How to create Terrorists

this set of photos from cnn isn't really a complex essay on the origins of terrorism, but it gave me some interesting insight into this whole mess.

There is an overwhelming school of thought that believes / hopes terrorism exists within a vacuum. ( IE. there is X amount of terrorists, and if we take them out, there will be no more terrorists, and others will be too frightened to join the cause). Clearly we see here the beginnings of future terrorists / rebel fighters. Are these children going to grow up and thank us for a job well done?

Are people really throwing their thought processes out the window on this subject? Or is the hate and anger just overwhelming the rest of the mind?

What can be done to decrease this anger? I think focusing on past United States interactions with the Middle East will help more people that haven't seen the big picture. The relationship with this region did not begin on 9-11, or the Gulf War, or even the Iran Contra Scandal.

So delving further into the problem would point to the attention span of the general public, since these are the people who must take action to enact any sort of change in the current system. The influence that modern electronics / communication has had is to decrease it to virtually nothing, until people have to be fed information in thirty second bits.

So this brings me back to the main point, by posting a few pictures you can see the effect they have on you.

Millions of people still believe that what really happens is recorded accurately, and that all the info is presented to them via press / television / mass media. In fact that reality is constructed and presented to you in a form that is deemed acceptable by whoever is in control of that presentation. And that reality depends where the camera is pointed and for how long it is pointed there.

it realy does not matter what realy happened. all that will matter to these kids is that the us killed those who they were with. this will make for easy converts for revenge. they have seen for themselves "the evil americans". even if the car did contain a bomb these kids would not even consider that as a legitimate reason for being attacked. yup these are terrorits being made.

just as many "palistinians" are martering themselves over homes and land that they may never have even seen just told about. the more that they see and hear about happening the more likely they are to join up with the extreemists. kinda like those who had nothing personal involved with 9-11 feeling justified in war aginst those who "might" be terrorists or their supporters.

On this fotos we can se the second generation of insurgents being born. I belive this kind of "incidents" are common in Iraq. Those US boys are just to triggerhappy. You cannot just open fire on any vechile.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by yanchek]

Your article states:

US soldiers in Iraq approach a car after opening fire when it failed to stop as requested. Despite warning shots it continued to drive towards their dusk patrol in Tal Afar on 18 January.

Suicide car bombings are almost a daily event.
US and Iraqis have been killed by suicide car bombings.
Check points are there for a reason.
Signs are posted for a reason.
How about when signaled to stop, stop?




seekerof

Originally posted by yanchek
Those US boys are just to triggerhappy. You cannot just open fire on any vechile.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by yanchek]

Time and time again insurgents have speed towards checkpoints and then detonated there cars killing soldiers, The military, unlike most people arent stupid, If a car is speeding towards them, and that car does not stop after warning, they take out that vehicle which could potentialy blow them up if it got close enough, The military is not at fault here, stupid people who cant follow directions are.


[edit on 18-4-2005 by C0le]

I can't say i see any checkpoint clearly in the picture. When you post a checkpoit you put a big sign that says CHECKPOINT. Then you put some barbwire and spikes on the road so you can stop the car safely. If the car breaks the checkpoint you persue it using light and vocal signals. Then you open fire. Preferably you shot in engine or tyres. The military said that they used hand signals. It was dark and visibility was poor. They could interpret them as "hello". Maybe the driver was drunk or tired or having a fight with his wife.

And since when is OK to shot people just because they are stupid?

On this picture all i see are some armed dudes walking on the sidewalk.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by yanchek]

This has nothing to do with checkpoints and everything to do with funding the destabilisation of the Middle East.

Without a doubt, kids are indoctrinated into these conflicts predominantly through brainwashing, they believe what they are told and act without question.

But am I talking about the insurgents or the occupying force?

