Two women suicide bombers who have killed nearly 80 people in Baghdad were Down’s Syndrome victims exploited by al Qaida.
The explosives were detonated by remote control in a co-ordinated attack after the women walked into separate crowded markets, said the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad General Qassim al-Moussawi.
Other officials said the women were apparently unaware of what they were doing in what could be a new method by suspected Sunni insurgents to subvert toughened security measures.
More than 70 people died and scores were wounded in the deadliest day since the US “surge” of 30,000 extra troops were sent to the capital this spring.
In the first attack, a woman detonated explosives hidden under her traditional black Islamic robe in the central al-Ghazl market. The weekly bazaar has been bombed several times since the war started but recently had re-emerged as a popular place to shop and stroll as Baghdad security improved. At least 46 people were killed and more than 100 wounded.
The second woman then struck a bird market in a predominantly Shiite area in south-eastern Baghdad killing up to 27 people and wounding 70.
If nothing else, the later stages of the insurgency seem to be demonstrating the nihilistic component of al Qaida. In some ways, it is strangely reminiscent of nineteenth century Russian groups like the Narodnaya Volya (though, as I recall, their bombings did not deliberately target civilians alone). Regardless, this most recent development should give pause to those tempted to view the al Qaida phenomenon simply as a rejection of the imperialism of the decadent West. Human agency – and even human value – count for nothing in this new order. Interesting, isn’t it, how they seem to have descended to the level of seeing the handicapped as expendable canon fodder?
My first job out of college was at a state school, and I remember asking our orientation leader why all those people had the same face. Well, it was the Down’s folks, of course, and I came to know [i]most[/i] of them as gentle, kind, loving people. Some years later I ran group homes, one of which was almost entirely middle-aged Down’s folks. When my world got too hectic and stressed, I could always go over there to unwind.
While I have always thought the Iraq War to be a mistake, now that we are in it, we MUST complete the job. These women were sent to do this by people they knew and trusted. No, they weren’t “people”, they were monsters. We cannot walk away from this or they will enslave and massacre their opponents as they willingly killed their own innocents. And then, they will come after us.
The London (UK) paper in which I read this story had another story on the same page: world wide and probably violent protests threatened if the Netherlands showed an anti-Koran program on TV, as it plans to do. I could not help of the massive disproportion of Muslim responses. A few voices will protest the women. Mobs in many countries will protest the Koran film. I cannot help but think that blowing mentally challenged women to bits is the greater blasphemy. By far.
There are two ways to deal with poisonous snakes: Leave them avoid them, or kill them. The first option won’t work, since they won’t avoid you, so that leaves the second as the only viable one. Yes, “Thou shalt not kill” is our Lord’s commandment, but I dare anyone to try to convince Al Qaida of that.
Pure evil seems to have hopelessly infected the hearts of those in Iraq who have set up people with Down’s Syndrome as unwitting suicide bombers.
Cennyd
The only way to defeat religious extremism by killing is to kill every single member of the religion. Doesn’t seem too practical
Has the official position from the RCRC and the Executive Committee of the ECUSA/TEC been taken into account in this criticism, ya’ll? It would seem not. After all, in utero or ex utero genetically abnormal (and the genetically normal) people are only allowed to live at the whim of the parent they are temporarily co-extensive with. Viewed as a late stage abortion, it this really that heinous? (/sarcasm)
No Brian, just the ones killing us.
#1 Jeremy,
This form of Islamic extremism is a death cult, much like the Nazis or the Stalinists. They not only insist that their followers kill for them, but die for them as well. I recently reread Paul Berman’s TERROR AND LIBERALISM to remind myself of that.
RevK
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Once you eliminate those who want to kill us, their children, their friends, neighbors, etc. become wannabe killers too. Then you eliminate them and it escalates. It’s the nature os religious extremism. Soon, you’ll have to kill the unborn just to make sure they don’t become extremists. The stories polarize people and they take up the cause. There’s always another waiting to be made.
No Brian, you’re wrong, as usual.
Kill off the ones that want to kill us, not all Muslims. Let me suggest that you read ‘Hama rules’ by Tom Friedman.
