# A new low in Terrorism



## MA-Caver (Feb 1, 2008)

Those bastards are sinking even lower than we thought possible. 


> * Mentally disabled women used in bombings*
> By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 1, 6:41 PM ET
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AqDcIdbG2JhPe0Rq_icGpKGs0NUE
> BAGHDAD - Two women described as mentally disabled and strapped with remote-control explosives  and possibly used as unwitting suicide bombers  brought carnage Friday to two pet bazaars, killing at least 91 people in the deadliest day since Washington flooded the capital with extra troops last spring.
> ...


Talking with a friend of mine about this he said: next they'll be using children. I told him that they probably would... just like they did in Saigon during that war. 
I have doubts that they are "running short" of able bodied men. The fact that these women were known to be mentally disabled allowed them to get into a good sized crowd without suspicion. 
I would expect to see more reports along the same lines in the future as these attacks had successfully killed a large number of people which seems to be the terrorist's aim, which of course is usually their goal to begin with. 
It's appalling to read about this, but at the same time it doesn't put them in a good light and hopefully this will deter support from any of the public that wants America out, only to find their fellow anti-Americans are using dishonorable tactics like this. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Kacey (Feb 1, 2008)

This quote has multiple attributions; however, I lean toward this version being Gandhi's:

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man"
-- Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)

Regardless of who actually said it, the thought remains that the use of the mentally disabled is heinous, and speaks very poorly of those who would do so.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Thoughts?


This is yet another example of why the ONLY way to deal with terrorists is to kill them. Dead men rarely commit atrocities.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2008)

I have great sympathy with the idea of rounding up or killing the people in charge. The only problems with it are that there's often a huge reservoir of applicants for the position of leader. Consider the number of times US and allied forces have killed the #2 or #3 person in Al Qaeda. If you are stupid and ham-handed about it you just end up "Sowing the Dragon's Teeth" by creating martyrs. Unless you're prepared for genocide or have an infinite supply of soldiers and money to pour down that particular hole it doesn't last. Ultimately you have to have some strategy besides "Keep killing people until everyone is dead or has decided it isn't fun anymore." The particular solution requires a hard objective look at the situation and a willingness to abandon wishful thinking no matter how insecure or uncomfortable it makes you feel. 

Destroying the incentives for further action is useful. So is creating a real alternative or finding some accommodation with the people from whom the terrorists are drawing their support. That way you don't just make more terrorists who feel they have no way out and nothing to lose by continuing with what they were doing. 

The only man to ever conquer Afghanistan was Sir Charles Napier known to the locals as "Satan's Nephew". He was terrible in battle, more terrible than the people he was fighting. But he wasn't stupid about those he conquered. He had a well-deserved reputation for generosity, fairness and mercy for those who submitted to the White Queen. Carrot *and *stick and the surety of both works a lot better than "We'll just keep building more torture chambers and piling the skulls up until everything happens the way we want it."

This isn't a "new low". Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade have used women, particularly pregnant ones, and the mentally handicapped for quite a while. From a cold, calculating point of view it makes sense. The pregnant women are unmarried; they would be killed anyway. This way they regain the family honor and avoid the Scarlet Letter - Traditional Values at their finest :shrug: The others would not be terribly useful to the Struggle in any other fashion. You lose one person who wasn't an asset while killing dozens and making the enemy even twitchier and more suspicious of anything that moves. It's ugly, but wars always are, and it's effective at a low cost. Suddenly pregnant women, the developmentally disabled, children and old people are just as dangerous as the young studs. No, I don't subscribe to that view, but if you want to solve the problem you have to understand the reasoning. It's just too facile to say "They're monsters. That's all we need to know."


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 2, 2008)

Kacey said:


> This quote has multiple attributions; however, I lean toward this version being Gandhi's:
> 
> The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man"
> -- Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
> ...


