Sad story

[Useruser666]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16278831

Disabled child in suicide attack
31 January 2005

Terrorists used a disabled child as a suicide bomber on election day, Iraqi interior minister Falah al-Naqib said today.

In all, 44 people were killed in a total of 38 bomb attacks on polling stations. Police at the scene of one the Baghdad blasts said the bomber appeared to have Down's syndrome.

Mr Al-Naqib praised an Iraqi citizen who was killed while preventing one suicide bomber from reaching a crowd of people outside a polling station.

[Yonivore]

Such is our enemy.

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it, war is hell.

[Useruser666]

Rumor has it, war is hell.

That is not war.

[NameDropper]

Then what is it?

[desflood]

You're right, it's not war. It's evil, pure and simple.

[Useruser666]

Sending a disabled child with explosives to kill your own countrymen is not war.

[Yonivore]

Sending a disabled child with explosives to kill your own countrymen is not war.
No, it's terrorism.

[CommanderMcBragg]

War is killing and sick as it is it is weapon of a different kind.

[exstatic]

Suckwads. This is probably the only case, ever, where the suicide bomber actually DID go to heaven. Perhaps this awful act was a sign that the tide is turning, and they can no longer find insane, able bodied "people" to do these things.

[SpursWoman]

Suckwads. This is probably the only case, ever, where the suicide bomber actually DID go to heaven. Perhaps this awful act was a sign that the tide is turning, and they can no longer find insane, able bodied "people" to do these things.


I agree, and I hope so. For all of the terrible things I've heard of them doing, this surpasses the worst of them.

:(

[desflood]

Suckwads. This is probably the only case, ever, where the suicide bomber actually DID go to heaven. Perhaps this awful act was a sign that the tide is turning, and they can no longer find insane, able bodied "people" to do these things.
I think it's more a case of the defenses knowing who to look for now. But they never would have picked out a Down's kid.

[Useruser666]

War is killing and sick as it is it is weapon of a different kind.

I don' think of that as really war anymore. The people who set that up are killing their own neighbors. They are fighting for their own power, not for their own people.

[Samurai Jane]

:cry

Unspeakable...

[Yonivore]

War is killing and sick as it is it is weapon of a different kind.
So, any port in a storm, eh Commander? You think this is a legitimate military tactic?

And, here I was amazing you in another thread.

[Yonivore]

Suckwads. This is probably the only case, ever, where the suicide bomber actually DID go to heaven. Perhaps this awful act was a sign that the tide is turning, and they can no longer find insane, able bodied "people" to do these things.
Okay, I take exception to the use of the term "suicide."

[Yonivore]

I guess you've all forgotten the bombings of the 70's when they used to strap them onto baby carriages (with babies in them) and roll them into airports and such.

These people aren't any more despicable than they've always been. It's time to STFU about Bush's foreign policy and let loose the dogs of war to finish this sub-human beast of a species once and for all.

[Useruser666]

I guess you've all forgotten the bombings of the 70's when they used to strap them onto baby carriages (with babies in them) and roll them into airports and such.

These people aren't any more despicable than they've always been. It's time to STFU about Bush's foreign policy and let loose the dogs of war to finish this sub-human beast of a species once and for all.

I hope you mean terrorist.

[violentkitten]

dont be surprised if he didnt

[Yonivore]

I hope you mean terrorist.
I do.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm probably going to catch a lot of flack for this post, but that's never stopped me from posting things like this in the past.

It is war. What people here don't understand, is how horrible war actually is. They also don't understand the desperation felt by people in that culture who feel that they have no other effective means of fighting their enemy.

Calling it evil is a cop out. They call things done in this country evil all of the time, and many of you would never agree with that. In our culture, this is horrendous, and I don't deny that. But the people of that region were not the first to come up with suicide attacks.

The Japanese used in in WW2 , and I don't recall it being given the label of terrorism then. It has been glamourized in war fiction here in the US. You can all think of one movie or piece of literature where a soldier carries out an attack where he knows he is going to die beforehand but is willing to do so for the cause.

It's only semantics either way. Whatever you call it here isn't going to change the perception of the people on the ground. But quite honestly, I don't see it as terrorism.

And before anyone accuses me of condoning it, I don't. I don't condone the bombing the US does that ends up with innocent lives being lost needlessly either. However, I do believe that when people continue to label these people as evil they fail to fundementaly understand what has driven them to these extremes and instead place the reasoning for their actions on the notion that these people are fundementally worse than the average "good" human being.

[Yonivore]

Manny, it was a kid with Down's Syndrome...that's not suicide. That's exploitation...evil, despicable, vomit-worthy exploitation.

And, as for your last paragraph, there's a difference between collateral damage suffered in a legitimate act of war (not to start an argument on the legitimacy of this war - I think we all know where we all stand) and deliberately selecting the weak and infirm to serve as "suicide" bombers.

Your efforts at moral equivalency are astonishing.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, the child could obviously not make the decision for himself, so I do believe it was exploitation. But I defeinetly feel that if you can find a side free of exploitative behavior in a war, including this one, you simply are ignoring obvious instances.

Actually, the above post was mostly directed at the notion of calling all suicide bombers evil and using the word terrorist to somehow signifiy their acts as less justified as those of any other waring party.

