View Full Version : Iraqi insurgents use eight-year-old girl as suicide bomber
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=566428&in_page_id=1811
Iraqi insurgents use eight-year-old girl as suicide bomber
Last updated at 09:55am on 15th May 2008
An eight-year-old girl was strapped with remote-controlled explosives and used as a human bomb by Iraqi insurgents in a blast that killed an Iraqi commander earlier today.
An Iraqi captain was killed and seven other soldiers were injured in the explosion which took place in the town of Youssifiyah, south of Baghdad.
The explosives were detonated as the girl approached the Iraqi commander.
A curfew has now been imposed in the area, and American troops are said to be hunting for those responsible.
"I can confirm that a female suicide bomber attacked an Iraqi Army position," said a U.S Army spokesman.
Involving women in fighting violates religious taboos in Iraq, but extremists are recruiting females and youths to stage suicide attacks in a desperate attempt to beat tightened security measures.
Women can avoid thorough searches at checkpoints because of Islamic sensitivities, and four have carried out suicide bombings since November.
In February, Iraqi insurgents used two women with Downs Syndrome as human bombs in a blast that killed 99 people in Baghdad.
The women were apparently fooled into wearing explosive vests which were then detonated remotely by mobile phones as they mingled with crowds.
It is unclear whether this latest blast used the same method for detonating the bomb.
enterfirst
05-15-2008, 07:19
:mad:
Unbelievable. There are no words. Are these people human? Prayers out for these women cowardly used by these vermin.
Ret10Echo
05-15-2008, 07:46
They went from males to females, then to mentally-handicapped females and now to children.....
There are no words to describe...
There is a special place in hell for them.
I will expedite their waiting time for their special place in hell.
Team Sergeant
05-15-2008, 09:51
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=566428&in_page_id=1811
Iraqi insurgents use eight-year-old girl as suicide bomber
Last updated at 09:55am on 15th May 2008
An eight-year-old girl was strapped with remote-controlled explosives and used as a human bomb by Iraqi insurgents in a blast that killed an Iraqi commander earlier today.
One of the quotes in the UK news paper was:
No religion can justify this abuse of humanity.
- Des, Leics, UK
Sorry to break this to you Des, islam does.
I can guarantee this little girl’s death will be no more than a small blurb in a newspaper and go virtually unnoticed by one billion muslims.
Print a small story about allah or muhammad sporting a ridiculous bomb hat and those same one billion go ballistic and want some blood.
Let’s keep tolerating islam, that wonderful religion of peace.
There was another quote that caught my eye:
What possible defence is there against a child suicide bomber?
- Mike, USA
In my professional opinion, there’s no defense against a smiling eight year old girl.
Team Sergeant
The antihero
05-15-2008, 09:57
No words really.
Unbelievable...
I went from hung-over to violently furious.
We pulled security for the building of an elementary school for girls in Iraq - their smiling faces will forever be etched on my mind as one of the few positive memories from that deployment.
Now those c*ck-f*cks are doing this... :mad::mad::mad::mad:
There was another quote that caught my eye:
What possible defence is there against a child suicide bomber?
- Mike, USA
In my professional opinion, there’s no defense against a smiling eight year old girl.
Team SergeantStay safe.
Philkilla
05-15-2008, 12:28
This is just disgusting. Disgusting and terrible.
As stated above how can you defend againts that... disgusting...
x-factor
05-15-2008, 16:24
What possible defence is there against a child suicide bomber?
- Mike, USA
The defense is a population that does not tolerate it and will immediately turn anyone who uses such an abhorrent tactic over to justice (in whatever form it comes).
Horrific things like this are part of the reason why we have eviscerated AQI over the last year or so.
Team Sergeant
05-15-2008, 18:13
The defense is a population that does not tolerate it and will immediately turn anyone who uses such an abhorrent tactic over to justice (in whatever form it comes).
Horrific things like this are part of the reason why we have eviscerated AQI over the last year or so.
Yes you are right, I'm watching the muslims riot live all over the world.... just as they did over the characture of muhammad sporting a bomb turban.
Like I said earlier this sub-human act "will" go unnoticed by one billion muslims.
You just keep clicking your heels and repeating "islam is a religion of peace".
Let me know when the riots take place.
TS
:mad:
There are no words. Are these people human?
I have a few. No.
RIP little one, may those animals burn for eternity.
I digg'd the story and the first comment to pop up on Digg was:
"As terrible as that is, there's no actual confirmation that the girl was eight.
Typical Daily Mail crap."
Someday, someone is going to invent a device that will allow me to punch people over the internet and I am going to spend my entire life savings on it.
The Reaper
05-15-2008, 18:48
I digg'd the story and the first comment to pop up on Digg was:
"As terrible as that is, there's no actual confirmation that the girl was eight.
Typical Daily Mail crap."
Someday, someone is going to invent a device that will allow me to punch people over the internet and I am going to spend my entire life savings on it.
Yeah, she could have been seven, or ten, and it would have made a big difference.:rolleyes:
TR
They went from males to females, then to mentally-handicapped females and now to children.....
There are no words to describe...
There is a special place in hell for them.
Concur Sir!
And may that special place be filled with all the experts of how to torture a human being. :mad:
SCUM of the earth!
Holly
x-factor
05-15-2008, 19:18
Yes you are right, I'm watching the muslims riot live all over the world.... just as they did over the characture of muhammad sporting a bomb turban.
