NationStates Jolt Archive

Story can be found here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2251136,00.html)


The first targeted shoppers at a pet market in the al-Ghazl area, killing 45 people and injuring 82. About 20 minutes later, a second bomber struck at a smaller bird market in south-eastern Baghdad, killing 27 people and wounding at least 67.

The toll made it one of the deadliest days since the US troop surge a year ago began to arrest the spread of violence.

The chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Brigadier General Qassim al-Moussawi, claimed the female bombers had Down's syndrome and that the explosives were detonated by remote control, indicating they may not have been willing attackers in what could be a new method by suspected Sunni insurgents to subvert stepped-up security measures.


This, by far, has to be the most depressing news I've heard all day. I mean, (if the story is true) can there be anything more evil than taking advantage of the mentally handicapped in such a callous and disgusting way? Not really sure if anyone was aware of this. Thoughts?

just when you think these terrorists have sunk as low as is humanly possible they prove you to be an optimist.

using the mentally challenged to kill families at a pet fair. disgust is an inadequate reaction.

Story can be found here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2251136,00.html)



This, by far, has to be the most depressing news I've heard all day. I mean, (if the story is true) can there be anything more evil than taking advantage of the mentally handicapped in such a callous and disgusting way? Not really sure if anyone was aware of this. Thoughts?

We don't need to demonize this enemy. They have demonized themselves.

Hunt 'em down and kill 'em.

Story can be found here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2251136,00.html)
This, by far, has to be the most depressing news I've heard all day. I mean, (if the story is true) can there be anything more evil than taking advantage of the mentally handicapped in such a callous and disgusting way? Not really sure if anyone was aware of this. Thoughts?

Just as bad as flying aircraft into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people. When are we going to wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of Allah"? :mad:

Damnit, I admit it, I lol'd, now I feel guilty:p

Just as bad as flying aircraft into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people. When are we going to wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of Allah"? :mad:

Note that "Allah" can be replaced with any other deity of your choice and still make sense. But then again, there's nothing like killing Muslims, right?

When are we going to wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of Allah"? :mad:
I don't know, maybe it's you that needs to do the waking up. The reason being that it looks to me like "we" already understood this, but you might have missed that particular development.

Note that "Allah" can be replaced with any other deity of your choice and still make sense.

Noted, and true.

But then again, there's nothing like killing Muslims, right?

But then again, there's nothing like killing the enemy. right?

Just as bad as flying aircraft into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people. When are we going to wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of Allah"? :mad:
Just as soon as we "wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of God"?

Just how many Iraqis were involved in "flying aircraft into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people"?

Quick answer: NONE!!

How many Americans were involved in dropping bombs "into buildings and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people"

Sad answer: far too many!!

We don't need to demonize this enemy. They have demonized themselves.

Hunt 'em down and kill 'em.
Suffering from total reality disconnect?

Suffering from total reality disconnect?
So you don't think the people who strapped a remote-controlled bomb to a retarded woman and sent her into a crowd should be hunted down and perhaps killed (assuming they don't submit to being led off to jail)?

Just as soon as we "wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of God"?

Just how many Iraqis were involved in "flying aircraft into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people"?

Quick answer: NONE!!

How many Americans were involved in dropping bombs "into buildings and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people"

Sad answer: far too many!!

So, it is America's fault that radical Muslims want to kill Muslims, Americans, Europeans, etc?

The OP was about the terrorists using mentally challenged women to kill other Iraqi people in Iraq. Isn't there something wrong with people who would do this in the name of _____? (Insert your favorite deity)

72 from one bomb? Impressive.

So you don't think the people who strapped a remote-controlled bomb to a retarded woman and sent her into a crowd should be hunted down and perhaps killed (assuming they don't submit to being led off to jail)?
I think you know my position on these matters. All coalition troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible. Then perhaps these desperate people will not have to resort to desperate measures?

NM's disconnect from reality is the fact that these people have already been demonized and we are seeing the results. Thus my response.

So, it is America's fault that radical Muslims want to kill Muslims, Americans, Europeans, etc?

The OP was about the terrorists using mentally challenged women to kill other Iraqi people in Iraq. Isn't there something wrong with people who would do this in the name of _____? (Insert your favorite deity)
Whats wrong is people such as yourself who have bought into the Bush follies. Perfectly sound minded innocent men, women and children have paid the price. It seems that your sudden concern for a "mentally challenged" woman is a tad misplaced?

You want to somehow tie this in with 911? Scary indeed....no sad!!

72 from one bomb? Impressive.
Yes it's proven, religious extremism is an even worst mental disorder than Down's syndrome.

I misread the article. I thought it was only one bomb. It was two. Apologies.

Still, very impressive skills there.

Yes it's proven, religious extremism is an even worst mental disorder than Down's syndrome.

teh lulz

Jesus Christ. Every time I log on to NSG there's a new thread about fundy retards.

72 from one bomb? Impressive.

Two bombs. :rolleyes:

I think you know my position on these matters. All coalition troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible. Then perhaps these desperate people will not have to resort to desperate measures?

Then perhaps, just perhaps, the radicals can subjugate the people just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

I heard about yet more explosions in Iraq, but didn't know the bombers were mentally disabled. Epic fail.

I actually supported the Iraqi resistance at first when they were fighting the Americans and the puppet CPA government (ie Badr Corp, nationalists etc), but now all the 'resistance' is a bunch of religious wackos killing their own people because they don't want a fight with the real occupiers, a bunch of retards (epic lulz) they are.

Then perhaps, just perhaps, the radicals can subjugate the people just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:
No, it is much better if they have Americanized freedom?

BTW, Iraq was certainly more liberal than Afghanistan? So the analogy fails?

I actually supported the Iraqi resistance at first when they were fighting the Americans and the puppet CPA government (ie Badr Corp, nationalists etc), but now all the 'resistance' is a bunch of religious wackos killing their own people because they don't want a fight with the real occupiers, a bunch of retards (epic lulz) they are.

The resistance has always been a bit of both, no?

Whats wrong is people such as yourself who have bought into the Bush follies. Perfectly sound minded innocent men, women and children have paid the price. It seems that your sudden concern for a "mentally challenged" woman is a tad misplaced?

You want to somehow tie this in with 911? Scary indeed....no sad!!


Who killed innocent people on 911? Radical Muslims.

Who killed innocent people in Madrid? Radical Muslims.

Who killed innocent people in London? Radical Muslims.

Who used mentally challenged women to kill people in Baghdad? Radical Muslims.

I don't see any follies here. The radical Muslims did what they set out to accomplish so why don't you condemn them for killing innocent women and children?

I think you know my position on these matters. All coalition troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible. Then perhaps these desperate people will not have to resort to desperate measures?.

Desperate measures like using disabled women to kill people in a market. Damn! That is desperate and despicable. :mad:

Desperate measures like using disabled women to kill people in a market. Damn! That is desperate and despicable. :mad:

I have to agree with you, I understand targeting US military forces and their Iraqi satellite forces, but deliberately targeting civilians while ignoring the main invader is not resisting, not by a long shot, it's just some wackos using the situation to settle petty sectarian scores. Any true Iraqi resistance would concentrate on fighting a protracted war against US and Iraqi puppet forces, and trying to win foreign support. Unfortunately that time for the Iraqi people has come and gone, and the 'resistance' has a permanent bad reputation as nothing but criminals and not patriots.

Who killed innocent people on 911? Radical Muslims.

Who killed innocent people in Madrid? Radical Muslims.

Who killed innocent people in London? Radical Muslims.

Who used mentally challenged women to kill people in Baghdad? Radical Muslims.

I don't see any follies here. The radical Muslims did what they set out to accomplish so why don't you condemn them for killing innocent women and children?

Now, how many of those acts were committed by the same people acting as a hive-mind...

They're all despicable, but that does not in any way excuse the despicable acts that led to, for example, the bombing in Baghdad - a natural consequence of having a wartorn country which was torn about by US et al.

The mixture of sadness and anger I felt reading that is indescribable. :(

Now, how many of those acts were committed by the same people acting as a hive-mind...

They're all despicable, but that does not in any way excuse the despicable acts that led to, for example, the bombing in Baghdad - a natural consequence of having a wartorn country which was torn about by US et al.

So, the sinking of the Lusitania should not excuse America's entry into WWW I? http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpwwi2.htm
And, the bombing of Pearl Harbor should not be an excuse for America's entry into WWW II?
Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911_treason.jpg

NM's disconnect from reality is the fact that these people have already been demonized and we are seeing the results. Thus my response.
So these people strapped a bomb to that lady because they were demonised in the American media?

Sometimes when people do bad things, you really can't blame it on anyone but them - and they have to take responsibility for it.

Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims.
"Radical Muslims" aren't a government or an organisation you can get into a war with. You're oversimplifying the issue, this analogy with wars of the past is precisely why the US isn't making any progress whatsoever.

Then perhaps, just perhaps, the radicals can subjugate the people just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Of course the radicals wouldn't be there if a certain dictator strongman were still left in place rather than being the target of a monkey in a suit.

No use crying over spilled milk maybe, but someone dropped it in the first place.

So, the sinking of the Lusitania should not excuse America's entry into WWW I? http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpwwi2.htm
And, the bombing of Pearl Harbor should not be an excuse for America's entry into WWW II?
Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911_treason.jpg

It certainly shouldn't be an excuse for America entering into a war with one of the few secular states in the Middle East.

Ironically, just reading from the link, your 9/11 picture seems to be from a 'BUSH DID WTC' site.

Ironically, just reading from the link, your 9/11 picture seems to be from a 'BUSH DID WTC' site.

Does it matter that the picture came from that site? It is a picture of what happened, and remember there are people who can not be seen dying. And they are not just Americans. :rolleyes:

So, the sinking of the Lusitania should not excuse America's entry into WWW I? http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpwwi2.htm
And, the bombing of Pearl Harbor should not be an excuse for America's entry into WWW II?
Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims.

Tying the events of the Twin tower bombing to this so called "radical Muslim" makes no sense. Especially considering that nations that had nothing to do with them were invaded using the same excuse while nations they were linked to are best friends with America, and still are.

How about we tie the rest of the worlds grievances with their local issues to STUPID Americans. And have the world bomb America into the stone age? I'm sure you wouldn't object. It's using your own twisted logic after all.

Does it matter that the picture came from that site? It is a picture of what happened, and remember there are people who can not be seen dying.

I didn't say that it mattered. It was just ironic.

And they are not just Americans. :rolleyes:

And your point would be...

So, it is America's fault that radical Muslims want to kill Americans?Good question. We all know that they want to kill US because we are the beacon of Justice, Democracy and Freedom.. they are just jealous.

The resistance has always been a bit of both, no?The resistance is a number of different groups, and new small groups are taking form. And most of the time they dont trust each other. It is quite a clusterfuck.

Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911_treason.jpg

This war on the "radical" muslims did not start on 911,

ever heard of USS Cole? Embassy bombings? Reagan cut-and-run in Lebanon?

So, the sinking of the Lusitania should not excuse America's entry into WWW I? http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpwwi2.htm
And, the bombing of Pearl Harbor should not be an excuse for America's entry into WWW II?
Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911_treason.jpg
The Germans warned America that they would sink those ships, even civilian ones, and indeed both sides in WWI targeted merchant vessels, the Lusitania if anything was the fault of the US.

