no, and again, no. I don't think it's at all uncommon for special forces types to use either indigenous garb or even weaponry; else, it becomes rather hard to sting terrorists who have made the tiniest attempt to look out the window and see what everyone's wearing this season.

The question is not "how much time evil Geoff did you spend looking on the internetsphere for pages on this?", but rather "how much time Sam did you spend in the thinky-place, wondering about the reasons special operations types might be wearing Arab garb, before you went to the reductio ad silly "they must have been on a sekrit operation to get Arabs blamed for stuff?" Honestly, do you expect them to wear their red berets too? The SAS wears native gear all the time. Seriously, now. You might have spent, say, half of your three seconds checking out the source of your article. It's bound by massive assumption and an extraordinary amount of hype. What if? What if? What if? is its central point.

 

[kororoti]

from tiassa's link....

The terror bomber aims to bring about civilian deaths in order to weaken the resolve of the enemy: when his bombs kill civilians this is a consequence that he intends. The tactical bomber aims at military targets while foreseeing that bombing such targets will cause civilian deaths. When his bombs kill civilians this is a foreseen but unintended consequence of his actions. Even if it is equally certain that the two bombers will cause the same number of civilian deaths, terror bombing is impermissible while tactical bombing is permissible


yup
honor is what matters
damn the facts

I like this guy's answer to the question. Let's just add something to it. Who has primary responsibility to defend civilians? Is it the army fighting on their behalf, or the army fighting against that army? If Taliban fighters don't want civilians killed, all they have to do is relocate their military resources to unpopulated areas. Problem solved.

If the defending army doesn't make at least a good faith effort to protect its civilians, then the attacking army should have absolute perfect zero responsibility to do so. Where it gets complicated is when the civilians who are threatened are not affiliated at all with the soldiers who are being targeted.


Another approach I see as being fair would be to define civilians in a combat zone as "conscripts" (or willing participants in some cases, because not all people who become "human shields" do so unwillingly.) If they're not being allowed to leave, then how is that any different from a person being unwillingly inducted into the military by way of conscription and forced to behave as a soldier? The fault still lies with the group who has conscripted them, not with the opposing army.

 

[iceaura]

If there were any credible evidence that Americans or Brits had done so - unmodified by the political interests of the supposed observers - then that would be more properly called "false flag" overall, and would be murder.

The rise of death squad operations carried out by forces allied or associated with the US in Iraq is (and was, at the time) common knowledge. You don't send Negroponte into a theater unless you're looking to manage a death squad or two - and that management, at least, will be at some level in the hands of American or Brit employees, military or mercenary.

 

[GeoffP]

And is that the case in this case? Which hit squads are these?