[Samurai Jane]

Manny, these guys are bombing their own countrymen/women/children in an effort to intimidate them. This is not just your average run of the mill act of war. As far as I know, (I'm not a history scholar, mind you) the Japanese did not kamikaze their own people. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Jane,

Desperate actions of desperate people. Not the evil actions of evil people.

BTW, The Japanse did have huge mass suicides where I'm sure they forced their own people to die. It's part of their culture, and it doesn't make them evil.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding in this country about the actions of other cultures. While understanding doesn't make the actions any easier to swallow, it does bring things into a different light.

[Useruser666]

I think you have to question who "those people" are Manny. Japan was both a good and bad example. The kamikazes were military people not children or disabled civilians. They did kill themselves with the attack they carried out which is a valid comparison. Had WW2 not ended so suddenly and the US been forced into a mainland invasion then maybe such tactics would have been employed.

I don't see the people employing these types of tactics as fighting for their country or their people. They are fighting for control and power over their people. They have no interests for anyone outside of a very small and exclusive nucleus of individuals.

[Yonivore]

Ok, the child could obviously not make the decision for himself, so I do believe it was exploitation. But I defeinetly feel that if you can find a side free of exploitative behavior in a war, including this one, you simply are ignoring obvious instances.
More with your moral equivalency. Name one instance where the United States of America has done anything even approaching this level of evil.

Actually, the above post was mostly directed at the notion of calling all suicide bombers evil and using the word terrorist to somehow signifiy their acts as less justified as those of any other waring party.
Well, the thread is about using a defenseless Down's Syndrome child to commit murder.

[Samurai Jane]

Jane,

Desperate actions of desperate people. Not the evil actions of evil people.

BTW, The Japanse did have huge mass suicides where I'm sure they forced their own people to die. It's part of their culture, and it doesn't make them evil.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding in this country about the actions of other cultures. While understanding doesn't make the actions any easier to swallow, it does bring things into a different light.
I am aware of the age old tradition of Japanese people to commit suicide at the will of their master and for honor. I was referring (as I assumed you were) to the kamikaze pilots of WW2.

[Samurai Jane]

BTW, what exactly are these men so desperate for Manny?

[Yonivore]

Jane,

Desperate actions of desperate people. Not the evil actions of evil people.

BTW, The Japanse did have huge mass suicides where I'm sure they forced their own people to die. It's part of their culture, and it doesn't make them evil.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding in this country about the actions of other cultures. While understanding doesn't make the actions any easier to swallow, it does bring things into a different light.
This brings up a good point.

Just how many desperate people are there in Iraq? Because according to yesterday's voter turnout, the "desperate" people seem to be in the vast minority...and, I'm not so certain many of the "desperate" people are even Iraqi citizens.

And, if so, just when would you accept a people's "desperation" is no excuse for the types of atrocities that are being committed. I mean, is a desperate bid to achieve an objective justification to do what is being done by these barbarous animals?

You know, there are certain segments of this society, here in America, that feels desperate about various things...free speech, abortion, etc...surely you're not advocating we show understanding when they choose to start strapping bombs on their retarded children and sending them into Starbucks, right?

[Yonivore]

BTW, what exactly are these men so desperate for Manny?
Excellent question. And, does it justify their acts?

[Yonivore]

And, one more thing, Manny.

How does it fit into your "Kumbahyah-let's-understand-the-poor-downtrodden-desperate-insurgents" scenario that most of these so-called "insurgent" desperadoes are former Ba'athist loyalists, Sunni Muslim extremists, or foreign terrorists who have, for the most part, spent the past half-century killing innocent people with impugnity?

[violentkitten]

look its a part of war as much as some germans in occupied germany in ww2 strung up wire across the road which decapitated us soldiers riding in open air jeeps. war is hell man. crazy shit happens. this doesnt justify it but man dont be surprised when you hear about shit like this.

furthermore, if this was not an act of war then what exactly is going on iraq?

[Bandit2981]

BTW, what exactly are these men so desperate for Manny?
i cant speak for manny, but my assumption is they are desperate to get us out of their land

[MannyIsGod]

It's like bashing my head up against a wall.

I come out and blatently say I'm not defending the actions, and you still can't grap that Yonivore.

What I am talking about is the use of the word evil. People, including the man you think does no wrong in the white house, use the word evil for one reason, and one reason alone.

It provides a seperation between the perpetrator of the act and yourself. It provides a gap to explain the behavior as not the result of circumstance and situation, but as an indicator that certain people are destined to do the act. In a nutshell, it makes it seem as though regular humanity is seperate from the acts.

And well, that is simply not true.

You can argue it all you want, but I don't know of many psychologists or sociologists who wouldn't side with what I am saying.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, what exactly are these men so desperate for Manny?

Depends on which segment of "evil" terrorists you want to discuss.

The one's in Iraq? For us to leave.
The Palestinians? A state of their own

[Hook Dem]

Whatever you may decide evil is, the dictionary defines it as:" Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction." You may agree or disagree with that but if you do, write your own dictionary.

[Bandit2981]

Whatever you may decide evil is, the dictionary defines it as:" Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction
so if i was an Iraqi civilian, and bombs were dropped in my neighborhood from an American strike killing my neighbors, some family, and destroying local infrastructure, would i be more inclined to say the U.S is evil? or al qaida, who is battling the U.S?