Does it matter that the picture came from that site? It is a picture of what happened, and remember there are people who can not be seen dying. And they are not just Americans. :rolleyes:

Its location on the web does matter for the irony part of his statement yes

Yeah! I support the bombing of America into stone age! [kidding]

And, america's peoples. You have been deceived by your own elected government! The Germans are doing things (even in war) like knights. They warned the American first when they bombed that civilian vessel. And the Japanese also have warned the American governors when they want to strike Pearl Harbour. So all blame to your governor! Not us, the rest of the world, where rational thinking still exist!

OK, that nearing flaming. Accept that as a sarcasm, eh?

I'm just baffled at how anyone could honestly see murdering innocent people as an effective way of gaining public support for their cause.

LOL, are you a bird lover?

Hahaha

Story can be found here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2251136,00.html)



This, by far, has to be the most depressing news I've heard all day. I mean, (if the story is true) can there be anything more evil than taking advantage of the mentally handicapped in such a callous and disgusting way? Not really sure if anyone was aware of this. Thoughts?

That's horrible. How many birds were killed?

The Germans are doing things (even in war) like knights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Totenkopfverb%C3%A4nde

But then, it wasn't like knights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29#The_final_assault_and_massacre) were particularly nice people...

So these people strapped a bomb to that lady because they were demonised in the American media?
I suggest that they were demonized by the horrific war(s) that has/have been inflicted upon them. I wonder how any of us would behave given the same circumstances?

Sometimes when people do bad things, you really can't blame it on anyone but them - and they have to take responsibility for it.
I fully understand such sentiment. I don't see the US taking responsibility for the nightmare they have created in Iraq.

just when you think these terrorists have sunk as low as is humanly possible they prove you to be an optimist.

using the mentally challenged to kill families at a pet fair. disgust is an inadequate reaction.


Hey, I've met tons of soldiers, armed forces use the mentally challenged too, and they kill alot more people.

I suggest that they were demonized by the horrific war(s) that has/have been inflicted upon them. I wonder how any of us would behave given the same circumstances?


I fully understand such sentiment. I don't see the US taking responsibility for the nightmare they have created in Iraq.

Are you trying to suggest that if we were citizens of Iraq we would be strapping bombs to the mentally disabled and blowing up civilians?

The interesting thing here I think, isn't about the disabled bomber.

Everyone has just accepted the testimony of this 1 person. In the article, there is 1, and only 1 person who has claimed it was a disabled person. And that person was the big boss, not someone manning the checkpoint. Ask yourself this. Does he have any reason to want to demonise the terrorists even more. Would something this offensive swing some voters to vote in a war candidate. Hmmm...

Until I hear something from more than 1 source, I'll take this as seriously as Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is a long and glorious history of the US military being lied to by it's puppets and sources, and the US military selling this lie to it's public, without exercising due diligence about checking sources, especially when it is in their best interest to accept the intelligence. Anyone remember African Uranium?

Now that I think about it, how does he know they had Down's Syndrome and they were done remotely.

Note that "Allah" can be replaced with any other deity of your choice and still make sense. But then again, there's nothing like killing Muslims, right?

Take note that you can also substitute ideologies in the place of "Allah", AP's here is one of them.

Damnit, I admit it, I lol'd, now I feel guilty:p

I'm just baffled at how anyone could honestly see murdering innocent people as an effective way of gaining public support for their cause.I am baffled too.

The interesting thing here I think, isn't about the disabled bomber.

Everyone has just accepted the testimony of this 1 person. In the article, there is 1, and only 1 person who has claimed it was a disabled person. And that person was the big boss, not someone manning the checkpoint. Ask yourself this. Does he have any reason to want to demonise the terrorists even more. Would something this offensive swing some voters to vote in a war candidate. Hmmm...

Until I hear something from more than 1 source, I'll take this as seriously as Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is a long and glorious history of the US military being lied to by it's puppets and sources, and the US military selling this lie to it's public, without exercising due diligence about checking sources, especially when it is in their best interest to accept the intelligence. Anyone remember African Uranium?Now that I think about it, how does he know they had Down's Syndrome and they were done remotely.good question.

good question.

Remotely I can understand. Assuming they examined the remains of the bomb, an experienced investigator should be able to tell. There'd be bits of the trigger left and such. Note that there's to big "if's" there: both having an experienced investigator and actually having enough remains of the bomb.

I think you know my position on these matters. All coalition troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible. Then perhaps these desperate people will not have to resort to desperate measures?

NM's disconnect from reality is the fact that these people have already been demonized and we are seeing the results. Thus my response.

These "desperate people" were using these measures before we ever went into Iraq. While I don't support Bush's folly, I'm not so naive as to believe that this will stop when and if we leave. These "desperate people" are ball-less wonders who don't have the courage to do anything themselves, but will coerce people who are incapable of understanding into doing it for them.

The question, in this instance, is not "Why are they doing this?, but "what kind of lowlife pondscum makes children and the retarded kill themselves for political/social/religious agendas that they cannot possibly understand?" And it's perfectly well understood that this kind of cowardice isn't limited to Muslim extremists.

Remotely I can understand. Assuming they examined the remains of the bomb, an experienced investigator should be able to tell. There'd be bits of the trigger left and such. Note that there's to big "if's" there: both having an experienced investigator and actually having enough remains of the bomb.One would think that in a city like Baghdad there has been more than enough 'experience' for there to be an experienced investigator around.

I doubt they'd just need to see remains of the bombs. If they're able to place a call to a mobile phone that happened at the same time as the explosion and that follows the pattern of a remotely detonated bomb then it's highly likely that the bomb was remotely detonated. Also, if they can't find the transmitter and receiver phone on the networks any more or that the transmitter phone was a payphone than that makes it even more likely.

This, by far, has to be the most depressing news I've heard all day. I mean, (if the story is true) can there be anything more evil than taking advantage of the mentally handicapped in such a callous and disgusting way? Not really sure if anyone was aware of this. Thoughts?
My sympathies go out to the victims' families. This includes the "bombers", whether they were or weren't responsible.

Controversial point to make here: The fact that these people are mentally handicapped does not dramatically set them apart from other suicide bombers. All ground troops for this kind of radicalism, whether you call them "terrorists", "insurgents" or "enemies", are confused, wounded and/or scared individuals who are misused by their collective. Some have this confusion from birth, others are driven to it by war and poverty, and others simply through having been stowed away in a secluded life of acknowledgable Right and Wrong then suddenly cast into the real world. No matter where it comes from, to abuse this confusion for your own selfish ambition is villainry, and to be the victim of it, tragic. I agree with Anti-Social Darwinism (the person, not the idea) when s/he says:

The question, in this instance, is not "Why are they doing this?, but "what kind of lowlife pondscum makes children and the retarded kill themselves for political/social/religious agendas that they cannot possibly understand?" And it's perfectly well understood that this kind of cowardice isn't limited to Muslim extremists.
The only modification I would make is to modify the question to "what kind of lowlife pondscum makes children, the retarded and the vulnerable kill themselves for...". That a woman who's lost her husband to American military attack, a boy left to be raised in a street gang with no sense of empathy, a teenager confronting the failings of the teachings of his childhood, a young adult in constant fear of what happens after death or a man fearing for the safety of his family are all abused for selfish agenda is no less tragic.

Just as soon as we "wake up and understand there are people in this world that want to kill others "In the name of God"?

Just how many Iraqis were involved in "flying aircraft into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people"?

Quick answer: NONE!!

How many Americans were involved in dropping bombs "into buildings and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people"

Sad answer: far too many!!

Well, this is a democracy, so we all had a hand in it.

Well, this is a democracy, so we all had a hand in it.
Not quite true. Many Americans got involved in peace marches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#Americas)before Dubya made the call to invade Iraq.

You know, it just occurred to me.. This is the first evidence we have for equal-opportunity employment for the exceptionally challenged in terrorist organizations. Maybe instead of being heinous, Al-Qaeda were just being progressive.

Who killed innocent people on 911? Radical Muslims.
Let's see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#The_hijackers):

Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.
Hmmmm.....not even one Iraqi.

Who killed innocent people in Madrid? Radical Muslims.
Again let's take a look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Responsibility):

Seems like nobody knows for sure. Lots of finger pointing but nothing definite:

Again, notice that no Iraqis took part.

Who killed innocent people in London? Radical Muslims.
According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Bombers.27_profiles):

Again, no Iraqis involved. Three natives from England, one from Jamaica.

Again, notice that no Iraqis took part.

Who used mentally challenged women to kill people in Baghdad? Radical Muslims.
How do we know for a fact that these women were actually Downs Syndrome? Many female suicide bombers are those who have lost loved ones during this insane carnage that grips Iraq.

Now, unlike the others, this appears to involve Iraqis, but that is somewhat expected given the fact that it occurred in Iraq, and is perhaps part of sectarian violence that has flared since the US invaded Iraq.

I don't see any follies here.
The follies here, is that you feign outrage over the modus operandi involved here, yet totally support Bush's war against Iraq that has killed, maimed, and mutilated tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

The biggest part of the folly is that you are trying to connect this to the tradgedy of 911. Shame on you.

The radical Muslims did what they set out to accomplish so why don't you condemn them for killing innocent women and children?
Certainly a despicable act on the part of the prepetrators, but it certainly pales in light of the horrific carnage that has been inflicted on the Iraqis by the willing coalition.

I suggest that they were demonized by the horrific war(s) that has/have been inflicted upon them. I wonder how any of us would behave given the same circumstances?
Is that really how you think?

I know you don't usually feature much in the discussions on philosophy and the deeper parts of being human...but do you really think you would strap a bomb to someone and send them to their (and many others') death if someone came and invaded Canada?

So you don't think the people who strapped a remote-controlled bomb to a retarded woman and sent her into a crowd should be hunted down and perhaps killed (assuming they don't submit to being led off to jail)?

I'd prefer seeing them in jail.
And what I would really, really, REALLY, REALLY like to see is them being finally treated as what they are :

Criminals. Not enemies.

Is that really how you think?

I know you don't usually feature much in the discussions on philosophy and the deeper parts of being human...but do you really think you would strap a bomb to someone and send them to their (and many others') death if someone came and invaded Canada?
If you thought it was in the greater good, I doubt there's much you wouldn't do. Even kill people. Even send other people to their deaths to kill people. After all, didn't you say as much?

So you don't think the people who strapped a remote-controlled bomb to a retarded woman and sent her into a crowd should be hunted down and perhaps killed ... ?

If you thought it was in the greater good, I doubt there's much you wouldn't do. Even kill people. Even send other people to their deaths to kill people. After all, didn't you say as much?

Isn't this essentially saying 'if you thought killing people was good, you'd be killing people'? Doesn't mean all that much.

Is that really how you think?
I proffered one suggestion and framed one question. Which one are you questioning?

I know you don't usually feature much in the discussions on philosophy and the deeper parts of being human
I don't really know where you are going with the first part of your question, but it is ultimately superfluous to the actual question?

...but do you really think you would strap a bomb to someone and send them to their (and many others') death if someone came and invaded Canada?
My question was meant to provoke some inward reflection by the reader.

As to myself, I don't think I am capable of doing such a thing, but being devoid of the reality, all I can do is wonder how anyone else would behave to the ongoing carnage being inflicted upon the Iraqis, if they were in fact one of those people.

Isn't this essentially saying 'if you thought killing people was good, you'd be killing people'? Doesn't mean all that much.
It means a lot in the context. Anyone, if made to believe that causing another's death would be a good thing, could be persuaded to do it. And this bloodlust for terrorists as much as proves it.

It means a lot in the context. Anyone, if made to believe that causing another's death would be a good thing, could be persuaded to do it. And this bloodlust for terrorists as much as proves it.

Yeah, but it's not all that easy to convince ordinary people indiscriminate killing is great. At least I hope not.

I suggest that they were demonized by the horrific war(s) that has/have been inflicted upon them. I wonder how any of us would behave given the same circumstances?


As I recall no European resistance groups in WWII ever strapped bombs on retards and send them off to blow something up.... neither did they bomb their own civilians, bomb german busses or trains nor crashing planes into german buildings killing hundreds or thousands of civilians... And strapping bombs on retards and letting them blow them selves up is cowardice, despicable, sick and not wothy of a decent human being, but then again we are talking about terrorists :mad:

And blaming the US led war as the main cause of fanatical islamist groups is just plain dumb :rolleyes: It might have strengthend them but these groups didn't come into existance because of the US... Religions allways breed fundamentalists, there is allways someone killing in the name of some God..

What about the knights?
Seriously, the crusaders is far more baddier than any of us (including me, which have a hand at the plundering and killing of many civilians, in RTS :D)
_________________________
[Goes ontopic]

True, but I'd say the European power, as a whole, is the one who drove us mad like this. True, the Sunni may be the one who make all this, but the Turks can be too...

I confused who to be mocked at...

It means a lot in the context. Anyone, if made to believe that causing another's death would be a good thing, could be persuaded to do it. And this bloodlust for terrorists as much as proves it.
I agree.

Yeah, but it's not all that easy to convince ordinary people indiscriminate killing is great. At least I hope not.
You don't need to convince them it's great. Just that it's worth doing. And you'd be surprised how easy that can be when people become emotionally unstable.

And blaming the US led war as the main cause of fanatical islamist groups is just plain dumb :rolleyes: It might have strengthend them but these groups didn't come into existance because of the US... Religions allways breed fundamentalists, there is allways someone killing in the name of some God..
Then please explain this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html):

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

blah

blah

blah


May God bless our country and all who defend her.

Terrorists, assasins, hitmans, killer, murderer, soldier (sometimes), etc

All have a bloodlust to kill others. Believe me. Even thought he don't have it when he started, after some while he will. BELIEVE ME...

And blaming the US led war as the main cause of fanatical islamist groups is just plain dumb :rolleyes: It might have strengthend them but these groups didn't come into existance because of the US... Religions allways breed fundamentalists, there is allways someone killing in the name of some God..

But the US did strengthen Al Quaeda significantly, as they wanted to give the USSR a "Vietnam". Al Quaeda could not do what they have done without the previous support from the US.

Also, I haven't seen any credible witnesses confirming that disabled people were used. Considering the web of lies that has come out of Iraq, I wouldn't accept this load of rubbish.

We don't need to demonize this enemy. They have demonized themselves.

Hunt 'em down and kill 'em.

So Iraqis kill Iraqis.

And we (the West) have to "hunt em down and kill 'em".

Erm, no?

wait, if it was a suicide bomber then how did they know it had down syndrome?

Terrorists, assasins, hitmans, killer, murderer, soldier (sometimes), etc

All have a bloodlust to kill others. Believe me. Even thought he don't have it when he started, after some while he will. BELIEVE ME...
And None of them should ever have been made to become what they were! This is the greatest travesty of our times; not that peoples were oppressed, that ideals were abandoned or even that innocents were killed, but that we (the West and its opponents in collusion) continue to turn scared, confused and vulnerable people into mass murderers through our own arrogance and selfish ambition!

It is not enough to oppose the West. It is not enough to oppose "terrorism". If we want to make things better, we need to oppose injustice itself. And you cannot do that with guns, bombs, resolutions or even clever words. The most powerful and devastating weapon we have in the struggle against injustice is Compassion. Whether we realise it or not, everyone is armed to the teeth with it. So why aren't we using it?

Emm, I now still opposing the west. Compassion? Bah! How can I be in a same side as a corrupted psycho hitman?!

And None of them should ever have been made to become what they were! This is the greatest travesty of our times; not that peoples were oppressed, that ideals were abandoned or even that innocents were killed, but that we (the West and its opponents in collusion) continue to turn scared, confused and vulnerable people into mass murderers through our own arrogance and selfish ambition!

It is not enough to oppose the West. It is not enough to oppose "terrorism". If we want to make things better, we need to oppose injustice itself. And you cannot do that with guns, bombs, resolutions or even clever words. The most powerful and devastating weapon we have in the struggle against injustice is Compassion. Whether we realise it or not, everyone is armed to the teeth with it. So why aren't we using it?
Quoted for absolute truth. Emphasis added for emphasis.

As for the question at the end, here is your answer:

Originally Posted by New Mitanni
We don't need to demonize this enemy. They have demonized themselves.

Hunt 'em down and kill 'em.
Emm, I now still opposing the west. Compassion? Bah! How can I be in a same side as a corrupted psycho hitman?!
People do not use their compassion because they don't want to. Because they simply prefer to be violent and destructive, and to wallow in hate and self-pity rather than fix their problems (because a fixed problem is not something you can wallow in). Maybe it gratifies their egos to cast themselves as heroes in some elaborate fictional drama, and that is more fun than doing the hard, boring, thankless work of actually improving society so that injustice does not happen again. And of course, laying blame is always so much easier than taking responsibility.

And the rest of us suffer while these two (and their kind) play their murderous, childish, counter-productive, and ultimately pointless little game. Ye gods, they bring nothing to life that is not bitter and depressing. I am so tired of them.

Emm, I now still opposing the west. Compassion? Bah! How can I be in a same side as a corrupted psycho hitman?!
Guess what? He's in exactly the same situation you are. He's doing what he thinks he needs to do. Sure, that's because he's been corrupted by his experiences, but are you any different? Your experiences have taught you that people need to die to set you free; how is that any less of a corruption than his? You think you're doing it for some grand scheme to save the world and he's doing it to line his pockets with gold, but deep down you're both driven by the same motivation: to do what needs to be done.

We're all on the same side; we want to make the world a better place both for ourselves and those who follow after us. We're just infighting, is all.

I'd prefer seeing them in jail.
Of course I would too. You know I'm not a fan of the death penalty.

But on balance, it looks as though these types don't tend to submit when the police asks them to come out with their hands up. And if they start shooting out of the window, then killing them may well be the only option.

If you thought it was in the greater good, I doubt there's much you wouldn't do. Even kill people. Even send other people to their deaths to kill people. After all, didn't you say as much?
No, I didn't. You have me confused with the revenge-seeking types.

I said that by doing something as bad as this, they have basically chosen to ignore all rules of morality or acceptable human behaviour - regardless of cultural influences. That makes them not only a danger to everyone else, but also deserving of punishment.

If they refuse to be arrested and the choice is between killing them or walking away and doing nothing, I'm firmly in the former camp. That has nothing to do with bloodlust, but everything to do with keeping humanity from destroying itself.

What I find interesting is that if I had put it this way to start with, I might not have gotten the same responses - even though what I actually said hasn't changed one bit.

I don't really know where you are going with the first part of your question, but it is ultimately superfluous to the actual question?
It's not as superfluous as you think it is. You're basically putting it to me that I am in no way able to properly judge these terrorists because of your suggestion that I'd do exactly the same thing in their situation.

That's probably the most deterministic, free-will-denying, amoral (or immoral, take your pick) statement I've heard here yet, because unlike most of those, I think you actually meant this one.

As to myself, I don't think I am capable of doing such a thing, but being devoid of the reality, all I can do is wonder how anyone else would behave to the ongoing carnage being inflicted upon the Iraqis, if they were in fact one of those people.
The carnage is being inflicted mostly by Iraqis upon other Iraqis. That means that these terrorists are in fact the reason for the carnage (again, to suggest that the US invasion somehow caused them to kill other Iraqis smacks of determinism).

But anyways, the real point in the quote are in the first line. If you don't see yourself doing something like this despite what happened (and "I don't know 100%" is not a valid escape route here), then there must be some difference between you and the people who did this. What is it?

So, it is America's fault that radical Muslims want to kill Muslims, Americans, Europeans, etc?

Is it Iraqs fault?


And, the bombing of Pearl Harbor should not be an excuse for America's entry into WWW II?
Then it makes sense that 911 should not be an excuse for America entering into a war with RADICAL Muslims.

the problem is that when America was attacked at Pearl Harbor it fought against the attacker and their allies. In this case Iraq had nothing to do with the intial attack. It was invaded for no reason. So no, not an excuse at all.

Now that I think about it, how does he know they had Down's Syndrome

Their facial features tend to give it away.

On the up side, the west is fairly well set to claim the moral high ground.

On the up side, the west is fairly well set to claim the moral high ground.

Invading countries allows us to claim the moral high ground? Wow.

Invading countries allows us to claim the moral high ground? Wow.

Lesser of the two evils. Invading another country isn't always worse than picking two mentally challenged women, strapping bombs to them (likely without their knowledge), sending them into a crowded market, and blowing them up from a safe location. The former, in this case, was the result of a man wanting to finish what his father started, very faulty intelligence, a very hateable and untrustworthy dictator (to be overthrown, arrested, and eventually executed by the people he oppressed), and duped masses. The latter is the result of millenia of sectarian hatred and a desperate and heartless person or group of people.

The Sunnis and Shiites wanted eachother dead over a millenium before Bush was even born. The only reason the violence seems to have started recently was because a certain dictator kept them oppressed under his rule. They couldn't fire a shot at eachother or blow up a bomb if they wanted to. Again, we're getting into "two evils" country here. Two groups murdering eachother is bad, but so is a dictator who would do anything to stay in power. His cousin or brother or something also gassed some thousands of Kurds to death once.

The invasion didn't start this hatred. The hatred is about as old as the religion that is being used as an excuse. If everyone was atheist, the violence wouldn't stop. The only thing that would change would be the excuses.

Lesser of the two evils. Invading another country isn't always worse than picking two mentally challenged women, strapping bombs to them (likely without their knowledge), sending them into a crowded market, and blowing them up from a safe location. The former, in this case, was the result of a man wanting to finish what his father started, very faulty intelligence, a very hateable and untrustworthy dictator (to be overthrown, arrested, and eventually executed by the people he oppressed), and duped masses. The latter is the result of millenia of sectarian hatred and a desperate and heartless person or group of people.

The Sunnis and Shiites wanted eachother dead over a millenium before Bush was even born. The only reason the violence seems to have started recently was because a certain dictator kept them oppressed under his rule. They couldn't fire a shot at eachother or blow up a bomb if they wanted to. Again, we're getting into "two evils" country here. Two groups murdering eachother is bad, but so is a dictator who would do anything to stay in power. His cousin or brother or something also gassed some thousands of Kurds to death once.

The invasion didn't start this hatred. The hatred is about as old as the religion that is being used as an excuse. If everyone was atheist, the violence wouldn't stop. The only thing that would change would be the excuses.

The invasion is what got rid of the man who was preventing this hatred from being physical. Also approx. 81 000- 88 500 (documented number, although for sure not all deaths have been) have died due to the invasion, maybe the hatred was there before the invasion but the violence was not in this amount. The west has caused these groups into the countries they are in now and has gotten rid of the man (even if he was "evil") who was stopping the violence. Moral high-ground how?

