Hulver's site || Winner of Idiotic intro text of the week: The Globe and Mail.

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Winner of Idiotic intro text of the week: The Globe and Mail.

By marvin (Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:55:46 AM EST) blowing shit up, war on terrrrrroooooor, mental patients working as journalists (all tags)

What makes a suicide bomber tick?
Resorting to the use of mental patients to carry out recent Baghdad bombings suggests a moral bankruptcy.

Indeed. And would that be a mild suggestion, or a firm suggestion?

Would one perhaps wish to reserve just a hint of moral bankruptcy for the rest of those idiots who blow themselves up along with innocent civilians? The entire enterprise of setting out to kill other people without any cause whatsoever is morally bankrupt.

Thank you Mr. Gerald Owen and your useless editor for this fine work of journalism. Or should we call you both Captain Obvious now?

< ice, snow, and Saturday | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Poll

Votes: 5
Results	\|	Other Polls

Google

Comment Controls

Winner of Idiotic intro text of the week: The Globe and Mail. | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

uh, yeah. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #1 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:14:34 AM EST

Irony: ammo says it's time. Tom is blocked.

: I prefer arrogance by marvin (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:17:21 AM EST

They go hand in hand.

[ Parent ]

What would make any of us think . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:57 AM EST

. . . that any information about said "suicide bomber" was true, coming from an unnamed military source?

Not the issue by marvin (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST

Doesn't matter if it is true or not. As a matter of principle, I don't believe much news coming out of the middle east / persian gulf.

The issue I had with the article is the attitude. The spin in the leader text right below the headline made it sound as if using a mentally deficient / incapacitated person as a mule makes this particular suicide bombing somehow worse than the norm. For most people I know (anectdotal) "moral bankruptcy" starts long before you get to to the point of suicide bombing. For most common values of morality, adding one more innocent victim to the death toll is beside the point - killing anyone that way is already well over the line. Any act of suicide bombing is grossly morally bankrupt. The incremental immorality of having an innocent act as your explosives carrier is insignificant in comparison.

[ Parent ]

Well, I think your issue . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:00:59 PM EST

. . . is not only encapsulated by mine, but eclipsed by it as well.

News Flashes like "the bad guys used retarded people/women/the physically handicapped" are only put out there to get an emotional response, so that one doesn't question or examine the situation. You went one step further by disseminating the redundancy of their language, but the result is the same: to make any argument about any of it, you have to accept at least a small part of it as true.

I am sure the bombing happened, although goodness knows I haven't seen any semblance of photographic evidence. Why? So, a couple of unsuspecting women have bombs put on them, so that they explode a whole bunch of their peers in a crowded marketplace. How the military or contracted goons know after that size of an explosion that they were women, the bombs were on them, is not explained. Why an insurgent group who hopes to chase away invaders would bomb the common people in a highly counterproductive move is not explained. Any shred of evidence, even the name of the investigators or unit or outfit doing the investigation is not explained. After all, they don't have to - the main point is for the gullible public to become conditioned to just receive the information, and get angry at 'those awful people'.

In short - I think it is very much the issue.

[ Parent ]

Ah, a whodunnit by marvin (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST

Yes, I admit I erred by lamenting the poor text and sloppy thinking behind the article in what purports to be "Canada's national newspaper".

I should have instead focused on building a conspiracy theory, perhaps stating that the US military-industrial complex, led by the CIA and Halliburton, strapped the bombs to the women to ensure ongoing support for their military adventures in Iraq.

Terribly sorry about that. You have my most fervent apologies for my momentary lapse in paranoia.

Never mind that some religious extremists only define "peers" as people sharing the same religion. Some Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland have shown few qualms in killing fellow countrymen who were not considered "peers" solely by virtue of their religion. So why should Sunni vs Shia in Iraq be any different.

[ Parent ]

lol, great comparison . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:23:20 PM EST

. . . you certainly slayed my argument by calling me paranoid and using the "c" word. I humbly retreat before your fine work!

[ Parent ]

Argument? by marvin (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST

I completely failed to relate to your point of view, as your entire comment was based upon the reader's acceptance of your claim that "to make any argument about any of it, you have to accept at least a small part of it as true."

As for the rest, I call 'em as I see 'em. I pointed out flaws in your claim that it would be self-defeating for an Iraqi group to bomb their own countrymen.

It was a much my intent to label you a paranoid conspiracy theorist as it was yours to label me as unquestioningly gullible, responding in an emotional manner exactly as was intended by these shadowy forces. Nice work getting all hyper-sensitive on me, it would play well on k5 or /.

References for claims in above paragraph:

gullible: "After all, they don't have to - the main point is for the gullible public to become conditioned to just receive the information, and get angry at 'those awful people'."
emotional and unquestioning: "are only put out there to get an emotional response, so that one doesn't question or examine the situation"
shadowy forces: "You went one step further by disseminating the redundancy of their language"

[ Parent ]

Seems like a moral position by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:25:43 AM EST

Why waste perfectly good genetic material when you can expend mentalists instead? Darwin nods in approval from beyond the veil.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

: In that case by marvin (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:34:35 PM EST

I certainly hope that you voted for mimes or journalists in the poll. Surely a scientist such as Darwin would view mimes and journalists as barely a sub-species of humanity (at best), and would be clapping enthusiastically at the notion.
However, Darwin's approval would be strongly tempered, or eliminated entirely by the non-selective carnage once the explosives were detonated. Shrapnel does not discriminate, or care about the quality of the target's genes.
From what I hazily recall of genetics, deviation towards the mean gives you no guarantee that "perfect" specimens (beautiful, high intelligence) will produce identical offspring. Furthermore, genius and mental illness often go hand in hand, at least in the art world. Just look at Vincent van Gogh as an example.

[ Parent ]

WIPO: Dolphins. by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:20:42 PM EST

~
There is absolutely no correlation or causation amongst intelligence, power, talent and wealth.
Kha-Nyou

Nay by marvin (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:07:39 AM EST

Backwards it has you.

[ Parent ]

: I'min Hollywoodland by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST

But the idea is the same.
~
There is absolutely no correlation or causation amongst intelligence, power, talent and wealth.
Kha-Nyou
[ Parent ]

Winner of Idiotic intro text of the week: The Globe and Mail. | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

-	Morally bankrupt young, dedicated activists	20%
-	Morally bankrupt journalists	40%
-	Morally bankrupt freedom fighters	20%
-	Morally bankrupt jihadists	20%
-	Morally bankrupt clowns	60%
-	Mimes	20%
-	Puppies	40%
-	Mental patients	20%
-	Children	40%


Make a new account
Username:
Password: