Two Bombings Wreak Carnage in Iraqi Capital

Melanie_ · February 4, 2008

I think this:

I don't think any on this forum loves the savagery. I do think that many on this forum are prepared to lay the blame for the savagery at the feet of the forces of civilized countries such as the US or Israel that refuse to capitulate to barbarians, and to praise appeasement artists such as Europeans or NDPers in Canada. Remember, it was Churchill and Roosvelt who cleaned up the mess left behind by the appeasers. Similarly Reagan and Thatcher cleaned up Carter's mess.
Mostly, I think that many people, for reasons of political correctness, refuse to draw obvious connections. One obvious connection that radical Muslims seem to have in common, whether Sunni, Shi'ite, Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghan, Palestininan or otherwise is the technique of causing large-scale, indiscriminate death that serves little or no sttrategic purpose.

is a much more rational view than this:

So true. The Left loves the Muslims and their savagery, not understanding the utter contempt that these savages hold them in. This has nothing to do with Bush, Israel, or Blair. The Muslims clearly are into death for the sake of death.

I can agree with you when you talk about savagery, the radical Muslims, and even to some extent appeasement, although I see a difference between trying to have a dialogue and giving in. This weekend I heard Barack Obama quote JFK, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." We have to believe that there are those willing to engage in discussion, and seek them out to try to broker peace. When we take the position that all Muslims are into death for the sake of death, we close off all possibility of peace.

M.Dancer · February 4, 2008

Does anyone remember the reports coming out of Iraq where various peoples' cars were being 'held' by allied forces, then upon returning them to their owners, it was found that suddenly explosives were packed into the vehicles, which could easily be remotely detonated?

First I have heard of it. Was it reported on the Moonbeam network?

eyeball · February 4, 2008

Hear, hear, aw.
Another pattern might be how the USSR and USA played countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba as chess pieces in a larger game and how several of the pawns turned against their own king in those games.

Another emerging pattern is how history comes with a reset button everytime this happens.

February 4, 2008

I can agree with you when you talk about savagery, the radical Muslims, and even to some extent appeasement, although I see a difference between trying to have a dialogue and giving in. This weekend I heard Barack Obama quote JFK, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." We have to believe that there are those willing to engage in discussion, and seek them out to try to broker peace. When we take the position that all Muslims are into death for the sake of death, we close off all possibility of peace.

What JFK said, and Obama repeated, is so true. I have to shake my head at those who say we will not negotiate with terrorists; at those who speak as if Islam is synonymous with terrorism; at those who say the left loves savagery (especically when claiming to be a lefty themself); at those who say 'better them than us' when innocents are dying on the other side of the world by the thousands; at those who support Bush and the U.S., which rather than negotiate, has no qualms about threatening with nukes instead. Talk about uncivilized and savage! We are killing more innocents than the radical Muslims are, yet so many people don't recognize that-- or refuse to recognize it. Or dismiss it as 'not as bad.' It's no wonder there's no peace to be found.

Muddy · February 4, 2008

All this blame on Bush,yet it is and was Islamic terrorists that are killing people in the public square,mosque or other public places. It`s not Americans killing people indiscriminately! jeesh!

Gee thanks for the tip that Afganistan has oil! When did that happen. I guess I was fooled into thinking that we entered Afganistan to get rid of Binny and his benevolent happy gang! Here it was all about oil!

jbg · February 5, 2008

I can agree with you when you talk about savagery, the radical Muslims, and even to some extent appeasement, although I see a difference between trying to have a dialogue and giving in. This weekend I heard Barack Obama quote JFK, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." We have to believe that there are those willing to engage in discussion, and seek them out to try to broker peace. When we take the position that all Muslims are into death for the sake of death, we close off all possibility of peace.

I'm glad your position is nuanced, and I was in fact in favor of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Those agreements resulted in an unambiguous disavowal of violence and diplomatic relations. I am against any negotiations not premised in the result that both parties leave the bargaining table alive and well.

Perhaps the latter post that you quoted was a bit over the top. I'm willing to admit that possiblity.

Muddy · February 5, 2008

Maybe Little Mosque on the Praire will denounce this useing of gentle Downsyndrome gals as walking bombs in the name of Islam? Or maybe those of the Islamic faith will march in the streets denounceing this obscene use of innocents? Where are the voices of peaceful Islam? Where is the comdemnation from Islamic leaders? All I hear is silence! How are people like me who want to believe the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful keep the faith in their fellow human beings, if the silence is deafening? I wait. I just wait. Where are the voices? Or are the people of the Islamic faith, afraid, even here in Canada to speak up?

jbg · February 5, 2008

Maybe Little Mosque on the Praire will denounce this useing of gentle Downsyndrome gals as walking bombs in the name of Islam? Or maybe those of the Islamic faith will march in the streets denounceing this obscene use of innocents?