The oil must flow!

The invasion is what got rid of the man who was preventing this hatred from being physical. Also approx. 81 000- 88 500 (documented number, although for sure not all deaths have been) have died due to the invasion, maybe the hatred was there before the invasion but the violence was not in this amount. The west has caused these groups into the countries they are in now and has gotten rid of the man (even if he was "evil") who was stopping the violence. Moral high-ground how?

Two evils. The post-invasion violence would not have been this bad if the invasion itself wouldn't have been screwed up by the poor planning, faulty intelligence, and flawed leadership that plagued the invasion from day one. The invasion was bad, but so was the government it toppled. Again, we're in Two-Evil Country, population: everyone.

Of course I would too. You know I'm not a fan of the death penalty.

But on balance, it looks as though these types don't tend to submit when the police asks them to come out with their hands up. And if they start shooting out of the window, then killing them may well be the only option.

No, I didn't. You have me confused with the revenge-seeking types.

I said that by doing something as bad as this, they have basically chosen to ignore all rules of morality or acceptable human behaviour - regardless of cultural influences. That makes them not only a danger to everyone else, but also deserving of punishment.

If they refuse to be arrested and the choice is between killing them or walking away and doing nothing, I'm firmly in the former camp. That has nothing to do with bloodlust, but everything to do with keeping humanity from destroying itself.

What I find interesting is that if I had put it this way to start with, I might not have gotten the same responses - even though what I actually said hasn't changed one bit.

It's not as superfluous as you think it is. You're basically putting it to me that I am in no way able to properly judge these terrorists because of your suggestion that I'd do exactly the same thing in their situation.

That's probably the most deterministic, free-will-denying, amoral (or immoral, take your pick) statement I've heard here yet, because unlike most of those, I think you actually meant this one.

The carnage is being inflicted mostly by Iraqis upon other Iraqis. That means that these terrorists are in fact the reason for the carnage (again, to suggest that the US invasion somehow caused them to kill other Iraqis smacks of determinism).

But anyways, the real point in the quote are in the first line. If you don't see yourself doing something like this despite what happened (and "I don't know 100%" is not a valid escape route here), then there must be some difference between you and the people who did this. What is it?
Absolutely incredible. Your stance that is. You are trying to claim the moral high ground whilst actively supporting the continuation of this immoral occupation and war against Iraqis.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been killed or injured as a result of flawed US foreign policy. How many of these people are mentally deranged as a result of this ongoing carnage? How many of them have developed fear and hatred towards their occupiers?

And if you want to talk about mans' inhumanity to man, do a Google for Highway of Death (Gulf War), or Battle of Fallujah. The first Battle of Fallujah was in retaliation for the brutal death of 4 contractors. The 2nd Battle of Fallujah was basically a massacre.

And if you don't think that the majority of sectarian violence in Iraq isn't the result of the US invasion, then you just haven't been paying attention?

Try looking at the bigger picture.

BTW, I never accused, that you would "do exactly the same thing in their situation". My words were rather explicit:

I suggest that they were demonized by the horrific war(s) that has/have been inflicted upon them. I wonder how any of us would behave given the same circumstances?
Only reality would help us to answer that question.

Absolutely incredible. Your stance that is. You are trying to claim the moral high ground whilst actively supporting the continuation of this immoral occupation and war against Iraqis.
So you are avoiding the answer, are you?

You know my stance on the war. I was against it at the beginning, but I think that at this point in time the US military is the only force that can provide the muscle that is needed to get any sort of political situation moving - apart from also protecting civilian populations from at least some of the sectarian violence. It can't bring a solution, but there can be no solution without it. You want to debate that, fine, but don't tell me anything about war against Iraqis or occupations. This is neither.

And if you want to talk about mans' inhumanity to man, do a Google for Highway of Death (Gulf War), or Battle of Fallujah. The first Battle of Fallujah was in retaliation for the brutal death of 4 contractors. The 2nd Battle of Fallujah was basically a massacre.
And in none of these cases did the US military set out to cause civilian casualties or otherwise commit what one can reasonably call an act of terror. Don't you think intention carries any weight when trying to assess the moral value of an action? Indeed, would you think that not attacking the city, knowing that Zarqawi and thousands of his fighters had made it into a fortress and base of operations, would have been a better option?

And if you don't think that the majority of sectarian violence in Iraq isn't the result of the US invasion, then you just haven't been paying attention?
I'm not talking about "sectarian violence", I am talking about strapping explosives to someone and using them as a weapon to intentionally cause the mass slaughter of innocent people. That is an action involving individuals with the ability to think and to make moral choices, regardless of what happened before, during or after the decision is made.

Let's for once do what we should be doing all the time and think of these people as people. Think of someone standing in your room right now grabbing some victim and strapping a bomb belt to it, telling you about the need to destroy the infidels or whatever (because this was not about killing occupiers, there were no Americans around). Don't tell me you and this person are interchangable, that this person is doing nothing wrong and that you can somehow blame this person's choice at that point in time on US foreign policy.

BTW, I never accused, that you would "do exactly the same thing in their situation".
It is the only possible implication of your words in this context. Unfortunately you can't get around that.

I called you on it, let's move on: if you don't think that we would do this sort of thing in their situation, then what makes them different from us, and does that merit punishment?

Two evils. The post-invasion violence would not have been this bad if the invasion itself wouldn't have been screwed up by the poor planning, faulty intelligence, and flawed leadership that plagued the invasion from day one. The invasion was bad, but so was the government it toppled. Again, we're in Two-Evil Country, population: everyone.

I tend to compare two evils by numbers : Which of the two caused more suffering, and more deaths?

Absolutely incredible. Your stance that is. You are trying to claim the moral high ground whilst actively supporting the continuation of this immoral occupation and war against Iraqis.

So you are avoiding the answer, are you?

You know my stance on the war. I was against it at the beginning, but I think that at this point in time the US military is the only force that can provide the muscle that is needed to get any sort of political situation moving - apart from also protecting civilian populations from at least some of the sectarian violence. It can't bring a solution, but there can be no solution without it. You want to debate that, fine, but don't tell me anything about war against Iraqis or occupations. This is neither.


You've got a point there, I'm afraid.
The USA triggered the violence in Iraq. If they leave now, that will not suddenly stop Iraqis from killing each other, on the contrary. The country will most likely decend even further into civil war, literally taking itself back to the stone ages.
I've had that feeling right from the start, and unfortunately it's being confirmed day after day after day : The USA trying to mime the big man, invading a country, not getting anywhere with it but causing momentous mayhem and death tolls beyond comprehension, and once they realise they can't win without a similar toll on themselves withdrawing, calling it victory and leaving the place a complete mess.
UNESCO and other aid organistations will later move in to try and fix at least some of the damage, but won't exactly be successful.

Well, at least the horde can be convinced to invade Israil...

Invading countries allows us to claim the moral high ground? Wow.

I don't advocate an aggressive foreign policy where Islamic fundamentalism is concerned; however, I'd suggest any reasonable code of morals would consider invasion, well intention if misguided, to be rather better than using remote control retarded suicide bombers. That, I fear, is plumbing the depths of immorality.

Their facial features tend to give it away.

facial features of what? surely their face was blown to pieces

and if anyone was near enough to see, surely they were blown to pieces too

facial features of what? surely their face was blown to pieces

and if anyone was near enough to see, surely they were blown to pieces too

Yes, Downs Syndrome individuals have very distinctive facial features. Such that it does not take a medical expert to recognise. However, bearing in mind that these were females, I would assume their faces were covered with veils... unless they were not muslim, which raises more questions than answers.

I am a little skeptical about the reliability of the report that these bombers had Downs Syndrome.
However, IF they were, then I see this as nothing short of exploitation of individuals who were definately not willing participants. Anyone who knows someone with Downs Syndrome will attest to the fact that these people are completely devoid of a judgemental streak. They hold no malice toward anyone and possess such a personality that they percieve strangers as trustworthy. Often, Down Syndrome 'sufferers' retain very childlike qualities throughout their life.
They would be very easy to manipulate into doing something like this, and if it is true then I am abhorred by the type of mentality which would abuse these women.

Occams razor time people. You are a terrorist. You think, "I can manipulate this Downs Syndrome person past a guard". You then think "Oh crap, they are completely gormless. If a guard asks them what are you doing, they'd be naive enough to say, Jimmy strapped this to me. " Bad idea.

You then think "Lets just get one of the 100s of people who have lost everything they hold dear, their wife, their child, due to the violence they blame on the Americans to carry the bomb. Much better idea."

Does anyone here honestly think the Downs syndrome story has a shred of credibilty? Those who voted for Bush need not answer.

Occams razor time people. You are a terrorist. You think, "I can manipulate this Downs Syndrome person past a guard". You then think "Oh crap, they are completely gormless. If a guard asks them what are you doing, they'd be naive enough to say, Jimmy strapped this to me. " Bad idea.

You then think "Lets just get one of the 1000s of people who have lost everything they hold dear, their wife, their child, due to the violence they blame on the Americans to carry the bomb. Much better idea."Logic 101.
.
Does anyone here honestly think the Downs syndrome story has a shred of credibilty? Those who voted for Bush need not answer.(those with an IQ lower than 60):D

Occams razor time people. You are a terrorist. You think, "I can manipulate this Downs Syndrome person past a guard". You then think "Oh crap, they are completely gormless. If a guard asks them what are you doing, they'd be naive enough to say, Jimmy strapped this to me. " Bad idea.

You then think "Lets just get one of the 100s of people who have lost everything they hold dear, their wife, their child, due to the violence they blame on the Americans to carry the bomb. Much better idea."

Does anyone here honestly think the Downs syndrome story has a shred of credibilty? Those who voted for Bush need not answer.Not all people with down syndrome have IQs that low, you know. You must not think very much of them to understimate them as a whole by such a degree.

It's unspeakably disgusting.
It's also positive. It may mean that at last it's getting ever harder to find ableminded people for this kind of job.

No, I didn't. You have me confused with the revenge-seeking types...
... even though what I actually said hasn't changed one bit
I'm aware of that last point, and what I said still stands. Whether or not you're doing it out of vengeance, you did say (twice, now) that killing a person could be an ethically justifiable and approved course of action in particular circumstances. That's the point I was trying to make. No matter how contrived the example, no matter how much of a "rare exception" it is that someone could not be stopped by any other means, you think they should be killed in those circumstances. Maybe you're right that it is in the greater good, but in terms of what I'm saying, that's actually not very important; what's important is that you are convincable of the correctness of killing someone.

Maybe that's not so bleak as it seems. Sort of implies to me they may be running out of willing suicide bombers.

...unless somehow getting these victims past security is easier, but I don't see how.

Absolutely incredible. Your stance that is. You are trying to claim the moral high ground whilst actively supporting the continuation of this immoral occupation and war against Iraqis.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been killed or injured as a result of flawed US foreign policy. How many of these people are mentally deranged as a result of this ongoing carnage? How many of them have developed fear and hatred towards their occupiers?

And if you want to talk about mans' inhumanity to man, do a Google for Highway of Death (Gulf War), or Battle of Fallujah. The first Battle of Fallujah was in retaliation for the brutal death of 4 contractors. The 2nd Battle of Fallujah was basically a massacre.

And if you don't think that the majority of sectarian violence in Iraq isn't the result of the US invasion, then you just haven't been paying attention?

Try looking at the bigger picture.