 
I agree Kacey


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2008)

tellner said:


> I have great sympathy with the idea of rounding up or killing the people in charge. The only problems with it are that there's often a huge reservoir of applicants for the position of leader. Consider the number of times US and allied forces have killed the #2 or #3 person in Al Qaeda. If you are stupid and ham-handed about it you just end up "Sowing the Dragon's Teeth" by creating martyrs. Unless you're prepared for genocide or have an infinite supply of soldiers and money to pour down that particular hole it doesn't last. Ultimately you have to have some strategy besides "Keep killing people until everyone is dead or has decided it isn't fun anymore." The particular solution requires a hard objective look at the situation and a willingness to abandon wishful thinking no matter how insecure or uncomfortable it makes you feel.
> 
> Destroying the incentives for further action is useful. So is creating a real alternative or finding some accommodation with the people from whom the terrorists are drawing their support. That way you don't just make more terrorists who feel they have no way out and nothing to lose by continuing with what they were doing.
> 
> ...


 
I think this is a very astute summming up of the situation, I know this concurs with the Brit intelligence thinking. It is important to know why they do things so we can hopefully come up with ways to counter them. Sir Charles Napier's policies haven't been forgotten and are in fact being implemented now. The British have always had a policy of "Hearts and Minds" in situations like this, we even tried in Northern Ireland.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2008)

I think this country really needs to debate how much Iraqi oil is to us.  The only reason there are terrorists in Iraq is because we are there.  As it stands now, the US is going to get blowback from this for years.  I say, for our countries sake and our children's sake, its time to get out of Iraq and out of all the other countries where we are not wanted.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I think this country really needs to debate how much Iraqi oil is to us. The only reason there are terrorists in Iraq is because we are there. As it stands now, the US is going to get blowback from this for years. I say, for our countries sake and our children's sake, its time to get out of Iraq and out of all the other countries where we are not wanted.


 
Amen! Where your government goes ours will follow ( like sheep) so yes, get the troops out!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Those bastards are sinking even lower than we thought possible.
> 
> Talking with a friend of mine about this he said: next they'll be using children. I told him that they probably would... just like they did in Saigon during that war.
> I have doubts that they are "running short" of able bodied men. The fact that these women were known to be mentally disabled allowed them to get into a good sized crowd without suspicion.
> ...




With this threat, and the people who will not stop when told to do so in their own language and continue to approach armed men or convey, I can see where some will shoot. Some will be justified. Others will in the end turn out to be a mistake. But this is the war zone and occupied areas.

In the issue of using someone who does not know what they are doing to plant a device to go boom, then this threat means that the people behind the terrorist act do not have the conviction to die themselves. They do not have the fanaticism to make that sacrifice themselves. Yet, in many cases they already do not have it. They convince the young men that this is what is required for the cause. 

To the Muslims who promote this type of terror, (* Which I know Muslims that are appalled by violence just like other people of other religions I know *) all I have to say is, "Will you allow a woman to do your fighting for you? Will you allow a child to do the fighting for you? Are you a man?" 

I could believe that they would not value a deformed person and a deformed female even less. I could believe that they might think it is just a way to deliver a weapon. But, in the end, I think it is their cowardice. 

The issue is that they want to freeze one way of life. A way of life that was not there even in the early 20th century. They saw the loss of culture and went the other direction to preserve. I understand the preserve mentality. But when their young see the flash of the modern world they want to leave. So they feel threatened. They will destroy what they believe to be the cause of the threat to their way of life. This I could understand for we all want our way of life to be the one that makes it right? But instead of approaching the situation with logic and reason, and talking to their young ones, they use fear and control as their means to maintain. When a guiding hand and advice would be better in the long run. So instead of coming to the table they attack others as they believe that people are attacking them. In their mind set it is only fair and self preservation. But in their mind set of male dominance are they loosing their maleness their manhood by using and promoting the use of women and children as a weapon platform? 

(* Note: I know the US and many other countries have women in the military. I have no problems about this and support it. I am arguing from the point of view of the terrorist and trying to get a point across to them in their own mind set. *)


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 2, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> The issue is that they want to freeze one way of life. A way of life that was not there even in the early 20th century. They saw the loss of culture and went the other direction to preserve. I understand the preserve mentality. But when their young see the flash of the modern world they want to leave. So they feel threatened. They will destroy what they believe to be the cause of the threat to their way of life. This I could understand for we all want our way of life to be the one that makes it right? But instead of approaching the situation with logic and reason, and talking to their young ones, they use fear and control as their means to maintain. When a guiding hand and advice would be better in the long run. So instead of coming to the table they attack others as they believe that people are attacking them. In their mind set it is only fair and self preservation. But in their mind set of male dominance are they loosing their maleness their manhood by using and promoting the use of women and children as a weapon platform?