But didn't you know these gentle girls were victims of Bush and Olmert?

Peter F · February 5, 2008

Maybe Little Mosque on the Praire will denounce this useing of gentle Downsyndrome gals as walking bombs in the name of Islam? Or maybe those of the Islamic faith will march in the streets denounceing this obscene use of innocents? Where are the voices of peaceful Islam? Where is the comdemnation from Islamic leaders? All I hear is silence! How are people like me who want to believe the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful keep the faith in their fellow human beings, if the silence is deafening? I wait. I just wait. Where are the voices? Or are the people of the Islamic faith, afraid, even here in Canada to speak up?

Muslims in America today seem to have lost the right to be individualsj. We are treated as a collectivity - responsible as a group for any crime committed by another Muslim or done in the name of Islam.
Shortly after 9/11, I wrote and article stating that Muslims have the greatest obligation to reject terrorism and political violence committed in the name of Islam.

...

At the same time, clarifying our own position does not mean that we have to 'speak out' against each and every statement issued by terrorists or every criminal action taken by groups claiming to represent Muslim interests.

...

American Muslim organizations have made extrodinary efforts to publicize thier rejection of terrorism and extremism in the name of Islam: we have organized petitions, written fatwas and position papers, distributed brochures, held conferences, organized press briefings, published op-eds, sponen on the radio and television.

Still, we are asked, 'Why have moderate Muslims not spoken out against the extremists?' We have spoken, but we have not been heard - primarily because good news does not get much coverage.

Even worse, we have spoken, but we have not been listened to. There are many people who are ideologically opposed to Islam - to the most benign interpretation of Islam - because of thier own extremist religious or political ideologies.

- excerpted from my copy of Islamica Magazine, issue 20, 2007. website: Islamica Magazine

...To my Muslim brothers and sisters, I say, the number one enemy of Islam today is the Al-Qaida and those who invoke Islam to hold on to power; be it in Saudi Arabia, Iran or your local mosque. They are not your friends. The world stares at a bleak future and we Muslims in Canada and the west need to lead the fight against the ideology of Al-Qaida. We need to succeed where George Bush has failed. My friends, it is a battle of ideas, and insh'allah, reason will triumph over hate and dogma.

- 'Muslim WakeUp' , July 9 2005 Muslim WakeUp

...No example is starker than that of Sheik Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Party of God, for 25 years a scourge of Israel and the United States with its suicide bombings and other terror attacks in Lebanon and Israel. After a 1983 truck bombing of a United States Marine barracks near the Beirut airport killed 241 servicemen, American officials accused Sheik Fadlallah of having ordered the attack, an allegation he returned when he blamed the Central Intelligence Agency for a 1985 car bombing outside his Beirut home that killed 75 people.
But Sheik Fadlallah, now 66, has been relentless in his condemnation of the attacks in America.

He preaches that they were "not compatible with Shariah law," the Koranic legal code, nor with the Islamic concept of jihad, and that the perpetrators were not martyrs as Mr. bin Laden has claimed, but "merely suicides," because they killed innocent civilians, and in a distant land, America. In an interview with a Beirut newspaper, Al Safir, Sheik Fadlallah again accused Mr. bin Laden of having ignored Koranic texts.

"There is no concept of jihad as aggressive combat," he said, quoting verses of the Koran that Islamic theologians have argued over for centuries. In misreading these texts, he said, Mr. bin Laden had relied on "personal psychological needs," including a "tribal urge for revenge." ...

Bin Laden Stirs Struggle on Meaning of Jihad, January 27, 2002Sullivan county.com

(March 12, 2005) Spain's leading Muslim clerics have issued a religious order declaring Usama bin Ladin an apostate and to have forsaken Islam by backing attacks such as the Madrid train bombings.

-

etc etc. see Muslims Condemn Terrorism

Muddy · February 6, 2008

Thank you Pater ,that is encouraging. But where are the Muslims marching down the street in mass cryong out against those who used these helpless girls to commit mass murder? They can moblize quite quickly over a few cartoons.

But again ,there was some words of encouragement in your post.

jbg · February 9, 2008

Thank you Pater ,that is encouraging. But where are the Muslims marching down the street in mass cryong out against those who used these helpless girls to commit mass murder? They can moblize quite quickly over a few cartoons.

