So what, if they are fighting under the aegis of the pro-Saddam movement, which his consensual adoption of them would imply, then the attack becomes political, not religious in motivation. Sure, its semantics, but its still an important distinction and one that the US military and gov't has been going out of its way to make: "We are attacking terrorists, not arabs..." Do I need to continue?The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Oh come off it, WMA. You know as well as I do that Saddam himself called for religious volunteers to enter his country, and it's not like they've all left. They're also the most likely people by far to have carried out this attack, precisely for the reason you state above. So speculation that it was for religious motivations is entirely legitimate.
Car Bomb in Bagdad
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
-
weemadando
- SMAKIBBFB
- Posts: 19195
- Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
- Contact:
-
The Duchess of Zeon
- Gözde
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
- Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.
Terrorists which ultimately have had a highly Salafi motivation. Considering the destruction of most of the high-level leadership, besides, we have no idea if this idea was sanctioned by Saddam, who may not be in contact with those volunteer elements--if they were acting independently, they certainly chose a target suitably for Islamist, not Iraqi interests, and if they were acting under Saddam's or Ba'athist orders, they chose a target of sheer stupidity; it was either religious, or the height of political ineptitute.weemadando wrote:
So what, if they are fighting under the aegis of the pro-Saddam movement, which his consensual adoption of them would imply, then the attack becomes political, not religious in motivation. Sure, its semantics, but its still an important distinction and one that the US military and gov't has been going out of its way to make: "We are attacking terrorists, not arabs..." Do I need to continue?
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
-
weemadando
- SMAKIBBFB
- Posts: 19195
- Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
- Contact:
I'm not saying that it was a smart choice of targets either way, but the fact remains that the stated purpose of the opposition within Iraq is to stop the American occupation. The UN target was either a fuckup (like the Chinese Embassy), a deliberate "mistake" (like the Chinese Embassy), or there was another agenda (like the Chinese Embassy).
In all likelihood the strike was made by Islamic terrorists. Hell the odds are pretty fucking long that it WASN'T done by them. But I still feel that due to the choice of target it was a political rather than religious decision.
In all likelihood the strike was made by Islamic terrorists. Hell the odds are pretty fucking long that it WASN'T done by them. But I still feel that due to the choice of target it was a political rather than religious decision.