Rich, as I understand it... the "preservation of the old ways" is just a facade. It's a nice idea and even a romantic idea. Much in the same way that the Native Americans had their (many) reasons for fighting back because their way of life was threatened. 
With these Muslims not wanting to join the 21st century isn't the problem. Here in the states and elsewhere you see that there are a few thousand who have done so quite successfully. 
The top leaders of these Terrorist cells/organizations want revenge. They've been screwed over by our U.S. government and/or didn't get paid when they said they would and they're pissed. Bin Laden has a long history of allied-ship with the U.S. before his creation of Al Queda. We were supporting him during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan then pulled our support when the job was done and the Soviets left... but left him hanging. When he tried to get support from home they left him hanging... now the poor puppy is all alone in the world. He's mad... so he creates a Jihad, he's got powerfully influential religious leaders to back him up. 
Muslim people are very devout people. Their youth are very impressionable to suggestions, more so than our (Christian) youth. If Billy Graham had started teaching a doctrine somewhere along the lines of "God, spoke to me (all the while holding the Bible in the air) and said that we must go out and wipe all the Muslims from every state in the Union, those who sacrifice themselves in Jesus' name will reap great rewards in heaven, you'll get the SI swimsuit models for your wives" ... the reaction would most likely be... "uhh, yeah ok Billy... right. Hang on and we'll have a couple of guys with your new white coat to show you to your new room." Also if people (here) believed that the Americas was a "Holy Land" that it was the birthplace of civilization and was blessed by God and so on... 
So you get youth and strong men (preferably poor) with no sense of direction or country or at best disillusioned by constant rhetoric of how it's wrong to adopt western ways and how the west is favoring only the rich by buying their oil and on and on. Then give them a ray of hope out of their despair with the promise of paradise and happiness from the "One True God" who loves them.... 
Well you know the rest... 
That's just one side of the terrorist... the other side is a group of tacticians trying to figure out the best way to win this so called Jihad/war. Sure, they're adopting Guerrilla techniques, because they don't have the money or resources to launch a full out war. So they'll chip away at their enemy. The Vietcong did the same thing. Every U.S./Coalition soldier they kill is one less they got to worry about and using tactics that would be appalling to us is psychological warfare, demoralization. The North Koreans/Chinese did the same thing during the Korean war; blowing bugles during battles, launching an attack and withdrawing at the last second and so on. 

The male dominance is still there and always will be. Male dominance over women who they deem worthy as set down by the rules in their holy book. The women who are widowed, mentally disabled, unmarried pregnant and so on aren't and thus expendable assets to their cause. To them it's not who they're using to kill but how many of us they can kill. The hows and why's aren't important just as long as the infidels are eradicated from their lands. As long as guys like Bin Laden get their revenge.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The British have always had a policy of "Hearts and Minds" in situations like this, we even tried in Northern Ireland.



Only after the "Croppy Lie Down" policy failed, sad to say. 1845 was a peak year for food production in Ireland. But there was never, ever, any talk of any of the grain going to Paddy. It took war weariness, a number of deaths through old age, a recognition that eventually demographics would solve the question of the six counties and (my own take), the lack of persecution of Protestants in the Republic, the rise of Europe and a number of other things. 

The British policy in Northern Ireland was a failure in the end. It relied on demonizing all Republicans as (for instance) "the political wing of the IRA", and a flexible definition of terrorism that included Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein but not Ian Paisely, the Orange Lodge and a good chunk of the URC. Fortunately, people eventually got tired of the excesses all around. As Europe (yes, I'm pro-Europe) becomes more important and national borders less so and the the intentional institutional religious hatreds fade there will just be Ireland by which time it will become irrelevant.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 2, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I say, for our countries sake and our children's sake, its time to get out of Iraq and out of all the other countries where we are not wanted.


 
I agree man! Fortress America! 

But seriously... how do we determine where we "are not wanted"?  If the Iraqi Government wants us, but not the Iraqi Terrorists... are we not wanted?  If the German Government wants us, but not the German people?  The current "sentiment" iof you believe 90% of the news stories is that no one wants us ANYWHERE... so who decides if we are wanted? A country's leader? The UN? Their People? 

How do we make that decision?

I'm all for pulling out of everywhere... but then we will be the great evil that abandoned the world...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Thoughts?