[MannyIsGod]

Yonivore says:


Name one instance where the United States of America has done anything even approaching this level of evil.

Do you really want me to do this? You can't be so nieve so as to think there isn't a good history of atrocious acts by the United States in it's history of war do you?

I'll list examples in a seperate thread even though I'm sure it's just going to lead to me being told to either love america or leave it.

[Spurminator]

What this comes down to is a simple disagrement upon the meaning of the word "evil" and nothing more.

[MannyIsGod]

But it's not just semantics when the word evil is central to the way George Bush drums up support for his actions.

[Hook Dem]

so if i was an Iraqi civilian, and bombs were dropped in my neighborhood from an American strike killing my neighbors, some family, and destroying local infrastructure, would i be more inclined to say the U.S is evil? or al qaida, who is battling the U.S?
That would certainly be an option and the final decision would be yours.

[Hook Dem]

But it's not just semantics when the word evil is central to the way George Bush drums up support for his actions.
If that is your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it.

[Yonivore]

i cant speak for manny, but my assumption is they are desperate to get us out of their land
I don't know, 70 to 80 percent of Iraqis just expressed how happy they were we were there to ensure their voting rights this weekend. I heard nothing but praise for the President and the U.S. Military from Iraqis that were voting.

So, once again, we're talking about a minority, some of which aren't even Iraqi.

[Yonivore]

It's like bashing my head up against a wall.

I come out and blatently say I'm not defending the actions, and you still can't grap that Yonivore.

What I am talking about is the use of the word evil. People, including the man you think does no wrong in the white house, use the word evil for one reason, and one reason alone.

It provides a seperation between the perpetrator of the act and yourself. It provides a gap to explain the behavior as not the result of circumstance and situation, but as an indicator that certain people are destined to do the act. In a nutshell, it makes it seem as though regular humanity is seperate from the acts.

And well, that is simply not true.

You can argue it all you want, but I don't know of many psychologists or sociologists who wouldn't side with what I am saying.
No, we use the word "evil" for one reason and one reason alone...the sick fucks are evil.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The sick thing about this story is, somewhere Dan is laughing about it with his buddies at demounderground.

[travis2]

Depends on which segment of "evil" terrorists you want to discuss.

The one's in Iraq? For us to leave.
The Palestinians? A state of their own

As was already noted, the "ones in Iraq" just let the world know what they think of the US. And they didn't blow themselves up to do it. Whether you think the current war in Iraq is a mistake or not, the fact is that the majority of Iraqis are glad we are there.

The Palestinians had their shot at a state of their own. Instead, Yassir Arafat decided he wanted the Jews pushed into the Mediterranean more than he wanted "his people" (*snort*) to have a homeland.

The Israelis have been under a state of siege from the Arab world since the country was formed. Unfortunately, there are many in this country who don't seem to think they need to exist...or blithely ignore the fact that the stated purpose of the PLO (and their splinter cousins) is the complete destruction of Israel.

And on the subject of a Palestinian "homeland"...why doesn't someone explain why Jordan and Syria aren't on the hook for any of this? A large percentage of the "Palestinians" (a majority maybe??) are displaced Syrians and Jordanians. Their own countries threw them out. But no one wants to talk about that.

[violentkitten]

theres nothing i like better than reading the rantings of an ignorant little kid about how bad this country has been historically. stfu already.

[SpursWoman]

Holy crap! Manny's gone off the deep end. :wow :wow

[Samurai Jane]

Depends on which segment of "evil" terrorists you want to discuss.

The one's in Iraq? For us to leave.
The Palestinians? A state of their own

Ah, so then both of these groups should be desperate to cooperate instead of killing themselves and their own people.

With all due respect, I think it's about more than just getting us to leave, it's about power, if Iraq succeeds nothing will ever be the same for these men. Their days of doing what they want and terrorizing their own people are over and what do they have left?? Nothing. They might actually have to contribute something to society.

I think you calling them desperate and just writing off these actions is a bit of a cop out in itself. I understand that you aren't condoning their actions but you don't seem too willing to condemn their actions either. Yes, evil can be relative, but there are some things in the world that are described as evil no matter who you talk to, no matter what culture you are part of, no matter what part of the planet you reside in.

[Useruser666]

I don't think the people who are putting explosives on disabled children so they may blow themselves and hundreds of countrymen up while they are trying to vote for a new goverment are fighting for their country or their people. Releasing flyers warning everyone who wants to vote that the streets will be filled with their blood is not a very patriotic message if you ask me. The people who are conducting these attacks know they can't survive in a society that is run by choice and governed by fear. They are fighting for the control they are losing to the people they have held down for many years.

This is nothing like WW2. It is different from Viet Nam as well for Iraq lacks the backing from a large well resourced foe. There is no "Northern Iraq" to parallel North Korea. I think the elections prove that a MAJORITY of Iraqi's want to establish their own goverment, which is free and for the people.

[samikeyp]

I don't think Yoni was saying all muslims are evil...just the ones that strap bombs to themselves or kids for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. I would agree.

[MannyIsGod]

As was already noted, the "ones in Iraq" just let the world know what they think of the US. And they didn't blow themselves up to do it. Whether you think the current war in Iraq is a mistake or not, the fact is that the majority of Iraqis are glad we are there.

The Palestinians had their shot at a state of their own. Instead, Yassir Arafat decided he wanted the Jews pushed into the Mediterranean more than he wanted "his people" (*snort*) to have a homeland.