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/63P58.htm
Syria does not have an Islamic Fundamentalism problem because they took care of the threat, without killing off all Muslims. We might want to the do the same.
Let me also recommend Salmon Rushdie, from Nov 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/02/opinion/02RUSH.html?ex=1202187600&en=6f6357f6446e3860&ei=5070
Keep in mind that Islamic terrorism is brought to us by our best friends, the House of Saud.
“Two women suicide bombers…were Down’s Syndrome victims exploited by al Qaida”
A new form of inclusion.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Brian from T19 [#10]: How would you propose that the United States deal with Al Qaida?
RevK
You totally missed the point of Friedman’s article. Here it is in a nutshell:
And while the Arab states have crushed their Islamic terrorists, they have never confronted them ideologically and delegitimized their behavior as un-Islamic. Arab and Muslim Americans are not part of this problem.
You may want to drop a nuclear bomb on the cities, but until the Arabs stop religious extremism, it will find new places to thrive.
and Rushdie is saying the same thing:
This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, “infidels,” for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the world
…
If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which Muslim countries’ freedom will remain a distant dream.
Killing Islamists makes more Islamists.
Keep in mind that Islamic terrorism is brought to us by our best friends, the House of Saud.
Many more countries have brought us terrorism-Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority – just to name a few.
Brian from T19 [#10]: How would you propose that the United States deal with Al Qaida?
I don’t have a problem with killing terrorists. But that doesn’t work alone. It is not ‘the only viable option.’ We have accomplished litle in our attempts to kill them, except for spurring on more people to join. The one positive thing is that we have the Shi’ites killing the Sunnis instead of us, but that won’t work forever. We need a strong foreign policy. We need to engage countries that have enormous influence, such as Russia.
#15, your quotes from Friedman and Rushdie don’t support your conclusion. And, from #16, Russia has an abysmal record on dealing with Islamists.
Iraq became, as it worked out, THE battlefield with al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is losing there in the minds and hearts of Iraqis. Bin Laden said that people will choose the winning horse. Sending innocent women out to be blown up is an act of desperation, and without honor.
“We need to engage countries that have enormous influence, such as Russia”
Brian [#16]: How would you engage Russia?
Hey all you moral-equivalence artists out there! I’m waiting for you to come out and tell me how “all religions have their extremists” and show me one instant in which Christian or Jewish radicals have strapped explosives to profoundly mentally retarded women and sent them to their deaths. I’m waiting. ::sound of crickets chirping::
Brian, we need to kill every last Islamic radical. And if more step into their place, we kill them too. We keep doing this until (1) we have killed every last radicalized Muslim on the planet; or (2) Islam decides to clean house and become peaceful.
You say it can’t be done. It’s not practical. It’s too extreme. Well I have news for you. We have faced *exactly* this same phenomenon before in the form of Imperial Japan. Japan fell under *exactly* the kind of death-worship mindset that Islam is in now. Ask WWII-era Japanese and they will freely tell you that their whole nation fell under a “spell” of “loving death,” of believing it was more glorious to die for the Kokutai than to live. Men and women joyously sent their sons to die as kamikaze, much as Muslim mothers now sing about how they wish their children to die in shehada (martyrdom). Japan proudly swore that their citizens would gladly die by the millions rather than see America win the war.
What did we do?
We called their bluff.
We killed them by the millions. In the firebombing of Tokyo, in Hiroshima, in Nagasaki. We did precisely what they said they wanted. We made them “martyrs.” We hastened their enjoyment of the Shinto version of 72 virgins.
What did they do?
They suddenly said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa! You misunderstood us. That whole ‘we’ll all gladly die by the millions thing’? We didn’t really mean it. No way, sirree. We never thought you’d *actually* fight back and call our bluff. We screwed up. Ooops. Sorry. Can we make you a car? A digital watch? Maybe an alarm clock? Show you this awesome thing called karaoke? Oh and by the way? The democracy thing… really really cool. Can we get some of that? It beats the whole death-cult. It makes our women a heck of a lot cuter…” And so forth. And the result? Japan is a liberal Western democracy, a force for good in the world, and most importantly, the lives of Japanese have never been better.
I say we call the Islamists’ bluff, and start making martyrs. By the millions, if necessary.