A new low in Terrorism

[MA-Caver]

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.
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.
The coordinated blasts — coming 20 minutes apart in different parts of the city — appeared to reinforce U.S. claims al-Qaida in Iraq may be increasingly desperate and running short of able-bodied men willing or available for such missions.
But they also served as a reminder that Iraqi insurgents are constantly shifting their strategies in attempts to unravel recent security gains around the country. Women have been used in ever greater frequency in suicide attacks because they often encounter less scrutiny by security officials.
The twin attacks at the pet markets, however, could mark a disturbing use of unknowing agents of death.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I agree Kacey

 

[Tez3]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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.
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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.