[throway23423]

The first time i saw this concept of the 'double-tap' - to target first-responders to the scene of an earlier strike - was in the movie,' The Hurt Locker' - where it was employed by some ISIS-tier insurgents using a VBIED disguised as an ambulance. Presumably this was intended to show the level of depravity of the terrorists. First time actually seeing this employed in the real world was last year when Israel did a double tap that killed multiple journalists working for reuters, AP, Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye and Quds News Network plus paramedics and medical staff *at a hospital*. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nasser_Hospital_strikes

Now finding out this is essentially SOP for Israel and the United States (eg: the triple-tap strike at the Iranian girl's school where parents rushing to save their kids from the collapsed school were hit in the second and third strike), I wonder if the terrorists learnt this tactic from the US coalition or vice-versa.

[belorn]

Did you see the video that Wikileaks released, now 16 years ago, when the Apache helicopter fired on the first-responder on the the scene, a van which also included children.

At that point, another voice – presumably an officer not on scene – asks if the van is “picking up the wounded” and is told that they are. Two Iraqis from the van carry the wounded man around the side of the van to load him inside.

An American voice with the call sign “Bushmaster 7” says, “Roger, engage.” One of the helicopters blankets the van with machine-gun fire.

“Oh yeah, right through the windshield,” says one of the soldiers, while another voice on board briefly laughs. “There were approximately four to five individuals in that truck, so I’m counting about 12-15″ casualties.”

Later when news that two girls had been badly injured was greeted with: "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

[kaptcha]

Targeting first responders was already a common strategy in the bombing runs of WW2, used by both sides.

This was a reason why bombers attacked in multiple waves.

[ProllyInfamous]

War is a racket.

----

>why bombers attacked in multiple waves

While historians tend to disagree (rightly IMHO) with the severity of the Dresden Bombings, as reported by Kurt Vonnegut (WWII POW @Dresden)... it was definitely a disgraceful targeting-of-civilians, by Allied Forces, for the sake of demonstrating Power, alone.

Complete and utter devastation, no survivor left unravaged.

----

War is a racket.

[ProllyInfamous]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden>

[karim79]

> I wonder if the terrorists learnt this technique from the US coalition or vice-versa.

Who are "the terrorists"?

[throway23423]

I was referring to the terrorists in Iraq who were depicted in 'The Hurt locker'

[khaledh]

Those are just Iraqi's that were defending their nation from a foreign invasion.

[cineticdaffodil]

These where clan militias fighting for a headstanrt in the proxxy civil war to come. There is no iraq. Its a iranian proxxy with a sunni province and a basically split of kurdish region. That "nation" never existed except in western maps and heads. Those "freedom fighters" where the basis for isis and the iranian militias. None where patriots, just in it for the family wearing the state as skinsuit. They thoroughly disproved all neoliberal cultural ideals about universal nneeds and wants.

[khaledh]

If we follow your logic, then I'd argue that similarly, there's no countries in the world. In particular, there's no United States, it's land colonized by Europeans who came to that land and slaughtered its indigenous people and claimed it for themselves.

[cineticdaffodil]

The western culture forms meta families. We ostracize the sexual others like everyone else, but they form a nation wide "meta" family that connects everyone to everyone, allowing for the traditional clan family to flap open and dissappear with only nuclear families remaining. Oh and they form a ruling caste with working institutions. Western societies are one huge artifical clan.

[fastasucan]

Are you a terrorist if you attack an invading force during a war?

[C6JEsQeQa5fCjE]

Yes, for the sole reason that it's just a label assigned by an invading enemy government.

The problem is that the label is used in media to assign moral judgement, when it's just a political proscription that is typically assigned for entirely geopolitical reasons. Almost every country occupying a foreign territory, or is engaged in war with a group, or even another country, calls military action of the other side terrorism.

It doesn't mean anything. If it is to carry a moral judgement, it needs to be based on universally applied principles. It takes 5 seconds of thinking to see that it's absolutely not based on universally applied principles.

[khaledh]

Terrorists specifically target civilian or government targets to make a statement or a demand. Those Iraqis were targeting American soldiers. The term doesn't apply here, no matter how badly the occupier wants to impose it on those defending their country.

[bdangubic]

s/terrorists/freedom fighters