Like I said earlier this sub-human act "will" go unnoticed by one billion muslims.
You just keep clicking your heels and repeating "islam is a religion of peace".
Let me know when the riots take place.
TS
I'm not saying they don't have a long way to go. I'm saying that one of the trends in Iraq has been that Muslims get faced with the reality of AQ's jihadi craziness (as opposed to the romanticized preachings of the local whack job or internet site) and they come around one community at a time to the idea that enough is enough, then they start dropping dimes, doors start getting kicked, etc.
If your waiting for some kind of miracle civilization-wide change you're going to be disappointed every time. You guys know better than anyone that hearts-and-minds is laborious business.
This little girl is a martyr, but not in the way the jihadis would tell you. Her sacrifice is to expose the true nature of AQ's "movement." Sadly, her death serves us very well in the war of ideas.
This little girl is a martyr, but not in the way the jihadis would tell you. Her sacrifice is to expose the true nature of AQ's "movement." Sadly, her death serves us very well in the war of ideas.
From our perspective, of course that is true.
But is it from theirs? At least some sources suggest women have no rights under Islam ( LINK to Google Book Ref (http://books.google.com/books?id=NTJnnJNinSgC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=islam+virgin+female+martyr&source=web&ots=PQX8PliJwZ&sig=2L4nF4HHVdtkDd4WlcAh9rvAtk8&hl=en#PPA195,M1) )and that such a death changes them from "only women" ... "to the status of martyrs in their death." (See page 199, above reference).
From their perspective, the murder of the girl might be seen as taking her from a life of misery and providing a straight ticket to heaven. Thus, instead of being a palpably evil act as we see it, it could be regarded as virtuous.
Such a set of views, if actually representative of the population, would be so divergent from Western views as to be irreconcilable. Instead of winning hearts and minds, a conversion of deeply held religious views might be the challenge.
Of course, I recognize that I may be painfully ignorant of important facts; therefore, any correction will be appreciated.
Team Sergeant
05-15-2008, 21:04
I'm not saying they don't have a long way to go. I'm saying that one of the trends in Iraq has been that Muslims get faced with the reality of AQ's jihadi craziness (as opposed to the romanticized preachings of the local whack job or internet site) and they come around one community at a time to the idea that enough is enough, then they start dropping dimes, doors start getting kicked, etc.
If your waiting for some kind of miracle civilization-wide change you're going to be disappointed every time. You guys know better than anyone that hearts-and-minds is laborious business.
This little girl is a martyr, but not in the way the jihadis would tell you. Her sacrifice is to expose the true nature of AQ's "movement." Sadly, her death serves us very well in the war of ideas.
Roger, I'll let my uncles know, (all of them but one) served in WWII, that they sure didn't change the ideology of the Japanese or the nazis in those three short years.:rolleyes:
I disagree with your opinion, a lot. America and it's allies shook the Japanese culture to its very core and changed their beliefs in very short order.
Could we do the same thing now, no, why, because now we lack backbone. We're trading freedom for security & appeasment. Our former presidents and current senators wish to speak with terrorists. We are the ones backing down, we no longer have the necessary resolve to see any conflict through.
Like the Marines wrote:
Marines are at war, America is at the mall.
Keep clicking those heels.
TS
x-factor
05-15-2008, 21:06
From our perspective, of course that is true.
But is it from theirs? At least some sources suggest women have no rights under Islam ( LINK to Google Book Ref (http://books.google.com/books?id=NTJnnJNinSgC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=islam+virgin+female+martyr&source=web&ots=PQX8PliJwZ&sig=2L4nF4HHVdtkDd4WlcAh9rvAtk8&hl=en#PPA195,M1) )and that such a death changes them from "only women" ... "to the status of martyrs in their death." (See page 199, above reference).
From their perspective, the murder of the girl might be seen as taking her from a life of misery and providing a straight ticket to heaven. Thus, instead of being a palpably evil act as we see it, it could be regarded as virtuous.
Such a set of views, if actually representative of the population, would be so divergent from Western views as to be irreconcilable. Instead of winning hearts and minds, a conversion of deeply held religious views might be the challenge.
Of course, I recognize that I may be painfully ignorant of important facts; therefore, any correction will be appreciated.
Some people argued slavery was a "kindness" to black people. Taking them away from their "savage, ignorant existence" and caring for them in return for a modicum of servitude.
Cases like this are easy to make in the abstract, but people are instinctively moral and when they actually see the reality of it, it becomes a lot harder to accept.
I'm not saying there aren't some zealots who will believe what they believe to the end. There are and everyone here is happy to kill them.
I'm saying that when terrible stuff like this happens it drives everyone else to say "dear God, is this really what I want? is this really the side I want to be on?"
And that is progress.
Cases like this are easy to make in the abstract, but people are instinctively moral and when they actually see the reality of it, it becomes a lot harder to accept.
Are people instinctively moral? Perhaps. There may well be a deep drive for some set of moral values and standards.
But this brings us to the question of whether there is some shared, unambiguous set of moral values, or whether values can differ. Can the same act by condemned by one group, and applauded by another? If the answer is yes - and I am inclined to believe it is - then I cannot help but wonder if the effect you mention will occur.
You mention slavery, and that is a fine example. Slavery was only repealed by force of arms. It exists today, at least to some degree ( LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/22/garyyounge.mainsection) ). So if people have moral qualms against slavery, then at least some people appear to overcome those reservations rather easily.
