Explosives vest removed from boy no older than 13

stunmer

[Video in link]

Kurdish security forces remove a suicide vest from child (no older than 13) in Iraq.
That takes some courage from the security services to risk their lives to save the boys life and remove the vest.
http://news.sky.com/story/police-remove-suicide-vest-from-boy-bomber-in-iraq-10547331

On Saturday last what is presumed to be a child wearing a suicide vest detonated at a Kurdish wedding killing 51 people many of whom were other children. ISIS has claimed responsibility for this attack.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37147717

Incredibly sad to see terrorists using children this way. The sooner the idea of martyrdom is done away with the better.

Samaris

stunmer wrote: »

On Saturday last what is presumed to be a child wearing a suicide vest detonated at a Kurdish wedding killing 51 people many of whom were other children. ISIS has claimed responsibility for this attack.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37147717

Incredibly sad to see terrorists using children this way. The sooner the idea of martyrdom is done away with the better.

It is horrifying to see kids rounded up into this. I was sickened by that wedding report, although it subsequently has been backtracked to that they're not sure about it. It was a portion of the wedding that's traditionally women and children, it's a several-day event from what I understand. So there were a lot of children around (and so the causalities were mostly kids, including one as young as three). A later report hedged that it was thought to be a child* based on the crowd, but they aren't sure.

*Possibly whose vest was detonated remotely.

biko

As soon as [they] love their children more than they hate [us] there will be peace.

biko

biko wrote: »

As soon as [they] love their children more than they hate [us] there will be peace.

Hardly. they'll just go back to using adults as their carriers.

I can't believe anyone can think negotiation or peace is possible with these "people"...

There will only be peace when we get the hell out of their sphere of influence and keep them physcially out of ours. Let them sort it out internally, learn (once again) to value life, and accept differences in culture/religion.

Winterlong

You would need to be one sick bastard to strap a suicide belt on to a child and send him out to kill other people.

Musketeer4

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly. they'll just go back to using adults as their carriers.

I can't believe anyone can think negotiation or peace is possible with these "people"...

There will only be peace when we get the hell out of their sphere of influence and keep them physcially out of ours. Let them sort it out internally, learn (once again) to value life, and accept differences in culture/religion.

Wrong. If we leave their "sphere" they will only see it as victory and they will continue to wage a terror war or aggression against the west both as a protest against out values and culture and in pursuit of greater terriorty and influence in the wider world. Not only that, but they will continue to brutalise and oppress their own people with their extreme values and religious zealotry.

A lasting peace can only be achieved when the Islamic State and its affiliates and allies are liquidated.

Grayson

biko wrote: »

As soon as [they] love their children more than they hate [us] there will be peace.

Quite often the child is someone who is intellectually slow and is tricked. The child is groomed for lack of a better word. The parents don't even know.

Musketeer4

ISIS and other fundamentalist groups are not interested in negotiating or achieivng even a reasonable settlement. They are all or nothing.

Regretably, winning the war on isis/terror can only be achieved militarily. That means more planes, more bombs, more missiles, more of everything.

If the west is serious about achieving peace they need to wake up and commit the necessary resources.

Billy86

Musketeer4 wrote: »

ISIS and other fundamentalist groups are not interested in negotiating or achieivng even a reasonable settlement. They are all or nothing.

Regretably, winning the war on isis/terror can only be achieved militarily. That means more planes, more bombs, more missiles, more of everything.

If the west is serious about achieving peace they need to wake up and commit the necessary resources.

The issue with that is, what do you do with the group that is inevitably worse than ISIS that will inevitably come about no sooner than ISIS are got rid of? Military force is needed, but winning the trust of the people in that region is even more important; it's going to be a very tricky balancing act.

Not even remotely surprised by this story though, that's the level of scum ISIS are. I don't think anything from them would surprise me at this stage.

CrabRevolution

Between the Soviets and NATO, Afghanistan has had 7 shades of **** bombed into it for nearly 40 years, yet radical islamism still thrives there. Why would bombing it even more suddenly produce results? The solution is a lot more nuanced, but unfortunately "dialogue with the locals and help to rebuild their economy" doesn't make you sound as cool as "bomb ISIS off the earth and terrorism is over!!!"

whiskeyman

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Regretably, winning the war on isis/terror can only be achieved militarily. That means more planes, more bombs, more missiles, more of everything.

