It is said the bridge was 30 meters high over the river, so most people were killed instantly upon impact on water or the riverbed. User:195.70.32.136

Citation? Cite your sources. --Fighter 18:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article reports 30 feet, not meters -- Tyagi 20:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to reflect this. The 30 foot figure sounds much more accurate - from the photos of the bridge, it is most *definitely* not a 295 foot high bridge. — ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 21:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, 30 meters is just under 100 feet, not 295. *g* CanSpice 22:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have a reference for the supposed bridge collapse? Reuters makes no mention of a collapse, and many articles are saying that people jumped from the bridge to save themselves. -- Tyagi 02:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The mortar attack is reported at The Guardian, as having killed 7 people, not 16. Al Jazeera also reports 7 dead and 36 injured. Furthermore, are we comfortable with the use of the word terrorists to describe those who carried out the mortar attack? Al Jazeera uses the term rebels and other sites may use the term insurgents. -- Tyagi 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be insurgents not terrorists. The mortar attack was part of an ongoing insurgency, not a terrorist incident, like the kidnapping and beheading of individuals in Iraq. Glowimperial 22:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "attackers" instead of terrorists or insurgents? That way it doesn't need to go back and forth. Glowimperial 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the intentional targetting of civilians a cut and dry example of terrorism? Or is this word becoming "double-plus ungood"? --M4-10 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unforuntately, many words in this part of the English language vocabulary have taken a distorted common meaning as a result of political events of recent years. You are correct. By definition, such an act is terrorism (as opposed to Terrorism, I suppose). However, you then enter a debate around the intentional targetting of civilians on all sides of a conflict. -- Tyagi 01:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortuneatly some media sources have become afraid of plain english (The BBC being especially notable.), when describing terrorism. People who fire mortars into a corwd of people for a political purpose or to create fear are terrorists. Enough with this post modern moral equivalence. User:Klonimus/AINB

Klonimus 02:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of this depends on whether you see the insurgents in Iraq as fighting a legitimate conflict or as terrorists. I know that attacking civilian targets is frowned upon by The Geneva Conventions and other basic standards of conflict as adhered to by the states that invent them, but members of the insurgency in Iraq don't have to play by those rules to be engaged in legitimate conflict (however reprehensible attacking civilians is to our modern sensibilities). I would have as much reason to change the text "terrorists" to "insurgents" because I see it as a less loaded term (and a more accruate one), and frankly we don't have any real detailed information about the nature or identity of the mortar attackers, like their political or group affiliation. I changed it to "attackers" so that we don't have to get engaged in a revert war. If evidence comes in later indicating their motive or allegiance, we can change it then, when we know what we are talking about. Glowimperial 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares what their political or group affiliation is? Terrorism is about means, not ends. Armed rebellion against government is not terrorism by default, but intentional targeting of civilians is, no matter what their politics. We have all the detailed information we need about them: they deliberately targeted civilians. Ergo, they are terrorists. As far as "modern sensibilities", I'm going to take a stand and say that deliberately targeting civilians is objectively wrong, and that our revulsion against it isn't some passing fad. Peddle moral relativism somewhere else. --M4-10 04:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Wikipedia's terrorism article can't decide on a standard definition, it may be safer not to use the term here and just move this discussion to the terrorism discussion page. -- Tyagi 04:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a news story, better suited to Wikinews? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an accidental Mecca-type stampede, then it's not encyclopedic, but this has hints of terrorism, so it's worth including. 69.177.244.239 00:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "terrorism" a prerequisite for encyclopedic? Peyna 02:27:29, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Hmm, the count seemed to have went up about 200 since my last visit to this page. This was a pretty interesting attack if you ask me. --Cyberman 23:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• No evidence has yet been noted to indicate that the stampede was the result of any attack. -- Tyagi 01:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This bridge is not famous enough to be in the title, and from what I know, this is the only bridge stampede in Baghdad's history of encyclopedic merit. 69.177.244.239 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get any references for the International responses? If reputable organsations are saying that this is an act of terrorism, then it would be good to back that up with quotes or links. -- Tyagi 02:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]