As I recall, you are in the business of guiding people into new perspectives. Can people be guided into a new set of moral values? What does it take to do so (in general terms, with no specifics needed)? Does it take long? Please understand, I do not seek anything that would compromise secrets. Treat them as rhetorical if appropriate.
CoLawman
05-15-2008, 21:25
Mmap, points out a necessary clarification, this was murder not suicide. This was NOT a suicide bomber. This was an unsuspecting baby that these cowardly monsters killed. In our American penitentiaries there is a stronger sense of right and wrong among our criminals. The most dastardly and vicious criminals we remove from society do not even tolerate individuals of this ilk.
I'm with TS! Muslims will riot over a cartoon, or the preceived desecration of the Koran, but when it comes to something as horrifying and unconscionable as this act it is implicitly permitted by, not only the masses, but the imams and ayatollahs.
When the muslims can react with revulsion in the appropriate context, then I will be more tolerant of their religion. Until that time, they rank right up there with the other cults of infamy!
Before I step down......As long as the madrassas of this cult continue to be funded by the House of Faud they will remain, in my eyes, as on par with Iran in our fight against the cult they call Islam. Allah U Akbar, my ass!
x-factor
05-15-2008, 21:46
nmap - I've never said what kind of work I do actually.
I said "instinctively moral." I should have probably been more specific and said "have broad moral instincts." Put it another way, its a very rare breed of dude that thinks its ok to use an eight-year old as a precision guided munition. Most people, regardless of creed, are instinctively repulsed by it (whether because of some metaphysical connection to God or because of simple darwinian instincts not to kill your own species' young) and are going to take a second skeptical look at the ideology that promotes it.
Slavery was repealed in England with no war. It was dying in America with no war. Most people in the South didn't even support it.
As for your second question, I don't really know specifically. Different people and different societies, react differently. Some are so hardcore you may never get them to change. Some might flip rather easily. You make your case until it sticks or until it ceases to matter what the target party thinks.
I said "instinctively moral." I should have probably been more specific and said "have broad moral instincts."
Interesting points. Thank you for your thoughts.
Part of the problems is because people become "shocked" and apologetic when we suggest that Islam is a cult of hatred and destruction.
it cant be quoted enough...
Yes you are right, I'm watching the muslims riot live all over the world.... just as they did over the characture of muhammad sporting a bomb turban.
Like I said earlier this sub-human act "will" go unnoticed by one billion muslims.
You just keep clicking your heels and repeating "islam is a religion of peace".
Therein lies the problems... the world at large is afraid to call a spade a spade.
If I have to be lumped in as a gun toting redneck just because I don't like B. Hussein Obama, why the fuck can't I lump savages together in the same group?
SA-VA-GES
lets say it all together now .....
I said "instinctively moral." I should have probably been more specific and said "have broad moral instincts." Put it another way, its a very rare breed of dude that thinks its ok to use an eight-year old as a precision guided munition. Most people, regardless of creed, are instinctively repulsed by it (whether because of some metaphysical connection to God or because of simple darwinian instincts not to kill your own species' young) and are going to take a second skeptical look at the ideology that promotes it.
x-factor, please explain how these 'broad moral instincts' drove the Japanese during the "Rape of Nanking". Chinese soldiers/captives were brutalized, tortured, used for bayonet practice, burned alive and slaughtered. Civilians were indiscriminately executed.
Pregnant women had their fetuses torn from their abdomen in a macabre game of chance; Japanese soldiers took bets on the sex of the fetus and didn't bother to wait until natural childbirth. They slit open their bellies and ripped out the fetus. Babies were thrown into the air and soldiers attempted to 'catch' them on the ends of their bayonets ( I recall seeing a report of something similar happening in Africa more recently).
Not limited to Nanking, Japanese soldiers held competitions to see who could behead the most captives in a set period of time. And they thought they were doing the captives a favor. According to the code of Bushido, a man was dishonored for surrendering or being captured alive. He was a coward. The only way for him to reclaim his honor was ritual suicide or to be executed 'honorably'.
I suggest that the Japanese also looked at non-Japanese as inferior, therefore making the brutal treatment of 'sub-humans' not subject to moral constraints. Interesting that, according to the Quran, women and 'non-believers' (non-Muslims) are considered inferior.
Quran 9:29 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html)
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Quran 4:34 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html)
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
x-factor:
This is not the first time, they have done this!
They used a vehicle with children sitting in the rear seat, once they passed thru the CP into the secured zone. The man exited the vehicle, leaving the vehicle w/children too detonate.
//www.liveleak.com/view?i=61c_1210804020
You call the above video peaceful?:rolleyes:
Stay safe.
Team Sergeant
05-16-2008, 10:57
LiveLeak has posted a picture of the girl..... before the bombing.
If that is her, with that big smile, she would have also killed me had I been there.
Rest in peace little one, while islam, allah, muslims and muhammad place value on your violent death, we infidels place value on your short little life.
Team Sergeant
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ded_1210779492
x-factor
05-16-2008, 15:44
x-factor, please explain how these 'broad moral instincts' drove the Japanese during the "Rape of Nanking". Chinese soldiers/captives were brutalized, tortured, used for bayonet practice, burned alive and slaughtered. Civilians were indiscriminately executed.
Yes, I know about the Rape of Nanking. One might also bring up the campaigns of Ghengis Khan. Or the sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. Or the Balkans more recently. Or any number of other horrific events in history.
