Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Huffington Post: "Women become suicide bombers because they can get just as batshiat crazy as men. Just kidding. Actually, it's all the United States' fault"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

855 clicks; posted to Politics » and Main » on 05 Aug 2008 at 1:40 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



73 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-08-05 11:27:28 AM  
Don't they set the suicide bombers up with dead-man(or woman) switches, and then shoot them if they have doubts at the bombsite?
 
2008-08-05 11:31:04 AM  
Another 'quality' article from the America-hating ANALysts at Huffington.
 
2008-08-05 11:33:35 AM  

ndotseth: Another 'quality' article from the America-hating ANALysts at Huffington.


America is like a child. Spoil it and it'll turn into a selfish annoying brat. Just because we discipline it for bad behavior doesn't mean we don't love it.
 
2008-08-05 11:34:19 AM  

ndotseth: Another 'quality' article from the America-hating ANALysts at Huffington.


There are no words to describe what a complete waste of space you are.
 
2008-08-05 11:50:11 AM  
Reading some of the comments to that article, I see that HuffPo doesn't ban people that disagree like the Daily Kos. Still the article is pure sentimental tripe.
 
2008-08-05 11:53:49 AM  
How could a woman do this? As doctoral student Lindesy O'Rourke argued in her New York Times op-ed last weekend, women appear to have the same motivations as their male counterparts

So, lack of sex.
 
2008-08-05 11:57:59 AM  
Conversely, Rapture Ready was well populated with female rightwing Jesus freaks thirsty for Iraqi blood and 9/11 revenge in the lead-up to the invasion.
 
2008-08-05 12:04:44 PM  
Control_this: Conversely, Rapture Ready was well populated with female rightwing Jesus freaks thirsty for Iraqi blood and 9/11 revenge in the lead-up to the invasion.

How many of them strapped on a few pounds of C4 and rode to the market looking for a good place for martyrdom?
 
2008-08-05 12:05:53 PM  
This:

And of course once these desperate men and women have been humanized, the next logical question is one we're afraid to face: what is our responsibility in all of this?

Can hardly be categorized as "It's all the fault of the US."

It's a simple question of culpability. The invasion destroyed Iraq's basic infrastructure, led to the de-nationalization of the country's oil reserves (Under the most recent developments there are four companies bidding for, at most, a 75% stake in Iraq's oil supply), and the companies charged with rebuilding the country do not take advantage of the Iraqi employment pool. Instead, companies like Bechtel are awarded an oligopoly in the labour market, and bring in American contractors to do the work that Iraqi civilians are well capable of.

So - invade a country, seize its primary assets, destroy its infrastructure, and force its civilians out of work...and the US thinks it has NO responsibility here for the violence that's crippled Iraq?
 
2008-08-05 12:07:51 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Control_this: Conversely, Rapture Ready was well populated with female rightwing Jesus freaks thirsty for Iraqi blood and 9/11 revenge in the lead-up to the invasion.

How many of them strapped on a few pounds of C4 and rode to the market looking for a good place for martyrdom?


Again, culpability. Those people didn't need to kill anyone personally. They already had the support of the US government, who sent troops to kill Iraqis on their behalf.

No, they haven't killed anyone. That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for helping to instigate the war, and continuing to support it.
 
2008-08-05 12:16:29 PM  

GWShenlong05: No, they haven't killed anyone. That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for helping to instigate the war, and continuing to support it.


Exactly. They had revenge by remote control. Got to worship their God of Shock and Awe via embedded journalists and Pentagon video. I don't support suicide bombers (I don't support war) but I have even less respect for those who scream for blood and send others to kill for them.
 
2008-08-05 12:16:50 PM  
A pissed off woman is far scarier than an angry man.
 
2008-08-05 12:17:54 PM  

GWShenlong05: o - invade a country, seize its primary assets, destroy its infrastructure, and force its civilians out of work...and the US thinks it has NO responsibility here for the violence that's crippled Iraq?


It's the typical attitude of America-can-do-no-wrong neo-con base types: "We should treat the rest of the world like absolute crap, then demand that they love us for that alone and nothing else."
 
2008-08-05 12:34:16 PM  
GWShenlong05: Those people didn't need to kill anyone personally. They already had the support of the US government, who sent troops to kill Iraqis on their behalf.

So, let me get this straight...Women that are pining for war and killing people = people that actually kill themselves while killing others.

I see.
 
2008-08-05 12:38:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So, let me get this straight...Women that are pining for war and killing people = people that actually kill themselves while killing others.

