Sympathy for the Terrorists

By Texas Wahine  On 7/13/2005 6:51:40 PM  In General Politics   71 Comments  
The US has received a lot of flack for documented and suspected deaths of civilians, including women and children in the war in Iraq. Many folks, Americans included, are outraged over the accidental deaths and criticize the US for not taking more precautions. To them, America is practicing wanton killing and destruction.

Some of these same folks have called for understanding of the terrorists' mindset. They want the US to examine what we, and the rest of the Westernized world, have done to cause these terrorists to become so desperate that they would resort to appalling violence in order to draw attention to their "plight." These people want us to abandon military and combat means of eliminating the terror threat and instead try reaching out to the terrorists through diplomacy and policy change.

While our fight against terrorism may be complex and may indeed call for solutions beyond military might, how can you possibly reason with or appease someone who would do this?!?!

Wednesday in Baghdad a suicide bomber in a car noticed a group of US Soldiers handing candy out to Iraqi children. This monster sped up to the crowd of children and detonated his explosives. Twenty seven people were killed, including a Soldier and 12 CHILDREN! This bastard intentionally killed innocent children...the very children that he should be supposedly providing a better future for with his "cause."

In addition to the nearly 30 people killed, 70 more were injured, and according to a resident of the impoverished area in Baghdad where the murder took place, "The explosion was mainly on the children."

This is not the first time the terrorists have targeted children. According to the MSNBC news article linked above, 35 Iraqi children were murdered as they accepted gifts of candy from American Soldiers in September.

Do people really want us to feel sympathy for these terrorists and try to understand the causes of an ideology that promotes and executes the intentional murder of innocent little children?

I hurt for the innocent people...the fathers just trying to provide for their families, the children tucked in bed at night, the women going about their daily chores, the babies at their mothers' breasts, who are harmed or killed by an errant bomb or a wayward bullet. I hurt for those little brown-skinned babies, chattering away and chewing excitedly on their treats in that Baghdad neighborhood who were brutally murdered. I hurt for the families of those children who have lost that special child who liked to make jokes or the little one with the big, soulful eyes who always insisted on wearing his blue t-shirt despite all the holes he'd worn into it. I can't imagine anything more painful than losing a child.

I feel nothing but disgust, loathing, and utter fury at those who would intentionally kill a group of innocent children...their own children...their country's future...just to take out a Soldier.

There is no level of reasoning or understanding or negotiation or appeasement that will satisfy such a savage, blind, cruel, and blood-thirsty group of people as the terrorists we face. Sympathy and understanding is wasted on such worthless human beings. Every terrorist we kill or capture is one less that can blow babies to bits in the streets of Basra or Baghdad or Balad.

Fuck them and their beliefs.

Sick bastards.
Views: 3877
Referrals: 13
Tags: politics
Comments 1 - 25 (71)
Texas Wahine Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
*****
Sarah Stoeckl Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
I saw this story this morning as well and it turned my stomach. I agree that acts like this are senseless, unconsciounable, and horrifying. I also think that anyway we, as human beings, can bend our minds to a greater understanding of anything-ourselves, other people, other cultures, philosophies, science-can only be a good thing. But seeking understanding (in the conceptual sense), clarity, does not mean condoning, or sitting idly by, or ignoring, or justifying. There is a difference in trying to see someone else's perspective and condoning their actions. Fundamentalism and extremism, especially when it takes violent forms, needs to be halted wherever it lies.
On Jul 13, 2005
There is no level of reasoning or understanding or negotiation or appeasement that will satisfy such a savage, blind, cruel, and blood-thirsty group of people as the terrorists we face. Sympathy and understanding is wasted on such worthless human beings. Every terrorist we kill or capture is one less that can blow babies to bits in the streets of Basra or Baghdad or Balad.

This pretty much describes how I feel about the situation myself; you said it better than I could.
I've been meaning to post an article that touches on this and other similar topics, do you mind if I quote you?
Moderateman Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
now yer on the same page as many. these monsters deserve NO quarter, no respect, they have forfieted any "human" rights
by their very Inhumanity
Texas Wahine Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
Sarah:
I saw this story this morning as well and it turned my stomach.