People can become acculturated to ignore their basic instincts not to harm other humans. They can be further acculturated to revel in sadistic acts like the ones we've talked about here...but its a hard thing to do.
Japan is an especially good example in that regard. Being an island nation with very little in the way of natural resources, they developed one of the most insular, closely knit communities in human history. When stuff like that goes bad, it really goes bad.
But you're making my point for me. These kinds of slaughters are infamous points in history precisely because they're the exception, not the rule in history. For the most part, (especially in a resource stable world where basic survival is more or less a given) human beings are naturally averse to this kind of thing. Thats why stuff like this tragedy with the little girl helps us. It drives AQ farther and farther into that category where most people don't want to be.
You don't have to quote the Quran to me, I know what it says, but not every Muslim interprets it the same way. You're applying the jihadist ideology to the entire group and thats just not the way it is.
x-factor
05-16-2008, 15:48
x-factor:
This is not the first time, they have done this!
They used a vehicle with children sitting in the rear seat, once they passed thru the CP into the secured zone. The man exited the vehicle, leaving the vehicle w/children too detonate.
//www.liveleak.com/view?i=61c_1210804020
You call the above video peaceful?:rolleyes:
Stay safe.
No its not the first time they've done this. And they've done plenty of other unconscionable stuff too! Thats why the Iraqi populace largely turned on them!
For the most part, (especially in a resource stable world where basic survival is more or less a given) human beings are naturally averse to this kind of thing.
Your statement intrigues me. At the risk of thread-jacking (perhaps a new thread is needed?), what happens if the world ceases to be resource stable, and basic survival for many (say, 2 billion plus) ceases to be a given?
I would very much like to explore that, if possible.
These kinds of slaughters are infamous points in history precisely because they're the exception, not the rule in history.
Really? In the last 100 years we have had the holocaust, Stalin's purges, Pol Pot, Mao's purges, North Korea, Vietnam (after the democrats so ignominiously abandoned the South), the Armenian Genocide, Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, and Cuba. Feel free to add other examples of 'slaughters'. I am sure I have missed many others. Perhaps I don't understand the definition of 'exception', but I'd say you are mistaken.
x-factor
05-16-2008, 16:29
Really? In the last 100 years we have had the holocaust, Stalin's purges, Pol Pot, Mao's purges, North Korea, Vietnam (after the democrats so ignominiously abandoned the South), the Armenian Genocide, Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, and Cuba. Feel free to add other examples of 'slaughters'. I am sure I have missed many others. Perhaps I don't understand the definition of 'exception', but I'd say you are mistaken.
Look at the scope you're talking about. 100 years on a planet of 6 billion+ people. Plus you're talking about the 20th century where technology allowed greater violence to be done by smaller groups than ever before. The point I'm making is about general state of mind of the average human being, not the ability of small groups of zealots to do horrific things.
nmap - When people feel that they are fighting for basic survival resources (food, water, shelter), then its a whole different game. We can start another thread on that if you want, but I don't want to sidetrack this one.
The point I'm making is about general state of mind of the average human being, not the ability of small groups of zealots to do horrific things.
I can see your point here, but where is the puplic outcry by the billion and change non-zealot Muslims, especially the scholars, the religious leaders, and the national leaders who have a voice and platform to express their horror at the actions of an evil fringe? Maybe its out there and not getting the press it should, but I'm just not seeing it if it is.
x-factor
05-16-2008, 19:06
I can see your point here, but where is the puplic outcry by the billion and change non-zealot Muslims, especially the scholars, the religious leaders, and the national leaders who have a voice and platform to express their horror at the actions of an evil fringe? Maybe its out there and not getting the press it should, but I'm just not seeing it if it is.
I agree the vocal opposition to the fringe is sorely lacking, but I don't think its because they agree with their ideology. I think its because they're beat down, jaded, and cowardly.
3SoldierDad
05-16-2008, 19:16
I agree the vocal opposition to the fringe is sorely lacking, but I don't think its because they agree with their ideology. I think its because they're beat down, jaded, and cowardly.
Islam is a systematic means of cowering a people.
Islam = Submission.
It's not just in the water - it's in the mother's milk. The DNA of Islam is cowardice. That is exactly how Mohammad advanced across Arabia - via fear. He managed to obliterate courage from the Arab heart. As Osama Bin Laden says, an Arab "backs the strong horse." - It's his instinct, moved by fear.
Through the centuries the psyche of cowardice has been reinforced and hardwired.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
I agree the vocal opposition to the fringe is sorely lacking, but I don't think its because they agree with their ideology. I think its because they're beat down, jaded, and cowardly.
Regardless of reason, then, would you agree that silence equals tacit approval, at least in the minds of the uncommitted?
3SoldierDad
05-17-2008, 07:53
Regardless of reason, then, would you agree that silence equals tacit approval, at least in the minds of the uncommitted?
Yes.
We are responsible for what we don't do. Inaction is an action. Sins of omission are actually worse than sins of commission since in addition to being wrong they are cowardly, too. These lethal transgressions enable every form of evil. In Dante's Inferno the deepest, darkest, most God-forsaken inner ring of Hell are reserved for cowards.
Inaction is an action since it requires "active" restraint. Cowardice is a choice - the worse kind. Cowardice chooses to put goodness on the cross - to do nothing - and kill it. When doing the right thing matters- the coward runs and hides. The coward kills the truth.