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Koka]

Originally posted by yanchek
I can't say i see any checkpoint clearly in the picture. When you post a checkpoit you put a big sign that says CHECKPOINT. Then you put some barbwire and spikes on the road so you can stop the car safely. If the car breaks the checkpoint you persue it using light and vocal signals. Then you open fire. Preferably you shot in engine or tyres. The military said that they used hand signals. It was dark and visibility was poor. They could interpret them as "hello". Maybe the driver was drunk or tired or having a fight with his wife.


On this picture all i see are some armed dudes walking on the sidewalk.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by yanchek]

Take out an engine with an m16/m4? Not even gonna go there, But as far as the tires are concerned, sure they could have, but that wouldnt have stoped the car, Shoting the window not only insures the car will stop, but it also insures that when that car is stoped, the guy inside cant detonate anything, as hes head.

And since when is OK to shot people just because they are stupid?

Why not?

Originally posted by yanchek
I can't say i see any checkpoint clearly in the picture. When you post a checkpoit you put a big sign that says CHECKPOINT. Then you put some barbwire and spikes on the road so you can stop the car safely. If the car breaks the checkpoint you persue it using light and vocal signals. Then you open fire. Preferably you shot in engine or tyres. The military said that they used hand signals. It was dark and visibility was poor. They could interpret them as "hello". Maybe the driver was drunk or tired or having a fight with his wife.

And since when is OK to shot people just because they are stupid?

On this picture all i see are some armed dudes walking on the sidewalk.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by yanchek]

From the artical:

A US military statement said troops trying to stop the car used hand signals fired warning shots before firing directly at the carlling the driver and front seat passenger.

Now, if I am a father in Iraq, and I see US soldiers firing warning shots, I damned well stop my car. It's common sense. It's unfortunate this had to happen, but to be honest, it is the parents own damned fault.

I don't want to argue. This was unfortunate incident and the kiilings are on soldiers consciece.

This thread was about surviving children. Are they gonna become potential terrorists?
Well the ball is on the US side. If US goverment apologize and provide for their well being and education (in corporation with Iraqi goverment) there may be a chance that this children grow up in normal citizens. But, if this kids won't have any future, they'll blame Americans for their misery and misfortune.

And yes, those children will never forget this.

I think sometime in future, the occupying forces (coalition) will have to apologize for civilian causalties.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by yanchek]

IF the soldiers version is true, they acted correctly.

The problem is, they have no right to be there in the first place. The situation wasn't created by the soldiers or the father who didn't stop, but by an illegal US presence in Iraq.

Soldiers don't create terrorists. Slow or stupid actions from fathers of five don't create terrorists. Soldiers executing orders from ruthless imperialist governments create terrorists. Look at Chechnya, see Iraq.

When one of these kids blows up him(or her)self in a crowd of American tourists 15 years from now, don't blame Islam. Blame todays US policy.

When some misguided bastards flew airliners into buildings around USA a couple of years back, you shouldn't have blamed Islam. You should have blamed past US foreign policy.

Now, if I am a father in Iraq, and I see US soldiers firing warning shots, I damned well stop my car.

Unless you're scared out of your wits because people in tanks are shooting you, panic, and try to get away as fast as you can, in which case apparrently you and your kids deserve to die.

Someday I hope the people who try to justify these checkpoint massacres manage to get machine-gunned themselves. Just desserts IMHO.

Sometimes I can't wait for a civil conflict here in the US to begin, so I can give these right-wingers a dose of the medicine they've been doling out to the world for so long. You bomb the crap out of a country and expect them to love you for it. You shoot innocent families in thier cars and then post demented drivel about how it's their fault, and act shocked when they want to kill you with an IED or whatever else is handy.

Sick, misgiuided, and utterly self deluded. I only hope some day you pay with your lives for the atrocities you inflict on others from the safety of your armchairs. You are traitors to the species, and those like you are the gravest danger the rest of us face. Here's hoping the rest of us recognize this before it's too late.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by xmotex]

Look, if you read the comments to the photos, there was no checkpoint, but a "dusk patrol", which is, I believe, a group of solders patrolling the street. It's not easy to see hand signals in the dusk (seriously). I drive in the dusk every day and I'm afraid of hitting a deer because it's hard to see the curb. Then, when the shots rang, I guess most people would try to drive away from the shooting, and just step on it.

That's my version of what's happened.

Though the ugliness of this situation was exposed, propaganda smeared its way in.

(quote from the slideshow):

A US military statement said troops trying to stop the car used hand signals and fired warning shots before firing directly at the car, killing the driver and front seat passenger.
(Note: Driver's face obscured)

Not only is the driver's face "obscured," so are the faces of the trigger-happy troops. The last photo does show a face, but it is at an inconspicuous angle.

The other photographs show the children's faces with perfect clarity, whereas their surroundings and military by-standers are smeared.

Why is it, when a crime occurs against women and/or children in the Western World, the perpetrator's mug is posted everywhere, whereas photographical imagery of the military's crimes against citizenry are cropped, motion-blurred, or censored?

Yes, several photographs and identities have made it through the propaganda machine (e.g. the Abu Gharib scandal), but as a whole, mainstream media is protecting the military, not civilian children.

I am willing to bet the photographer (Chris Hondros), snapped more than eleven photographs of the incident. The fact that this photo essay made it onto BBC is commendable, but:

Pic 1: Motion Blurred beyond recognition
Pic 2: Motion blur.
Pic 3: Soldier is cropped
Pic 4: One soldier wearing a mask, the other showing his back
Pic 5: Motion blur of soldier, two other soldiers outlined in darkness
Pic 6: Soldier's helmet is well-lit, face darkened
Pic 7: Motion blur, though soldier's face is covered
Pic 8: Another darkened soldier
Pic 9: Doctor's face, children's face with perfect clarity
Pic 10: Soldier darkened, victim's face admittedly altered
Pic 11: The "Goodwill" pic. Awww, how nice! They're moving the car! Only now can you see a soldier's face, though the angle and clarity merely show that he is Caucasion.

The children, on the other hand, are in perfect focus. Clearly the photographer wanted to capture the psychological breakdown they are enduring. The BBC, however, has ensured that we see only the victims.

Dot.

I also am amazed that this made it through the filters initially. I am beginning to believe that things like this are allowed to come through once in a while to perpetuate the myth of the media being liberal.

Dot you definitely understood both of my points, the beginnings of terrorism being far from what most americans believe, and the fact that propaganda comes from both sides of the spectrum.

The general public is unable to make up their mind based on solid sources and information. And from there you can get into a debate whether the means justify the result. Obviously the right wing believes that any means justify the result, even when the result is the exact opposite of the original goal. This is part of the reason that the liberal voices of dissent have begun to resort to propaganda methods.

People really believe what they see, and believe you me, most americans don't see this.

So let me ask this question, is ALL propaganda inherently bad, even if the result is something that we all agree is good? (IE. humans beginning to feel empathy for other humans)

edit: For the record, I still don't know the answer to this question.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by benign]

Now I will point out key words in the descriptions of the pics.


Pic 1: US soldiers in Iraq approach a car
(The reader assumes that they are quietly walking to an anonymous car)
after opening fire
(only THREE WORDS to describe the soldiers' actions)
when it failed to stop as requested.
The reader assumes now that it's the driver's fault, and that it was a justified shooting.
Despite warning shots
(Shots aimed toward what? The car, or the sky? Again, only THREE WORDS used to describe the soldiers' initial actions)
it continued to drive toward their dusk patrol
(DICTIONARY.COM: adj. Tending to darkness; dusky...a nice way of saying it was difficult to see their patrol)


Pic 2: Inside the car were an Iraqi family of seven.
This sentence de-sensitizes the reader. Rather than listing the victim's names and humanizing the situation, the sentence turns the victims into a redundant fact. Just a famiy of seven.
The mother and father were killed
Another desensitizing fact categorizing the soldiers' actions. No names, ages, or where they were going. This is ubruptly followed by a "Goodwill" sentence:
but their five children in the backseat survived, one with a non-life threatening wound.
Now the status of a wound is mentioned, but only because it is (admittedly) "non life threatening." Where are the descriptions of the parents' wounds?