 
This is not a new low; this is terrorism and terrorist tactics. They have no qualms about killing or using anyone; man, woman, child, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, no one at all. Anything that gets their message across is fair game. It is evil, it is wrong and I fully believe they should be eliminated if possible but that is a lot harder then it sounds.



Big Don said:


> This is yet another example of why the ONLY way to deal with terrorists is to kill them. Dead men rarely commit atrocities.


 
True but the problem is that they actually do have an organizational setup that makes it very difficult to do this in a manner that would actually put an end to any terrorist organization. They are generally setup in cells and generally one cell has no idea what another is doing or for that matter who is in it. And if you can get the leader, the head of the serpent if you will, it will grow another head.  It is setup in a multi-tiered fashion and many have no idea who is outside of their little cell. They may know who is in charge but anyone between, save a couple, they me absolutely clueless about.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2008)

The ONLY way terrorism as a tactic will EVER be ended is to make the punishment so horrendous for those that engage in terrorism and THOSE WHO FUND OR OTHERWISE SUPPORT THEM, that it puts the fear, if not of God, of us, which is good enough into them. To do so, we will have to engage in tactics that may not be pretty, but, will, none the less, be effective.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The ONLY way terrorism as a tactic will EVER be ended is to make the punishment so horrendous for those that engage in terrorism and THOSE WHO FUND OR OTHERWISE SUPPORT THEM, that it puts the fear, if not of God, of us, which is good enough into them. To do so, we will have to engage in tactics that may not be pretty, but, will, none the less, be effective.


 
yup and "the funds" and "supporters" are the big ones to go after.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> But seriously... how do we determine where we "are not wanted"?  If the Iraqi Government wants us, but not the Iraqi Terrorists... are we not wanted?



I don't think the Iraqi government wanted the US there, at least not the one the US overthrew.  The one they propped up in its place maybe, but does that represent the wishes of the people or is the current government only in place because the US propped it up and is their keeping it in place by force?

Not too long ago the USSR did a similar thing, they put governments in place in countries that supported the USSR, and kept them in place by threat of and use of force.  Now they believed they where their to help, and bring a better way of life.  Didn't work for them though.

Before that the French, British, Japanese and others where doing it.  Called it colonialism then, didn't work for them either.  In fact I believe the US got itself into a war with the British over something to do with that 

History has shown time and time again that when you try to force a new way of life on a group of people, prop up a government and maintain order with your military, it fails.  Miserably.  The US should have learnt this in Vietnam, this is a war that cannot be won for the same reasons.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The ONLY way terrorism as a tactic will EVER be ended is to make the punishment so horrendous for those that engage in terrorism and THOSE WHO FUND OR OTHERWISE SUPPORT THEM, that it puts the fear, if not of God, of us, which is good enough into them. To do so, we will have to engage in tactics that may not be pretty, but, will, none the less, be effective.




Because this has worked so well in the past?  Seems it just draws more people to the cause against the US.  The solution to repairing relationships with a people that are angry because you have a military presence on their land and they feel they have been abused and taken advantage of by you in the past is NOT to put more military on their land and abuse them even more.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think the Iraqi government wanted the US there, at least not the one the US overthrew. The one they propped up in its place maybe, but does that represent the wishes of the people or is the current government only in place because the US propped it up and is their keeping it in place by force?
> 
> Not too long ago the USSR did a similar thing, they put governments in place in countries that supported the USSR, and kept them in place by threat of and use of force. Now they believed they where their to help, and bring a better way of life. Didn't work for them though.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed

The Middle East has had virtually the same style of government for a very long time and you are not going to change that to a Western style government in a few short years or a few short decades for that matter.

My concern at this point is that I have this nagging feeling that in the long run all we are doing is training the next army we may have to fight.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Agreed
> 
> The Middle East has had virtually the same style of government for a very long time and you are not going to change that to a Western style government in a few short years or a few short decades for that matter.


So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2008)

Force works, but, shows of force do not. If you are going to SHOW force, you have to USE it or you risk becoming a paper tiger. When the US bombed the HELL out of Libya in 86, Qadaffi sure stfu quick, and as soon as Baghdad fell in 2003, there was Qadaffi, surrendering his WMD programs and asking for us to inspect and insure they were all gone. Strong words are worthless without strong action.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2008)

Big Don said:


> So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?