BTW, I never accused, that you would "do exactly the same thing in their situation". My words were rather explicit:


Only reality would help us to answer that question.




If we leave, 2 million will die in the first two weeks. Several more million will die thereafter. This doesn't include maimed, orphaned, or any other state. That is killed. Secretarian violence, while yes a result of the U.S. invasion, was almost inescapable anyway, would have broken out when Saddam died. That's inevitable, with the violent repression of the Shi'ites going on for as long as it did. Hell, thats secretarian violence right there. "Brutally oppressing the poor Iraqis?" Yeah right. Hell, it could have been counducted much better, but why are you then jumping to "we must get out right now?" That would be the most immoral thing possible, to let a country go to hell just because everything didn't go perfectly.

If we leave, 2 million will die in the first two weeks. Several more million will die thereafter. This doesn't include maimed, orphaned, or any other state. That is killed.no you have it all wrong if we leave 6 million will die, I saw it all on my crystal ball.

no you have it all wrong if we leave 6 million will die, I saw it all on my crystal ball.

Theres a diffrence between an educated guess based on reports from knowledgeble people and randomly throwing out numbers

If we leave, 2 million will die in the first two weeks. Several more million will die thereafter. This doesn't include maimed, orphaned, or any other state. That is killed. Secretarian violence, while yes a result of the U.S. invasion, was almost inescapable anyway, would have broken out when Saddam died. That's inevitable, with the violent repression of the Shi'ites going on for as long as it did. Hell, thats secretarian violence right there. "Brutally oppressing the poor Iraqis?" Yeah right. Hell, it could have been counducted much better, but why are you then jumping to "we must get out right now?" That would be the most immoral thing possible, to let a country go to hell just because everything didn't go perfectly.

Indeed. It's just too bad that there is a somewhat large group of people that think that the coalition leaving Iraq will fix everything. It won't. It will only make things worse. Many people forget that the invasion did not create the sectarian violence. It only allowed it to resume.

You've got a point there, I'm afraid.
The USA triggered the violence in Iraq. If they leave now, that will not suddenly stop Iraqis from killing each other, on the contrary. The country will most likely decend even further into civil war, literally taking itself back to the stone ages.
I've had that feeling right from the start, and unfortunately it's being confirmed day after day after day : The USA trying to mime the big man, invading a country, not getting anywhere with it but causing momentous mayhem and death tolls beyond comprehension, and once they realise they can't win without a similar toll on themselves withdrawing, calling it victory and leaving the place a complete mess.
UNESCO and other aid organistations will later move in to try and fix at least some of the damage, but won't exactly be successful.

Well perhaps if other countries *cough* Germany *cough* start to chip in and direct more help towards this massive problem, then there could be at least a chance that Iraq is a somewhat tolerable place to live. It is ok in some of the outer parts of the country.

Well perhaps if other countries *cough* Germany *cough* start to chip in and direct more help towards this massive problem.

Why? What's in it for Germany?

Why? What's in it for Germany?

Shouldn't it be more important that we ask: what's in it for Iraq? Or: What's in it for the stability of the middle east?

no you have it all wrong, 6 million diedTheres a diffrence between an educated guess based on reports from knowledgeble people and randomly throwing out numbersand what is the name of that knowledgeble person?

Shouldn't it be more important that we ask: what's in it for Iraq? Or: What's in it for the stability of the middle east?

Not really no.

Oh sorry. You think that's why the US and UK are there? Oh... right.

Your mess - you clean it up.

Not really no.

Oh sorry. You think that's why the US and UK are there? Oh... right.


Irrelevant, whether its for oil or for stability, Iraq needs to be sorted out.


Your mess - you clean it up.

Yeah, who cares about other countries. Who cares about other people suffering. Lets just carry on with this isolationist "only act in foreign policy if its in our own immediate interests" medieval shit!

Irrelevant, whether its for oil or for stability, Iraq needs to be sorted out.
What do you mean "irrelevant"?! It's very bloody relevant! The only reason the US and UK are there now is because of strategic importance to them.

Germany, doesn't have a need to be in Iraq. It has no strategic importance for them. You don't play the 'humanitarian' card when the situation becomes harder than you thought.


Yeah, who cares about other countries. Who cares about other people suffering. Lets just carry on with this isolationist "only act in foreign policy if its in our own immediate interests" medieval shit!
How about...... you fuck up..... you sort it out? Ok?

And Realism is hardly "medieval".

Two evils. The post-invasion violence would not have been this bad if the invasion itself wouldn't have been screwed up by the poor planning, faulty intelligence, and flawed leadership that plagued the invasion from day one. The invasion was bad, but so was the government it toppled. Again, we're in Two-Evil Country, population: everyone.

But, again, the invasion ended up killing more people than the government it toppled. Therefore worse of two evils.

I don't advocate an aggressive foreign policy where Islamic fundamentalism is concerned; however, I'd suggest any reasonable code of morals would consider invasion, well intention if misguided, to be rather better than using remote control retarded suicide bombers. That, I fear, is plumbing the depths of immorality.

What good intentions where these, invade a country with no evidence that that country would harm you? My morals are fine and I think that the men, women and children that have died as a result of the USA lead attack makes their actions truely loathsome. I don't care the state of the suicide bombers, there where two of them, that it no where close to the number of civilians killed since the invasion. And while this attack it devastating, the invasion lead to this instability and has killed more.

facial features of what? surely their face was blown to pieces

and if anyone was near enough to see, surely they were blown to pieces too

I read an article where they said the could tell from picutres, but no mention of where the pictures came from etc.

What do you mean "irrelevant"?! It's very bloody relevant! The only reason the US and UK are there now is because of strategic importance to them.


Maybe, that doesn't mean the fate of Iraq is not important on a long term global scale, nor does it mean that Iraq and its population are not worthy of moral consideration.


Germany, doesn't have a need to be in Iraq. It has no strategic importance for them. You don't play the 'humanitarian' card when the situation becomes harder than you thought.

How about...... you fuck up..... you sort it out? Ok?

And Realism is hardly "medieval".

The "you fuck up" part is what is realistic, the "you sort it out" part is just a completely subjective idea that has no empirical basis. Would you say its realistic for neighbours or passers by to refuse to help when I fuck up and accidentally run over a child?

just when you think these terrorists have sunk as low as is humanly possible they prove you to be an optimist.

using the mentally challenged to kill families at a pet fair. disgust is an inadequate reaction.Agreed

... accidentally run over a child?The Iraq War was no accident, It was a Preemptive Premeditated Act, against the wishes of the German, French, China, Canada, Iran and many other Govs.

It was also Act against the wishes of the democratic majorities of UK, Australia, Italy, Spain and many other Countries.

Whoever elected the War Party to the white House+ Senate has to pay for the War.

any humanitarian help by the other bystanders (once the occupation army leaves) is goodwill-based only.

The Iraq War was no accident, It was a Preemptive Premeditated Act, against the wishes of the German, French, China, Canada, Iran and many other Govs.

It was also Act against the wishes of the democratic majorities of UK, Australia, Italy, Spain and many other Countries.

But they didn't intend to ruin Iraq and have it permanently destabalized. So I guess it would be closer to me doing the foolish act of drunk driving, against the wishes of everyone else, and then running over the child. Again, would you still refuse to help?

But they didn't intend to ruin Iraq and have it permanently destabalized. So I guess it would be closer to me doing the foolish act of drunk driving...its closer to you preemptively bombing your neighbor's home, and saying you are sure he was building a weapon that -one day- could be used against you, and once the bills for the house reconstruction start piling up, you start begging others to help pay for your criminal stupidity.

its closer to you preemptively bombing your neighbor's home, and saying you are sure he was building a weapon that could one day be used against you, and once the bills for the house reconstruction start piling up, you start begging others to help pay your your criminal stupidity.

And would it be so bad to help, not for me who bombed the house, but for the sake of the neighbour's well being?

And would it be so bad to help, not for me who bombed the house, but for the sake of the neighbour's well being?actually it would not be so bad, if you had not given exclusive reconstruction deals to your wife Hally and your cousin Burton.. and they are charging $50000/hour. ;)

Would you say its realistic for neighbours or passers by to refuse to help when I fuck up and accidentally run over a child?

A better analogy would be this:

You and your friend pick a fight with someone. At first you're winning, you have him on the ground, you're raining blows in from kicks and punches. A crowd gathers around.

Somehow he manages to pick himself up in the midst of this and start landing some of his own blows. You and friend start getting worried and start appealing to the bystanders for help in keeping your target from hitting you.

The bystanders say; "Why would we? It's not our fight. You started it. We might injured, what do we have to gain from getting involved?"

Your response is; "Because it's right."

Nah, sorry. I don't think so.

Not all people with down syndrome have IQs that low, you know. You must not think very much of them to understimate them as a whole by such a degree.
I think you've missed the point here. In fact, you've missed it by so much that I would be inclined to think you have a relative with Down's Syndrome. The IQ line was from someone else, not me. I don't underestimate people with Down's Syndrome.

One thing all Down's Syndrome people have is problems dealing with ordinary social situations, let alone complex ones. Bluffing your way past a checkpoint is a complex social situation. Any perceived benefit a terrorist would get from the Downs person being trusted, would be more than offset by the risk of them saying something naively innocent and ruining the whole operation.

The point here isn't "Do I understimate Downs Syndrome people?". Is your average terrorist an enlightened equal opportunity exploder?

But they didn't intend to ruin Iraq and have it permanently destabalized. So I guess it would be closer to me doing the foolish act of drunk driving, against the wishes of everyone else, and then running over the child. Again, would you still refuse to help?
Didn't they? A happy accident, then, for Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater and all the other no-bid contractors who just happened to be all lined up for the action. Now those paychecks will never stop coming, thanks to that one monumental but totally unforeseen (except by all the people who predicted it and were shouted down) disaster.

I'm aware of that last point, and what I said still stands. Whether or not you're doing it out of vengeance, you did say (twice, now) that killing a person could be an ethically justifiable and approved course of action in particular circumstances.
And you don't? You would, for example, prefer to let these guys go free if it looks like trying to arrest them will in fact lead to their deaths?

And you don't? You would, for example, prefer to let these guys go free if it looks like trying to arrest them will in fact lead to their deaths?
I wouldn't let them go free. I just wouldn't kill them. Sure, I might get killed in pursuit of the alternative, but that's what I get for not being strong enough to stop them without killing them, eh? That's just because of my current system of ethics, though. I bet I could be persuaded otherwise if I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyway, I guess you're deliberately ignoring the point of that post, which is fair enough (we all get bored of something when we have to be told it more than once), but if the issue that led to its being raised surfaces again, I'll make it again.

A better analogy would be this:

You and your friend pick a fight with someone. At first you're winning, you have him on the ground, you're raining blows in from kicks and punches. A crowd gathers around.

Somehow he manages to pick himself up in the midst of this and start landing some of his own blows. You and friend start getting worried and start appealing to the bystanders for help in keeping your target from hitting you.

The bystanders say; "Why would we? It's not our fight. You started it. We might injured, what do we have to gain from getting involved?"

Your response is; "Because it's right."

Nah, sorry. I don't think so.

Thats a terrible analogy. Not only does it completely ignore any suffering, and potential permanent suffering the person I'm fighting experiences, but it also asks you to help me cause the fighter more suffering, rather then help him back on his feet and trying to cure his injuries.