The Israelis have been under a state of siege from the Arab world since the country was formed. Unfortunately, there are many in this country who don't seem to think they need to exist...or blithely ignore the fact that the stated purpose of the PLO (and their splinter cousins) is the complete destruction of Israel.

And on the subject of a Palestinian "homeland"...why doesn't someone explain why Jordan and Syria aren't on the hook for any of this? A large percentage of the "Palestinians" (a majority maybe??) are displaced Syrians and Jordanians. Their own countries threw them out. But no one wants to talk about that.


What countries do the occupied terretories come come from? Do you punish the people for stupid leadership? If so why aren't we punishing the Iraqi's?

I don't understand why people have such difficulty serperating the plight of the actual palestians from the groups that hijack them? And why doesn't anyone ever talk about the non militant wings of those very groups who are the only ones providing basic services in the occupied lands?

[MannyIsGod]

theres nothing i like better than reading the rantings of an ignorant little kid about how bad this country has been historically. stfu already.

There's nothing I like better than a sad middle aged little man rant about people he tries to hide from. pick one name already.

[MannyIsGod]

Ah, so then both of these groups should be desperate to cooperate instead of killing themselves and their own people.

With all due respect, I think it's about more than just getting us to leave, it's about power, if Iraq succeeds nothing will ever be the same for these men. Their days of doing what they want and terrorizing their own people are over and what do they have left?? Nothing. They might actually have to contribute something to society.

I think you calling them desperate and just writing off these actions is a bit of a cop out in itself. I understand that you aren't condoning their actions but you don't seem too willing to condemn their actions either. Yes, evil can be relative, but there are some things in the world that are described as evil no matter who you talk to, no matter what culture you are part of, no matter what part of the planet you reside in.

What do you mean I'm not willing to condem them? I have in this thread!

War is War. I think the situation itself is quite vile, and I don't sit here and try to group the other sides actions as worse to make my country seem more noble.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think Yoni was saying all muslims are evil...just the ones that strap bombs to themselves or kids for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. I would agree.

I don't think Yoni was saying muslims are evil. I also don't think suicide bombers are evil.



Ok, here's a question. How would you have would be suicide bombers fight an effective war?

[Useruser666]

What do you mean I'm not willing to condem them? I have in this thread!

War is War. I think the situation itself is quite vile, and I don't sit here and try to group the other sides actions as worse to make my country seem more noble.

Yeah, the troops we send are trying to cover the backs of the people voting for freedom. The terrorists are trying to strap bombs to their own disabled people and kill their fellow countrymen for what?

The suicide bombers aren't trying to fight a war. They are trying to fight for power and control. That control is what they are losing when the people they control have their fair say. Should the vast majority not be able to vote because of the few?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think the people who are putting explosives on disabled children so they may blow themselves and hundreds of countrymen up while they are trying to vote for a new goverment are fighting for their country or their people. Releasing flyers warning everyone who wants to vote that the streets will be filled with their blood is not a very patriotic message if you ask me. The people who are conducting these attacks know they can't survive in a society that is run by choice and governed by fear. They are fighting for the control they are losing to the people they have held down for many years.

This is nothing like WW2. It is different from Viet Nam as well for Iraq lacks the backing from a large well resourced foe. There is no "Northern Iraq" to parallel North Korea. I think the elections prove that a MAJORITY of Iraqi's want to establish their own goverment, which is free and for the people.

Where did I say they were fighting for their people?


Hopefully everyone will read this and understand because I've obviously been making this an unobvious point.

The use of the word "evil" to describe another waring party becasue of their method of fighting is not only one sided, but detrimental.

I've already explained why I feel it's used. In short, I don't think many people think the United States is capable of doing horrible things such as that, and when it does happen it's justified in one way or another.

The use of the word evil prohibits understanding of your enemy. A lack of understanding can only bring about unwanted consequences. Or is it not better to understand the motivations and goals of the people you are fighting?

People keep bringing up the percentage of Iraqi's voting this weekend as a sign that the Iraqi's are happy with the United States actions to date. It's not a black and white question and it's not something that can be declared on a ballot. The feelings torward America in that country can't be defined as "good" or "bad" and I think most of you understand that.

From the begining of the occupation there have been arguments in here over the sentiments of the people there. Some people claim the insurgents signify that the people hate the US, and vice versa. It's never been that simple and blanket election figures don't make it any simpler. Regardless of what the numbers were, people in here would have found a way to spin them in their direction.

The fact is that feelings toward the US vary by geography and other factors greatly. Do you think the people of Fallujah are very happy with the US? By contrast, the people of Kurdistan haven't so much as breathed wrong torwards the US yet.

If you want to argue that the insurgents are led by people who are displaced bathists and simply want the power they lost back, that's fine. I don't pretened to be like NBADan and Yonivore and know the exact makeup of the insurgency, because I don't think anyone does. But, I do think that it's pretty safe to assume that they have recruited large amounts of people who had very little or nothing to do with the bathists. Do I think these people are fighting for the best interests of Iraq? Of course not. Do I think these people believe they are fighting for the best interests of Iraq? Of course! Maybe not the leaders, but I think a good amount of the insurgents actually are.

[MannyIsGod]

The suicide bombers aren't trying to fight a war. They are trying to fight for power and control.