Islam = Submission = Cowardization
For the record, I like Arabs - However, Islam has ruined and is ruining the Arab (the Persian, too). A diet of lies, hate, and intimidation will ruin a people. Sewage kills. Cowardization is my word. Islam is a system for making cowards. Cowardization
Just like socialism is a system for making all men lazy; so Islam is not a religion as much as a political system for making cowards.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
CoLawman
05-17-2008, 07:57
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080516/militants_afghan_080516/20080516?hub=World
This time it was a 10 year old boy! Two children in a week and no public outcry from the Cult masses and leaders.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080516/militants_afghan_080516/20080516?hub=World
This time it was a 10 year old boy! Two children in a week and no public outcry from the Cult masses and leaders.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the outcry from the cult leaders. They are as guilty as the bomb makers.
LiveLeak has posted a picture of the girl..... before the bombing.
If that is her, with that big smile, she would have also killed me had I been there.
Rest in peace little one, while islam, allah, muslims and muhammad place value on your violent death, we infidels place value on your short little life.
Team Sergeant
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ded_1210779492The forseeable problem is; what happens when, one of these kids are engaged?
MSM will have a field day.:mad:
The forseeable problem is; what happens when, one of these kids are engaged?
MSM will have a field day.:mad:
Sir, I believe you have uncovered the fundamental reason for the strategy.
The child is regarded as a low-cost expendable. Use of the child has dual benefits - one immediate, one deferred. The immediate benefit (from their perspective) is obvious. The deferred benefit is to enhance the likelihood that a child will be engaged. This creates favorable media coverage (again, from their perspective), as well as impeding efforts to win over the civilian population.
Their tactics are deplorable, of course - but cunning.
Team Sergeant
05-17-2008, 09:11
Sir, I believe you have uncovered the fundamental reason for the strategy.
I agree but.....
When erik prince's blackwater shot and killed dozens of unarmed civilians in the back I would have thought that would have been the straw that broke the camels back. It was not.
nmap I think you give the islamic idiots too much credit for being intelligent/cunning. Bottom feeding spineless coward scum and sub-human seems more appropriate in this case.
TS
nmap I think you give the islamic idiots too much credit for being intelligent/cunning. Bottom feeding spineless coward scum and sub-human seems more appropriate in this case.
Yes, Sir. One of my weaknesses is a tendency to create overly complex patterns and connections when simple answers are more accurate.
Yes, Sir. One of my weaknesses is a tendency to create overly complex patterns and connections when simple answers are more accurate.My simple answers are my weakness even though; those that want, the overly complex patterns and connections fail too realize that..."Some things require immediate attention!":D
Stay safe.
x-factor
05-17-2008, 14:58
Regardless of reason, then, would you agree that silence equals tacit approval, at least in the minds of the uncommitted?
In the abstract metaphysical "only God can judge the heart", kind of way...no, its not the same.
In the practical "lets solve the problem" kind of way...yes, it usually does.
I agree but.....
When erik prince's blackwater shot and killed dozens of unarmed civilians in the back I would have thought that would have been the straw that broke the camels back. It was not.
...Bottom feeding spineless coward scum and sub-human seems more appropriate in this case.
TS
Very well said, TS. Something to think about, indeed!
Holly
x-factor
05-17-2008, 16:31
Speaking of straws and camels...
Sadly, I'm sure this dumbass is going to overshadow the child bomber stories.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html
Therein lies the problems... the world at large is afraid to call a spade a spade.
.....
Agreed Sir.
After talking to my Uncle, who served honorably in the U.S. Army during WWII...I have drawn a small conclusion...
Our Military should NOT apologize, for any action it takes, at any time.
JMHO,
Holly
GratefulCitizen
05-17-2008, 18:32
Regardless of reason, then, would you agree that silence equals tacit approval, at least in the minds of the uncommitted?
In the abstract metaphysical "only God can judge the heart", kind of way...no, its not the same.
In the practical "lets solve the problem" kind of way...yes, it usually does.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,
I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
-Matthew 27:24 (King James Version)
I am of the opinion that those able to intervene on behalf of the innocent (in this case "moderate muslims") have an obligation to do so.
They can continue to turn their heads away and remain silent.
But, when their day comes, who will speak up on their behalf?
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
-Galatians 6:7 (King James Version)
<edit>
A picture worth a thousand words: http://caosblog.com/images/difference2.bmp
"The actions of one soldier were nothing more than criminal behavior,"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html
It is a crime for a US Soldier to desecrate the Quran? Imprudent, yes. If we are going to call it a crime, then we might as well bow down and accept our status as dhimmis.
CoLawman
05-17-2008, 20:49
Speaking of straws and camels...
Sadly, I'm sure this dumbass is going to overshadow the child bomber stories.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html
Yep the MSM will run this story first for days! The cultists will riot, chant and work themselves to a frenzy over a book. And that is exactly the point. These embiciles not only lack the ability to reason, they lack the ability to recognize how utterly despicable their protests will be, considering they sat on their arses as children were murdered in the name of the Koran!............Perhaps the soldier is not the dumbass. Perhaps he was just as disgusted as I and acted on his feelings.
Very well said, and I couldn't agree more. But we have to take that responsibilty and make that change. Elect new Senators, Congressmen ect.. who will drop the hammer and see the fight through and not take up a defensive posture. But our politicians are arguing among themselves and we may not prevail until we come together.
Very well said, and I couldn't agree more. But we have to take that responsibilty and make that change. Elect new Senators, Congressmen ect.. who will drop the hammer and see the fight through and not take up a defensive posture. But our politicians are arguing among themselves and we may not prevail until we come together.
