I hope the US Military pop one in their skulls

daveharnett

Morlar wrote: »

Going by that article locals were interviewed who confirmed the women were mentally disabled.

"attached to two mentally disabled women and detonated remotely, says a security official.
"The al-Qaeda terrorists and criminals are proud of this method," Brig Qassem Ata al-Moussawi told the BBC. "

""Forensic and bomb squad experts as well as the people and traders of al-Shorja area of the carpet market have confirmed that the woman who was blown-up there today was often in the area and was mentally disabled... "

Its possible that this story is incorrect but I dont see a shred of a basis for saying that at this point.

Look again.

The paragraphs you quoted were from "Iraqi security forces spokesman Brig Moussawi", not from the BBC's own interviews.

It really doesn't matter tbh, it's a terrible atrocity either way. The 'mentally disabled women' do seem suspiciously media friendly though.

Morlar

daveharnett wrote: »

Look again.

The paragraphs you quoted were from "Iraqi security forces spokesman Brig Moussawi", not from the BBC's own interviews.

It really doesn't matter tbh, it's a terrible atrocity either way. The 'mentally disabled women' do seem suspiciously media friendly though.

iraqi security forces spokesman Brig Moussawi told the BBC: "The operation was carried out by two booby-trapped mentally disabled women. [The bombs] were detonated remotely.

"Forensic and bomb squad experts as well as the people and traders of al-Shorja area of the carpet market have confirmed that the woman who was blown-up there today was often in the area and was mentally disabled...

"Brig Qassem Ata al-Moussawi told the BBC."

You seem to be doubting that they were in fact mentally disabled - are you basing that on anything at all ?

To the best of my knowledge there have been no credible challenges to the Iraqi security forces assessment.

daveharnett

Morlar wrote: »

You seem to be doubting that they were in fact mentally disabled - are you basing that on anything at all ?

I am doubtful. My doubt is based on the fact that there is a single source, who has every motive to demonise al-Qaeda.

I'm not saying the story isn't true. I'm just saying that i demand more evidence before i accept such an extrordinary story as fact. The say-so of one guy doesn't cut it, and i'm surprised that the BBC would publish this before investigating further.

Dinter

Ffs the PIRA were running proxy bombs twenty years ago.

That's where they'd grab a Loyalist taximan for example and strap him into a car and then force him to drive that car up to an army check point on pain of having his family exterminated.

They'd then remotely blow it up.

Personally I think that's worse than what AQ did because the taximan knew he was going to die.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

daveharnett wrote: »

I am doubtful. My doubt is based on the fact that there is a single source, who has every motive to demonise al-Qaeda.

I'm not saying the story isn't true. I'm just saying that i demand more evidence before i accept such an extrordinary story as fact. The say-so of one guy doesn't cut it, and i'm surprised that the BBC would publish this before investigating further.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3E658E4D-A543-4155-9813-BA356F698451.htm

you think al jazeera are gona be pushing western propoganda?

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

Ffs the PIRA were running proxy bombs twenty years ago.

That's where they'd grab a Loyalist taximan for example and strap him into a car and then force him to drive that car up to an army check point on pain of having his family exterminated.

They'd then remotely blow it up.

Personally I think that's worse than what AQ did because the taximan knew he was going to die.

I remember that story - far as I know they did that once to a truck driver who bailed before the truck got to the checkpoint. After the outrage they canned it as a tactic. And the truck driver didnt know the bomb was going to kill him as they told him to drive it to the checkpoint and then get out and run away - in which case the army would have shot him and the check point would have been destroyed.

Morlar

I take it back there were a handful of times when it was used and not just once (udr members, catholics working for the british army and so on - also once in london with taxi drivers) the point is it was a very shortlived tactic as most often than not the people bailed on the vehicles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

Dinter

Morlar wrote: »

I remember that story - far as I know they did that once to a truck driver who bailed before the truck got to the checkpoint. After the outrage they canned it as a tactic. And the truck driver didnt know the bomb was going to kill him as they told him to drive it to the checkpoint and then get out and run away - in which case the army would have shot him and the check point would have been destroyed.

They did it a lot more than once. It was only stopped because of public opinion, not because Army Council thought it didn't work. Other proxy bombs may have failed but not for the want of trying.

There's plenty of other results on Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

Snap.