Things are never quite so black and white.

Consider this, there was far less civilian deaths and the people where much better off when a tyrant was running Iraq then now, after being "liberated."

Is this going to help at all in the long run? That is the intention, but I can't help but think it's going to end up souring them on the idea of western style democracy due to very bad experiences with it.

There may be things that we, as first world countries can do to try and protect human rights in developing countries.  But implementing a new system by force is not going to achieve anything, any more then a Communist invasion and overthrow of the US government to "liberate" you and save the workers would in the US.


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 2, 2008)

> Iraq vows to "crush terrorists" after 99 killed
> By Michael Holden Sat Feb 2, 1:09 PM ET
> 
> BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's prime minister vowed on Saturday that attacks by two female bombers which killed 99 people in Baghdad would not derail improved security, but angry residents demanded the government do more to protect them.
> ...


 

Complete Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080202/ts_nm/iraq_dc


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 2, 2008)

I agree that it is a dispicable indictment of the morality of those who would orchestrate such an act.  

However, is it really worse than inflicting 'modern' area effect munitions on civil centres during a 'war' (the single quotes are because to call the invasion of Irag a war is to devalue the term, the mismatch was that great)?  It's lower tech and more visceral in the emotive reactions but is it really any different in intent?

I'm not being deliberately confrontational or diminishing my own personal horror at such actions, just attempting not to operate a dual-standard.  

At the same time I do not want to be painted an 'apologist' for the minds behind attacks that seek to obtain a political objective by snuffing out the lives of those who have nothing to do with the decision-making process.

We've had similar discussions here at MT before and I still maintain that terrorism is a non-viable form of warfare when it is the _only_ form of warfare available to those seeking to force a change.

As a close to home example, even with American funding the IRA did not succeed in achieving their aims via terrorism.  All their attacks did was to direct vitriol and hatred against themselves - never for a moment did the majority of the British voting public think that "This is my governments fault, we must change something".

The same applies with the shameful incidences of terrorist attacks in Iraq.  The perpetrators cannot achieve their aims because they are not striking effectively at those with the power to make the decsions.

Humans lives, with all their infinite potential for love, art and creativity ripped apart yet again in the name of a political or religious ideal.

As Billy Connolly would say so accurately (and I paraphrase dramatically), "Bollocks to the lot of you!  You've had thousands of years to sort yourselves out and you've ****ed it all up.  Take your 'Holy Books' and shove them ..." etc etc.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 2, 2008)

It seems to me that one should be skeptical of statements such as this. 

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/print-headline-then-let-fact-catch-up.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 2, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think the Iraqi government wanted the US there, at least not the one the US overthrew. The one they propped up in its place maybe, but does that represent the wishes of the people or is the current government only in place because the US propped it up and is their keeping it in place by force?
> 
> Not too long ago the USSR did a similar thing, they put governments in place in countries that supported the USSR, and kept them in place by threat of and use of force. Now they believed they where their to help, and bring a better way of life. Didn't work for them though.
> 
> ...


 
This is such an important point that I wanted to re-quote it wholesale for emphasis.

I wont muddy the waters with non-relavant debate on what the War of Independance was about and who actually fought it, that's an interesting topic for elsewhere .

Any time that a government is imposed from outside or is too draconian internally then that government falls.  Sometimes it's a slow process that does not occur for generations and sometimes it's very rapid.  However, like death and taxes, the collapse of unwanted government is one of those certainties of existence.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Rich, as I understand it... the "preservation of the old ways" is just a facade. It's a nice idea and even a romantic idea. Much in the same way that the Native Americans had their (many) reasons for fighting back because their way of life was threatened.
> With these Muslims not wanting to join the 21st century isn't the problem. Here in the states and elsewhere you see that there are a few thousand who have done so quite successfully.



I agree. That many of the Islam faith are members of the 21st century. They get along with those of the country they were born and or have chosen to live. 

I do not think I implied that all people of the Islam faith were terrorists.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2008)

Don, a couple things here.

First, it's not our job to go around to every country whose government we don't like, throw it out, kill its leaders, occupy the nation and force it to be what we want.

Second, even if it were, we can't.

Third, we have been the leading installer and supporter of dictators around the world from the House of Saud, Thieu, Chang Kai Shek and Pinochet to Somoza, Duvalier and Saddam Hussein.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2008)

Apropos the discussion, here's an AP story about just that...



