Their WOMEN are blowing themselves up. They are too hard core. Give up.

[wonky]

@alaricthegoth

If we are making enemies so fierce that they will fuck off their own pussy, they are REALLY PISSED

You’re separating the bombers into two groups:

1. The enemy, and
2. Their women.

There is only one group, and it includes both men and women. They are people, not body parts.

[Miller]

@Fridgemagnet

Not selective, but it’s a sliding scale. You’re at the really fucked up end when you have women and children suicide bombers. And suicide bombers don’t usually fit the definition of evil (i.e. willingly doing bad things while being aware of how bad they are) any more than any Western politician who’s sent an army to war. Justify to yourself that it’s the lesser of two evils, and it’s amazing what depths an ordinary person can sink to.

You said that the fact that there are women doing this shows that its not the act of evil men. Well, I guess it’s not; now it’s the act of evil women. Okay, it’s debatable if suicide bombing is “evil” or not, but if it’s debatable when men are doing it, it’s equally debatable when women are doing it. Women aren’t more moral than men. If an action taken by a man is of dubious morality, that same action taken by a woman is equally dubious.

@Sam Stone

Democrats wonder why they are perceived as weak on defense. This board is a perfect example why. Thread after thread calling for surrender, retreat, giving up. Howard Dean says it’s impossible to win.

Democrats are in a real box now. Because as Americans they should be hoping that the Iraq war is a success. But I’ll tell you, if it is, then people are going to remember that Democrats wanted to cut and run as soon as the going got tough, and it’s going to make them unelectable to national office as long as the U.S. faces security threats.

And if it isn’t a success, the Republicans are going to be remembered as the party that slaughtered thousands of young men and women for no damn reason at all. Think what that will do for their future electability.

[alaricthegoth]

@Revenant Threshold

What the hell? Two problems here:

• When you’re as committed as these people are, do you really think they’re going to stop and think “Hmm. Actually, if we use women suicide bombers, we won’t be able to reproduce. Let’s not, eh?” That’s just…well, stupid.

• “Sacrificing your breeding stock”? Because, of course, the women themselves don’t want to blow themselves up, but are being forced to. Yes, I agree that it’s probable that some people are forced or brainwashed into doing this kind of thing - but why can’t women as well as men be as committed to the cause? Men who blow themselves up are all evil, disgusting terrorists, but the women are just confused and forced, and don’t really want to do it? I think not. Both are likely to be as committed and certain about doing what they do.

ok, ok, I will admit to the use of the term “breeding stock” essentially as a rhetorical flourish.

The princile threshold that is breached, of course, is that after the first several incidents, wary guards at checkpoints must view all with equal suspiscion werehas previously women would be viewed as less threatening. This from the Marcusian perspective raises the level of alienation on both sides of the transacion.

I do think however, that it represents something of a threshold especially in a society steeped in patriatchy.

Suicide bombers are not lone wolves. They have fairly elaborate and extended support networks, both physical and moral. That these networks are permitting women recruits (I think) shows a racheting up of commitment.

[alaricthegoth]

@xtisme

Ok…this is just silly (of course, its alaric so… ). You would have a point here (perhaps) if they were using so many women that it was seriously cutting into their birth/death statistics. But how many women do you think have been suicide bombers here? How many do you expect in the future? It would take 100’s of thousand, perhaps millions to seriously be ‘sacrificing your breeding stock’ man. To put it harshly: I doubt even if you factor in all the civilian women both we AND the insurgent kill PLUS the female suicide bombers that we are even making a dent in their population growth statistics.

-XT

is there an emoticon that says:warning, semiotic metaphor ahead?

of COURSE they won’t run out of childbearing women on account of the odd sucicide bomber…

I said I wa implicating evolutinary biology. The DNA thinks for itself, working with relatively limited aims, but great intensity of purpose.

[alaricthegoth]

@Johanna

Well, if that’s so, then “never mind.”

THose who know me, alas, will certify that my level of personal hygiene does not qualify me to take umbrage at a lisp, whether produced with malintent or innocently.

withal, I appreciate the friendly gesture on your part…

[alaricthegoth]

@alaricthegoth

my mind says sure.

my dna screams no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siege
Is it so difficult for you to understand that, even though one is a mere woman, one might still be passionate enough about a cause to live and die for it? Why should men be limited to the passionate, cruel idiocy that leads them to be suicide/homicide bombers?

By the way, I’m an Anglo-American chick, yet I would live or die for the cause if the cause were right.

CJ
my mind says sure.

my dna screams no.
I even drew you a fucking map…

[alaricthegoth]

@jsgoddess

You’re separating the bombers into two groups:

1. The enemy, and
2. Their women.

There is only one group, and it includes both men and women. They are people, not body parts.

reference my rejoinder to Xt., softened
I’m using the term “pussy” advisedly, to implicate precisely the instincitive response elicited in the alpha chimpanzee when ANY of the 32 female chimpanzees he considers to be “his” is having thoughts of independent action.

[alaricthegoth]

@alaricthegoth

reference my rejoinder to Xt., softened
I’m using the term “pussy” advisedly, to implicate precisely the instincitive response elicited in the alpha chimpanzee when ANY of the 32 female chimpanzees he considers to be “his” is having thoughts of independent action.

To deconstuct my own post a bit further (?!!), the title, terse as it is, is meant to communicate advice man-to-man.

I’m talking to George and Dick and Don.