Dinter

Anyway it's just to point out that this is not a new thing. Proxy bombs have been around for a long time. They're a horribly cruel technique but also very effective.

The biggest difference between the IRA and the terroists in Iraq is that I doubt that public opinion is going to weigh too heavily on the minds of AQ or whoever is responsible. They want to sow chaos and show the government as being impotent and this is a good way to do it.

I would imagine this is here to stay.

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

Anyway it's just to point out that this is not a new thing. Proxy bombs have been around for a long time. They're a horribly cruel technique but also very effective.

The biggest difference between the IRA and the terroists in Iraq is that I doubt that public opinion is going to weigh too heavily on the minds of AQ or whoever is responsible. They want to sow chaos and show the government as being impotent and this is a good way to do it.

I would imagine this is here to stay.

Not being facetious but I think they will run out of available autistic women just as they have run out of able bodied men to volunteer. After that it will be 5 and 6 year olds.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

then they will use puppies, goats or remote controlled toy helicopters.

They want to kill people, they will find a way that the authorities haven't thought to protect against.

Morlar

Yep - sooner the american military put a bullet in their heads the better.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that all depends on what takes their place, and how effective the 'bullet in their head' strategy is at picking the right targets and minimizing innocent losses. I'm not all that hopefull.

Dinter

Well not being facetious either but I think the suitability of autistic women lies in that they are easily suggestible and would have little thought for the consequences of their actions.

Not a huge difference between that and your run of the mill, wholly indoctrinated jihadist. I wouldn't believe they have in fact run out of volunteers. I would say the terrorists specifically chose those women as they knew it would be highly publicised. These terrorists are not like the Malays or IRA. They care nothing for their image as long as they sow destruction and fear. It highlights how the government is losing control.

Talking about suicidal animals I remember reading about how the Russians trained dogs to associate food with the underneath of tanks. They were going to strap on explosives and release them en masse at the German panzers at Kursk. But, hilariously enough, the dogs only associated food with Russian tanks and, well you can imagine the rest.

Terry

I'd prefer if these insurgents (lol) used B17 bombers and cruise missiles.
War is a lot fairer that way.

Dinter

It's funny. As insurgents they can be tortured, detained for ever with no hope of trial, waterboarded, beaten, sexually assaulted, kidnapped.

I bet they wish they'd a couple of B17's so they could claim to be a real army. Of course it didn't help the Taliban much. Entire army was just reclassified to suit. Enemy combatants and all that jazz.

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

Not a huge difference between that and your run of the mill, wholly indoctrinated jihadist.

Except the element of choice - autistic women are not in a position to make a coherent informed choice to sacrifice themselves - they are being manipulated/coerced into it unwillingly.

I would say its more likely a sign they are running out of suicide bombers than an intentional tactic. They like to paint themselves as noble religious freedom fighters and the fact that they no longer have willing pariticipants is not winning them any respect anywhere outside of islamist **** heads.

Dinter wrote: »

Talking about suicidal animals I remember reading about how the Russians trained dogs to associate food with the underneath of tanks. They were going to strap on explosives and release them en masse at the German panzers at Kursk. But, hilariously enough, the dogs only associated food with Russian tanks and, well you can imagine the rest.

I think I read that one too (clarks barbarossa).

Terry

Dinter wrote: »

It's funny. As insurgents they can be tortured, detained for ever with no hope of trial, waterboarded, beaten, sexually assaulted, kidnapped.

I bet they wish they'd a couple of B17's so they could claim to be a real army. Of course it didn't help the Taliban much. Entire army was just reclassified to suit. Enemy combatants and all that jazz.

Indeed.
The French, Spanish and Italians are praised for taking down their governments.

Granted, they didn't have to go to the extreme measures taken by some Iraqis, but they also didn't have to deal with a few invading armies either.

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

It's funny. As insurgents they can be tortured, detained for ever with no hope of trial, waterboarded, beaten, sexually assaulted, kidnapped.

And as american soldiers /christians aid workers /westerners they can have their heads sawed off slowly with a not very sharp machete - filmed and put on the internet for their family to enjoy and their bodies dragged through the streets etc

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

indeed, so we agree at last that there are no good guys in this fight. Just two different sets of bastards.