I just can't even begin to describe how much it disturbs me and breaks my heart that these monsters would target little children.

I also think that anyway we, as human beings, can bend our minds to a greater understanding of anything-ourselves, other people, other cultures, philosophies, science-can only be a good thing. But seeking understanding (in the conceptual sense), clarity, does not mean condoning, or sitting idly by, or ignoring, or justifying.


I agree with this, and it is my belief that we are doing just that.

There is a difference in trying to see someone else's perspective and condoning their actions.


I want to know the terrorist only in the manners that aid in killing and capturing them. You are welcome to disagree, of course, but I see no benefit in psychoanalyzing these murderers.

Fundamentalism and extremism, especially when it takes violent forms, needs to be halted wherever it lies.


Yes.

HW:
This pretty much describes how I feel about the situation myself; you said it better than I could.


I was quite shaken by this, so I'm surprised I made much sense at all.

I've been meaning to post an article that touches on this and other similar topics, do you mind if I quote you?


Absolutely. I'd be honored.
Texas Wahine Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
Moderateman:
now yer on the same page as many. these monsters deserve NO quarter, no respect, they have forfieted any "human" rights
by their very Inhumanity


Well, these aren't new thoughts for me, but they have been reinforced by this recent event.
ParaTed2k Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
Blaming the U.S. for 9/11 attacks, London for the 7/7 attacks? The people who do that also make excuses for the bacteria's attack of those kids in Baghdad. Why stop there?

Brenda Groene, her 13-year-old son Slade and her boyfriend Mark McKenzie must have brought their murders on themselves right? I bet they are coming up with all sorts of ways to explain away Joseph Duncan bragging to Shasta Groene how he killed her family.

People who make excuses for monsters make me sick!!
bakerstreet Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
I think this is the way we can differentiate the "Level Heads" from people who are just adamantly anti-US.

If someone tries to make the point that what we are doing in Iraq equates to what these people do in somalia or afghanistan they are either morons or so biased that discussion won't ever make it through their thick heads.
Texas Wahine Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
ParaTed2K:
Blaming the U.S. for 9/11 attacks, London for the 7/7 attacks? The people who do that also make excuses for the bacteria's attack of those kids in Baghdad. Why stop there?


It's incredibly crass and sickening.

People who make excuses for monsters make me sick!!


There's just no way to justify this kind of stuff, and I can't understand why anyone would want to. The folks who feel this sympathy and the need to "understand" want the US to "solve the root cause" of this terrorism need to realize that bastards who kill a group of children gathered to accept candy need no root cause. They are raving, blood-thirsty animals who feast on carnage and brutality, and they will do whether we cater to their every desire or not.

These savages are responsible for the deaths of these babies. Plain and simple.

Bakerstreet:
I think this is the way we can differentiate the "Level Heads" from people who are just adamantly anti-US.

If someone tries to make the point that what we are doing in Iraq equates to what these people do in somalia or afghanistan they are either morons or so biased that discussion won't ever make it through their thick heads.


I think you're right. It's sad that people can become so caught up and blinded by their hatred for the US that they would equate the two.

And something they don't realize is that it doesn't matter if you attend protests and spout their propaganda and feel sympathy for their "plight,"...they hate you and want to kill you, too. They'll even kill their own children.
dynamaso Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
While I stand on the side of those who would rather not have troops in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter), these sorts of events also sicken me to my very core. Sure, some might say 'but if the soldier wasn't there, then the bomber wouldn't have felt the need to blow himself up' but I say that is rubbish. As Sarah rightly pointed out:

Fundamentalism and extremism, especially when it takes violent forms, needs to be halted wherever it lies.


These zealots are always going to end up killing innocents because it is their payout. It is tragic and unforgiveable. If there is indeed a hell, they will be burning there right now.

Maso
Texas Wahine Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
Maso:
While I stand on the side of those who would rather not have troops in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter), these sorts of events also sicken me to my very core.


I've always had very mixed feelings about the Iraq war, but like you, ours, or anyone's presence there is no excuse to murder children.

Sure, some might say 'but if the soldier wasn't there, then the bomber wouldn't have felt the need to blow himself up' but I say that is rubbish.