Which means more civilian casualties... more hospitals bombed 'in error'... which fans more anti-Western hatred and grows the ISIS base and cause further.

Musketeer4

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Wrong. If we leave their "sphere" they will only see it as victory and they will continue to wage a terror war or aggression against the west both as a protest against out values and culture and in pursuit of greater terriorty and influence in the wider world. Not only that, but they will continue to brutalise and oppress their own people with their extreme values and religious zealotry.

A lasting peace can only be achieved when the Islamic State and its affiliates and allies are liquidated.

Liquidated? Which means a total war... a Genocide because you would need to destroy it's teachings right down to the youngest level. Do you really think the West is capable of that? It's easy to suggest it, but I doubt you, yourself would be willing to get your own hands dirty.

It's time to get realistic about the world, and stop dreaming. We are not able to change them culturally or to get them to respect our values. Which means we have a choice. A) kill them all, or get out.

Personally, I think getting out is the best option. let them sort it out themselves. there was once a period where Islamic countries were the leaders in culture and science. Then they allowed themselves to be taken over by fundamental religion, So they have the capacity to change for the better.... but they have to want to change, and we can't help them to do that directly.(every attempt over the past has failed.)

Economic support sure, but westerners should not be there until they themselves have created a just society. And they certainly shouldn't be here until they have fixed their own countries.

Musketeer4

If you had read my previous post you would see that I said that you're option B is not workable. If we get out they will see it as a win and they will continue to terrorise.

Billy86

Musketeer4 wrote: »

If you had read my previous post you would see that I said that you're option B is not workable. If we get out they will see it as a win and they will continue to terrorise.

Option B is something you don't think would work. Option A is a proven failure over decades. The most likely way to solve it is to use some of both.

Musketeer4

Not only will they continue to terrorise but they will continue to opress their own and abuse women in the most shameful way.

Military action failed before but nowadays the we have a vast technological superiority like never before and we can trace and engage terror suspects accurately while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

The russians take a different approach to the west. The west tend to the minimum necessary to keep things from getting out of hand but ultimately fail at effecting long term change. Russia on the other hand go in fast and go in heavy, just like they are doing in Syria right now. And it is getting results.
Of course innocents will be affected by such a sustained campaign but it can be the lesser of two evils. The russian thinking is that sustained heavy bombardment from the air, even of civilian infrastructure, has the long term effect of turning ordinary people against the rebels and they will lose their support.
It will be very interesting to see how this works out in syria.

Musketeer4

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Not only will they continue to terrorise but they will continue to opress their own and abuse women in the most shameful way.

Which is a case of cutural differences. That won't change due to external pressure. It'll only change when enough of them desire true change.

Military action failed before but nowadays the we have a vast technological superiority like never before and we can trace and engage terror suspects accurately while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

Technological advantages don't matter. It still requires soldiers on the ground, which is an occupation using foreign troops pushing down the local culture. Why can't you see that it only generates more hatred towards the west?

The russians take a different approach to the west. The west tend to the minimum necessary to keep things from getting out of hand but ultimately fail at effecting long term change. Russia on the other hand go in fast and go in heavy, just like they are doing in Syria right now. And it is getting results.
Of course innocents will be affected by such a sustained campaign but it can be the lesser of two evils. The russian thinking is that sustained heavy bombardment from the air, even of civilian infrastructure, has the long term effect of turning ordinary people against the rebels and they will lose their support.
It will be very interesting to see how this works out in syria.

Early days yet... but consider how Russia did in Afghanistan. And Russia has always been willing to use more... harsh methods to achieve their aims. I doubt it;ll be any different now.

It is interesting that you start your post about protecting women, but then approve of the Russian methods. You don't see a contradiction?

Musketeer4

Musketeer4 wrote: »

If you had read my previous post you would see that I said that you're option B is not workable. If we get out they will see it as a win and they will continue to terrorise.

Oh... and I did read your previous posts. I just don't agree with you.

"A lasting peace can only be achieved when the Islamic State and its affiliates and allies are liquidated"

You do realise that youre talking about killing everyone asssociated with the Islamic state?