But rather then pointlessly descend into more analogies, let me just ask you this question:

Do you want Iraq to end up in a complete fucked up mess that may present a global danger or not?

Didn't they? A happy accident, then, for Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater and all the other no-bid contractors who just happened to be all lined up for the action. Now those paychecks will never stop coming, thanks to that one monumental but totally unforeseen (except by all the people who predicted it and were shouted down) disaster.

You can speculate and make blanket statements about the intentions of private military companies all you want, even if their intentions were to mess up Iraq permanently, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq needs help. It also doesn't change the intentions of the united states military, where they don't want to waste an insane amount of money on a constant conflict in Iraq.

I ask the same question to you:

Do you want Iraq to end up in a complete fucked up mess that may present a global danger or not?

The problem is the US can not solve the mess, and due to the way they alienated the world by being war mongering, oil chasing nut jobs, no-ones willing to take over.

The US can't solve the mess as Iraqis despise them. Iraqis hate the fact that they told people to rise up in Gulf War I and then let Saddam kill them. They hate that sanctions killed 100s of thousands of their people, and the US thought the price was worth it, even though it did nothing to topple Saddam. They hate that when the US took Iraq, they put a lot of effort in making sure oil wells were secure, but put no effort to protect the Iraqis, or their national treasures.

There is such a degree of hate, that the only chance of a solution is a total withdrawal of US troops, and a UN force with a real mandate and real funding to take over fro probably 10 years minimum.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warns that “precipitous withdrawal … could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility.”


John McCain (although I know how little wieght that would carry with you) said.....well....do I even have to say it?

General Petraus.......most of the American Military commanders in Iraq right now.......you know....the people who are actually THERE and who have to DEAL with it EVERY DAY, the people whos JOB it is to try and stabalize Iraq....

they all agree there will be civil war on a massive scale and millions dead

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warns that “precipitous withdrawal … could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility.”


John McCain (although I know how little wieght that would carry with you) said.....well....do I even have to say it?

General Petraus.......most of the American Military commanders in Iraq right now.......you know....the people who are actually THERE and who have to DEAL with it EVERY DAY, the people whos JOB it is to try and stabalize Iraq....

they all agree there will be civil war on a massive scale and millions dead

Which would have been a non-issue if the Coke Snorting Chimp had left Iraq alone and let the Coalition do a complete and thorough job of transforming Afghanistan first. Instead we now have two quarter-ass countries that are boiling over in insurgent violence and troop casualties on a daily basis.

Maybe the US military or Blackwater should employ these down syndrome women as mine sweepers? Doesn't seem below them after all.

If we leave, 2 million will die in the first two weeks. Several more million will die thereafter. This doesn't include maimed, orphaned, or any other state. That is killed. Secretarian violence, while yes a result of the U.S. invasion, was almost inescapable anyway, would have broken out when Saddam died. That's inevitable, with the violent repression of the Shi'ites going on for as long as it did. Hell, thats secretarian violence right there. "Brutally oppressing the poor Iraqis?" Yeah right. Hell, it could have been counducted much better, but why are you then jumping to "we must get out right now?" That would be the most immoral thing possible, to let a country go to hell just because everything didn't go perfectly.

Theres a diffrence between an educated guess based on reports from knowledgeble people and randomly throwing out numbers
An appropriate link to these "reports from knowledgeble people" based on their "educated guesses" is in order. If you can't produce such evidence, then I will believe that you are just "randomly throwing out numbers". :D

And I will leave you with a counter thought:

In Basra, violence is a tenth of what it was before British pullback, general says (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Basra.php)

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warns that “precipitous withdrawal … could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility.”

John McCain (although I know how little wieght that would carry with you) said.....well....do I even have to say it?

General Petraus.......most of the American Military commanders in Iraq right now.......you know....the people who are actually THERE and who have to DEAL with it EVERY DAY, the people whos JOB it is to try and stabalize Iraq....

they all agree there will be civil war on a massive scale and millions dead
A link(s) please that supports your claim that "they all agree there will be civil war on a massive scale and millions dead" if the US pulls out of Iraq.

So you are avoiding the answer, are you?
I answered the question. Perhaps my answer didn't suit you? You and I live in two of the most peaceful countries in the world. You can predict how you would behave admist chaos?

You know my stance on the war. I was against it at the beginning, but I think that at this point in time the US military is the only force that can provide the muscle that is needed to get any sort of political situation moving - apart from also protecting civilian populations from at least some of the sectarian violence.
You just bought into the Republican propaganda. The vast majority of Iraqis, especially the Sunnis, want the occupiers to leave. What does that tell you?

It can't bring a solution, but there can be no solution without it. You want to debate that, fine, but don't tell me anything about war against Iraqis or occupations. This is neither.
It is ALL about the occupation and the war against Iraq. This shit was not happening pre-invasion.

And in none of these cases did the US military set out to cause civilian casualties or otherwise commit what one can reasonably call an act of terror.
Bullshit. I guess you didn't do a search for the Battle for Fallujah huh?

You asked for my evidence (http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2004/12/you-asked-my-evidence-mr-ambassador-here-it)

Don't you think intention carries any weight when trying to assess the moral value of an action? Indeed, would you think that not attacking the city, knowing that Zarqawi and thousands of his fighters had made it into a fortress and base of operations, would have been a better option?
The reason for the first invasion was for retaliation for the death of 4 contractors.

And before the 2nd invasion in Nov. 2004, this letter (http://www.idao.org/2004/10/letter-from-people-in-fallujah-calling.xml)was apparently sent to stave off such an invasion

I'm not talking about "sectarian violence", I am talking about strapping explosives to someone and using them as a weapon to intentionally cause the mass slaughter of innocent people. That is an action involving individuals with the ability to think and to make moral choices, regardless of what happened before, during or after the decision is made.
And if you stop and think about it, you have people armed with next to nothing going up against forces that are armed to the teeth with the latest in technical weaponry. Like I stated before, desperate people use deperate means, and while I don't condone their methodology, I can certainly understand them doing it. It has been a very successful strategy for them.

The fact that you get your shorts in a knot over two "suspected" mentally deficient women being used as weapons, and ignore the bigger picture is beyond me.

Let's for once do what we should be doing all the time and think of these people as people.
I have from the outset of this ill conceived invasion, considered these "people as people". When are you going to catch up?

Think of someone standing in your room right now grabbing some victim and strapping a bomb belt to it, telling you about the need to destroy the infidels or whatever (because this was not about killing occupiers, there were no Americans around). Don't tell me you and this person are interchangable, that this person is doing nothing wrong and that you can somehow blame this person's choice at that point in time on US foreign policy.
Your analogy fails. Like I stated earlier, put yourself in their position, then we can talk about it.

And damn straight I can blame a failed US foreign policy.

It is the only possible implication of your words in this context. Unfortunately you can't get around that.

I called you on it, let's move on: if you don't think that we would do this sort of thing in their situation, then what makes them different from us, and does that merit punishment?
You know what makes us different from them? We sit in the relative comfort of our homes, surrounded by our loved ones and our prized possessions, while they are living in Hell.

wait a minute theyw ere remote controlled and people now think that it might have been unwilling? how can usch a thing be unwilling i mean to blow your self up or let yourself be blown up and taking as many enemies with you as you can i can't call that unwilling cause one thing is certain and that is that the "unwilling" bomber gets killed thus if they even use thier brains a little bit they could undersdtand that if they don't want such a thing just don't move near others they can't kill you for it and if they do well those "unwilling" bombers have nothing too lose
but its bad nontheless

Neu Leonstein i saw you said that only the american forces have the power to "help" (altough i call it conquer and enrichmend) those nations then why is HOLLAND so very active in afghanistan why is JAPAN out of all nations in the world the one that isn't even allowed to have an army bacause of wwII helping the usa troops with refeuling thier ships and trying to get agreements so they can acctivly join the war
and then why is the UN helping usa
belief me usa is weaker the the middle east but they can conquer the middle east because they already have europe!

ill continue later!
with more explenations

Well perhaps if other countries *cough* Germany *cough* start to chip in and direct more help towards this massive problem, then there could be at least a chance that Iraq is a somewhat tolerable place to live. It is ok in some of the outer parts of the country.

You're being sarcastic, right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Please.

Well perhaps if other countries *cough* Germany *cough* start to chip in and direct more help towards this massive problem, then there could be at least a chance that Iraq is a somewhat tolerable place to live. It is ok in some of the outer parts of the country.It was OK under Saddam as well, by that standard...

You know what makes us different from them? We sit in the relative comfort of our homes, surrounded by our loved ones and our prized possessions, while they are living in Hell.

So according to this, the only difference between us and a terrorist is that we live comfortable lives and they do not. Unless you support punishing people for this reason, you're either arguing that terrorists should not be punished or ignoring the question entirely.

Anyway, if this is the difference between us and them, you are saying that we would be doing the same in their situation, as NL says.

Anyway, I guess you're deliberately ignoring the point of that post, which is fair enough (we all get bored of something when we have to be told it more than once), but if the issue that led to its being raised surfaces again, I'll make it again.
I certainly got your point, and I was responding to it in a round-about way.

I just think that there is a very fundamental difference between violence in self-defense or as a response to the initiation of violence by another, and the initiation itself. I can for example say with conviction that I would kill in self-defense if I considered it necessary to repel an attacker on me or my friends and family. But that doesn't mean that I am such an attacker.

It's this attempt to make the two morally equivalent that I also see in what CH said in this thread and which I just can't stomach.

Anyway, if this is the difference between us and them, you are saying that we would be doing the same in their situation, as NL says.

How do you know you wouldn't?
Seriously, I'm not trying to excuse any terrorist action, far from it. But it's a valid question : If you had lived your life in oppression, if you were made to feel every day that your life is regarded as utterly worthless, if you've lost friends and family due to violence...

I've so often heard confessing "patriots" on here that they would rise up and take arms if they felt their family or way of life was threatened. Well, what do you think these folks think they're doing?

You can predict how you would behave admist chaos?
I can make an honest attempt at predicting how I would behave, yes.

You just bought into the Republican propaganda. The vast majority of Iraqis, especially the Sunnis, want the occupiers to leave. What does that tell you?
That doesn't tell me very much. The majority of people in Austria want immigration stopped too, but that doesn't mean it's a particularly good idea.

The question is who you think will actually take the place of the US forces if they left now. The Iraqi army exists only as far as it is working closely together with coalition troops - where they're not the reports of army and police basically being beholden to the various local powerful factions are plentiful.

So the Iraqi government wouldn't have anything to enforce its rule. Which means that either there will be no Iraqi government, or that it will be based on trying to compromise on the wishes of hundreds or thousands of local groups, with those who don't join being fought on a "divide and conquer"-type strategy.

Neither way is realistically going to produce peace or the stability needed to rebuild the economy.

It is ALL about the occupation and the war against Iraq. This shit was not happening pre-invasion.
Firstly, terrorist attacks did occasionally happen pre-invasion, they were just committed by different groups and for different reasons.

Secondly, they weren't happening pre-Sydney Olympics either. Correlation does not imply causation.

And finally, and most importantly, even if the Americans left today, AQ and those types won't suddenly stop bombing people to bits. Nor will the various ethnic cleansing campaigns that the surge seems to have stalled at least momentarily just disappear. Hell, you're smarter than this - you should know perfectly well that Iraq is far more complex than "Americans = evil occupiers, Arabs = resistance".