Exactly. This bastard intentionally blew himself up in a crowd of little ones who were gleefully eating their treats. It's sick. It's just...gah.

These zealots are always going to end up killing innocents because it is their payout. It is tragic and unforgiveable. If there is indeed a hell, they will be burning there right now.


Agree, agree, agree. These savages need no reason or cause to do what they do. They will continue to kill innocents and continue to find new ways and more horrifying ways to demonstrate their brutality. Theirs is an ideology of indiscriminate violence for violence's sake.
Quasith Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
I have mentioned before that not every evil act is wholly evil if it had good intentions, and that a wholly evil act is rare.... This IS one of those wholly evil acts with an evil intention; to kill those who do not deserve death mearly to try and strike fear and greif into the hearts of their families and people around the world. I think its extreeme to say that we should only care about the way they think for the purpose of killing and catching them... but no where near as extreeme as the horrible measures that they take to call bad media their mis-begotten ideas. As said, if there is a hell, may they burn in it. If not, then let us only hope that each one will find a death as untimely as those that they take it upon themselves to bestow to people who do not deserve it. Too many words in each sentance... bah.
Bunnahabhain Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
Texas,

While I always like your writing, every once in a while you come up with an amazing article. This is one of them. Congratulations (with apologies to the children)!
On Jul 13, 2005
I didn't know this happened. That is crazy. Is this who we are up against? These are the people who attack? I remember during the big part of the Iraw war where they had women and children in front of the terrorist 'soldiers' while firing on US lead forces. I expected that actually, but this seems just stupid and sick.

I wonder who the Iraqis are going to blaim for this?

Will this be on Al Jezzira (spell)? I bet not.
On Jul 13, 2005
I know what someone will say: their parents should not have let them be around the soldiers. The US is evil.

I wonder if that is how the Arab street is going to take this?
Slanderer Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
That was sad. I won't excuse the behaviour but I know handing out candy to children in front of skeptical parents is how Bagrim base in Afghanistan got built. A guess might be the attacker was disgusted at the way soldiers tried to buy friendship. It didn't go over well there with the less than genuine sincerity. He probably didn't want it repeated here.

12 kids hurts no matter how you look at it. And yes it still was an evil act.
Myrrander Wrote:
On Jul 13, 2005
Let me start by saying this: A person who kills children makes me wish that there was really a hell just so they could go there. And I agree with most all of what you've said.

But then I think about Dresden or Hiroshima. And in those instances, we, and our allies, targeted the innocent in the name of what we felt was "the greater good." And I don't think Nazism or Japanese Imperialism were good things, so I suppose it was the right thing to do. To these extremists, the United States and those who support it are viewed the same way we viewed are enemies. An excuse? No, certainly not. But the US didn't ask the folks in Hiroshima which ones supported imperialism and which didn't.

I know this makes me sound callous. But "understanding" the enemy's mindset is quite different than "sympathising" with that enemy. All too often, I, and others like me, are accused of being sympathetic to killers because we want to understand their motivations. This isn't the case, although I'm sure I've convinced no one of that.

It is a tragedy. My wife and I teach kids and you know me personally, Brandie -- I'd give the shirt off my back for my kids. I just wanted to make a distinction between seeking "understanding" and providing "sympathy."

Cheers.
Myrrander Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
And, by the way, this story DID appear on Al-Jazeera.

Link

The story included this passage including a quote from a parent of one of the slain children:

"I recognised him from his head. The rest of the body was completely burnt," he said.

Hassan Muhammad, whose 13-year-old son Alaa also died, said: "Why do they attack our children? They just destroyed one US Humvee, but they killed dozens of our children.

