NationStates Jolt Archive

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

Prediction:
1. No-one (not counting trolls) will try to defend it.
2. In future threads, you will act as if people you disagree with had defended it.

Yeah, and they're good at bitching when a kid gets shot by US troops. The Iraqis have been using children as soldiers at least since the Al Sadr led uprising in Najaf.


In the summer of 2004, radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr directed a revolt that consumed the primarily Shia south of Iraq, with the fighting in the holy city of Najaf being particularly fierce. Observers noted multiple child soldiers, some as young as 12 years old, serving in Sadr's "Mahdi" Army that fought pitched battles with U.S. and British forces. Indeed, Sheikh Ahmad al-Shebani, al Sadr's spokesman, publicly defended the use of children, stating, "This shows that the Mahdi are a popular resistance movement against the occupiers. The old men and the young men are on the same field of battle." A 12 year old fighter in the group commented, "Last night I fired a rocket-propelled grenade against a tank. The Americans are weak. They fight for money and status and squeal like pigs when they die. But we will kill the unbelievers because faith is the most powerful weapon." Coalition forces also have increasingly faced child soldiers in the Sunni Triangle as well. Marines fighting in the battle to retake Falluja in November 2004 reported numerous instances of being fired upon by "children with assault rifles." http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/fellows/singer20060612.htm

I also heard an interview on NPR where a Marine said that the Mehdi army used civilians and children as human shields. They'd stand behind groups of civilians and shoot out from in between them. Same thing happened in Mogadishu when US Army troops fought Somali gunmen in the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

It seems the enemies of the US don't give two shits about their own children.

Yep. The kids were probably brainwashed into wanting to do it too.
I saw summat on CNN about radical Islam. It showed a typical ~8 year-old's birthday party. You'd think it could be your neighbor's if the sign wasn't in Arabic. The creepy part was, there was no "Happy Birthday to y'all, Happy birthday to [[insert name here]], Happy Birthday to y'all!" song. What'd they have instead? Here's the translation: "I want to be a suicide warrior, My blood on the streets in Allah's name Death to the infidels Glory to Allah I want to be a suicide warrior" Dead serious. Sick that they can do that to their own kids.

Whats the point of this thread? Is some sort of debate suppost to occur?

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg
Because we don't have about five threads every day about how we don't like terrorists? Seriously, no one is going to agree with this, so why even bother? Oh, wait, it's just another excuse to Muslim-bash.

Whats the point of this thread? Is some sort of debate suppost to occur?

Eve Kimchi is just trying to gather more ammo to show that liberals are 3b1L.

<Edit: Oh yeah Deep Online is also trying to show the 3b1Ln335 of Muslims too>

Prediction:
1. No-one (not counting trolls) will try to defend it.
2. In future threads, you will act as if people you disagree with had defended it.

I think this is a very likely set of predictions.

Now, let's mention how the Lord's Army uses children as soldiers. Oh but wait...those are Christian crazies...wouldn't fit into the Muslim bashing thread.

Whats the point of this thread? Is some sort of debate suppost to occur?

So he can claim everyone who posted here defended children suicide bombers.

Yep. The kids were probably brainwashed into wanting to do it too.
I saw summat on CNN about radical Islam. It showed a typical ~8 year-old's birthday party. You'd think it could be your neighbor's if the sign wasn't in Arabic. The creepy part was, there was no "Happy Birthday to y'all, Happy birthday to [[insert name here]], Happy Birthday to y'all!" song. What'd they have instead? Here's the translation: "I want to be a suicide warrior, My blood on the streets in Allah's name Death to the infidels Glory to Allah I want to be a suicide warrior" Dead serious. Sick that they can do that to their own kids.

Somehow, that doesnt go with the tune very well.

And, if we can do it (http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/), why can't they?

Yep. The kids were probably brainwashed into wanting to do it too.
I saw summat on CNN about radical Islam. It showed a typical ~8 year-old's birthday party. You'd think it could be your neighbor's if the sign wasn't in Arabic. The creepy part was, there was no "Happy Birthday to y'all, Happy birthday to [[insert name here]], Happy Birthday to y'all!" song. What'd they have instead? Here's the translation: "I want to be a suicide warrior, My blood on the streets in Allah's name Death to the infidels Glory to Allah I want to be a suicide warrior" Dead serious. Sick that they can do that to their own kids.

a couple of years ago, wasn't there a kid who changed his mind and they had to remove the bomb laden jacket off of him?