Bullshit. I guess you didn't do a search for the Battle for Fallujah huh?
I stayed away from the various opinion pieces and stuck to the more or less factual account on wiki.

You asked for my evidence (http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2004/12/you-asked-my-evidence-mr-ambassador-here-it)
So this equates to blowing up a market place in your eyes? There is not a single shred of evidence for a planned attack on the lives of the civilian population in there. There is mentioning of an attempt to win the media war, which is not surprising since the US is lagging behind AQ on that level. That's not terrorism.

The reason for the first invasion was for retaliation for the death of 4 contractors.
Have I disputed it?

And before the 2nd invasion in Nov. 2004, this letter (http://www.idao.org/2004/10/letter-from-people-in-fallujah-calling.xml)was apparently sent to stave off such an invasion
Perhaps it was. Apart from that it is factually incorrect (as al-Zarqawi did in fact exist), that doesn't tell us a thing.

And if you stop and think about it, you have people armed with next to nothing going up against forces that are armed to the teeth with the latest in technical weaponry. Like I stated before, desperate people use deperate means, and while I don't condone their methodology, I can certainly understand them doing it. It has been a very successful strategy for them.
They weren't trying to fight Americans. As far as I can tell, there were no Americans anywhere near these markets that day. And even if they were - what the hell sort of collateral damage is that? Not even the USAAF would tolerate that.

These guys are not resistance fighters. Get it into your head. They don't want the Americans out, they want them there as targets and as pawns in their campaign for the hearts and minds of young Muslims everywhere.

The fact that you get your shorts in a knot over two "suspected" mentally deficient women being used as weapons, and ignore the bigger picture is beyond me.
I am sick and tired of people hiding behind the "bigger picture" to justify evil acts. We are human beings and we have a free will. Any of these men and women could at any point have said "No, I'm not going to take part in murdering 72 innocent people", but they didn't. No bigger picture changes that fact and the consequences it should rightly have for them.

And damn straight I can blame a failed US foreign policy.
There's just not a lot of validity to it.

You know what makes us different from them? We sit in the relative comfort of our homes, surrounded by our loved ones and our prized possessions, while they are living in Hell.
No, they are living in training camps and bomb workshops, fighting the war they want to fight (as they are openly proclaiming to anyone who would listen), surrounded by their comrades in arms, their guns, their laptops and their explosives.

The ones living in hell are members of 70-odd families who are now left to pick up the pieces of their relatives. No bigger picture changes that fact.

Neu Leonstein i saw you said that only the american forces have the power to "help" (altough i call it conquer and enrichmend) those nations then why is HOLLAND so very active in afghanistan...
Because the US is the only armed force in the country large, powerful and unified enough to make a government work by lending it support.

The Netherlands are very active in Afghanistan because they, among all the other members, agreed that 9/11 constituted an attack on a member nation of NATO and as such merited a coordinated response by NATO in the form of toppling the Taliban. Following that, the UN was also consulted (it gave the blessing to the original invasion) and ISAF was created to help with peacekeeping and rebuilding. If I recall correctly, Dutch forces are taking part in both operations at this point.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with Iraq, which is neither sanctioned by NATO nor supported by the UN.

...why is JAPAN out of all nations in the world the one that isn't even allowed to have an army...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSDF

and then why is the UN helping usa
It's not. In fact, for a long time the UN left Iraq entirely after terrorists blew up its HQ there.

belief me usa is weaker the the middle east but they can conquer the middle east because they already have europe!

ill continue later!
with more explenations
Good, because we'll need them.

Well, what do you think these folks think they're doing?
These folks were blowing up unarmed, defenseless civilians in an attempt to cause chaos and bad blood.

These folks were blowing up unarmed, defenseless civilians in an attempt to cause chaos and bad blood.

*sigh*
I'm not providing an EXCUSE, I'm merely trying to find an EXPLANATION.

*sigh*
I'm not providing an EXCUSE, I'm merely trying to find an EXPLANATION.
But this one doesn't apply. This was obviously an attack not by some Mujahedin group trying to get US troops out of their neighbourhood, this was a typical "Al Qaeda in Iraq" mass slaughter trying to destabilise the place.

And those types are quite clearly not resistance fighters and they're not out to protect their homes, lives or families. I don't see the equivalence with some self-proclaimed patriot thinking he can take on the furriners with his handgun; this thought process is a very different one.

How do you know you wouldn't?
Seriously, I'm not trying to excuse any terrorist action, far from it. But it's a valid question : If you had lived your life in oppression, if you were made to feel every day that your life is regarded as utterly worthless, if you've lost friends and family due to violence...

I've so often heard confessing "patriots" on here that they would rise up and take arms if they felt their family or way of life was threatened. Well, what do you think these folks think they're doing?

I think this explanation becomes more valid when US soldiers/civilians or Iraqi army and police are targeted. Although probably not in the best interests of the country, this is understandable as it can be seen as fighting the invader. However, these people are just indiscriminately blowing up their fellow Iraqis. Civilian fellow Iraqis, for that matter. It's far more difficult to interpret that as having any other justification outside of causing sectarian chaos and havoc. I'm sure that the conditions in which those behind this sort of thing have lived in have affected their decisions. I haven't had my country bombed, so I can't know, but I doubt very much I or anyone I know would resort to this in that situation. US soldiers at a checkpoint, maybe. A market full of civilians, no. One can see that there are differences between terrorists and... well, non-terrorists which transcend conditions simply because there aren't millions upon millions of Iraqi terrorists, there's certainly enough chaos for that many to be spawned due to conditions alone.

Of course, if terrorists are purely desperate people resorting to desperate measures it begs the question should they be punished at all, which is a nasty can of worms.

But this one doesn't apply. This was obviously an attack not by some Mujahedin group trying to get US troops out of their neighbourhood, this was a typical "Al Qaeda in Iraq" mass slaughter trying to destabilise the place.

And those types are quite clearly not resistance fighters and they're not out to protect their homes, lives or families. I don't see the equivalence with some self-proclaimed patriot thinking he can take on the furriners with his handgun; this thought process is a very different one.

Well, both thought processes are very alien to me, but keep in mind that Timothy McVeigh thought of himself as a patriot, too.
I can't say it too often : People who strongly believe in something can easily become very, very dangerous.

Of course, if terrorists are purely desperate people resorting to desperate measures it begs the question should they be punished at all, which is a nasty can of worms.

Not at all.
There is always an explanation for any crime, but there are very, very few excuses. Simply because we understand why people do something like this doesn't mean that it's ok if they do it.

Not at all.
There is always an explanation for any crime, but there are very, very few excuses. Simply because we understand why people do something like this doesn't mean that it's ok if they do it.

Well, if the majority of people would do the same thing in the terrorists' circumstances, and if the terrorists' circumstances are no fault of their own, what have they really done wrong as opposed to the next person?

Can't wait for someone to come in and take this conversation as evidence that I'm an evil terrorist sympathiser.

I can't say it too often : People who strongly believe in something can easily become very, very dangerous.
George Bush et al are prime examples. :D

Well, if the majority of people would do the same thing in the terrorists' circumstances, and if the terrorists' circumstances are no fault of their own, what have they really done wrong as opposed to the next person?

If in a position to drive a car, most people will at some point or other in their lives speed. The circumstances (late for an appointment due to previous traffic, etc) might be beyond their control, but does that excuse their dangerous driving? Will that hold up in court when they defend themselves on manslaughter charges after having caused an accident?

As I said, it's an explanation, not an excuse.

You're being sarcastic, right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Please.

Oh yes, heaven forbid we actually start caring about the people in Iraq and try to do something about a potentially very dangerous situation. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, heaven forbid we actually start caring about the people in Iraq and try to do something about a potentially very dangerous situation. :rolleyes:

I meant as a reply to that particular post of mine... in which I had made the predicition that the US will leave as the popularity of the war drops and no political profit can be made with it any more, and the rest of the world paying up for the mess they leave behind.

If I'm not much mistaking, German charity organisations are down there already.

and the rest of the world paying up for the mess they leave behind.


I doubt any major set of military operations will take place.


If I'm not much mistaking, German charity organisations are down there already.

Thats all very good, but its merely treating the symptom.

I think I'll respond to both of these at once:

I just think that there is a very fundamental difference between violence in self-defense or as a response to the initiation of violence by another, and the initiation itself. I can for example say with conviction that I would kill in self-defense if I considered it necessary to repel an attacker on me or my friends and family. But that doesn't mean that I am such an attacker.
But this one doesn't apply. This was obviously an attack not by some Mujahedin group trying to get US troops out of their neighbourhood, this was a typical "Al Qaeda in Iraq" mass slaughter trying to destabilise the place.

And those types are quite clearly not resistance fighters and they're not out to protect their homes, lives or families. I don't see the equivalence with some self-proclaimed patriot thinking he can take on the furriners with his handgun; this thought process is a very different one.
Obviously, there are ethical differences between violence in self-defence or defence of the other and violence for personal gain. We've explicitly stated it to be so. But we're not dealing just with a particular system of ethics here. Ethical systems are, by and large, a construct of a given environment, and our understanding of "right" and "wrong" can be quite happily defined within the scope of the ideas we're immediately exposed to.

What we're looking at is the underlying motivations that lead someone to perform a given action - the decision-making process that ethical systems attempt to inform. And this does not widely vary from person to person; if you brainwashed any number of people to give them exactly the same sense of right and wrong and exactly the same world view, they would largely behave in the same way, allowing some variation for their physiological composition.

This is not some form of excuse, as Cabra has rightly pointed out. Thinking in a particular way doesn't make the fact that you've just blown up a bus full of people "acceptable". It is, however, an explanation, a highly reasonable one at that, and one on which few plans of action have been based, largely because people don't want to have to deal with it. We're all quite happy to acknowledge that Terrorists fight us "because they're pissed off we're there", because that gives us the impetus to leave, or that they fight "because they want power", which suggests that we should stay and fight. These are easy. We just run away or stay and fight, either of which we can do at the issue of a command. But these are simplistic explanations that glimpse only a part of the picture. In order to decide on a real and long-lasting solution, we can't afford to pick the abstraction that best suits our preferences or our desire to dictate from the comfort of an armchair. We need to work out why people are so vulnerable to manipulation and deal with that vulnerability directly. Anything else is just dogmatism.

And finally, and most importantly, even if the Americans left today, AQ and those types won't suddenly stop bombing people to bits.
When the coalition forces leave Iraq, AQ will not be able/want to carry on their mission? Certainly their influence will dwindle.

Nor will the various ethnic cleansing campaigns that the surge seems to have stalled at least momentarily just disappear.
Considering that the Sunni/Shiite feud has been going on for more than 1,400 years (http://www.newsnshit.com/), how long should coalition forces stay in Iraq? Another 1,400 years?

As I stated earlier, the vast majority of Iraqis want the US troops out ASAP, despite the consequences.

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1)

And that poll was taken over a year ago.

Hell, you're smarter than this - you should know perfectly well that Iraq is far more complex than "Americans = evil occupiers, Arabs = resistance".
That is how most Iraqis view the situation. What makes Iraq "far more complex" is the presence of the "evil occupiers". Perhaps you want to vote in this poll on their behalf because they are not capable of understanding such "complex" matters and you are?

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1d.jpg

So this equates to blowing up a market place in your eyes?
In my eyes, it is far worse. High tech weapons against defenseless civilians.