Billy86

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Military action failed before but nowadays the we have a vast technological superiority like never before and we can trace and engage terror suspects accurately while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

You could have saved us a bit if time by just letting us know you're not interested in stopping the overall problem.

Musketeer4

Nobody said anything about killing every member of said groups only yourself. The groups should be liquidated - it does no follow that all members are to be killed. Of course some level of killing is justified like when you're dealing with active combatants. Who decides what is and is not an acceptable amount of killing I do not know.

Discodog

I listened to an interview with a guy who had interviewed the families of suicide bombers. There is a long waiting list & it's considered to be the greatest honour, not just for the bomber but his family as well. The family are really proud when their children are chosen. They genuinely believe that they are heading for heaven.

It will work whilst the numbers are low. When japan was using lots of Kamikaze pilots the initial batch of zealots died willingly. After a while more pilots decided to crash next to enemy ships & beg to be captured. The US Navy obliged because it was bad for Japanese moral & better than them crashing on the ship.

Musketeer4

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Nobody said anything about killing every member of said groups only yourself.

Once more. You posted: "A lasting peace can only be achieved when the Islamic State and its affiliates and allies are liquidated"

That pretty much sounds like every member of said groups...

The groups should be liquidated - it does no follow that all members are to be killed.

So whats your definition of liquidated? I assume it's not the legal term relating to businesses/entities or transforming something to a liquid... so, perhaps its the Gangsta version to kill someone?

Of course some level of killing is justified like when you're dealing with active combatants. Who decides what is and is not an acceptable amount of killing I do not know.

I don't think you understand the mindset of these people. They're willing to kill and maim their own people. They're willing to use children as carriers for suicide bombing. They're willing to... well... do anything that furthers their aims.

These are not "reasonable" people. And yet, you think you can kill off a few of them, and the rest will simply go home, and assume lifestyles more suitable to your tastes? seriously>?

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

I listened to an interview with a guy who had interviewed the families of suicide bombers. There is a long waiting list & it's considered to be the greatest honour, not just for the bomber but his family as well. The family are really proud when their children are chosen. They genuinely believe that they are heading for heaven.

It will work whilst the numbers are low. When japan was using lots of Kamikaze pilots the initial batch of zealots died willingly. After a while more pilots decided to crash next to enemy ships & beg to be captured. The US Navy obliged because it was bad for Japanese moral & better than them crashing on the ship.

The difference being that children are easily indoctrinated (or blackmailed) into these things... and being a suicide bomber requires far less training than a suicide pilot. The added difference being that Japan stood alone, whereas the Islamic state can draw from various different countries in the region.. or adherants abroad.

Say the Muslim population is 2 Billion people, and only .05% of people are "true nutjobs" that's still what? 500,000,000 crazies? (my maths could easily be wrong) Even if we cut the percentage lower, there's still a rather large population of muslims who could be convinced that blowing themselves up for their faith against the western devils will secure their place in heaven.

Whereas the population of Japan in 1941 was roughly 120 million.

Widdershins

Discodog wrote: »

I listened to an interview with a guy who had interviewed the families of suicide bombers. There is a long waiting list & it's considered to be the greatest honour, not just for the bomber but his family as well. The family are really proud when their children are chosen. They genuinely believe that they are heading for heaven.

.

Yes and the family is then paid an allowance of sorts, in recognition of the 'martyr''s contribution. They would believe that, because it's supposed to be the only guaranteed way to go to paradise.

Incredibly warped.

Timberrrrrrrr

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference being that children are easily indoctrinated (or blackmailed) into these things... and being a suicide bomber requires far less training than a suicide pilot. The added difference being that Japan stood alone, whereas the Islamic state can draw from various different countries in the region.. or adherants abroad.

Say the Muslim population is 2 Billion people, and only .05% of people are "true nutjobs" that's still what? 500,000,000 crazies? (my maths could easily be wrong) Even if we cut the percentage lower, there's still a rather large population of muslims who could be convinced that blowing themselves up for their faith against the western devils will secure their place in heaven.

Whereas the population of Japan in 1941 was roughly 120 million.

spectacularly

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

spectacularly

So whats the right figure? 50m? 5m?