> In its ideological struggle against Al-Qaeda, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.
> 
> 
> That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.
> ...


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 2, 2008)

It seems to me that one should be skeptical of bloggers with axes to grind.

From AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080119205362
<
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, said the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on suicide missions, but gave no further details on how authorities pieced together the evidence. He also said the bombs were detonated by remote control.
<
Police said the woman wearing the bomb sold cream in the mornings at the market and was known to locals as "the crazy lady."


From Agence France-Presse: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080203/twl-iraq-unrest-575b600.html
<
The women were mentally impaired and their features indicated they were suffering Down's Syndrome.
>
People suffering from Down's Syndrome are regarded in Islam as being without sin, and therefore when they die they will go straight to paradise.

Similar article in Reuters: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02199412.htm


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2008)

Big Don said:


> So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?


 
Go back and read your history of the Middle East, after the First World War the area was carved up by America, France and Britain into new countries, regardless of natural and clan borders. Royal families were made, new leaders were found to suit the winning side. We are the makers of this problem.
America is NOT the world's policeman. How long before you decide you don't like the British government, after all we are socialists and invade us? Another Grenada perhaps? Then why not invade the rest of Europe, lots of socialists there too?
On the subject of intel, for a long time America and to a certain the UK has been relying on electronic intel gathering when any old time intel officer will tell you there is nothing better than people on the ground. Satellites can tell you lots on interesting facts but not how a countries people are thinking or what the real intel is.


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 2, 2008)

FIRST, with apologies, I just found this topic has already ben posted, and a thread is dedicated to it in "The Study", HERE

SECONDLY, WRT your comment:


Sukerkin said:


> I agree that it is a dispicable indictment of the morality of those who would orchestrate such an act.
> 
> However, is it really worse than inflicting 'modern' area effect munitions on civil centres during a 'war' ?.....It's lower tech and more visceral in the emotive reactions but is it really any different in intent?


It is no worse than deliberately inflicting modern warfare on massive civilian areas, with no military objective.  HOWEVER, that is not at all the case of what the US/UK/etc are doing in Iraq.  Coalition forces have taken higher casualties than would have been necessary if such an approach had been taken, specifically because of the use of surgical strikes, precision munitions, additional on-the-ground intelligence, and the deliberate avoidance of non-combatants.  While large numbers of civilians have been killed in Iraq, the overwhelming majority have been from terrorist strikes such as the ones reported in the above links.  We've gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid such 'collateral damage', which is precisely what makes the intent different - terrorist are targeting civilian areas to amass casualties; coalition troops are avoiding civilian deaths and even giving care and medical aid to our adversaries to minimize loss of life and suffering.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> FIRST, with apologies, I just found this topic has already ben posted, and a thread is dedicated to it in "The Study", HERE
> 
> SECONDLY, WRT your comment:
> It is no worse than deliberately inflicting modern warfare on massive civilian areas, with no military objective. HOWEVER, that is not at all the case of what the US/UK/etc are doing in Iraq. *Coalition forces have taken* *higher casualties* than would have been necessary if such an approach had been taken, specifically because of the use of surgical strikes, precision munitions, additional on-the-ground intelligence, and the deliberate avoidance of non-combatants. While *large numbers of civilians* *have been killed in Iraq,* *the overwhelming majority have been* *from terrorist strikes* such as the ones reported in the above links. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid such 'collateral damage', which is precisely what makes the intent different - *terrorist are targeting* *civilian areas to amass casualties;* coalition troops are avoiding civilian deaths and even giving care and medical aid to our adversaries to minimize loss of life and suffering.


 
The problem is, sadly, that *none* of these deaths would have occurred if we hadn't been there.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 2, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> It seems to me that one should be skeptical of bloggers with axes to grind.
> 
> From AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080119205362
> <
> ...


 
One can not help but wonder how that General made the diagnosis. Do you suppose the General, himself, performed the study to determine the extra chromosome? 

I do not believe a person with Down's Syndrome, especially one who can complete commercial transactions in a market, is beyond understanding what an explosive vest is, and the ramifications of having such a vest being strapped to his or her body. 