I would say its more likely a sign they are running out of suicide bombers than an intentional tactic. They like to paint themselves as noble religious freedom fighters and the fact that they no longer have willing pariticipants is not winning them any respect anywhere outside of islamist **** heads.

i'd say the fact that men get checked a hell of a lot more than women would have something to do with it as well...

Terry

Morlar wrote: »

And as american soldiers /christians aid workers /westerners they can have their heads sawed off slowly with a not very sharp machete - filmed and put on the internet for their family to enjoy and their bodies dragged through the streets etc

Help me out here.
Is it ok to kill hundred of thousands of civilians via cruise missiles, but not ok when you use an autistic woman?

Honestly, I really don't see much difference because the outcome is the same.
Bomb = Dead innocent people.

Also, why is it ok for G.I. Joe to be pissed off about his comrades being killed, but it's not ok for G.I. Mohammed to be pissed off about the same thing?

Am I missing a vital point here?

Dinter

There's a pretty good chance of that happening when you go to an area like that. Obviously I'm not condoning it.

However it does not give the civil authority the right to summarily arrest and torture its civilians in the hopes of finding intelligence. That creates martyrs and people who wish to seek revenge. For them any western target will do.

For the record I supported the invasion of Iraq. I'm a part of the West and it suits me for America to have access to vast reserves of oil. Their economy is integral to my job. I just wouldn't be blinkered as to the reasons behind it.

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

indeed, so we agree at last that there are no good guys in this fight. Just two different sets of bastards.

However wrong the americans might at times be there is absolutely no comparison in terms of moral equivalence whatsoever between them and al qaida. Generally people who try to assert that there is are al qaida apologists/loony lefties with no grounding in reality - in my view.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

was it al qaeda that bombed vietman, cambodia? was it al qaeda that overhtrew the democratically elected goverment of iran and installed the shah?

pretty sure it wasn't...

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

was it al qaeda that bombed vietman, cambodia? was it al qaeda that overhtrew the democratically elected goverment of iran and installed the shah?

pretty sure it wasn't...

Pretty sure thats irrelevant.

Let me ask you a simple question. Who would you rather be a or b

a ) you are an islamist terrorist captured by the americans in iraq/afghanistan/northern pakistan

b) you are a westerner/christian/american soldier captured by al qaida/taliban/islamist fundamentalists

Dinter

Morlar wrote: »

However wrong the americans might at times be there is absolutely no comparison in terms of moral equivalence whatsoever between them and al qaida. Generally people who try to assert that there is are al qaida apologists/loony lefties with no grounding in reality - in my view.

I take it from the use of the word might you personally don't think the Americans have ever been wrong?

In terms of moral equivalence using the most highly advanced army and weapons systems against a gang of civilian attired terrorists with no thoughts of the consequences of your actions on the local populace. Well you're right. There is no equivalence. The Americans are definitely in the wrong.

Not to overly simplify it but they are supposed to be the "good guys". Terrorists, by definition, are meant to inspire terror. Not the "freedom loving" American war machine.

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

I take it from the use of the word might . . . . .

I will put you down for a choice a) then yep.

Dinter

Morlar wrote: »

Pretty sure thats irrelevant.

Let me ask you a simple question. Who would you rather be a or b

a ) you are an islamist terrorist captured by the americans in iraq/afghanistan/northern pakistan

b) you are a westerner/christian/american soldier captured by al qaida/taliban/islamist fundamentalists

Wtf are Americans doing in Iraq/Afghanistan/Northern Pakistan?

Also Christians / Westerners were accepted in Iraq before the invasion.

Anyway you've made a very valid point. Whether you're captured by A or B you're definitely in for being tortured, you just have a marginally better chance of surviving if it's the Americans who get you.

So it's ok that a country is interning and torturing people with no real casus belli because they may at some point in the future let you go?

Wow, land of the free indeed.

Terry

Morlar wrote: »

However wrong the americans might at times be there is absolutely no comparison in terms of moral equivalence whatsoever between them and al qaida. Generally people who try to assert that there is are al qaida apologists/loony lefties with no grounding in reality - in my view.

What does this have to do with Al Qaeda?

This was carried out by people opposed to the American run government in Iraq.

Al Qaeda have nothing to do with this.
Iraqis were not behind the 9/11 attacks. That was the work of Al Qaeda.

As for your a or b question, I'd rather be killed than spend time in Guantanamo bay (based on the island of Cuba, a country that the Americans have blacklisted).


