This is in reference to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Here’s a line from a Yahoo Canadian News page:

“Even under heavy fire, the Canadians were able to overtake a school that was at the heart of their mission”.

So I was wondering, how fast was the school moving? Did the Canadians “overtake” the school while running or driving their armored vehicles? Should the school be given a speeding ticket?

Did the Canadians overtake from the left or right side? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Doesn't "Al-Qaeda" mean "The School?"

In all seriousness, weapons have in the past been cached in schools in Iraq, and probably Afghanistan. So, like alot of people probably, I really am not surprised anymore when hearing a story like that, and am wary of being shocked until I get the full story.

AFAIK, Al Qaeda means The Base. Since this is a family oriented forum, I cannot tell you what I think it really means.

I heard it called "the base" before also. I was curious, so I looked it up online:

Bin Laden himself said in 2001, "We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda ["the base"]. And the name stayed."

So I guess that's where "the school" definition derived from, a "training" camp.

Otherwise Al Qaeda is known as:

In formal communications Bin Laden has called the organization the International Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.

You know, the sad thing is that people would choose to hide weapons in a school or a church or mosque or temple... I suppose it makes good sense strategically, but it just seems wrong.

I think there should be certain places...like the ones mentioned above...that are like "holy ground" was in Highlander...no violence...including weapons storage.

Canada has troops?? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Regaurdless of the tactical considerations, I think the origional point was that some brilliant newsie is vocabulary-challanged, as is his editor.

This is the reason I am having a hard time believing that we (USA. the West, etc) will win the war on terror. They, the terrorists, are willing to do whatever it takes to win. We are not.

If they know that we are less willing to destroy holy places, they will take advantage of it. I don't see anything too wrong with that. Where I see the wrong is our unwillingness to destroy those places.

In WWII, we destroyed the ancient monastery at Monte Casino in Itay because the Germans were using it as an observation post for artillery, among other things.

Kind of a far-fetched comparison, things have changed since WWII. How does Monte Casino have direct relevance to the decisions being made in the present day "Long War" (as the Pentagon has labeled the War on Terror)?

Sure the monastery at Monte Casino was bombed out. In WWII entire cities were destroyed along with their innocent civilians. It was a past era that doesn't compare when speaking of how things are viewed by man these days, but I suppose the Geneva convention was still followed. Different generations can hold different, but not neccessarily better or worse, values.