sick bastards
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two mentally disabled women were strapped with explosives Friday and sent into busy Baghdad markets, where they were blown up by remote control, a top Iraqi government official said.


Iraqi soldiers secure the scene of a bombing Friday at a popular pet market in central Baghdad.

The bombs killed at least 98 people and wounded more than 200 at two popular pet markets on the holiest day of the week for Muslims, authorities said.

In both bombings, the attackers were mentally disabled women whose explosive belts were remotely detonated, Gen. Qasim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad's security plan, told state television.

Atta said the women were strapped with dynamite and ball bearings, citing members of the bomb squad. The explosives were detonated via cell phone, he said.

An Atta aide said that people referred to the bomber at central Baghdad's al-Ghazl market as the "crazy woman" and that the bomber at a second market had an unspecified birth disability.

The aide said authorities believe the women were unaware of plans to detonate the explosives.

---

this is why we can never win the occupation of Iraq. against a foe willing to do this, the only victory is total annihilation.

:rolleyes:

If you're going to blow someone up in 'protest' (And I used that term lightly), it should be yourself.

So does that classify as a "Dumb Bomb"?

Sorry, sadistic humor at work.

I actually have to agree with Sion here, at least you are not going to win with conventional means anyway.

I am laughing my ass off. thank you!

Obviously, since sending two mentally disabled women to their deaths in a war is much, much worse than sending thousands of mentally competent troops.

[/sarcasm]

Glad someone admits to finding it funny :)

It's just like I've always said:

Iraqis shouldn't own pets.

Hahahaha...

I guess the people that have carried rifles for a living will appreciate this more than those who haven't.

In Afghanistan they tried to strap bombs to camels and send them into our bases. My friend was telling me what ended up happening is the camels got bored and wandered back to where there was fresh grass. This grass happened to be near water (duh), and was the same water where the Taliban struck up for the night.

The bomb was on a timed fuse.

Cowards.

and yet, we're the horrific evil doers in this situation

There are many other reasons why.

This is one of them.

what they did right there isnt right.. but it doesnt make your cause any more noble

This would suggest that in an adversarial situation there is a good guy and a bad guy. That simply isn't true. There can be two assholes fighting, as a matter of fact, that's usually the case.

this doesnt really surprise me at all. These are the same people that saw people’s heads off with 3 inch long dull knives.

Oh and is there cause noble?

Yea they use retarded women to kill 100 civilians.

We removed a homicidal dictator.

But we are both just assholes....

Oh so typical, we are just as bad...

deleted

Retarded women as weapons vs. retarded President sending troops overseas.

War is the same on both sides, I figure. Where the retards are... that changes.

Is that 10,000% part of your bullshit 1.2 million figure or another figure pulled out of the lefts ass? DU doesn't do shit btw.

You liked Saddam, got it. Not sure why the left likes these dictators but it seems to be they hate republicans more.

Actually will I think you blame the US totally on this, and think of the insurgents as 'freedom fighters'. Its fitting with many of your ideology. Hell if you REALLY believe your own 9/11 claims its only logical that you pin all this on the US. Am I wrong? I'd really like to know.

hey. politically speaking im a "leftist" and i really dont like anyone.

now that i think about it i dont even like leftists.

I am sure you are just trying to play the tit for tat game but the US administration (left and right) has been supporting dictators of all sorts (including Saddam) for years.

I am certain, if pressed, you would have agreed with their reasoning at the time.

Can TFP play a gong noise every time I click into a forum where there is a set of dialog between Will and Ustwo? Make my life easier, that way I can make ready the popcorn before I read, even if it is friendly conversation.

You can't beat an insane enemy, unless you yourself are more insane.

Um... might want to do some research before spewing BS like this.

Total annihilation of what, precisely... the whole country? The whole Middle East?