Timberrrrrrrr

Deleted User wrote: »

So whats the right figure?

probably about 50,000 you wrote 500 million :pac:


edit: 0.05% of 2,000,000,000 is 100,000 (still a lot)

stunmer

Deleted User wrote: »

Say the Muslim population is 2 Billion people, and only .05% of people are "true nutjobs"

Depends on how you define nutjobs.

If we are looking at the numbers, the numbers are quite frightening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

stunmer

stunmer wrote: »

Depends on how you define nutjobs.

If we are looking at the numbers, the numbers are quite frightening.

Nutjobs? In this context, terrorists or modern day "Freedom fighters".

stunmer

Deleted User wrote: »

Nutjobs? In this context, terrorists or modern day "Freedom fighters".

I like the way you put 'freedom fighters' in quotes. Obvious contradiction.

Do Muslims who think anyone who leaves the faith should be executed count in the 'nutjobs'?

Musketeer4

I'm not talking a Curtis LeMay indiscriminate carpet bombing them back to the stone age. Guided smart munitions combined with present day surveillance capability make for an enormous technological advantage that can target militants and materiel.
My belief is that the middle east can be won from the air if the right strategy is used.

Wanderer78

These people are monsters

dinorebel

Musketeer4 wrote: »

The russian thinking is that sustained heavy bombardment from the air, even of civilian infrastructure, has the long term effect of turning ordinary people against the rebels and they will lose their support.
It will be very interesting to see how this works out in syria.

Going by the Afghan war not well.

stunmer

stunmer wrote: »

I like the way you put 'freedom fighters' in quotes. Obvious contradiction.

I put it in quotes because freedom fighters nowadays are quite different from such 80 years ago. Indescriminate targeting of civilians being a major difference, and the embracing of terror'ism' to the fullest extent.

Do Muslims who think anyone who leaves the faith should be executed count in the 'nutjobs'?

No idea. From what I can see Muslims themselves can't decide whether to support, deny all involvement, or fight these nutjobs. And I think it's kinda obvious who is included as being nutjobs...

skywanderer

The Prophet Mohammed was a murdering Paedophile so I guess its a case of emulating your idol really.

stunmer

Deleted User wrote: »

No idea. From what I can see Muslims themselves can't decide whether to support, deny all involvement, or fight these nutjobs. And I think it's kinda obvious who is included as being nutjobs...

I wanted to ask the question below to highlight the 0.5% figure being nutjobs mentioned earlier in the thread.

Do Muslims who think anyone who leaves the faith should be executed count in the 'nutjobs'?

If we are to count Muslims who do agree with the death for apostasy the percentage dramatically increases (I presume at least into the 10's of millions).
Page 55 in this report

Musketeer4

In reference to the earlier post on 0.5% or 0.05% of muslims having jihadist/wahhabist tendencies, I don't think seizing on a simple error in the location of the decimal point has much influence the situation and what has to happen on the ground to neutralise them whether its 50,000 or 500,000 that need to be dealt with its the same game- Whack-A-Mole!

At the end of the day a significant and ongoing use of force will be instrumental in ensuring the security of the west for some decades to come. A tragedy is that significant amoutns of public funds that could be spent on infrastructure and public projects in the west will be swallowed up by the amount of ordnance that will have to be utilised to bring peace to the middle east.

Billy86

Musketeer4 wrote: »

At the end of the day a significant and ongoing use of force will be instrumental in ensuring the security of the west for some decades to come.

Just like it has been for the last several decades so. Things are so much better and more peaceful now thanks to all the military action in the middle east these days, I certainly dread to think of going back to those awful 1990s before this constant military intervention, because Islamic terrorism was so much worse back then.

stunmer

stunmer wrote: »

I wanted to ask the question below to highlight the 0.5% figure being nutjobs mentioned earlier in the thread.

I simply wanted to grab a low percentage which would still show that there is potentially a rather high number of nutcases willing to fight or die for their beliefs.

Manic Moran

Not a new phenomenon, unfortunately. We were encountering children being used in bombings back when I was in Iraq in 2004, though the MO was different. They'd have the kid with them in the car so as to look unthreatening, as opposed to simply strapping the bomb to the kid.

SnakePlissken

Winterlong wrote: »

You would need to be one sick bastard to strap a suicide belt on to a child and send him out to kill other people.

In other news, water is wet