Mentally Retarded Women used in Bombing

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
People freely visiting a marketplace in peace, yes.

Faith based bombers intent on obliterating any civil society, no.
 
The fact that we removed Saddam Hussein makes these deaths, and all the hundreds of thousands of other ones and all the millions of deaths that we will see in the future, all worth it.
 
The fact that you can paint pre-invasion Iraq as a blank slate without a massive and climbing body count says a lot.

You are a strong proponent of an isolationist foreign policy, do you consider genocide to be a domestic issue to be settled within the borders of a nation-state (mind you America was decidedly neutral on the issue of Saddams genocides until it served it's self-interest)?

Do you think that fault for bombings and sectarian conflict in Iraq rests on America? If Iraq had been left to crumble under sanctions and the regime eventually fell that the result would be any less bloody than the collapse precipitated by coalition invasion?
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
The fact that you can paint pre-invasion Iraq as a blank slate without a massive and climbing body count says a lot.

You are a strong proponent of an isolationist foreign policy, do you consider genocide to be a domestic issue to be settled within the borders of a nation-state (mind you America was decidedly neutral on the issue of Saddams genocides until it served it's self-interest)?

Do you think that fault for bombings and sectarian conflict in Iraq rests on America? If Iraq had been left to crumble under sanctions and the regime eventually fell that the result would be any less bloody than the collapse precipitated by coalition invasion?

Yes, the Bush Administration should have known the strong conflicts that existed in Iraq before they bombed it. But the guy didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite. They talked about "spreading democracy" in Iraq, but it seems like the total opposite of freedom and democracy exists there right now. If this war was really about spreading Democracy (which it wasn't), then Bush would and should have done his research. But he didn't care.

And I am a proponent of non-interventionalism, not isolationism.
 
Infinitum98 said:
The fact that we removed Saddam Hussein makes these deaths, and all the hundreds of thousands of other ones and all the millions of deaths that we will see in the future, all worth it.

Worth it, huh. You know, I don't get it about fanaticals, and I don't get it about supporters of war. It's awfully base and philosophical, I know, but when anyone puts an idea above life we end up right here.
 
angela, i must say i'm shocked you fell for that. :sexywink:

you're still a keeper though.
 
financeguy said:
What was it Rumsfeld said......freedom....... :yes:

It took 3 posts before the inhumanity described in the article was somehow turned around to the failings of the current administration ? Have you ANY idea how many beheadings are probably going on we haven't blamed them for yet ? Are we all preoccupied with the Superbowl ?
 
financeguy said:
What was it Rumsfeld said.....



U. S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, press conference, 18 November 2002.


The Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that [Department of Defense plan to plant and spread false stories in the press]. And [the reaction to its exposure by The New York Times was] "Oh, my goodness gracious! isn't that terrible? Henny Penny, the sky is going to fall!" I went down that next day and [held a press conference and] said "Fine, if you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse. There's the name [the project was quickly canceled]. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done," and I have. -- U. S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, press conference, 18 November 2002.


there are different stories out there about these bombers

were they really "Mentally Retarded Women" ?

I am not defending the bombings

but this story may or may not be true
 
Yeah, it's Bush fault Al-Qaeda is so mean. :sad:


Like McCain is saying, that proves all the more why we need to stay. We cannot simply abandon the Iraqis now. I don't care if Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before or not. That's irrelevant. They are now, and we cannot leave and let them stay.
 
Photos of two women who attacked Baghdad pet markets show signs of Down syndrome,
U.S. officials say.

The apparently coordinated attacks occurred 10 minutes apart shortly before 11 a.m. Witness accounts varied. Some said both women appeared to be mentally disabled, whereas others said at least one attack was carried out by a blond woman with no visible disability.

"There are some indications that these two women were mentally handicapped," said Army Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad. "From what I see, it appears that the suicide bombers were not willing martyrs. They were used by Al Qaeda [in Iraq] for these horrific attacks."

Hammond showed the classified photographs to a few reporters, including one for The Times, but he declined to release the images "out of respect for the deceased."

again
I am not defending the bombings

but this story may or may not be true :shrug:




each bombing is horrific
all dead should be mourned

Should propaganda and misinformation be used?
Rumsfeld supported it.

Bush has used it.
Does it bother me?

I am still thinking about it


It seems the thrust of this story is all about
What may or may not be a “condition” of the bombers

It does not matter to me.

There are reports that U S recruiters are lowering their "mental", "criminal", standards

Does it matter?
 
randhail said:


Once and for all, Super Bowl is two words, not one, but two. Thank you, that is all.


yes, the Super Bowl ... that's like the Oscars for straights, yes?

as for this article ... "stuff happens."

yes, it is, in part, about the failings of this administration. this is what has been unleashed when you topple a dictator and have NO PLAN WHATSOEVER to deal with what happens next.

everyone's hero Colin Powell has talked about the Pottery Barn rule. "you broke it, you bought it."

we are responsible, in part, for every atrocity committed since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

the least starry-eyed supporters of the invasion and administration can do is own up to it.
 
2861U2 said:
Yeah, it's Bush fault Al-Qaeda is so mean. :sad:


Like McCain is saying, that proves all the more why we need to stay. We cannot simply abandon the Iraqis now. I don't care if Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before or not. That's irrelevant. They are now, and we cannot leave and let them stay.



it's Bush's fault Al-Qaeda is in Iraq.

and that's not even the problem. the problem over there are centuries old hostilities between the Sunnis and Shia.

but that would require some reading.
 
deep said:


There are reports that U S recruiters are lowering their "mental", "criminal", standards

Does it matter?



416_men_on_floor.jpg
 
2861U2 said:
Like McCain is saying, that proves all the more why we need to stay. We cannot simply abandon the Iraqis now. I don't care if Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before or not. That's irrelevant. They are now, and we cannot leave and let them stay.

Financially, you cannot afford to stay there as long as it will take.

The question then becomes how much of your own money are you willing to throw away before you inevitably leave? Is bankrupting America worth it to you? If so, you may as well stay there for 100 more years.

I think most of your countrymen don't think Iraq is worth their country's financial ruin.
 
anitram said:


Financially, you cannot afford to stay there as long as it will take.

The question then becomes how much of your own money are you willing to throw away before you inevitably leave? Is bankrupting America worth it to you? If so, you may as well stay there for 100 more years.

I think most of your countrymen don't think Iraq is worth their country's financial ruin.



i know, right? that's the big joke. we'd be as bankrupted as surely as the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan.

these Republicans talk tough, but there's no ability to put the money where their mouths are. no one things 100 years in Mesopotamia, some kind of American Empire, is going to be worth the trillions in treasure and the millions in blood.

it's just dick swinging.
 
Irvine511 said:




i know, right? that's the big joke. we'd be as bankrupted as surely as the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan.

these Republicans talk tough, but there's no ability to put the money where their mouths are. no one things 100 years in Mesopotamia, some kind of American Empire, is going to be worth the trillions in treasure and the millions in blood.

it's just dick swinging.

Exactly. I think Ron Paul is the only Republican who understands and stresses the financial cost of the war. It seems that John McCain and the other Republicans really don't understand the meaning of "inflation." I don't understand how they want to cut taxes while increasing war spending, which is the biggest type of government spending.

100 years war, at about $100 billion a year, would cost $10,000,000,000,000.
 
Back
Top Bottom