There is not a single shred of evidence for a planned attack on the lives of the civilian population in there.
Then I suggest that you are not making an "honest" attempt to discover the truth? Do some reading and stop taking the US propaganda as truth!!

There is mentioning of an attempt to win the media war, which is not surprising since the US is lagging behind AQ on that level. That's not terrorism.
However, when terrorism is perpetrated and the media is blocked from recording the facts, you will say it is not terrorism. You will automatically believe the propaganda. Atrocities exist in war and often there are guilty parties on both sides of the equation.

They weren't trying to fight Americans.
You know this how?

As far as I can tell, there were no Americans anywhere near these markets that day.
So you don't know? You just want to point to the suggestion that "mentally challenged" women were used as a weapon. You don't want to look at the broader picture.

And even if they were - what the hell sort of collateral damage is that?
You are outraged by "collateral damage", yet you support a continuation of exactly that, by supporting a continuation of coalition forces in Iraq.

Not even the USAAF would tolerate that.
Of course they wouldn't....they are saints in your eyes?

Let's take ONE lousy, recent day in Iraq:

Sunday 3 February: 29 dead (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/)

Iskandariya: up to 20 civilians reported killed during a US air strike, 5 of them children -US forces admit to killing 9.
Wake up Neu!!

These guys are not resistance fighters. Get it into your head. They don't want the Americans out, they want them there as targets and as pawns in their campaign for the hearts and minds of young Muslims everywhere.
If it is indeed AQ that is responsible, it hasn't been determined, then of course the want the US troops to stay. That supports my earlier contention in this reply. Thank you!!

I am sick and tired of people hiding behind the "bigger picture" to justify evil acts. We are human beings and we have a free will. Any of these men and women could at any point have said "No, I'm not going to take part in murdering 72 innocent people", but they didn't. No bigger picture changes that fact and the consequences it should rightly have for them.
IF you look at the bigger picture, you certainly be able to respond in a more informed manner. You certainly might have a different perspective, especially if you DO care about the people of Iraq.

No, they are living in training camps and bomb workshops, fighting the war they want to fight (as they are openly proclaiming to anyone who would listen), surrounded by their comrades in arms, their guns, their laptops and their explosives.
And the longer the US forces stay there, the more hands on training that these people receive. You can't see that huh? Remember the Afghanistan occupation by the Soviets?

The ones living in hell are members of 70-odd families who are now left to pick up the pieces of their relatives. No bigger picture changes that fact.
The bigger picture tells you that anywhere from 100,000 to over a million Iraqis have lost their lives to this immoral invasion/conquest. Tens/hundreds of thousands of others are maimed/injured/brutalized for life.

Over 4 million Iraqis are displaced....2 million out of the country and 2 million within Iraq.

No, don't look at the bigger picture, because you are now on record for supporting the continuation of the atrocities that are occurring daily in Iraq, and considering your compassionate nature, it would appear to be in conflict.

Edit: Oh, one thing I forgot to mention....you must remember that the vast majority of US troops that invaded Iraq honestly believed (thanks to Bush propaganda) that Iraq was involved in 911.

I doubt any major set of military operations will take place.


Nope, one of the small every-day ones. You know, like the one after Kosovo, and the one after Somalia....


Thats all very good, but its merely treating the symptom.

What, are you suggesting Germany send troups to Iraq to shoot at US soldiers? :confused:

Do you want Iraq to end up in a complete fucked up mess that may present a global danger or not?


Too late.
Shouldn't it be more important that we ask: what's in it for Iraq? Or: What's in it for the stability of the middle east?

The USA should hand there troops over and say "okay, we fucked up. Tell us what to do to fix it."
If they say leave, as the Iraqi citizens are doing, by the way (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2 , http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?lb=brusc&pnt=250&nid=&id= )

Ethical systems are, by and large, a construct of a given environment, and our understanding of "right" and "wrong" can be quite happily defined within the scope of the ideas we're immediately exposed to.
To a point. Yes, whether or not marrying someone from another community, or dancing a certain way, or eating certain food is permissible depends on the environment.

Whether or not you can blow up a bunch of people going about their own business isn't. That's because killing someone (or indeed initiating any sort of violence) removes any choice they have as well as removing them from any environment they could follow the rules of.

So there can be no valid ethical system under which this attack was justifiable.

We need to work out why people are so vulnerable to manipulation and deal with that vulnerability directly. Anything else is just dogmatism.
As a measure of self-preservation, what you say makes sense. But it shouldn't be any more than that. Anyone who would make themselves vulnerable (as it is of course a choice people make) also isn't much of a human being. I wouldn't want to just switch places with some radical Imam and indoctrinate these people just with a different message, since that would be wasting my precious time on people who don't deserve it.

Nonetheless, the real question is still out there: what do you think is the appropriate way of dealing with the people who committed this particular act? And why am I being attacked for stating that they should be punished? Why is it so hard for CH to answer this question, so he instead rambles on about what other people did or didn't do?

When the coalition forces leave Iraq, AQ will not be able/want to carry on their mission? Certainly their influence will dwindle.
There are no meaningful US forces in Indonesia, Algeria or Pakistan, but AQ-related groups blow people up nonetheless. The reason is that they are fighting the status quo in Muslim countries just as much as they are fighting foreign enemies of their particular utopian vision. Their influence is very limited among Iraqis anyways, but that doesn't stop them. They can blow stuff up and they can take over villages and towns even without popular support.

Considering that the Sunni/Shiite feud has been going on for more than 1,400 years (http://www.newsnshit.com/), how long should coalition forces stay in Iraq? Another 1,400 years?
So by the same token because the feud between Muslims and Christians in Yugolavia has been going on for many hundreds of years, intervening in the genocidal campaign there was the wrong thing to do.

Seriously though, what I want is an democratic Iraqi unity government. Without the US there, this cannot happen.

That is how most Iraqis view the situation. What makes Iraq "far more complex" is the presence of the "evil occupiers". Perhaps you want to vote in this poll on their behalf because they are not capable of understanding such "complex" matters and you are?
Would there be a point to asking you what you think would happen if the US left Iraq this year?

In my eyes, it is far worse. High tech weapons against defenseless civilians.
So shooting someone is worse than bludgeoning someone to death with a stick? :confused:

Do some reading and stop taking the US propaganda as truth!!
Yes, because I, of all people, am the type that buys into propaganda. :p

However, when terrorism is perpetrated and the media is blocked from recording the facts, you will say it is not terrorism.
There was no terrorism perpetrated. That's the point, neither of your links showed any evidence.

Atrocities exist in war and often there are guilty parties on both sides of the equation.
But in this case, one party sets out to commit atrocities, while the other commits them by accident. Again, do you not think that this makes a difference?

So you don't know? You just want to point to the suggestion that "mentally challenged" women were used as a weapon. You don't want to look at the broader picture.
I thought we covered the "broader picture" issue. There has been no mentioning whatsoever in any news article I could find on this bombing of US troops being at the scene or any US soldiers being killed or wounded. It was a pet market, chances are that US troops just aren't hanging around there.

As for whether or not the bombers were mentally challenged or not, does it make a difference to what we're talking about?

Of course they wouldn't....they are saints in your eyes?
Yes, that's what I said. The USAAF are saints. :rolleyes:

IF you look at the bigger picture, you certainly be able to respond in a more informed manner. You certainly might have a different perspective, especially if you DO care about the people of Iraq.
And what perspective would that be? Am I to not call for these bombers to be punished? Am I to not consider them mass murderers? Am I to look for mitigating circumstances, excuses or moral relativism in the face of this?

What stance to do you want me to take?

And the longer the US forces stay there, the more hands on training that these people receive. You can't see that huh? Remember the Afghanistan occupation by the Soviets?
Dude, they're not bombing Americans now. Don't you think that there will be plenty of pet markets around even after the last US soldier has left?

AQ has very clearly stated that it considers Shi'ites infidels and has repeatedly attacked their holy sites. It has also blown up masses of other people apparently only to create instability and fear. It's also responsible for hundreds or thousands of other killings in villages and towns all over the country where they set up their bases and imposed radical religious laws on the locals.

Why the hell would they stop any of these things? Why would Shi'ite groups not hit back, perhaps with Iranian help? Perhaps Iranian troops in Iraq wouldn't be occupiers in your eyes?

The bigger picture tells you that anywhere from 100,000 to over a million Iraqis have lost their lives to this immoral invasion/conquest. Tens/hundreds of thousands of others are maimed/injured/brutalized for life.
Actually, Iraq Body Count reckons it's rather less than that.

And I find it interesting that you would use "brutalised" here. Is that the link you're trying to form to shift the responsibility for this attack to the Americans?

No, don't look at the bigger picture, because you are now on record for supporting the continuation of the atrocities that are occurring daily in Iraq, and considering your compassionate nature, it would appear to be in conflict.
You're hilarious, you know that? You've been ignoring any of the actual questions I've asked and refuse to actually take a stance on this particular event. Yes, I'm on record for the things I've said, but so are you.

Edit: Oh, one thing I forgot to mention....you must remember that the vast majority of US troops that invaded Iraq honestly believed (thanks to Bush propaganda) that Iraq was involved in 911.
I remember...but do I care? Do I think it changes anything about the situation we have to deal with today?

I actually supported the Iraqi resistance at first when they were fighting the Americans and the puppet CPA government (ie Badr Corp, nationalists etc), but now all the 'resistance' is a bunch of religious wackos killing their own people because they don't want a fight with the real occupiers, a bunch of retards (epic lulz) they are.

Now?

Whether or not you can blow up a bunch of people going about their own business isn't. That's because killing someone (or indeed initiating any sort of violence) removes any choice they have as well as removing them from any environment they could follow the rules of.

So there can be no valid ethical system under which this attack was justifiable.
I know this is something of a tangent (albeit intricately involved), but on what basis can you denounce something as an "invalid" ethical system? Your argument appears to appeal to the elimination of choice, but who's to say that's what makes an ethical system valid?

As a measure of self-preservation, what you say makes sense. But it shouldn't be any more than that. Anyone who would make themselves vulnerable (as it is of course a choice people make) also isn't much of a human being. I wouldn't want to just switch places with some radical Imam and indoctrinate these people just with a different message, since that would be wasting my precious time on people who don't deserve it.
We clash philosophically on this, but discussion of that can be deferred to another topic. For now, I'll simply state that although your stance falls naturally out of your positivist libertarianism, I disagree with its assertions that people are necessarily vulnerable out of personal choice alone and that there is nothing that can be done with the vulnerable that would be worth my time doing.

Nonetheless, the real question is still out there: what do you think is the appropriate way of dealing with the people who committed this particular act? And why am I being attacked for stating that they should be punished?
I'm not the one attacking you for wanting to punish them, though I do disagree with the motivation, obviously. In my opinion, rehabilitation is the only valid form of Justice; everything else seems to boil down to either compensating for an inability to do this right or satisfying the vindictive desire to see harm done to us be reflected in the one who caused it. It may well be, of course, that in order to do it properly, we need to catch and imprison them for a few years, which can be seen as a sort of incidental punishment, but the punishment itself should never be the motivation for action.

I haven't answered your question yet, but given that our ultimate goal is to create a world where people don't choose to act through senseless violence, the system for how we deal with it needs to take that into account. What I think is needed in this case is capture and imprisonment (with extensive counselling and decent living conditions during imprisonment), but alongside a more progressive general social policy to eliminate the lure of radicalisation.