Do you have an answer for my earlier questions?

Morlar

Terry wrote: »

Al Qaeda have nothing to do with this.

If you honestly think that al qaida operate like a kfc franchise with official sanction and central control you are not being very pragmatic. Its a collective adherence to a set of jihadist principles - anyone who carries out an al qaida inspired operation that meets their criteria is a member whether they have ever signed on any dotted line in their lives.

Al qaida have and do operate in iraq - I dont care what name you care to call them - the name they call themselves is funnily enough 'al qaida in iraq'

Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, more commonly referred to as Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia or Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

they are islamist fundamentalist jihadists and they are for all reasonable and practical intents and purposes al qaida.

Terry

Not one morally outraged person to answer my questions?

Did I succeed in making you realise that the people killed by these so called insurgents are only a small percentage of civilians killed, compared to the amount killed by the Americans?
Did I succeed in making you realise that the Americans are just as evil as these people you are expressing outrage at?

Morlar

Terry wrote: »

Did I succeed in making you realise that the Americans are just as evil as these people you are expressing outrage at?

Not in a million ****ing years.

Dinter

Terry wrote: »

Not one morally outraged person to answer my questions?

Did I succeed in making you realise that the people killed by these so called insurgents are only a small percentage of the civilians killed by the Americans?
Did I succeed in making you realise that the Americans are just as evil as these people you are expressing outrage at?

Personally I think they're worse. At least terrorists don't claim to be doing this for the higher moral ground. Or to spread peace, love and the American way. They're doing it to cause terror and in this they are performing as expected.

It's the stomach churning hypocrisy of the American military that bothers me. It's trying to gloss over their actions with a veneer of "aw shucks ma'am. Ah didn't realise that was a wedding celebration. Ah just assumed they were trying to shoot down my F - 15 with their AK 47's."

Terry

Morlar wrote: »

Not in a million ****ing years.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

Could you answer this question though?
If it was the goal of the Americans t liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his ethnic cleansing, why haven't the Americans taken on the current problems in Kenya?

Surely the Kenyan people are as important to the Americans are the Iraqi people are.

Dinter

Terry wrote: »

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

Could you answer this question though?

Surely the Kenyan people are as important to the Americans are the Iraqi people are.

The Kenyans are of exactly the same importance as the Iraqis to the Americans. That's why they've done fuck all to help them.

Morlar

Terry wrote: »

If it was the goal of the Americans t liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his ethnic cleansing, why haven't the Americans taken on the current problems in

America cant address all of the problems of the world all of the time and why would they try.

You would have to be a simple flower child to argue that america should prioritise efforts in a way that goes against the strategic economic and military priority of the entire western world.

Ps I never said america went in there to 'prevent tyranny'

Dinter

Morlar wrote: »

America cant address all of the problems of the world all of the time and why would they try.

You would have to be a simple flower child to argue that america should prioritise efforts in a way that goes against the strategic economic and military priority of the entire western world.

Ps I never said america went in there to 'prevent tyranny'

See now I half agree with you Morlar.

If you remove all mention of addressing all of the problems and focus instead on prioritising efforts in a way that benefits the strategic, economic and military priority of the entire Western world (read America) than I'd have to agree.

Let's call an occupation an occupation. It's this pc rubbish of claiming to do it on the Iraqui populace's benefit when everyone knows it was done for America's benefit.

Morlar

Dinter wrote: »

prioritising efforts in a way that benefits the strategic, economic and military priority of the entire Western world (read America)

Western world means western world - not just america. Its not a strictly geographic thing. Its more of a socio economic grouping that would include australia, japan, new zealand, europe, russia, american and israel & most of south america & canada (to name a few) - you know the civilised parts

wikipedia.

The exact scope of the Western world is somewhat subjective in nature, depending on whether cultural, economic or political criteria are used. In general however these definitions always include the following countries: the countries of Western Europe(UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc), the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are Western European or Western European-settled nations which enjoy relatively strong economies and stable governments, have chosen democracy as a form of governance, favor capitalism and free international trade, and have some form of political and military alliance or cooperation.

Overheal

Morlar you're just splitting hairs. Go sit in the corner.

If you ask me going in to help the Kenyans has as much, if not more good, for 'the western world' than stirring **** in Iraq - which is only driving up the price of oil and driving global inflation. At least by going into Kenya america could try and pick up some brownie points for itself.

