DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**DoctorDeryOne** · 01-24-2007, 07:37 AM

BAGHDAD, Jan. 21 -- The armored sport-utility vehicles whisked into a government compound in the city of Karbala with speed and urgency, the way most Americans and foreign dignitaries travel along Iraq's treacherous roads these days.

Iraqi guards at checkpoints waved them through Saturday afternoon because the men wore what appeared to be legitimate U.S. military uniforms and badges, and drove cars commonly used by foreigners, the provincial governor said.

Once inside, however, the men unleashed one of the deadliest and most brazen attacks on U.S. forces in a secure area. Five American service members were killed in a hail of grenades and gunfire in a breach of security that Iraqi officials called unprecedented.

...

"They didn't target anyone but the American soldiers," the governor's aide said. washingtonpost.com

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier.

Let's break it down:

War: War on Terror
Factions: US vs. Terrorists

Uniforms
US: US military uniform
Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing)

01-24-2007, 07:37 AM	#1
DoctorDeryOne Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 506 Senior Member	Disguised attackers BAGHDAD, Jan. 21 -- The armored sport-utility vehicles whisked into a government compound in the city of Karbala with speed and urgency, the way most Americans and foreign dignitaries travel along Iraq's treacherous roads these days. Iraqi guards at checkpoints waved them through Saturday afternoon because the men wore what appeared to be legitimate U.S. military uniforms and badges, and drove cars commonly used by foreigners, the provincial governor said. Once inside, however, the men unleashed one of the deadliest and most brazen attacks on U.S. forces in a secure area. Five American service members were killed in a hail of grenades and gunfire in a breach of security that Iraqi officials called unprecedented. ... "They didn't target anyone but the American soldiers," the governor's aide said. washingtonpost.com This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier. Let's break it down: War: War on Terror Factions: US vs. Terrorists Uniforms US: US military uniform Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing)
	Quote