So he can claim everyone who posted here defended children suicide bombers.

Same old Kimchi drivel. "If you don't think |\/|0zl3|\/|z r 3b1l, then you defend everything from child suicide bombers to 9-11."

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

I won't defend this (an neither does any other poster so far, it seems), I'd rather condemn it, if you don't mind....

lol I don't think I have ever seen the word liberal or muslim not be written like t3h m\_/5l1/\/\5 or 3b1l l1b3r4l5 by anyone talking about someone on the right on this thread. Nor have I ever seen DK say it like that? So where the hell did it all come from??? :p

Same old Kimchi drivel. "If you don't think |\/|0zl3|\/|z r 3b1l, then you defend everything from child suicide bombers to 9-11."

which is about the same as "Christians/Republicans/Americans/USians/Liberals/Conservatives/flavor of the week are the Ebil"

just take it with a grain of salt. Just a grain mind you... High Blood Pressure is not a fun condition.

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

I'm not going to even attempt to defend it.

I would like to point out, though - that we are talking about the tactics of a nation we are occupying.

Try reading through some of the threads about what 'good christian americans' would do if the US became a communist state, for example...

lol I don't think I have ever seen the word liberal or muslim not be written like t3h m\_/5l1/\/\5 or 3b1l l1b3r4l5 by anyone talking about someone on the right on this thread. Nor have I ever seen DK say it like that? So where the hell did it all come from??? :p

From everything he's ever posted in any incarnation.

lol I don't think I have ever seen the word liberal or muslim not be written like t3h m\_/5l1/\/\5 or 3b1l l1b3r4l5 by anyone talking about someone on the right on this thread. Nor have I ever seen DK say it like that? So where the hell did it all come from??? :p
It's noobbashing.
It's way older then this board.

All right. Population control. The less people there are in Iraq, the easier it will be for US troops to police it in a generation or so.

Seriously though, nobody is going to defend this.

which is about the same as "Christians/Republicans/Americans/USians/Liberals/Conservatives/flavor of the week are the Ebil"

just take it with a grain of salt. Just a grain mind you... High Blood Pressure is not a fun condition.

Funny, could you show links to those threads? Because all I've ever seen are threads on how one way or another Muslims are worse than Satan's minions.

It's noobbashing.
It's way older then this board.

Shuddup n00b.

From everything he's ever posted in any incarnation.

I've never seen him speak l337 sp33k.

To play Devil's Advocate, you could argue that its no different to the US Army's recruitment drives in High Schools. While they do wait until the recruit is officially of-age, the ideas are being put in the head early on just like that kind with the suicide bomber birthday song.

cool 12 year old suicide fighters!~

so um when a bunch of kids die, lets refrain from calling our troops Baby killers this time.

GG, Nam?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181422_robert09.html

Calling them baby killers when the 'babies' are holding Assault rifles just seems kind of wrong.

just a little?

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

Wow, that took real balls. :rolleyes:

I already mentioned Jesus Camp as a defense.

To play Devil's Advocate, you could argue that its no different to the US Army's recruitment drives in High Schools. While they do wait until the recruit is officially of-age, the ideas are being put in the head early on just like that kind with the suicide bomber birthday song.
*Readies flame-retardant suit*

The incidence of having children in the back seats to get through checkpoints and then the adults leaving and detonating the car does not count as having children suicide bombers. It counts as the bombers deliberately using children to allay suspicion and then killing them.

And because someone might as well...

Were it to come to actual suicide bombers, using children makes more sense as adults would be more productive and constitute a larger investment (more support for more years) than a small child, thus loosing a small child (and their lower current investment plus longer time before realizing a return) is less costly for a group than an adult. Plus, given the lower propensity for American troops to suspect and apprehend children it gives them a higher likelihood of success. Thus, lower cost plus higher probability of success, with the addition of greater psychological damage, makes children the ideal suicide bomber.

I've never seen him speak l337 sp33k.

When paraphrasing a poster you disagree with it is common to use l337 to emphasise how stupid and ill-thought-out their position is. It's not a rare tactic.

I've never seen him speak l337 sp33k.