At the other end of the transaction, if you don’t think there’s a difference for a man who is looking into the eyes of the suicide bomber that he just figured out is pressing the button that is going to send them both to a better place…

between a man’s eyes looking back and a woman’s (who you JUST NOW figured out is a bomber). then I submit to you that you have not contemplated existantial angst.

[alaricthegoth]

@Sage Rat

Where they drop-dead bombshell blondes?

Oh no! Don’t tell me they were blondes…My I can sense blonde dna at two kilometers in the pitch black.

[alaricthegoth]

@Sage Rat

Where they drop-dead bombshell blondes?

Oh no! Don’t tell me they were blondes… I can sense blonde dna at two kilometers in the pitch black.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I love that he’s quoting himself, now. This must be mentioned in the Pit thread.
Your point is that, evolutionary biology prioritising women as breeders, terrorists “allowing” them to be suicide bombers shows they are more committed?
Why? We’re sending female soldiers out there, with the understanding that they’re at high risk of death - how is that any different? And yet we have no qualms about female soldiers being there based on any “evolutionary” angle. Why should terrorists?

[Marley23]

@Revenant Threshold

Your point is that, evolutionary biology prioritising women as breeders, terrorists “allowing” them to be suicide bombers shows they are more committed?

Not to toot my own horn, but I thought that if they’re willing to ignore the number one biological imperative (survival), overcoming the sex drive shouldn’t be a big deal. A response to that would have been nice, alaric.

[alaricthegoth]

@Marley23

Not to toot my own horn, but I thought that if they’re willing to ignore the number one biological imperative (survival), overcoming the sex drive shouldn’t be a big deal. A response to that would have been nice, alaric.

there you go again, thinking with the big head instead of the little one.

To the DNA, the #1 imperative is species, not individual survival, and it is replication that cranks my DNA, perhaps yours is more intellectually inclined.

[alaricthegoth]

@Revenant Threshold

I love that he’s quoting himself, now. This must be mentioned in the Pit thread.
Your point is that, evolutionary biology prioritising women as breeders, terrorists “allowing” them to be suicide bombers shows they are more committed?
Why? We’re sending female soldiers out there, with the understanding that they’re at high risk of death - how is that any different? And yet we have no qualms about female soldiers being there based on any “evolutionary” angle. Why should terrorists?

1. I have lots of qualms about that. I take it you do not have any daughters.

2. In point of fact (and hypocrisy* we “officially” do not have women in “combat roles” whateverthefuck that is…This “official” policy, I submit, if a response to that prompting that I am (apparently with indifferent success) attempting to deoncstruct.

[clairobscur]

@Alessan

Let me just add that as a former and occasional soldiers, nothing is more contemptable to me than a commander who’ll send his troops out to certain death, while he sits safely at home.

Ahem… That’s what essentially all commanders do. They don’t fight on the front lines.

Apart from that I just heard a specialist of Irak stating that in his opinion, the apparition of female suicide bombers amongst muslims goes strongly against cultural expectations and is very significant step that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Of course, I’ve no evidence that he’s right. But it seems that the question can’t just be dismissed out of hand.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@alaricthegoth

1. I have lots of qualms about that. I take it you do not have any daughters.

2. In point of fact (and hypocrisy* we “officially” do not have women in “combat roles” whateverthefuck that is…This “official” policy, I submit, if a response to that prompting that I am (apparently with indifferent success) attempting to deoncstruct.

1. No qualms as in I would feel the same way if my daughter was there as if my son was there. Scared shitless in both cases, i’d imagine, but equally.

2. I have no idea what you just said.

[Marley23]

@alaricthegoth

To the DNA, the #1 imperative is species, not individual survival, and it is replication that cranks my DNA, perhaps yours is more intellectually inclined.

DNA isn’t people, and it doesn’t make decisions.

[Alessan]

@clairobscur

Ahem… That’s what essentially all commanders do. They don’t fight on the front lines.

Generals, maybe, although I happen to believe that they should spend as much time as possible as close as they can to the front. But captains, lieutenants, majors and colonels put themselves in as much risk as they do their men, if not more so. A true leader leads by example.

Anyway, that wasn’t my point - it was the fact that the terror operators send their people out to certain death, which is something no leader - even a general - should ever do. Sending troops out to NEAR certain death, is OK, I guess, if there’s no other option; a soldier deciding independently, without orders, to give his life for his friends (like jumping on a granade), is acceptable, if tragic. But death should not be part of the plan.

If I may be a bit macabre, it’s not as if the terrorists aren’t capable of massacring civilians without killing themselves as well. They can, and they have, and when they did I respected them more than I do now.

[alaricthegoth]

@Revenant Threshold

1. No qualms as in I would feel the same way if my daughter was there as if my son was there. Scared shitless in both cases, i’d imagine, but equally.

2. I have no idea what you just said.

sorry.

fortunately, you caught me just in time, before I myself was unable to retrieve the data…

I THINK what I was trying to say was that even tho women get killed continuously in military service, they are not officially considered to be filling “combat” roles.

I can’t figure out what the tipping point if between combat and non-combat, if the possibility of getting killed does not qualify, but I have never been a soldier…

I was speculating that underlying the military reticence with regard to the combat designation was a nagging discomfort at violating what I am postulating is a genetically hard-wired mandate to protect females.

(OK, yes, it’s true, im a sexist, flame me)

[alaricthegoth]

@Marley23

it doesn’t make decisions.

Are you sure about that? Cause mine runs me around like a beast of burden…