__________________
Sometimes you must do dark things to get to the light. "unknown"
One is just neglect, the other is treason.
Please explain how this rises to the level of treason. I can think of many other incidents that could more appropriately be considered treason (interestingly, most of the individuals involved have a "-D" behind their name).
As to the soldier shooting the Quran, Robert Spencer once again gets to the crux of the issue:
http://jihadwatch.org/
May 18, 2008
U.S. soldier uses Qur'an for target practice; U.S. military apologizes; U.S. official kisses Qur'an
Assuming that the soldier really did know this was the Qur'an -- he says he didn't but the military "rejected the claim" -- this story illustrates many things.
1. While the President and the military brass are anxious to deny that the War On Terror has anything to do with Islam, many rank-and-file soldiers can't help but notice that the fiercest enemies they encounter are also the most devout in their Islam, and that the jihad terrorists quote the Qur'an copiously to justify their acts of violence.
2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur'an as target practice is unfortunate. If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D'Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn "moderates" into "extremists" -- D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime. But that is not the same thing as avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.
3. The reactions of Major General Hammond and his staff were understandable, but excessive. They don't want to alienate people they believe they have won over, or whom they hope to win over, in Baghdad. They had to disavow this soldier's action. However, kissing the Qur'an and begging for forgiveness -- and holding an apology "ceremony" in the first place -- are gestures that spring from a misunderstanding of how they are likely to be perceived by the "tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony."
Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine. But to kiss the Qur'an and to beg for forgiveness are signs that one accepts its authority and the authority of those before whom one is begging. Coming from non-Muslims, it is likely that they will be interpreted as gestures of submission, and the submission of non-Muslims to Muslims is a significant concept in Islamic law -- although I am sure Major General Hammond and his staff are unaware of this. Given that, is it wise to be giving such impressions? Are such impressions not likely to create even more tension in the future?
4. "Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident 'aggression against the entire Islamic world.'" This is simply hysterical. It was a boorish, stupid act, but it was a boorish, stupid act by one individual soldier. If he has shot up a Bible, Christians who knew about the incident might have regarded him as something of an idiot, but that would have been the end of the story. No apology ceremony, no military brass kissing the book, nothing.
Of course, we are not engaged in a war in a country where the majority of people revere the Bible, but that doesn't completely account for the difference. The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted. Major General Hammond and his staff are trying to head that off. That's fine, but it also just plays into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it. At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything." But we are a long, long way at this point from that kind of common sense.
If the soldier willfully left the shot up Quran there to be found, then he not only ignored but directly and willfully countered any and every order he ever received (whether explicitly from his chain of command or implicitly from the President and the SECDEF) to respect and work with the Iraqi populace.
That is not treason. Disobeying a direct order, perhaps. Willful misconduct, yes. Treason, no.
No amount of "well, other people have done worse" changes that.
That is not the point. Our political leadership and media are quick to crucify a soldier for stupidity, but give a pass to politicians and high-profile individuals that could rightly be considered giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy. It is a double-standard that does not go unnoticed by the rank and file soldiers.
Team Sergeant
05-18-2008, 09:39
Speaking of straws and camels...
Sadly, I'm sure this dumbass is going to overshadow the child bomber stories.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html
You are one step away from becoming a banned user.
This thread "redirect" has nothing to do with the insane muslim murder of a small child and everything to do with attempting to show your opinion of what should be considered evil.
You have never served in the military have you? And I seriously doubt you've ever been in harms way. Call someone in the military stupid on your boards, not mine.
This thread is now closed to you, post on it again and you will seal your fate on this board. (And I will be removing your unintelligent comments but leaving this one.)
Your ability to once again log onto this website or lack there of will be decided by Special Forces soldiers.
Don't post again until another Special Forces soldier tells you to do so.
Team Sergeant
Defender968
05-18-2008, 12:03
Look at the scope you're talking about. 100 years on a planet of 6 billion+ people. Plus you're talking about the 20th century where technology allowed greater violence to be done by smaller groups than ever before. The point I'm making is about general state of mind of the average human being, not the ability of small groups of zealots to do horrific things.
What about Iran's use of the human wave tactic in the Iran-Iraq war, where a European journalist stated he saw tens of thousands of young boys roped together to overwhelm the Iraqi gun emplacements, and how about the children soldiers in the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan and a host of other African countries who are taught to rape and murder as soon as they can hold a weapon. You talk about 20th Century technology which allows small groups to do greater violence, that doesn't hold water, what about the Sudanese militia, they're not using technology, they're using machetes to hack men, women and CHILDREN to death....old school style. Let’s be honest, you’re kidding yourself and so is anyone else who thinks they can reason with these people. Children are victims of the worlds wolves, it hasn't just happened in the past in isolated areas when survival was at stake, if that were the case then why is child/human trafficking for the sex slave trade so rampant in the far east, that’s not about survival it’s about greed. The reality is it's happening today while you're drinking your coffee watching CNN, it's happening all over the world and by far and large the sheep of the world ignore it because they don't want to believe that EVIL men exist and will continue to do evil things.
Many sheeple just want to think the world is a pretty place, populated by good people, and while there are many good people I can tell you even in this country there are many, many, bad people who abuse and exploit children even their own. I don't think the Muslims have a lock on this type of evil, but I do believe their belief structure lends itself to this type of madness.