What exactly are wars again? The goals of the suicide bombers are for power and control? Ok.

What were the goals of the United States when they invaded?

[samikeyp]

I also don't think suicide bombers are evil.

I guess this is where we disagree, but that is part of the fun.

[MannyIsGod]

What makes them evil Mike? They don't have smart bombs to avoid targeting civilians.

I remember back when the US didn't have these things, and it firebombed Japan and dropped a couple of nukes on that country as well.

I'm not arguing the validity of those actions, but the fact is that people in a war setting use methods that are very unnappealing. Is that what makes them evil?

[samikeyp]

To me, and again, just my opinion, I have a problem with someone strapping a bomb on to themselves and knowingly walking into a crowd of people whom they know to be innocent with the purposeful intent of knowingly killing those innocents. I will say this...the exception I have is for this poor child that did not know what he was doing was wrong. I do not think he is evil, nor would I think any child was that didn't know any better. Manny, you and I are going to disagree about this but that is cool. I would not try to insult you by attempting to impose my beliefs on you. I have too much respect for you.

[travis2]

What makes them evil Mike? They don't have smart bombs to avoid targeting civilians.

Ummmm...they're not targeting civilians due to their lack of smart bombs. They are targeting civilians on purpose. They are doing it to instill fear and pain into the civilian population, not fight an organized enemy army.

That makes them evil.

[travis2]

To me, and again, just my opinion, I have a problem with someone strapping a bomb on to themselves and knowingly walking into a crowd of people whom they know to be innocent with the purposeful intent of knowingly killing those innocents. I will say this...the exception I have is for this poor child that did not know what he was doing was wrong. I do not think he is evil, nor would I think any child was that didn't know any better.

And what's wrong with that opinion? Sounds like a pretty damn good one to me.

[MannyIsGod]

To me, and again, just my opinion, I have a problem with someone strapping a bomb on to themselves and knowingly walking into a crowd of people whom they know to be innocent with the purposeful intent of knowingly killing those innocents. I will say this...the exception I have is for this poor child that did not know what he was doing was wrong. I do not think he is evil, nor would I think any child was that didn't know any better. Manny, you and I are going to disagree about this but that is cool. I would not try to insult you by attempting to impose my beliefs on you. I have too much respect for you.

I'm not trying to impose Mike, I thought we were having a discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

Ummmm...they're not targeting civilians due to their lack of smart bombs. They are targeting civilians on purpose. They are doing it to instill fear and pain into the civilian population, not fight an organized enemy army.

That makes them evil.

Question: If they have the resources of the United States Military, do you think they'd use the same tactics they are using now?

[samikeyp]

I didn't think you were Manny, I was just giving my point of view. It's all good.

[travis2]

Question: If they have the resources of the United States Military, do you think they'd use the same tactics they are using now?

Strawman. Irrelevant.

Instead, the question you should ask is if the "insurgents" are truly after the betterment of their own people, why aren't they limiting their attacks to legitimate military targets?

Specific targeting of civilian populations is evil.

[MannyIsGod]

Strawman. Irrelevant.

Instead, the question you should ask is if the "insurgents" are truly after the betterment of their own people, why aren't they limiting their attacks to legitimate military targets?

Specific targeting of civilian populations is evil.

It is NOT irrevlent. It shows EXACTLY what I'm trying to say, and you KNOW they woudn't use the same tactics. However, admitting that might bring into the light that maybe these people aren't evil, wouldn't it?

Why aren't they limiting the attacks to military targets? Because that is not the most effective method of fighting for them!

Once again, in WW2 why didn't the US limit their targeting to miitary targets?

I'm curious Travis, why do you think they commit these acts?

[samikeyp]

actually its a good question. I think they would use the same tactics but they would have a much deadlier result.

[samikeyp]

Manny, what WW2 civilian targets are you referring to? As a WW2 history buff, I am curious.

[MannyIsGod]

actually its a good question. I think they would use the same tactics but they would have a much deadlier result.

Why do you feel they would use the same tactics vs attacking the military directly?

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, what WW2 civilian targets are you referring to? As a WW2 history buff, I am curious.

Well, for starters, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were 2 acts were the intent was to basicaly shock the Japanse government to force them to surrender. Nuclear war is terroriism by defenition, and that was a perfect of example of terrorism working.

I think the US made the right decision, don't get me wrong, but it attacked cities with large civilian populations knowing damn well they were going to take the brunt of the attack.

If you want to go to other situations you can look at the firebombing of japan as well as the carpet bombing in europe as situations were this is semi applicable as well.

[travis2]

It is NOT irrevlent. It shows EXACTLY what I'm trying to say, and you KNOW they woudn't use the same tactics. However, admitting that might bring into the light that maybe these people aren't evil, wouldn't it?

Why aren't they limiting the attacks to military targets? Because that is not the most effective method of fighting for them!

Once again, in WW2 why didn't the US limit their targeting to miitary targets?

I'm curious Travis, why do you think they commit these acts?

It is irrelevant, and what it shows is just how little you know about the US military. It also shows just how little you know about the military mission, the people, the equipment...just about everything.

Tactics is more than just resources. It is also training. It is mindset.

What you are saying with your question is that if the US troops were suddenly cut off, that they would start targeting civilians in order to impose their will. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The US did NOT target specifically civilian areas during WW2. Unfortunately, bomb-dropping technology was Stone Age compared to what it is today. Accuracy was virtually nil.