It seems to me the very premise is ridiculous. That the story is repeated, without testing or verification, is just sad. It seems to me that stories such as this are broad brush strokes to dehumanize an enemy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2008)

Big Don said:


> So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?


 
Actually I never said it was, I just said that this is going to be a very LONG and protracted war if the goal is to change them into a Western type Democracy.

If you look at the region historically by removing one you just make room for another you create a power vacuum and there are enough there to fill it. And as a note; they are not all tyrants and despots just because they rule in the Middle East. 

Yes Saddam a very bad man, a mass murderer and he was in need of killing but in the long run, unless you are willing to have a MAJOR US presence in the region for the next 50 to 100 years or more, you are not going to change a thing by building the biggest US consulate in the world there, actually all you are making is a bigger target, and it is doubtful that is enough time to change an area that has been ruled, in general, by the strongest or meanest or toughest for a very very long time, since before the first Crusade. And in the past when the US or any Western power has gotten involved we generally end up making things worse if for no other reason than training our future enemy to fight better, if you are looking for a example you can start with Osama bin Laden.

But instead of arguing this further I would be interested in hearing your take on the area, the situation and how we can change it and how long it will take and how many US and Middle Eastern lives it will cost?


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 2, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The problem is, sadly, that *none* of these deaths would have occurred if we hadn't been there.


Tez, please understand that I truly respect you and the opinions you have shared on this forum, and I am not trying in any sense to 'pick a fight', but I don't want to fall into the trap of oversimplifying this into a 'moral equivalency' argument (i.e., we are just as bad as they are, so we shouldn't do anything about the terrorists).

Truth is, Iraq has been plagued with sectarian violence for decades, but now the situation is safe enough on the ground to allow reporters in to document what is currently happening.  Iraq and Iran killed millions of each other in a largely sectarian (Shi'ite vs. Sunni) war that lasted 12 years.  Sadaam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north, Shi'ites in the middle, and practically obliterated an entire race of Marsh Arabs in the south.  

We are fighting an adversary that ascribes to a radical view of global Islamo-fascism, representing a large sub-culture that believes, not just that the US should leave the Middle East, but that Spain should be ceded back to a revived Islamic Caliphate.  

I agree with you that any deaths (even one) is one too many, but I cannot believe that if we suddenly laid down our arms and walked away that Al Qaeda would 'like' us.  Whether anyone here agrees with the current Iraqi government, it was selected in a fair and free election, with a voter turn-out rate that would put either of our nations to shame.  The terrorists are against this precicesly because it was popularly chosen - the radical elements represented by Al Qaeda et al. subscribe to a view that Democracy is inherently incompatible with Islam because (in their mind) it denies the sovereignty of God, allowing government to be chosen by people, instead.  To allow a freely chosen government to succeed would be to admit that their version of god failed.  The only hope anyone in Iraq has of being free is to support them in their internal efforts to stand against militants actively trying to live out that twisted view.

And Michael E. - Downes syndrome is usually visible by outward physical signs (easily recognizeable, if you have ever worked with handicapped children or adults) without any chromosomal testing.  With the physical deformity reported, plus the fact that at least one of the ladies involved was well-known within her community to be mentally challenged, I think there is more objective evidence to support the reports as written than to doubt them.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 2, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> And Michael E. - Downes syndrome is usually visible by outward physical signs (easily recognizeable, if you have ever worked with handicapped children or adults) without any chromosomal testing. With the physical deformity reported, plus the fact that at least one of the ladies involved was well-known within her community to be mentally challenged, I think there is more objective evidence to support the reports as written than to doubt them.


 
Gee ... can you talk down to me any more than that? 

I would suggest there is very little evidence. What the articles are reporting is heresay. That the heresay fits into a currently acceptable view of the people living in the region makes it easier to accept as evidence. 

Example: The stories make the ascertion that the reported Down Syndrome person was unwittingly used. What evidence is there to show this woman did not have foreknowlege?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 2, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The problem is, sadly, that *none* of these deaths would have occurred if we hadn't been there.


Wrong!
They would have just blown up other muslims. You may have noticed the term "Sectarian Violence" in the media. That is because Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, don't like each other...


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 2, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Gee ... can you talk down to me any more than that?


Well, OK, if you'd like 



> Example: The stories make the ascertion that the reported Down Syndrome person was unwittingly used. What evidence is there to show this woman did not have foreknowlege?