This sheep mindset is exactly what led to appeasement during WWII, and it’s exactly why the Dems are calling for a dialog with the people who propagate this pure unadulterated evil. The only thing that will change the mind of someone willing to use an 8 year old girl as a precision guided munition is a piece of hot led inserted into the brainstem at approx 3250 fps.
Rant off
3SoldierDad
05-18-2008, 14:13
I don't think the Muslims have a lock on this type of evil, but I do believe their belief structure lends itself to this type of madness.... The only thing that will change the mind of someone willing to use an 8 year old girl as a precision guided munition is a piece of hot led inserted into the brainstem at approx 3250 fps.
Bingo.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Distorted
05-18-2008, 19:14
The only inborn 'morality' that people have, is loyalty to the people in their immediate vicinity, friends, family, neighbors--and sometimes not even that. Ideas about 'the nature of morality' have to be introduced. There are very few people who do not feel some inborn drive to be 'moral' and pro-social.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=759_1209291548
This suicide bomber, saying goodbye to his daughter looks like a normal, loving, caring, self-sacrificing, 'moral' individual who happens to subscribe to a moral code that allows him to rationalize the murder of innocents.
The true horror of this child-bomber to me is that it was probably perpetrated by a relatively ordinary person with very strong convictions and a willingness to sacrifice anything to satisfy them. I am reminded of the Iranian mother who lost her two teenage sons during the Iran-Iraq war in human wave attacks. She was proud of them, and would gladly have sent two more to the front.
Don't forget that Eugene "Prime Evil" De Kock had the second most common personality type for South African males.
edit: found this: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1316058,00.html?f=rss
Apparently the Army thinks she was 16, doesn't make it any less horrific though.
GratefulCitizen
05-18-2008, 21:47
The only inborn 'morality' that people have, is loyalty to the people in their immediate vicinity, friends, family, neighbors--and sometimes not even that. Ideas about 'the nature of morality' have to be introduced. There are very few people who do not feel some inborn drive to be 'moral' and pro-social.
Don't know whether to agree or disagree with this.
Not quite sure what you mean.
With my own children, and all of the children I have ever observed while they are very young, there have been a few consistent behaviors.
They never have any problem learning the words "mine" and "no" (in response to instruction).
They have no problem developing a certain level of rebelliousness and selfishness.
These seem to come quite naturally.
In contrast, behaviors which reflect an attitude of selflessness, compassion, empathy, obedience, etc., have to be consistently cultivated and reinforced.
Distorted
05-18-2008, 22:13
Essentially, I argue that the only thing one can be certain of when it comes to people's behavior, is that they will learn the norms of their peer group and make an effort to 'fit in'. Teenagers the world over are rebellious and selfish, but most of the rest of us figure out how to fit in and cooperate with the people around us ie sheeple.
The argument I put forward is that suicide bombers are sheeple, being good little lambs and doing what they're supposed to do to be good, upstanding citizens, respected and loved by their survivors; as opposed to wolves, preying on everyone around them, betraying the trust of their closest comrades for selfish gain.
In contrast, behaviors which reflect an attitude of selflessness, compassion, empathy, obedience, etc., have to be consistently cultivated and reinforced.
It seems to me that the Islamic societies excel at the cultivation you mention. They have prayer 5 times per day. They have a lunar month of fasting. Their Imams are (according to my understanding) leaders in both religious and secular affairs. Even the language seems to emphasize their preferred values - "submission" being a case in point.
Given such extensive reinforcement, I would think that changing their minds would be somewhere between difficult and impossible.
Essentially, I argue that the only thing one can be certain of when it comes to people's behavior, is that they will learn the norms of their peer group and make an effort to 'fit in'.
(snip)
The argument I put forward is that suicide bombers are sheeple, being good little lambs and doing what they're supposed to do to be good, upstanding citizens, respected and loved by their survivors; as opposed to wolves, preying on everyone around them, betraying the trust of their closest comrades for selfish gain.
But in a sense, everyone (sheep and wolves both) must do what they are supposed to do. Too much divergence from expected behavior patterns would cause them to be excluded from the society or community. Can a leader who is too different from expectations function as a leader? Would an organization of any sort long tolerate behavior regarded as exceedingly strange? Saddam sprang from that society, functioned in it, ruled and prospered in it. Yes, he was a brutal dictator; but I wonder if he did not understand the society he lived in. If that is so, does it suggest what "leadership" might mean there? Might their leaders conform to different standards than our own?
What would Americans do to a U.S. leader who sent a child out as a "precision guided munition"? The apparent lack of strong objections, even among Islamic populations residing in the West, seems to say something about the mindset, and acceptance of leadership principles foreign to our own.
I wonder if the sheeple are not eager for a leader, do not in fact seek one out. From Mein Kampf, "The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling. " So from a very different belief system, we can see a similar paradigm forming.
I suspect our challenge is finding a way to transform - or, perhaps more accurately, catalyze the transformation of - Islamic thinking. Otherwise, continued conflict seems inevitable. Unfortunately, a great many of our people seem to have less conviction than do they.
Your mileage may vary, standard disclaimers apply, etc.
GratefulCitizen
05-19-2008, 09:21
In contrast, behaviors which reflect an attitude of selflessness, compassion, empathy, obedience, etc., have to be consistently cultivated and reinforced.