The fact remains that these terrorists target civilians. Women and children. Non-combatants. This is not a tactic. It is also not something our military would do under any circumstances.

[MannyIsGod]

Travis, training, tactics, mindset, and any other variable you want to draw up comes back to what you have at hand to fight with.

I never said the US troops would start targeting civilians, don't put words in my mouth. But it IS something our military has done.

Nagasaki, and Hiroshima.

[samikeyp]

as far as Iraq...the people doing the suicide bombing have one mission...kill the infidels. They pervert the teachings of the Koran to justify their actions. They want to kill as many as possible whether it is by rock, dynamite or RPG. They see fellow muslims who do not agree with them as conniving (sp?) with the infidel so they are just as bad.

Good examples with the Atom bombs. It could be played off as "attacking a military target with acceptable collateral damage" but with an atomic bomb, I don't think that excuse washes. To that point no one knew for sure what would happen to those people though. (not an excuse) I mean, there were '40's and 50's era Army training films showing soldiers in foxholes, letting the nuclear blast go by and then charging on without suits or anything.

[MannyIsGod]

What really strikes me is ironic, is when people go into the thread about the train derailment and state that Juan Alvarez should have to suffer the consequences of his actions killing innocent people even though it wasn't his intent.

Yet, go into a thread where US collateral damage is talked about, and some of those same people rush to flip their view, and justify it.

[travis2]

Travis, training, tactics, mindset, and any other variable you want to draw up comes back to what you have at hand to fight with.

I never said the US troops would start targeting civilians, don't put words in my mouth. But it IS something our military has done.

Nagasaki, and Hiroshima.

Yes, Manny, the direct implication from what you said is that the US military would do such a thing.

If the only thing that keeps the "insurgents" from targeting only legitimate military targets is resources, then the case can be made that given similar resources, the US military would target civilians in the same manner as the insurgents.

That's not putting words in your mouth, that's taking your thesis to a logical conclusion.

I can partially give you Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But what would you have us do? Fold up our country because once or twice we made a decision that looked right at the time but maybe doesn't pass muster today?

And what's your point in bringing that up anyway? Your initial thesis seemed to be that "nothing is black and white" (basically). Yet, you seem to be more than willing to judge US actions as black or white. I don't understand that dichotomy at all.

[Useruser666]

as far as Iraq...the people doing the suicide bombing have one mission...kill the infidels. They pervert the teachings of the Koran to justify their actions. They want to kill as many as possible whether it is by rock, dynamite or RPG. They see fellow muslims who do not agree with them as conniving (sp?) with the infidel so they are just as bad.

Good examples with the Atom bombs. It could be played off as "attacking a military target with acceptable collateral damage" but with an atomic bomb, I don't think that excuse washes. To that point no one knew for sure what would happen to those people though. (not an excuse) I mean, there were '40's and 50's era Army training films showing soldiers in foxholes, letting the nuclear blast go by and then charging on without suits or anything.

I don't think the nuclear bombing of Japan is a valid example. Those cities did have some military value and both the power and after effects of the blasts were greater and more leathal than predicted. It is also very important to note that without the use of these devastating weapons, an all out invasion of the Japanese mainland would most likely have lead to the slaughter of hundreds if not millions of civilians and military personel on both sides. The ends justifies the means in my opinion.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, Manny, the direct implication from what you said is that the US military would do such a thing.

If the only thing that keeps the "insurgents" from targeting only legitimate military targets is resources, then the case can be made that given similar resources, the US military would target civilians in the same manner as the insurgents.

That's not putting words in your mouth, that's taking your thesis to a logical conclusion.

I can partially give you Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But what would you have us do? Fold up our country because once or twice we made a decision that looked right at the time but maybe doesn't pass muster today?

And what's your point in bringing that up anyway? Your initial thesis seemed to be that "nothing is black and white" (basically). Yet, you seem to be more than willing to judge US actions as black or white. I don't understand that dichotomy at all.

Travis, I even said I thought they made the right decisions at Hiroshima, how the hell is that looking at things as black and white?

If you want to go further back fron WW2 Travis, we can take a look at the way the US government fought the Indian tribes. There WAS targeting of civilians there.

My point in using the United States as an example is not to point out that it is evil. I don't believe it is. My point is to show a similarity to the tactics used in Iraq by the insurgents to prove my initial idea that they are not evil.

[MannyIsGod]

NOTE - I'm not calling Chris a terrorist.


The ends justifies the means in my opinion.

AND THAT MY FRIEND, IS THE EXACT SAME MINDSET TERRORISTS HAVE.


They feel the end result they are trying to achieve, justifes the means they use.

[samikeyp]

I would agree w/Chris. Japan, even though militarily devastated, was still a threat and an invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives. Manny's example was technically correct, civilian population centers were targeted. Then again, when you put military targets in those population centers, that will happen. I do not have an issue with what happened.

[Useruser666]

Manny,

I just don't see how you can compare these two very different sides in this way. The people doing these awful acts are no better than the Klu Klan bombing black churches or threatening voters at poll stations. They want the power to themselves and at the cost of others' freedoms and even their lives. The US troops there are only protecting the majority of people and help them establish a goverment that can actually represent them fairly.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously, can I get you guys to do at least this...