Just her reputation in the community.  That one part is probably the sketchiest of all the details given - it goes to the degree of her mental incapacitation, which isn't known exactly.  However, the preponderance of evidence shows that she was mentally deficient, and probably suffering from Downes (my point being that it is far more likely you are being overly cynical to assume the report is grossly inaccurate than it is likely I am being naive to believe it is largely accurate as reported).


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 3, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> SECONDLY, WRT your comment:
> It is no worse than deliberately inflicting modern warfare on massive civilian areas, with no military objective. HOWEVER, that is not at all the case of what the US/UK/etc are doing in Iraq. Coalition forces have taken higher casualties than would have been necessary if such an approach had been taken, specifically because of the use of surgical strikes, precision munitions, additional on-the-ground intelligence, and the deliberate avoidance of non-combatants. While large numbers of civilians have been killed in Iraq, the overwhelming majority have been from terrorist strikes such as the ones reported in the above links. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid such 'collateral damage', which is precisely what makes the intent different - terrorist are targeting civilian areas to amass casualties; coalition troops are avoiding civilian deaths and even giving care and medical aid to our adversaries to minimize loss of life and suffering.


 
I don't want to de-rail this thread by latching on to a side-issue and running with it (shocks all round ) so I'll say that I broadly accept that there has not been deliberate targeting of civilian centres once the occupation started.  Some reports suggest otherwise but those that I have seen come from sources with definite bias that makes them even harder to believe than the 'official' news channels.

A big problem we're ever going to have when trying to discuss 'Iraq' at anything more concrete than a theoretical level is that *we* don't really know what's going on.  We have the illusion of information from the news media but that is a generally orchestrated picture to tell the story desired by the powers that be.

However, really what we're talking about here is our emotional and cultural reactions to another in a string of abominable attacks and on that I think we all more or less agree.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2008)

Sukerkin, I don't know that you need to hedge your bets quite so much.

The use of high power bombs dropped from aircraft in Iraq has increased more than fivefold in the past several months. In fact, in the past two or three weeks, more then 100,000 pounds of high explosives were dropped in a village south of Baghdad.

While the GPS nature of these weapons make them hit where they are aimed with a very high degree of accuracy; the fact that they are being aimed into villages and communities within city limits, and not at bunkered down military fortifications, quite probably means that civilians centers are getting hit deliberately. 

Those who support the occupation would tell us this is a tragic side effect of war; as if to absolve themselves from the carnage.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2008)

Ninjamom, I wasn't trying to oversimplify at all ( and I know you wouldn't  pick a fight! :ubercool: ). 

In Iraq the situation before we invaded the first time wasn't what we would consider ideal, a dictator in charge, very limited human rights, secret police and some sectarian violence. Not, for us, a good place to live BUT and it is a big but, Iraq did allow more freedoms than many countries around it. There were more freedoms for Christians, women and people of other religions than there are in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Gulf states. The sectarian violence was kept in check by draconian methods but it did mean that the suicide and other bombings didn't happen as they do now. More people, civilians, die now in Iraq than ever did under Saddam. Without debating the rights and wrongs on invading Iraq, it is a fact that can't be denied. The invasion of Iraq has allowed the terrorist groups more freedom to bomb. They didn't have this freedom under Saddam.
It's the same situation as in the former Yugoslavia, there was no sectarian violence there under the dictator Tito as he kept a tight hold on the country, when he died and the country fell apart there were massacres everywhere. There's an interesting debate there on dictatorships v democracy!
It's a self evident fact that if our troops weren't there they wouldn't be killed. 
Bombing is not such a precise art as perhaps the governments would like you to think, if it were we wouldn't have friendly fire incidents. civilians get bombed accidentally if not by design. Sometimes though it's deemed politic to bomb civilian targets to lower morale. Remember America has never signed the Geneva convention. I don't think we should ever lose sight of the fact that we have politicians and some military who are every bit as ruthless as the leaders of the terrorists groups. Remember the Basra Road in the first Gulf War.. Again whether that is good or bad is debatable.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 4, 2008)

Big Don said:


> So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?



Given the tactics you just advocated, I would say they would be better off with the tyrants in control rather what you would have in store for them.

Tellingly, the actual army experts tasked with counterinsurgency do not subscribe to your "entire head for an eye" tactics.


----------