:p

We're paraphrasing.

When paraphrasing a poster you disagree with it is common to use l337 to emphasise how stupid and ill-thought-out their position is. It's not a rare tactic.

I know. But I still find it odd.

When paraphrasing a poster you disagree with it is common to use l337 to emphasise how stupid and ill-thought-out their position is. It's not a rare tactic.

Damn, beat me to it!

The incidence of having children in the back seats to get through checkpoints and then the adults leaving and detonating the car does not count as having children suicide bombers. It counts as the bombers deliberately using children to allay suspicion and then killing them.

And because someone might as well...

Were it to come to actual suicide bombers, using children makes more sense as adults would be more productive and constitute a larger investment (more support for more years) than a small child, thus loosing a small child (and their lower current investment plus longer time before realizing a return) is less costly for a group than an adult. Plus, given the lower propensity for American troops to suspect and apprehend children it gives them a higher likelihood of success. Thus, lower cost plus higher probability of success, with the addition of greater psychological damage, makes children the ideal suicide bomber.

From the accounts of Baby Grenades in Vietnam, it's not a concept unique to jihadis.

Funny, could you show links to those threads? Because all I've ever seen are threads on how one way or another Muslims are worse than Satan's minions.

Just wait. The group name cycles through.

before Muslims it was Republicans, before that it was Christians, and before that it was Americans/USians/President Bush, so I figure it will be back to the Americans/USians/Presidental Elections, then it will move to Politics (generalized to include Neocons, Libbies, Rep, Dems...) then back to Religion... it's like the turning of the seasons.

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html


Yep. Not as reprehensible as being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands directly and indirectly and then getting all smug and flag waving about it, but it is up close beside it. The worst element is the way it gets used to excuse the various "if it moves shoot" deaths that occupying armies inflict.

Somehow, that doesnt go with the tune very well.

And, if we can do it (http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/), why can't they?

Depends what you mean by "we" My perspective was secular Western society. Not the Evangelicals, who constitute well-meaning, yet somewhat off-kilter Western society.

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

None of this disproves global warming, you know. :p

Really, it doesn't matter what you post here. Now Eve can go tell all of his friends about how many liberals supported the idea of child suicide bombers.

(And I still don't get the whole EO=DK thing. Sure, they're both equally delusional, but Kimchi's fantasy world was at least entertaining. It was sort of like a badly written Tom Clancy novel.)

cool 12 year old suicide fighters!~

so um when a bunch of kids die, lets refrain from calling our troops Baby killers this time.

GG, Nam?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181422_robert09.html

Calling them baby killers when the 'babies' are holding Assault rifles just seems kind of wrong.

just a little?

Not that the children in the instance (note the use of the singular) provided by the OP were not in fact holding any weaponry.

And killing the children intentionally.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can. I think that this sort of thing is particularly reprehensible.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21420194-23109,00.html

Who is going to defend that, really?

Who is going to defend that, really?

You have to condemn everything, and be noticed to have condemned everything, otherwise you are one of "them". Thats as far as I can gather anyway.

Who is going to defend that, really?

A Wicker Man (because it's too fucking big and full of holes to be straw) he builds to justify Il Douche's noassed Iraq policy, including the Surge.

I already mentioned Jesus Camp as a defense.

so... are you defending the act of using Children to hide bombs and detonating them?

Whats the point of this thread? Is some sort of debate suppost to occur?

No.

Isn't this just a form of retroactive abortion?

Were it to come to actual suicide bombers, using children makes more sense as adults would be more productive and constitute a larger investment (more support for more years) than a small child, thus loosing a small child (and their lower current investment plus longer time before realizing a return) is less costly for a group than an adult. Plus, given the lower propensity for American troops to suspect and apprehend children it gives them a higher likelihood of success. Thus, lower cost plus higher probability of success, with the addition of greater psychological damage, makes children the ideal suicide bomber.

What's more, the use of children as suicide bombers will make coalition troops twitchy, and more likely to gun down innocent children who they mistake for suicide bombers/insurgents. These dead children can then be used as propaganda to gain support, funds, and recruits from the population.

Isn't this just a form of retroactive abortion?

Evolution en masse, preventing the genetics of stupid people from propagating.