It seems to me that the Islamic societies excel at the cultivation you mention. They have prayer 5 times per day. They have a lunar month of fasting. Their Imams are (according to my understanding) leaders in both religious and secular affairs. Even the language seems to emphasize their preferred values - "submission" being a case in point.
Given such extensive reinforcement, I would think that changing their minds would be somewhere between difficult and impossible.
Sending a child on a suicide mission, or silently tolerating such behavior, reflects a serious lack of selflessness, compassion, and empathy.
Having the courage to speak up, knowing that you will pay a price, is selflessness in action.
Unfortunately, I'm sure there will be some spineless cowards willing to make an undue example of this soldier to appease the unappeasable. It is a rather glaring contrast that the death of the 8-year old girl warranted not a peep from the Iraqi Sunni party. Nor for that matter from the US mainstream press.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021084.php#comments
Iraqi Sunni party demands tough action against Qur'an-shooting soldier
An apology, however groveling it may have been, is not enough. More on this story. "Iraqi Sunni party demands tough action against U.S. soldier shooting Quran," from Xinhua, May 19:
BAGHDAD, May 19 (Xinhua) -- A key Iraqi Sunni party demanded Monday the U.S. military to take a tough action against its soldier who used a copy of holy Quran as a target practice, saying apology is not "enough."
The Iraqi Islamic Party, headed by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, said in a statement that it "demands the U.S. administration to deal firmly with this desecration to make the soldier an example for others in the future."
The party also demanded the Iraqi government to take an appropriate position toward the "humiliation of Muslims by this heinous crime," said the statement obtained by Xinhua.
"Such offenses have occurred frequently during the past few years and apology is no more enough and the U.S. military has to take stronger measures to honor values of Muslims," stressed the statement....
Defender968
05-19-2008, 13:11
Unfortunately, I'm sure there will be some spineless cowards willing to make an undue example of this soldier to appease the unappeasable. It is a rather glaring contrast that the death of the 8-year old girl warranted not a peep from the Iraqi Sunni party. Nor for that matter from the US mainstream press.
While I would agree some pencil pusher will probably try, the good news is I don't know what they would charge him with if they were to try to throw the book at him. While this was probably not the smartest thing he's ever done, shooting a book is not illegal by any US law or any part of the UCMJ that I can think of. If he were an officer they could have charged him with the catch all 134 Conduct Unbecoming but that would still be pretty weak. I will say as an E-7 he should have known better, it's not like he's an 18 year old Private, but using poor judgment is still not illegal. I'm sure it's illegal by Iraqi law to shoot the Quran, but I seriously doubt we'd let him stand trial for it.
They can fire him from his current position, send him to a crappy assignment, and make his life miserable in general, but that's pretty much the worst they should be able to legally do to him, unless there’s more to the story. With that being said his excuse was he didn’t know it was a Quran, if he put that in an official statement and they can prove that it’s not true they could get him with making a false official statement. But barring that, I doubt they'll even be able to take a stripe over this, nor do I think they should. His CC should put a boot in his ass for being stupid, send him home (because he'd be a liability to the other men in his squad/platoon after this, and displayed pretty poor judgment) and press on.
Unfortunately, I'm sure there will be some spineless cowards willing to make an undue example of this soldier to appease the unappeasable.
Yes, Sir, I'm sure you're right.
I am reminded of a quote by Lenin: "Probe with a bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push."
The article seems to suggest that the Islamicists are probing and finding mush. If that is true, I cannot help but wonder what their next step will be.
I noticed the following item this morning:
BAGHDAD (AFP) — US President George W. Bush has apologised to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over the shooting of a Koran by an American soldier near Baghdad, state television announced on Tuesday.
"The prime minister received an apology from US President George W. Bush on the incident of shooting of a Koran by a US soldier," Al-Iraqia television said.
US military authorities in Iraq have apologised to the local community west of Baghdad where the staff sergeant fired at the Koran during shooting practice on May 11.
LINK (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0h2A2mjSozlYYPjY9Ka1iNh-Q_g)
So the President of the United States apologizes for someone shooting a book.
And no one says anything about the various terrorist atrocities.
I think I'll join in the national penance for this act and force myself to eat bacon and sausage this morning. It's a tough sacrifice, but I want to do my part. :D
3SoldierDad
05-20-2008, 08:05
BAGHDAD (AFP) — US President George W. Bush has apologised to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over the shooting of a Koran by an American soldier near Baghdad, state television announced on Tuesday. "The prime minister received an apology from US President George W. Bush on the incident of shooting of a Koran by a US soldier," Al-Iraqia television said.
This really bothers me.
IMO, Bush is a big time Islamic suck-up. It really made me sick to see him hooting it up with the Saudis last week, holding hands with them, laughing it up with them, with one of their ceremonial swords over his shoulder. All of it, disgusting. Politicians sicken me...
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
This really bothers me.
IMO, Bush is a big time Islamic suck-up. It really made me sick to see him hooting it up with the Saudis last week, holding hands with them, laughing it up with them, with one of their ceremonial swords over his shoulder. All of it, disgusting. Politicians sicken me...
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Yep
Speaking of straws and camels...
Sadly, I'm sure this dumbass is going to overshadow the child bomber stories.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html
I think the Quran makes a fine target for practice – there is no comparison between using a kid as a bomb and shooting a book so I doubt it will overshadow, but it does make me a little sad that we felt the need to apologize for it. Sorry but I’m a little defensive when someone calls a soldier who is risking their life a ‘dumbass’ for something like this.