I mean, really. We might as well say "let's wipe out all of America because their kids keep shooting up their schools. Of course we can tar all Yanks with the same brush, that's perfectly valid..."

i dont recall saying that any one side was noble. maybe you should re-read my post again.

no matter what happens, the utter bullshit cause of 'defending freedom' isnt any more noble if dickheads like that do something extremely low

So if your country was invaded by another more powerful country because they didn't like your country's government, and your family and friends were being killed simply for having the misfortune to be born and living there, you'd be happy with them considering your "total annihilation" to be justified?

The Holocaust was horrific, but honestly, how is this less fair to the Iraqi people?

Wouldn't it benefit the thread to counter this rather than simply point a finger?

Fair enough, almost every Arab country has secular leaders. Take your pick of the counter.

Filthy scum for doing that to those people,and killing the mentally ill - a coward would be ashamed.A scum of a religion in its extreme.

I understood exactly what you meant and I agree with you.

It's pretty sad when you have to use the exploitation of retarded women as bombs as a means of propping up your own moral superiority.

I've got a novel idea! Let's condemn abject ruthlessness and immorality by not resorting to abjectly ruthless and immoral statements about total annhilation in the same fucking breath. :rolleyes:

I knew I should just have put this in the politics forum, since it was destined to devolve into a a mud-slinging festival.

Sorry. I'll erase all my posts.

I wonder wich topic the underlined part was about? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey now.

To wish total annihilation on an a people (including civilians) is surely a greater moral crime than the use of a disabled bomber on a small number of civilians.

And for all we know. Their own news sources right now are reporting US killing of women and children. It wouldn't surprise me. In fact it'd surprise me if they didn't run that story.

So while this report is somewhat shocking, I think we need to be careful and not jump to conclusions. In either case, what is needed are real solutions. Everyone wants the problem fixed - the real question is 'how'.

The thing about terrorist acts is that in asymmetrical warfare (Iraq/Afghanistan) where you have a superior force aligned against an inferior force, the inferior force has many tactics for turning the tide:

-Incite a disproportionate response from the superior force, thus garnering popular support as collateral damage rises
-Use terror tactics to tell the public, "Support us in our fight or we will count you among the enemies"
-Use any and all media possible to disseminate your message

All of these tactics are used to try to win back the population, as well as make the enemy pay such a high price in blood that they will become soured on the fight and retreat.

However, in this instance, they hurt their cause by being cowards and not blowing up themselves. The media can seize this opportunity to show the Iraqis that the insurgents only value power. They don't want the country's freedom from oppressors. They want to be the ones who decide whom to oppress, when, where, and how.

In a lot of these foreign wars, I am able to see both sides of the coin. In this instance, the ends never justify those means. Ever.

Actually, for me, acts that kill or injure noncombatants can never be justified. From either side. This includes the collateral damage caused by bombs dropped by our side. Just because we do it in the pursuit of killing the enemy does not justify it. Just because they did it to us does not condone our methods.

Just my $0.02... cue ustwo and whoever else calling me out as [insert ad hominem here]

cant speak for anyone else, but I did NOT wish annihilation on anyone. I was merely pointing out what it would take to achieve any kind of meaningful victory over the insurgency in Iraq.

I think it is the suggestion that a "meaningful victory" would mean total annihilation. Are you suggesting the U.S. needs to "conquer" Iraq in light of situations like this?

How do you conqueor anything these days? A cruise missile with a nuclear payload?

...

A meaningful victory? Get real. After my deployment to Iraq ('03-'04), the mission over there reeked of one thing: damage control for a bad choice and no way out.

no, Im suggesting that the only way for American troops to end the insurgency would be to systematically destroy every individual or group involved therein. And the only way to be absolutely certain that you accomplished that task would be a total annihilation of the Iraqi population.

understand this, though: I am NOT saying we should do this. I'm merely pointing out that we are fighting a group that is willing to literally ANYTHING, regardless of how evil it might be, to achieve their ends. And they are ready, willing and determined to fight to the last man, woman and child in their cause. The only victory that could possibly be achieved against a foe like that is complete and total extermination.



Crompsin: I agree 100% with your assessment of the situation in Iraq.