"What sort of a resistance is this? It's a crime."

citahellion Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
I comprehend your thought process on Hiroshima and Dresden, Myrrander, but I disagree with your attempt to compare those to this, for several reasons.
First, using Hiroshima as my primary example, that bombing was intended to accomplish two specific things: to cripple a major city's infrastructure (which had been supporting the japanese war effort), and to demonstrate to the Japanese that they were now facing an overwhelmingly superior force. Blowing up a few dozen of your own country's children and 1 foreign soldier does NOTHING to materially affect the enemy's ability to wage war, and only serves to convince us that we are fighting heartless bastards who deserve to be killed.
Second, the ability to avoid targeting innocents with the A-bomb was essentially non-existent. As our military technology has evolved over the last 60 years, we have migrated away from the 'blanket'-style weaponry and focused instead on precision. A bomb that does not hit the exact building it was aimed at is a failure these days. Often it is aimed at a particular architectural feature of a building (door or window), and missing that by more than 10 feet is uncommon. It's very clear from war coverage that keeping foreign civilian casualties to a minimum is a high priority, quite often to the actual detriment and endangerment of our own troops.
And third, I don't believe that the extremists view us now the same way we viewed our enemies then (or now). Quite simply, that would make us a nation of extremists. Hardly a worthwhile comparison. In fact we have a pretty darn good record of helping a defeated country get back on its feet.

Oh, and fourth, I can't believe that you as an English teacher would use "are" instead of "our". That's just terrible.
ElindelWolf Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
But then I think about Dresden or Hiroshima. And in those instances, we, and our allies, targeted the innocent in the name of what we felt was "the greater good." And I don't think Nazism or Japanese Imperialism were good things, so I suppose it was the right thing to do. To these extremists, the United States and those who support it are viewed the same way we viewed are enemies. An excuse? No, certainly not. But the US didn't ask the folks in Hiroshima which ones supported imperialism and which didn't.


--I understand what you're saying, but from what i read...the nationalism ferver (right word?) was so strong in japan that truman new that nothing else would work...but thats just what i get from reading...
ElindelWolf Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
Didnt reel-ize that u wur a english teecher myrr.... (Just giving you a bad time.)


--Ironically one of the few teachers i remember well, was my 10th/12th grade english teacher,Mr.Domela , he was awesome...he was the one that started to push me into getting better in writing,etc...that spurred me into writing...i also remembr my Physics teacher, mr. Daw...(he was born in afghanistan...)
dynamaso Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
Theirs is an ideology of indiscriminate violence for violence's sake.


Very eloquent. I couldn't have said it better myself. The day the world can rid itself of such thoughts and actions will be a very good one indeed.

dynamaso Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
Theirs is an ideology of indiscriminate violence for violence's sake.


Very eloquent. I couldn't have said it better myself. The day the world can rid itself of such thoughts and actions will be a very good one indeed.

Myrrander Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
Oh, and fourth, I can't believe that you as an English teacher would use "are" instead of "our". That's just terrible.


Golly, yeah, I made a typo. Please, crucify me now so that I might not offend you furthur. Or farther, but that's a rule that's up for some discussion these days.

I actually tried to correct that typo, and I got a JU error. Not wanting to waste my time to correct an error that most people would understand, I just let it be. Shall I start correcting each of your blogs as if it were one of my student's papers? I'd be happy to.

I disagree with your attempt to compare those to this, for several reasons.


This is an an unnessary comma.

supporting the japanese war effort


It should actually be "Japanese" with an "upper case" letter. That's a proper adjective you're using.

and 1 foreign soldier


Generally, in writing, numerals under "100" are typed out, not represented by symbols.

evolved over the last 60 years


Same problem. Quite sloppy.

the 'blanket'-style weaponry


Single quotes are only used when citing a quote within a quote. Your sentence isn't a quote -- you need a double quote here.

A bomb that does not hit the exact building it was aimed at


Despite other words to complete this sentence, your using of the word "at" at the end of this phrase is a misplace preposition.

more than 10 feet


There's that numeral rule again.

civilian casualties to a minimum is a high priority, quite often to the actual detriment and endangerment of our own troops.


Hardly a worthwhile comparison.


This is a sentence fragment.

In fact we have a pretty darn good record of helping a defeated country get back on its feet.


You need a comma after "in fact" because this is an expository phrase.

Now, do you wish to play grammar nazi furthur? Because I'd be happy to use formal rules on a blog, although such types of writing are generally considered informal.

Cheers.
Myrrander Wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005
*double post*
Welcome to PoliticalMachine.com!

In order to add a reply you need to login or create an account.