Put the actions of terrorists in the context that they are trying to accomplish a goal, and they feel that the end result they are trying to achieve justifies the means.

does that change anything you think about them?

[Useruser666]

NOTE - I'm not calling Chris a terrorist.



AND THAT MY FRIEND, IS THE EXACT SAME MINDSET TERRORISTS HAVE.


They feel the end result they are trying to achieve, justifes the means they use.

Manny that is a very badly taken out of context quote. That was in reference to the US war with Japan. It was also in hindsight which is a whole other reason you can not make that comparrisson.

[travis2]

Travis, I even said I thought they made the right decisions at Hiroshima, how the hell is that looking at things as black and white?

If you want to go further back fron WW2 Travis, we can take a look at the way the US government fought the Indian tribes. There WAS targeting of civilians there.

My point in using the United States as an example is not to point out that it is evil. I don't believe it is. My point is to show a similarity to the tactics used in Iraq by the insurgents to prove my initial idea that they are not evil.

Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

In most cases I have a problem judging actions through the lens of history. Even actions that today I would judge as intrinsically evil are harder to judge when having to account for the mores of society in general at the time.

I can say that I think the Indian wars were NOT handled well. I also know there is a lot of confusion on both sides of that history. I don't dare justify actions that were targeted against women and children...but in those days, such an outlook was not very prevalent. It really wasn't until the late 1800 and the Hague and Geneva conventions that such an outlook was really made prevalent.

But now we are 125 years (+/-) from those conventions (the first ones). In light of all that has gone on before, there is no way to bring the actions of the terrorists into viability. The reason they do what they do is to bring revulsion and horror to us. They have the moral and tactical equivalent of kidnappers threatening their hostages for money...with often no intention of releasing their hostages once their demands are met.

I count that as evil.

[samikeyp]

Seriously, can I get you guys to do at least this...

Put the actions of terrorists in the context that they are trying to accomplish a goal, and they feel that the end result they are trying to achieve justifies the means.

does that change anything you think about them?

I can't buy that bro. It is way too simplistic to justify terrorism by "trying to accomplish a goal" Its not that simple. When your goal is murder, I don't think it can be justified. Hitler had a goal too and thought the end result justified the means. The US Government had a similar goal with the Native Americans and justified it to themselves by placing them on reservations. It was still wrong even if it was deemed humane. Native Americans didn't do anything wrong. They didn't have a cruel dictator running a regime that would cut your throat if you said a dissenting word.

[MannyIsGod]

But it's not Chris. People do justify the means by the ends all the time. That's a pretty central idea to what I'm trying to say.

Is it that hard to imagine that these people are evil? Is it that hard to imagine that they have a level of desperation and have a poor view of what is actually going on?

Look, the bottom line is that if you guys want to write it off as evil acts done by evil people, then I can't stop you.

I feel like a broken record, so this will be my last post in this thread. I don't know what else I can say anyhow.

I feel these people are motivated by what they feel is right, and that is no different than what motivates anyone. I'm not saying that they haven't been misled or misinformed, but that doesn't make it them evil.

[Useruser666]

Seriously, can I get you guys to do at least this...

Put the actions of terrorists in the context that they are trying to accomplish a goal, and they feel that the end result they are trying to achieve justifies the means.

does that change anything you think about them?

Uh no! So person "A" kills person "B" for their wallet. You can't call person "A" evil because he was just trying to accomplish his goal? Damn Manny! :lol

[travis2]

Seriously, can I get you guys to do at least this...

Put the actions of terrorists in the context that they are trying to accomplish a goal, and they feel that the end result they are trying to achieve justifies the means.

does that change anything you think about them?

No it doesn't.

Kidnappers have a goal...get money. The means they use are the taking (and often killing) of hostages. They feel the end result (them getting the money) justifies the means.

Goal, means, ends.

That still makes them evil.

[MannyIsGod]

I know I said I wans't going to post..but..

Mike, you brought up Hitler. Were all the germans fighting under him evil? No right?

Ok.

[MannyIsGod]

I've kept every example in the context of war. None of those examples you guys brought up were in the context of war.

[Useruser666]

But it's not Chris. People do justify the means by the ends all the time. That's a pretty central idea to what I'm trying to say.

Is it that hard to imagine that these people are evil? Is it that hard to imagine that they have a level of desperation and have a poor view of what is actually going on?

Look, the bottom line is that if you guys want to write it off as evil acts done by evil people, then I can't stop you.

I feel like a broken record, so this will be my last post in this thread. I don't know what else I can say anyhow.

I feel these people are motivated by what they feel is right, and that is no different than what motivates anyone. I'm not saying that they haven't been misled or misinformed, but that doesn't make it them evil.

Manny, your argument is sliding down a slippery slope now. Are you saying terrorists are right to commit the acts they do because they do those things to accomplish their goals? Since they believe it will bring the outcome they seek, it's ok to do those things? If that were the case then the only people who could be called evil were people who just did things for the hell of doing them.

[samikeyp]

Mike, you brought up Hitler. Were all the germans fighting under him evil? No right?

were some of the Germans fighting under him evil? yes right?

Hitler was in the context of war.

[travis2]

I've kept every example in the context of war. None of those examples you guys brought up were in the context of war.

