It's an interesting idea, BoP, but from what I've seen of what goes on here, it is not just for sport. It is for a deep sense of satisfaction or vengeance.

Ruvy,

After reading your comment (Number 1) and pondering it.... isn't that what sports are about (as well)?

Sport fans (short for fanatics) seek vengence, thrill and victory for their teams. If you don't believe it, wait until June for the World Cup.

The definition may apply to both the terrorist and the sport affectionato, without exclusivity to either.

Sometimes real anger enters into how a crowd behaves, like the way fights break our between fans of Sahkhnin (an Arab Israeli soccer team, and arguably the best in the country) and Betar Yerushalayim, the home team for Jerusalem, and a considerably less able team on the pitch.

But the stakes in war and sports are far differnt, even if the emotions may seem similar. Unless one's ribs are broken at a fight at a soccer game, the consequences of the game is measured in mere numbers of points and in the careers of a small number of people, the team members (and for the unfortunate fool who gets his ribs broken in fan fights). For everyone else, the game is not an event of consequence.

The massacre of Gush Etzion on 14 May 1948, or the capture of the Old City of Jerusalem by the Arab Legion that same year, or its liberation in 1967, have all been matters of consequence. The "sport" of attempting to destroy Israel in 1973 nearly led to a nuclear war between the Unied States and the Soviet Union.

Covering a war like a sports event, the arrogant attitude of much of the western media, may seem as though it is one.

War is organized slaughter, and shooting chipmunks may seem the same. But in war, the "chipmunk" often shoots back - with disastrous results.

From the standpoint of the insurgents, it's a real boon that GWB has put our troops on parade as targets, with no exit strategy, for the foreseeable future. They get to sharpen up their IED skills at our expense.

Ruvy, Israel/Palestine is a very different situation than Iraq and was not in my consideration. In your area of the world the "good guys/bad guys" "black and white" sides of the conflict are etched in stone like the 10 Commandments and until somebody with the stature of Moses shatters them on the ground and starts over there is little room for "sport" of the kind that I am suggesting in my post.

i think for iraqis the stakes and suffering are much higher. although some things might be sport like shooting americans or brits, like 'shock and awe' and 'mission accomplished', most things are not in that war-torn country with a huge no of displaced people, unemployment, casualties, lack of security, electricity, water ...

best

Gazelle, thank you for your comment. I only want to point out what the media continue to cover up . . . that the "Mission Accomplished" banner seen behind Bush on that aircraft carrier was not posted by the Bush administration nor was it a statement on the American assault on Iraq. It was a banner posted by the carrier itself as a congratulatory statement to the ship's crew who, having "accomplished their mission" were now on their way back to home port.

To continuously hold this quote against the Bush Administration is bad form, given that there are is no shortage of other quotes and decisions that are available for that purpose!

It is interesting to see someone writes an article like this without even coming close to mentioning "occupation". Do you know how dangerous to try to shoot at an armed helicopter, especially when you (most likely) miss? No sir. It is much different than shooting at chipmunks.

Hussain, Thank you for your comment. I think you missed my point. I said, "the chipmunk was not going to shoot back at us." I never said that shooting at a helicopter was without mortal danger. It most certainly is. Especially if, as you so succinctly put it, "you miss!" (which is, as I said, more likely than not.)

I did not mention the occupation? OK. "The occupation of Iraq by American and allied troops." It is semantics, of course, and politcal spin but that is, of course, what these troops have been doing since the invasion.

A poll of Iraqis this past week said that 84% wanted the Americans to leave (the report I heard did not say "when" they wanted them to leave...either immediately or when Iraqi security forces were in place along with a "stable" government) and that 56% felt that it was OK to shoot or attack American troops.

I can understand this. Since so many Iraqis have been killed under the "occupation" I can see where many Iraqis would consider it only "fair" for the United States to suffer along with them!

I'm not convinced that there is a great depth of economic, political or even religious sentiment informing many of these opinions but they seem more or less reasonable to me from a personal, emotional standpoint.

In any case my question still remains as to whether or not "some" of the attacks against US troops are simply because of the opportunity to do so and to see if one can get away with it...without any particular political or religious motivation and without any objective end result in mind. Killing simply for the sake of killing.

That, to me, falls under at least a part of the definition of the word, "sport."

Sir,
Sorry to disappoint you. There is no fun in it at all, especially when you see how the young US troops hit back. They shoot at everything that moves. Many (and I mean many) people are killed daily like this. When it happens in Baghdad (where the cameras are) they try to limit their revenge attacks. Outside Baghdad, the result is disastrous. The helicopters will "spray" the vicinity of the attack area, regardless who is there. The nearby farms/trees raised to the ground. The village is isolated for hours, even days with curfew. Hundreds are taken for interrogation for months, sometimes years (as seen on TV). You cannot complain. That area will have drones flying forever. If you have your car broken down, then leave it an run because most likely you will be spotted by a those flying cameras and in no time, either a fighter jet or a gunship will be attacking the spot as they suspect you are putting an IED. And when it happens, the US military information departments will say "killed so and so insurgents while trying their luck with IEDs".
Do you remember that cockpit video from, I guess, an Apache helicopter? The black and white one? A truck driver with his colleague was delivering a spare part to the tractor driver. A piece of metal (tractors are made of iron after all). The pilots think it is a weapon. They attack. They even killed the injured. Fly away. No one investigated the issue. The tribe has 3 relatives killed. They revenge. An IED is placed. A young US GI is killed. And so on. No fun. Trust me. No fun. Just blood.

Hussain, I will not dispute a thing you have said. I believe every word. I have reread my post, however, and I do regret the use of the word "fun." I did not mean it in the sense of "Ha Ha we're having a good time." I was using it in the sense of older children being recruited or simply imitating others without the motivations usually associated with the violence.

I have always said that my post was sheer speculation . . . simply wondering about one possible factor that I had not heard anyone else consider. The point is, one does not discover answers until one has asked the questions.

Thank you, Hussain. May God be with you and your family.