But you've got to admit, cartoons are more worth rioting over than using retarded people as explosives.

February 9, 2008

But you've got to admit, cartoons are more worth rioting over than using retarded people as explosives.

And by the same token, using mentally impaired people as explosives is "more worth" getting upset over than dropping bombs on the mentally impaired ... and babies... and the elderly .....

If it's us or them, I choose us.

I guess if it's the "retarded people" or them, they chose the "retarded people," eh? A concept one would think you'd be able to understand.

Edited February 9, 2008 by American Woman

jbg · February 10, 2008

And by the same token, using mentally impaired people as explosives is "more worth" getting upset over than dropping bombs on the mentally impaired ... and babies... and the elderly .....
I guess if it's the "retarded people" or them, they chose the "retarded people," eh? A concept one would think you'd be able to understand.

oO course there's collateral damage from aerial bombing. It's not the wilful brutality of using a retarded person directly as a bomb

February 10, 2008

oO course there's collateral damage from aerial bombing. It's not the wilful brutality of using a retarded person directly as a bomb

I'm guessing the person who dies couldn't care less if the bomb was strapped to them or dropped on them. I'm guessing the latter doesn't bring more comfort to the victim than the former as they are blown to bits. I know as a parent I wouldn't feel any better if the bomb were dropped on my children or strapped to them. Both instances are deliberate choices/actions and they both result in the brutal death of my child.

It's as if coming up with the term "collateral damage" makes death somehow less brutal in some people's minds when it's nothing but a word. Here's a fact. Dead is dead. Whether you deliberately strap a bomb on someone or deliberately drop a bomb on them the result is the same. If you think dropping the bomb is less "brutal," if you think threatening and 'controlling' people using the threat of nukes, if you think being willing to drop nukes on innocent people resulting in death and destruction that shakes one to their very core is "less brutal" than a suicide mission, I think you need to do some serious soul searching. Same with "choosing them" to be the victims of war over "choosing us." You think there's goodness in that?-- In "choosing" their innocent deaths?

Some love to talk about the brutality of a suicide bomb while never talking about the brutality of offering nations nukes to drop on innocent civilians. Some love to remind the world about the lives lost on 9-11 while dismissing the thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths since at our hands. It truly boggles the mind.

Look in the eyes of an innocent American baby sometime. Really look. Think about how deserving that baby is. Then think about the eyes of an innocent Iraqi or Afghanistan baby that has had a bomb dropped on him/her and tell me again how you "choose them." Tell me again how that is "collateral damage." Tell me again how that made their death "less brutal." And while you're at it, honestly ask yourself if even you believe what you say.

Peter F · February 10, 2008

oO course there's collateral damage from aerial bombing. It's not the wilful brutality of using a retarded person directly as a bomb

Accepting that aerial bombing will result in collateral damage - and doing anyways knowing full well that non-targetted people will die as a result but, you know, maybe not - is certainly less brutal than strappiing bombs to the non-targetted. But brutality non the less and usually unnecessary - callously so. Our moral advantage over the terrorists is only slight when we regretfully accept the killing of innocents.

February 10, 2008

Accepting that aerial bombing will result in collateral damage - and doing anyways knowing full well that non-targetted people will die as a result but, you know, maybe not ...

Right. Because maybe, just maybe, only the guilty will be killed and the innocent will all miraculously survive a bomb being dropped on them. <_<

Again, death by a bomb is just as brutal whether the bomb is dropped on you or strapped to you. Death is just as imminent when a bomb is dropped on you whether you were "targeted" or not. Too bad those who have had first hand experience aren't around to tell you about it, because I'm sure all those innocents killed by our bombs would agree.

jbg · February 10, 2008

I'm guessing the person who dies couldn't care less if the bomb was strapped to them or dropped on them. I'm guessing the latter doesn't bring more comfort to the victim than the former as they are blown to bits. I know as a parent I wouldn't feel any better if the bomb were dropped on my children or strapped to them. Both instances are deliberate choices/actions and they both result in the brutal death of my child.

Is what you're saying that since certain societies value human life and others don't the ones that value human life should surrender at least a portion of their liberties to thugs in countries that have no value for human life?

February 10, 2008

Is what you're saying that since certain societies value human life and others don't the ones that value human life should surrender at least a portion of their liberties to thugs in countries that have no value for human life?

I have no idea what you're asking here. I can't begin to see where I am saying anyone should surrender "at least a portion of their liberties" nor can I see any response to what I actually, clearly said.