I see.


You're implying that any dissimilarity between the two is license to absolve the former of any wrongdoing whatsoever, which is ridiculous.
 
2008-08-05 12:44:07 PM  

Snarfangel: So, lack of sex.


Pretty much. Contraception isn't economical. Cultural pressures make extra-marital sex difficult, and potentially lethal for women; local marriage tradition requires the male act as economic provider, and most young males there don't have any prospect of that economic capability.

The most ruthless way for the US (and other inclined Global Powers) to counter this trend would be to provide preference in access to education and emigration to unmarried women in such war-torn areas. (Perhaps also for widows with very young children.) This would essentially limit internal military conflicts to one generation.

Unfortunately, this would probably be called "cultural genocide" by the international community (which is pretty much what it boils down to: stay peaceful, or we'll help your women leave for somewhere better), liberals would hate it because it's blatantly discriminatory (even though it favors women), paleoconservatives would hate it even more because it gives extra privileges to women and because it will let more brown people into the country, and neocons will hate it because it costs money would win wars -- but in ways that don't look sexy, they just are sexy.
 
2008-08-05 12:45:17 PM  
FireZs: You're implying that any dissimilarity between the two is license to absolve the former of any wrongdoing whatsoever, which is ridiculous.

Well, let's see. If I implore you to do something some might consider stupid and you do it who is the stupid one?
 
2008-08-05 12:52:54 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, let's see. If I implore you to do something some might consider stupid and you do it who is the stupid one?


Stupid? Funny you should focus on the stupidity.

Stupid is to drop a bunker buster on a city block and be shocked as subby when Baghdad females want a little revenge on the deaths of their men so the wives and mothers decide they have nothing to live for.
 
2008-08-05 12:53:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, let's see. If I implore you to do something some might consider stupid and you do it who is the stupid one?


Irrelevant. The point is that American right wing women have called for the invasion of Iraq, and because of their support as a group, they played a part in making the war a reality. The fact that there exist women whose actions are more extreme does not change this fact.
 
2008-08-05 12:54:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So, let me get this straight...Women that are pining for war and killing people = people that actually kill themselves while killing others.


Do they support the politicians who authorized and continue to carry out this war? If so, then they are absolutely equal. The only thing which separates them is means and method.

Pro-war voters have the means have politicians order armed forces to kill on their behalf. They do this at the ballot box. Their method allows them to stand at a distance from the actual killing. But their culpability has no different than Iraqi suicide bombers, who have only their own low-level organizational means. You're already familiar with their methods.

In other words, being indirectly responsible for, and wholly supportive of an atrocious act, doesn't change the degree of responsibility. That person is still responsible for the act.
 
2008-08-05 12:55:40 PM  
Goddamn where in the fark some of you trolls come from? 4chan /b/?
 
2008-08-05 12:57:41 PM  

sepuku2: Goddamn where in the fark some of you trolls come from? 4chan /b/?


"Waaah, everyone who disagrees with me is a troll!"

You're the troll, troll.
 
2008-08-05 12:58:29 PM  

GWShenlong05: Pro-war voters have the means to have politicians order armed forces to kill on their behalf.


Also:

Dancin_In_Anson: If I implore you to do something some might consider stupid and you do it who is the stupid one?


If you implore me to do something stupid and I do it, you are only partly responsible. I bear most of that burden.

If you implore me to do something inhumane, and you (along with an overwhelmingly large group of people) have the ability to affect my life negatively (by taking away my employment), and I choose to follow your orders, then you are every bit as responsible as I am for the inhumane act that occurred.
 
2008-08-05 1:46:58 PM  
It's not the fault of the United States .... it's the government of the United States that is clearly to blame.

/farking duh
 
2008-08-05 1:49:22 PM  
Averagely, they are in their early 20s, an age known for exploration and ideation.

I had to stop reading at this point. HP, fire your editors. Here, this one's free:

On average, [bombers] are in their early 20s, a period associated with exploration and ideation.

//I'll give a pass on using 'ideation' outside of a technical textbook on mental development-- you can continue to look like an idiot, but by god you can at least look like an idiot with semi-acceptable grammar.
//21 is 'an age'. 23 is 'an age'. 'Early twenties' is a group of ages.
 
2008-08-05 1:50:35 PM  
I figured they were lesbians.

Unless they 72 male virgins. Which I would think would be hell to a women.
 
2008-08-05 1:52:40 PM  
Subby: "People become suicide bombers because they are batshiat crazy"

Sun Tzu disapproves.
 
2008-08-05 1:52:46 PM  
Women, like men, have the capacity for ideological extremism and retaliatory violence.

No shiat!

We're talking about the same half of the population that will get in fist fights over dresses, shoes, and catching a bouquet.

All men are stupid.
All women are crazy.
Men aren't stupid about the fact that women are crazy.
Women are crazy because men are stupid.

MAN: If I suicide bomb a building I get 50 virgins in the next life. STUPID
WOMAN: Dying for a fanatical belief is worth it regardless of reward. CRAZY
 
2008-08-05 1:54:12 PM  
I thought it was just hormones and mood swings.
 
2008-08-05 1:56:32 PM  
GWShenlong05: If you implore me to do something inhumane, and you (along with an overwhelmingly large group of people) have the ability to affect my life negatively (by taking away my employment), and I choose to follow your orders, then you are every bit as responsible as I am for the inhumane act that occurred.

I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.

Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.

Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?
 
2008-08-05 1:56:39 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So, let me get this straight...Women that are pining for war and killing people = people that actually kill themselves while killing others.


are you having a personal responsibility disconnect? In one case you have the individual trying to solve a problem on their own and in the other you have people looking for the government to solve their problem...
 
2008-08-05 1:57:40 PM  
Good to see women breaking the glass ceiling and entering a traditionally male dominated workforce.
 
2008-08-05 2:01:54 PM  
They're simply doing what they believe to be, in most cases, valid attacks against occupying soldiers.

Which is probably what you would do in their situation.

You've been militarily occupied for 6 years. Your occupiers seem to have little to no regard for the lives of you and your countrymen ("We don't do body counts", coupled with the massive death count of Iraqi civilians). Your occupiers kowtow constantly to a Zionist regime that is interested in expanding its' territory and angering its neighbours. And your former enemies, the Iranians, who are now your friends, are now being pressured and bullied by the your current occupiers.

Plus, there is no plan for success for YOU. Only for the occupying power. They will leave when they deem it timely, and when they have achieved their objectives. None of which you have any control whatsoever on.

To all this add an element of hopelessness, and a feeling that nothing with ever change and it's only getting worse, and you might be willing to strap a bomb on too.

So if the Russians invaded the USA and did everything that the Americans have done in Iraq (torture, secret prisons, "collateral damage" daily), would your average American go out and hug a Russian soldier? Or would they be fighting them?
 
2008-08-05 2:03:45 PM  
jakomo002: So if the Russians invaded the USA and did everything that the Americans have done in Iraq (torture, secret prisons, "collateral damage" daily), would your average American go out and hug a Russian soldier? Or would they be fighting them?

WOLVERINES!
 
2008-08-05 2:08:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.

Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.

Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?


I rationalize three, maybe four times a day.
 
2008-08-05 2:09:57 PM  

Aarontology: Good to see women breaking the glass ceiling and entering a traditionally male dominated workforce.


Thread over.
 
2008-08-05 2:11:33 PM  
It tickles me when a penis hater does not give women any autonomy at all, even when it comes to heinous and barbaric acts.
 
2008-08-05 2:12:13 PM  

GWShenlong05: In other words, being indirectly responsible for, and wholly supportive of an atrocious act, doesn't change the degree of responsibility. That person is still responsible for the act.


Just curious. Using said definition of responsibility, would not the civilians of any nation engaged in war then be responsible for the actions or deeds of said country's military? Hence liable to suffer retaliatory action? While certainly not the first instance of civilian populations having been considered a legitimate target of war (that is to say, any prior instance of total war) I find it curious you'd try to make this claim and then fault the United States for inflicting collateral damage. Couldn't we hold the Iraqis "indirectly" responsible for the whatever attacks are conducted by insurgents and thus legitimize any of our actions? Or is the belligerent party unable to do so? Seems like a slippery slope to me, regardless.
 
2008-08-05 2:14:34 PM  
We'd like to fool ourselves into thinking that there is something wrong with these people or their culture or that they are very different from us and Americans would never behave like that... but the fact is, under the right circumstances, plenty of Americans would be willing to strap themselves up with explosives and detonate in a crowd of people they believed "deserved it" or commit other terrorist acts...
 
2008-08-05 2:19:11 PM  
Maybe Huff has a new illegal alien translator...in between bites on an apfel struedel and trying to speak with that crow killing voice...it just came out wrong. Jose. cant you read.
 
2008-08-05 2:21:02 PM  
People are not suicide bombers because they're crazy. Way to out yourself as a total moron, subby.
 