Terry wrote: »

Help me out here.
Is it ok to kill hundred of thousands of civilians via cruise missiles, but not ok when you use an autistic woman?

Honestly, I really don't see much difference because the outcome is the same.
Bomb = Dead innocent people.

Also, why is it ok for G.I. Joe to be pissed off about his comrades being killed, but it's not ok for G.I. Mohammed to be pissed off about the same thing?

Am I missing a vital point here?

Sad yet true. The level of civilian casualties from precision guided bombing has been a little too much to swallow as complete accident.

Terry

Morlar wrote: »

Western world means western world - not just america. Its not a strictly geographic thing. Its more of a socio economic grouping that would include australia, japan, new zealand, europe, russia, american and israel & most of south america & canada (to name a few) - you know the civilised parts

wikipedia.

The exact scope of the Western world is somewhat subjective in nature, depending on whether cultural, economic or political criteria are used. In general however these definitions always include the following countries: the countries of Western Europe(UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc), the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are Western European or Western European-settled nations which enjoy relatively strong economies and stable governments, have chosen democracy as a form of governance, favor capitalism and free international trade, and have some form of political and military alliance or cooperation.

Super.

The Americans went in to Iraq saying that they were going to rid the Iraqi people of the tyrant Hussein.
They are the ones who said they were going in to prevent tyranny.
Surely they have enough troops to send a few into Kenya to prevent further ethnic cleansing there.

Ahh well, you will all be moaning when the tea supplies dry up.

Overheal

You know, with all the ethnic cleansing, and natural selection going on down there, africans are going to be a superior species in a few generations. If they live that long...

ejmaztec

Terry wrote: »

Super.

The Americans went in to Iraq saying that they were going to rid the Iraqi people of the tyrant Hussein.
They are the ones who said they were going in to prevent tyranny.
Surely they have enough troops to send a few into Kenya to prevent further ethnic cleansing there.

Ahh well, you will all be moaning when the tea supplies dry up.

Americans like tea-parties - that's what got them started. Don't mention the tea, or they'll be in Kenya before you can say one lump or two.:eek:

Overheal

....its funny, because Tea is one of the few things Americans doesnt over-indulge in.

Now if they were threatening our supply of coffee - then we would go to war.

ejmaztec

Overheal wrote: »

....its funny, because Tea is one of the few things Americans doesnt over-indulge in.

Now if they were threatening our supply of coffee - then we would go to war.

The ultimate weapon - De-caffeinated Suicide Bomber:cool:

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

....its funny, because Tea is one of the few things Americans doesnt over-indulge in.

Go South.

They just don't heat it up over here, for some reason.

NTM

Requiem4adream

kona wrote: »

can i have the 2minutes of my time back from reading that???
its rambling bull**** with no point.

THE AMERICANS WERE ATTACKED, it wasnt a lie, THEY WERE ATTACKED.
if you were attacked in the street would you A) fight back or B)bend over???

Yeah but if you're in a fight outside a nightclub and someone punches you in the head and runs off, you dont just walk up to 1 of his mates and punch them in the head do you? "That's for your mate!".

He probably just threw a dart at a map of the Middle East to decide who to attack.

kona

kona wrote: »

thats sneaky, disgusting and cowardly.

I'm with Terry and 1 or 2 others on this one. Surely hiding on an aircraft carrier/gunship 000's of miles away carpet bombing cities that you've never seen could be described as sneaky, cowardly and disgusting.

Dinter wrote: »

Personally I think that's worse than what AQ did because the taximan knew he was going to die.

I'm not trying to make light of the usage of these 2 handicapped women, but so far, not one person has expressed outrage at the 80+ other innocent people that were killed. Surely thats 40 times worse (sic) than 2 mentally retarded women.

If you're willing to kill people, then anything goes. If you're going to be outraged at 2 people being used as proxy bombs by one side, then why not be outraged at 2 people being accidentally killed by the other side by shrapnel/collateral damage etc.

Terry wrote: »

War is a lot fairer that way.

Exactly.

Dubit10

USA USA USA USA.Were number 1 Were number 1.:D

Morlar

Dubit10 wrote: »

USA USA USA USA.Were number 1 Were number 1.:D

**** yeah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI