ILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
THe missle at the US ship (or Mortar) is one that I have a very hard time classifying as a Terrorist attack. That was strictly an attack on a millitary target. Kind of the same way I don't consider attacks on US military in Iraq to be terrorism but attacks on the people or Iraq certainly is terrorism.
just my 2 cents worth
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13742 posts, RR: 63
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Quoting Delta767300ER (Reply 5): ILOVEA340, Was the USS Cole bombing a terrorist attack in your opinion?
You can argue that the USS COLE, as being military, is a valid target in a guerilla war.
You might call the attack cowardly, but the attackers knew that they would have no chance in an open fight with the sailors of the USS Cole, so they chose to attack by sneaking in with the bomb, which is IMO a valid tactic in assymetrical warfare.
IMO, terrorism begins when the attackers target the civilian population indiscriminately, e.g. 9/11 or other bombing in public places, but even there are arguments valid, which have been used to justify the carpet bombings of cities in WW2, that in a total war, the civilian population, which after all supports and supplies thwe military, is a legal target as well.
So you could either argue that the WW2 bombings on civilian targets, no matter by whom, were acts of terrorism.
I would not classify the Cole incedent as a Terrorist attack, cowardly yes, terrorism no.
It's just the way that this war is being fought.
Keep in mind that the Continental Army tactics during the U.S. revolutionary war (hiding in trees, shooting officers, not holding ranks in fields) were basically the 18th century's version of what todays roadside bombs, and various other "Cole type" incidents are.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying these types of actions, but these people who attack U.S. millitary interests are smart enough to know that the U.S. army can't be defeated on a uniformed full assault attack basis much like George Washington, and many other Colonist rebels/insurgents/soldiers (depending on how you look at it) realized that they had no chance against the British in a full rank style frontal assault.
Please Please understand that I am not comparing the underlying ideologies behind these various groups.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29622 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 1289 times:
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 12): My understanding of the whole thing was that the "missile" was one of those RPG thingies.. At most it probably would have left a burn mark on the side of the ship or broken a window or two
Nope,at least one shot if not all of them where made with a rocket for the BM-21 "GRAD" rocket system. This is an unguided 122mm rocket system. The system was widely distributed by the Soviets and is very common. Copies of this system are also manufactured by China and Egypt. The normal warhead is a 21KG explosive charge, although there are anti-personel and other warheads made for the system.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 1264 times:
Quoting Ryanb741 (Reply 2): it was probably a relatively isolated incident. Jordan certainly doesn't need a right battering in the way Iran does
A) first a technical aspect. Also in "conventional" artillery, after the first round of fire, the fire-command-post has to adjust the targetting, as the fire usually at first either is too short or too far, too much to the left or to the right. The second round of fire usually is the real thing. And that also applies to rockets.
B) it looks as if the US-ships WERE the targets (most certainly WERE) BUT in the end, the holiday-resort of Aqaba became THE target. Aqaba is a wonderful holiday resort with good hotels, excellent beaches and a calm and relatively clean sea to go swimming. So that the attack in question can be compared to the one in Sharm-el-Sheikh, except that there was only one fatality this time. Jordan therefore does NOT need whatever kind of "battering" but support and solidarity
C) Iran does NOT need any kind of battering either
D) in view of the fact that the Gulf of Aqaba is very narrow, and the long Saudi coastline practically uncontrolled (the nearest Saudi-British airbase some 150 km southeast) and dominated by fairly respectable mountains, I regard the visit of US-warships there as a rather risky and foolhardy.