Yep. The kids were probably brainwashed into wanting to do it too.
I saw summat on CNN about radical Islam. It showed a typical ~8 year-old's birthday party. You'd think it could be your neighbor's if the sign wasn't in Arabic. The creepy part was, there was no "Happy Birthday to y'all, Happy birthday to [[insert name here]], Happy Birthday to y'all!" song. What'd they have instead? Here's the translation: "I want to be a suicide warrior, My blood on the streets in Allah's name Death to the infidels Glory to Allah I want to be a suicide warrior" Dead serious. Sick that they can do that to their own kids.

Everyone should see the documentary "Jesus Camp," if they're concerned about children being ideologically brainwashed. This is *not* to say that it's 'okay' when radical Islamists do it 'because radical Christianists are doing it too.' It's only to say that you shouldn't make a big stink about "them" doing it when it's going on in our own back yard, too, and not mention that it happens here, too. It's disingenuous to suggest that a tactic is immoral if you don't acknowledge that it's being used on both 'sides.'

That argument out of the way, how do I feel when I read a story like the one linked in the OP? At a visceral level, I say "give a week to evacuate for those who value their lives-- and their children's lives-- more than some ideology and more than who controls some blood-splattered sand dunes. And at the end of that week, when-- in theory-- the only ones left will be those who value their blood-splattered sand dunes more than their lives, raze everything. Scorch and salt the earth, sew it with radioactive isotopes, render it uninabitable. Make the land not worth fighting over who controls it, while those who cared more for their lives than ideology are re-settled and enabled to get on with their lives." Rationally, I know it would never work. The radicals would leave too and bring their bloodshed elsewhere, and there would be those who scream themselves blue in the face when the idea was applied universally (ie. to Isreal & Palestine) to other places too, and it would produce a HUGE refugee population that no one would be willing to take in or help out. Which is why we need to try and find a better way.

Isn't this just a form of retroactive abortion?

Is murder usually a form of retroactive abortion?

Is murder usually a form of retroactive abortion?

I guess it would depend on your intentions ;)

Just to make this very clear:
NOBODY DISAGREES WITH YOU. GO AWAY.

Just to make this very clear:
NOBODY DISAGREES WITH YOU. GO AWAY.

Let's give the OP a break and assume that he or she gets the message after it's been repeated several dozen times, okay?

Let's give the OP a break and assume that he or she gets the message after it's been repeated several dozen times, okay?
You.... don't know the OP very well do you?

*raises eyebrow*

It's rather interesting that EO expects anyone to defend this. "The Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Br%C3%BCcke_%28film%29)" has been around since about 1960.

Amusing thought: If the OP wasn't named and if I didn't know who posted it, this would appear to be a noob making a drive by thread. It happens now and then, someone makes a thread, usually on some manner of serious topic, and then procedes to not post in it at all.

Very disappointing EO.

I think this is a very likely set of predictions.

Now, let's mention how the Lord's Resistance Army uses children as soldiers. Oh but wait...those are Christian crazies...wouldn't fit into the Muslim bashing thread.

Fixed.

You.... don't know the OP very well do you?

*raises eyebrow*

No, I don't know the OP at all, but I can't think of any reason why it would be necessary to pile up on him like this, especially when he's not even here to defend himself.

Go ahead - step up and defend this if you can.


Ok.

From a tactical perspective, using children as suicide bombers would be preferable to using adults, since they are not as strong, likely not as experienced in combat, and generate less suspicion, allowing easier bypass of security forces.

Ok.

From a tactical perspective, using children as suicide bombers would be preferable to using adults, since they are not as strong, likely not as experienced in combat, and generate less suspicion, allowing easier bypass of security forces.


Well, adults are actually more likely to get accross the checkpoints then children, because thewre are some Palestinians that have Israeli work visas, whereas it's not likely that a Palestinian child would be working in a factory in Israel, much less getting a work permit.

Well, adults are actually more likely to get accross the checkpoints then children, because thewre are some Palestinians that have Israeli work visas, whereas it's not likely that a Palestinian child would be working in a factory in Israel, much less getting a work permit.

Ah, but looking at it from a purely tactical perspective. a child can get closer to the soldiers than an adult could without the soldier(s) getting suspicious.

a Palestinian child claiming to be deliving lunch to his daddy would have a better chance getting in without being searched than an adult.