Pic 3: As the children get out of the car one of them screams, her hands covered in blood...
No name, age, or the fact that it is a close family-member's blood. A vague sentence that does not detail *any* of the 5 W's of proper writing. Who, What, Where, When, Why, and to What Extent?

Pic 4: …others cry or just stand bewildered.
A fragmented sentence in order to minimize the situation. "Others" = another vague dehumanizing word. "Just"= only. "Bewildered..." Look at the picture, and you don't see bewilderment, you see flat-out panic and shock.

Pic 5: The injured child is given first-aid by a US soldier... "Injured" is being used to describe a cowering, screaming, traumatized child with blood dripping down his face. You see two soldiers standing non-chalantly in the background. We now finally read about the military's role in the situation, only their role is described as administering first-aid, not causing the injuries and murders that prompted it.

Pic 6: ...as is his sister...
His sister is screaming into the face of a robotic-looking, faceless adult male soldier. She is covered in blood. The story of the soldiers has reversed from being the cause of the action, and morphed into the problem-solvers. The fixers. The heroes.

Pic 7: ...before being taken to a local hospital...
More heroism. Another "Goodwill" sentence that minimizes the situation once more. The local hospital.

Pic 8: ...with the rest of his family.
These past four statements are intended to make the reader look past at what caused this situation in the first place. More distractions to follow...A soldier carries one of the children into the hospital while an older sister carries her brother. (Oops! Sorry 'bout that! In compensation for your loss, we'll help you carry a few of you to The Local Hospital)


Pic 9: Doctors rush the children inside to ensure no-one else is wounded.
This sentence makes absolutely no sense. It is obvious that the physicians were rushing the children away from the soldiers. Though the boy is still in shock, he is obviously less terrified of the Iraqi doctors.

Pic 10: A US military statement said
A statement has been issued, which is a good indicator that the military deems this episode embarassing enough to "explain."
troops trying to stop the car used hand signals and fired warning shots
As I stated before, you can not see the troops in the photographs. How would someone see their hand signals in an approaching car at dusk? If the photographs were taken (at most) ten feet away, and we can not see the dark-camouflauged shooters in the images, how in God's name could a driver see them?
before firing directly at the car
Their aim was good...so good that the driver's face was Photoshopped. both the driver and front passenger were killed. How could they not see the FIVE CHILDREN in the back?

Pic 11: "The Goodwill Pic" The statement also said that military officials extended their condolences for this "unfortunate incident" and were investigating.
_______________________________________________
The placing of verbs and adverbs make or break a statement. This can be easily demonstrated by reading the exact same situation printed by the Washington Post vs. The Washington Times. Today's example:

Washington Post: Berlusconi to Form New Government
Washinton Times: Italy's Berlusconi Denies Resignation

With propaganda, imagery and colours are the initial attention-grabbers. For example, Pre 9/11, earth-tones and the pastels were used with commercials and newscasts. During the months following 9/11, a significant change occurred with the imagery and colour tones.

Examples include waving flag graphics on FoxNews, the red and white scrolling beneath the screens of Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, and the wardrobes of the announcers. Presently, the flag lapel pin is a must-have accessory for most politicians and public figures.

Though I am a proud and devoted American, the constant barrage of flag accessorizing disturbs me. It seems almost Nazi-esque to be wearing these small pins. While America is busy driving around with flag stickers on their cars and wearing 18kt gold sapphire and ruby flag pendants, I see very few people displaying the American flag from their houses, yards, and businesses.

This anomoly is indication that the flag is no longer a symbol of the founding and morals of our country. It has become a social mo'res, which is a sociological term meaning "the conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group."

Dot