But I'm curious. Which ones have "no value for human life" -- the ones strapping bombs on other people or the ones dropping bombs on other people? Seems to me both the people doing the strapping of bombs to others and the ones having bombs dropped on "them" have value for their own lives while placing little value on the lives of others/collateral damage; they both see the deaths of others as 'necessary' to preserve their own lives/lifestyle.

In order to "vaule human life," all human lives must be equally valued. The fact that you "choose us" shows that you value our lives more. The fact that we referred to their deaths as "collateral damage" shows we value their lives less. The fact that we mourn our victims while dismissing/ignoring theirs shows we value our lives more.

I'm also curious as to how you equate the threat of nukes, the willingness to use nukes, to "valuing human life."

DogOnPorch · February 10, 2008

The fact that you "choose us" shows that you value our lives more.

Damn straight.

But I'm curious. Which ones have "no value for human life" -- the ones strapping bombs on other people or the ones dropping bombs on other people?

Uhhhh...the ones strapping bombs to children...handicapped women. You know, the ones who drive car bombs to market places and detonate them...with children inside.

I'd also be interested in seeing some links to the events re: US/UK planes willfully bombing civilians. There should be plenty...right?

-----------------------------------

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2008

...In order to "vaule human life," all human lives must be equally valued. The fact that you "choose us" shows that you value our lives more. The fact that we referred to their deaths as "collateral damage" shows we value their lives less. The fact that we mourn our victims while dismissing/ignoring theirs shows we value our lives more.

Not true....we kill far more of those "innocent babies" right at home each year in the way of legal abortions. Each life only has value in context, not intrinsically it would seem. Suicide bombers have the expressed intention of killing and maiming as many "innocents" as possible, without target analysis or even legal responsibility.

So jbg is correct...if the choice must be us or them, I choose us. Many times in history, doing so has also meant choosing some of "them".

Peter F · February 10, 2008

I'd also be interested in seeing some links to the events re: US/UK planes willfully bombing civilians. There should be plenty...right?

Can't find a single one for wilfully bombing civilians - post viet nam anyways. But the civilians get bombed nonetheless. But at least the mourners can take solace in the fact that the bombers meant well - as opposed to the terrorists.

February 10, 2008

Can't find a single one for wilfully bombing civilians - post viet nam anyways. But the civilians get bombed nonetheless. But at least the mourners can take solace in the fact that the bombers meant well - as opposed to the terrorists.

You don't think the U.S. et al is willfully dropping bombs in areas where civilians are in Iraq and Afghanistan? You think they're doing it against their will? :unsure:

As for the mourners taking "solace in the fact that the bombers meant well" -- :blink: !! If a serial killer were on the loose and the police opened fire into a crowd that the killer was amongst, and your loved one was in that crowd and was gunned down, would you be taking solace from the notion that the police "meant well??"

Edited February 10, 2008 by American Woman

DogOnPorch · February 10, 2008

You don't think the U.S. et al is willfully dropping bombs in areas where civilians are in Iraq and Afghanistan? You think they're doing it against their will?

Again...you should be able to provide some links to these events. It's sensational to state that the UK and USA are bombing built-up civilian areas. Makes for good rhetoric, though...serves the cause. The vast, overwhelming number of civilian deaths are caused by...you guessed it...car bombs and other terrorist actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.

---General George S. Patton

February 10, 2008

Again...you should be able to provide some links to these events. It's sensational to state that the UK and USA are bombing built-up civilian areas. Makes for good rhetoric, though...serves the cause. The vast, overwhelming number of civilian deaths are caused by...you guessed it...car bombs and other terrorist actions.

Every time a civilian is killed by bombs and missles it's because the U.S. et al bombed areas where civilians are living. You don't think all the innocent civilians who've been killed were in army barracks, do you? Or out on the battlefield? Of course we've "willingly" bombed civilian areas; we certainly haven't dropped any bombs against our will. Furthermore, the vast majority of civilian deaths have not been caused by car bombs and other terrorist actions. The vast majority are "collateral damage."

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2008

Every time a civilian is killed by bombs and missles it's because the U.S. et al bombed areas where civilians are living. You don't think all the innocent civilians who've been killed were in army barracks, do you? Or out on the battlefield? Of course we've "willingly" bombed civilian areas; we certainly haven't dropped any bombs against our will. Furthermore, the vast majority of civilian deaths have not been caused by car bombs and other terrorist actions. The vast majority are "collateral damage."

This is patently false, and since you refuse to provide evidence for your assertions, someone else (as usual), will need to start clearing your emotional smoke away with at least an attempt at some facts. How high do you want to count before your claim is proven false?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Edited February 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004