But that's just the point. Even under the context of war, specific targeting of civilians is evil. This is not the period of 150 years ago when society thought differently about such things. There is absolutely no excuse for targeting civilians.

[Useruser666]

I know I said I wans't going to post..but..

Mike, you brought up Hitler. Were all the germans fighting under him evil? No right?

Ok.

I think the people on this thread that were first using the term "evil" meant it mostly towards the people who actually USED A DISABLED CHILD AS A BOMB TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS who were trying to vote. You could argue that any person purposely targeting civilians is evil.

[MannyIsGod]

This is not the period of 150 years ago when society thought differently about such things.

who's society travis? Yours or theirs? Is it possible their society has not evolved in the same manner asours?

[violentkitten]

There's nothing I like better than a sad middle aged little man rant about people he tries to hide from. pick one name already.

heehee. im not middle aged dumbo.

[MannyIsGod]

heehee. im not middle aged dumbo.

You sure did look it the time I met you. I guess not everyone ages well. My bad.

[travis2]

who's society travis? Yours or theirs? Is it possible their society has not evolved in the same manner asours?

Sorry, Manny, I don't accept that excuse anymore. Prior to the "global electronic community", that explanation held some water. Not anymore.

I categorically deny the validity of that outlook.

[violentkitten]

You sure did look it the time I met you. I guess not everyone ages well. My bad.

i met you? youll have to pardon me its rather easy to forget

[MannyIsGod]

Well then Travis, you perfectly show how people misundertand the socties of that region and their differences to the society we live in.

This really is my last post in here, and I'll try to articulate my stance better in it.

I'm willing to concede that there are certain elements in Iraq who's motivation goes no further than power, and has nothing to do with the good of the people. I am not willing to concede that the majority of the people fighting against our military there have that mindset. I once again believe that they have what they deem as noble goals in mind when carrying out these acts. They may be misled, and misinformed, but not evil.

If you want to argue that the people who do not have the peoples best interests in mind are evil, then fine. But I still maintain they are a minority.

I think that they resort to these tactics based on many reasons.

1. Lack of means and resources. They don't have the capability to take on our military.
2. Society differences. They don't value life in the same way we do in that society. They also see death by this nature differently.
3. Effectiveness.

Thats why I think they do the things they do, not because they are evil. Not once have I said I agree with the tactics, because quite frankly I don't agree with any of the damn killing over there, but I do try to understand what makes them do what they do.

Now, I'm off to post pictures from last night.

[SpursWoman]

who's society travis? Yours or theirs? Is it possible their society has not evolved in the same manner asours?


So it's okay that their society is still so fucking backward that the subhuman treatment of woman is still acceptable because that's just the way it is? Well, okay then. Maybe it'll become unacceptable when they finally catch up to the rest of the world in another 200 years or so. I'm sure those ladies can't wait.

:fro

[Samurai Jane]

You're also forgetting that these guys are targeting their own civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were different just on that point alone.

[travis2]

Well then Travis, you perfectly show how people misundertand the socties of that region and their differences to the society we live in.

This really is my last post in here, and I'll try to articulate my stance better in it.

I'm willing to concede that there are certain elements in Iraq who's motivation goes no further than power, and has nothing to do with the good of the people. I am not willing to concede that the majority of the people fighting against our military there have that mindset. I once again believe that they have what they deem as noble goals in mind when carrying out these acts. They may be misled, and misinformed, but not evil.

If you want to argue that the people who do not have the peoples best interests in mind are evil, then fine. But I still maintain they are a minority.

I think that they resort to these tactics based on my reasons.

1. Lack of means and resources. They don't have the capability to take on our military.
2. Society differences. They don't value life in the same way we do in that society. They also see death by this nature differently.
3. Effectiveness.

Thats why I think they do the things they do, not because they are evil. Not once have I said I agree with the tactics, because quite frankly I don't agree with any of the damn killing over there, but I do try to understand what makes them do what they do.

Now, I'm off to post pictures from last night.

Then we agree to disagree. Unless you'd like to re-examine this later. Have fun, I have to bug out soon anyway.

[Useruser666]

Manny, I don't understand why you are trying to make those points. What is the excuse for strapping a bomb to a child? There is NONE! People who kill innocent civilians just to gain power by oppressing others are evil. People who use a person that is incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong to kill themselves and other INNOCENT civilians can easily be classified as evil.

1. evil (vs. good), wicked -- (morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds")
2. depraved, evil, vicious -- (having the nature of vice)
3. evil, harmful, injurious -- (tending to cause great harm)
4. malefic, malevolent, malign, evil -- (having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force")

[CommanderMcBragg]

So, any port in a storm, eh Commander? You think this is a legitimate military tactic?

And, here I was amazing you in another thread.

I did not mean to say that it was a legitimate military tactic but that is used as one.
Some may say agent orange was not a legitimate military tactic.
Some also think nuclear weapons, while being legitimate weapons is not a legitimate military tactic.
That was my point.
Stop spinning so much into what others post.

[Nbadan]

A guy goes into a bar and sees President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell sitting at a table over drinks. The guy walks over to them and asks what they are doing. The president says, “We’re talking over the coming war with Iraq. We’re going to kill several thousand Iraqis and a puppy dog.” “Why are you going to kill the puppy dog?” the guy asks. At this, Bush punches Powell on the arm and says, “See? I told you no one would notice the several thousand Iraqis.”