2008-08-05 2:21:11 PM  
It's simple!

The woman's flying jigglybits increase the odds of putting out an eye.
 
2008-08-05 2:23:10 PM  

Comrade438: Just curious. Using said definition of responsibility, would not the civilians of any nation engaged in war then be responsible for the actions or deeds of said country's military? Hence liable to suffer retaliatory action? While certainly not the first instance of civilian populations having been considered a legitimate target of war (that is to say, any prior instance of total war) I find it curious you'd try to make this claim and then fault the United States for inflicting collateral damage. Couldn't we hold the Iraqis "indirectly" responsible for the whatever attacks are conducted by insurgents and thus legitimize any of our actions? Or is the belligerent party unable to do so? Seems like a slippery slope to me, regardless.


That argument is a lot stronger for democratic nations.
 
2008-08-05 2:24:32 PM  

keylock71: We'd like to fool ourselves into thinking that there is something wrong with these people or their culture or that they are very different from us and Americans would never behave like that... but the fact is, under the right circumstances, plenty of Americans would be willing to strap themselves up with explosives and detonate in a crowd of people they believed "deserved it" or commit other terrorist acts...


See: Timothy McVeigh.
 
2008-08-05 2:30:27 PM  

FireZs: That argument is a lot stronger for democratic nations.


Is it? By not passively or actively resisting the government's efforts to wage war are they not indirectly consenting to their nation's efforts? Would their continued manufacturing of munitions, armaments or providing of other material aid not be considered supportive of the ability of the nation to wage war? Before you've pinned the civilian population of a country as "responsible" it would seem prudent to following such thinking to it's logical conclusion and question whether you're truly ready to advocate total war be waged.
 
2008-08-05 2:35:17 PM  
FireZs: See: Timothy McVeigh.

A ratio of one:brazillion. And he didn't even have the balls to take the ride on his own.
 
2008-08-05 2:40:14 PM  

The Reverend Smith: FireZs: See: Timothy McVeigh.

A ratio of one:brazillion. And he didn't even have the balls to take the ride on his own.


The ratio is entirely due to the level of discontentment in the populace. America's is low, hence the small ratio.
 
2008-08-05 2:47:17 PM  
I think increase in female suicide bombers is just a simple change of tactics. Security forces are less likely to suspect or search a woman due to their cultural traditions and standards. It's easier for the woman to get near the target.
 
2008-08-05 2:47:25 PM  
gwshenlong
hypothetical situation.

let's say person Johnny Q. in nation VSA (Venerated States of Amtrakia) is of "pro-war" disposition, and that he votes for politicians who espouse "pro-war" attitudes, and that "the experiment" results in the election of such politicians who undertake precisely "war" activities against nation Oraq, a petroleum jelly rich nation located somewhere in a galaxy far far away.

Years later, the political unstability is such that the local (and even non-local youth) is taking to the streets in protest of the unjust conditions. They are wearing the typical garments of their day: an eastern style vest, equipped with explosives. Much tragedy ensues. One day, for instance, Sili M., an Oraqian youth, walks into a market, and detonates a bomb, killing 11 civilians.

Now person Jenny X. has earned her citizenship to VSA after years of waiting. While she generally opposes war, she is not very well informed in regards to politics. In fact, she is not even aware which politicians will enjoin in war, and which will refrain. As it happens, however, she votes for exactly the same politicians as Johnny Q. for a number of years. Part of the reason may be that a close friend of hers was one of 11 people killed in a freak market explosion that happened her first year in the VSA: someone had, it seems, completely inadvertently worn a suit of dynamite, incredibly ignorant of the dangers such vestments would bring. Due to the recent constitutional amendment protecting the right to smoke in markets, an explosion was triggered by someone exercising this right, Charlie C. As it happens, all of the politicians who Johnny Q. (and Jenny X.) support, have campaigned vigorously for smoke-free markets once again in the good ol' VSA, as they believe that an amendment to the constitution which prohibits or encourages any particular habit or lifestyle is contrary to the spirit of that document in the first place.

In your blue book, please justify the relative culpabilities of Johnny Q. and Jenny X. in the deaths of the 11 Oraqian civilians. Are either of them to be held liable for monetary compensation? What are the relative culpabilities of Charlie C. and Sili M. in the deaths of 11 civilians of each of their own countries? What is the ratio of culpabilities between Sili M. and Johnny Q., and between Sili M. and Jenny X.?
 
2008-08-05 2:48:10 PM  
It's because we built them those schools.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.