'Suicide bombings'

[sammi jo]

Every time theres a bombing, it's now automatically a 'suicide' bombing by default. (Apart from Fox News, which calls them 'homicide bombings'... which is kinda redundant). For example, the Jordanian bombings were instantly classed as 'suicide bombings' by every mainstream media channel before the incidents were investigated. For example: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/index.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4423714.stm

But in so many of these supposed 'suicide bombings', the circumstances do not support the suicide explanation.

In the Jordan bombings, it appears that at least one of these bombings could not have been a suicide bomb:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9980123/

The stark message is to scare people into knowing that there are all these people, waiting around for the order from some shadowy figure to strap bombs to their backs and go into public places and kill innocent people. How does one fight a war against the 'suicide bomber' who will go as far as to kill him/herself for "martyrdom for Allah", where there is no national identity, or boundary? The only way to defend the public against the 'suicide bomber', is to impose stringent and overbearing security measures. How super convenient and profitable for those who want to impose a Big Brother type of society, with cameras everywhere, total surveillance, checkpoints, curfews, civil rights restrictions, national ID cards and docs etc etc... the trappings of martial law etc. Sounds paranoid? Not really, profit is king.

Yes, some bombings are undoubtedly caused by desperate or easily led people with nothing to lose. But just like the commonly touted notion that 'all terrorists are muslim', now we're getting drawn into a false awareness that "all bombings are suicide attacks". Alternative explanations and police reports regarding high profile 'suicide bomb' attacks do quite often get aired on the mainstream websites, including the London train bombs of last summer, but you don't get much time to read them... they invariably get pulled very sharply. I've seen this happen on yahoo, cnn, abc, cbs etc etc on quite a lot of occasions.

I wonder how long the above msnbc report on the Jordan bombs lasts before it, too gets axed for straying off message? An hour? A day?

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Every time theres a bombing, it's now automatically a 'suicide' bombing by default. (Apart from Fox News, which calls them 'homicide bombings'...

So the onlynetwork that is not dominated by the left gets it right. Good to hear



[i]The stark message is to scare people into knowing that there are all these people, waiting around for the order from some shadowy figure to strap bombs to their backs and go into public places and kill innocent people. [/B]

There are all these people, waiting around for the order from some shadowy figure to strap bombs to their backs and go into public places and kill innocent people! They do it almost everyday!

(Couldn't stay quite any longer)

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
So the onlynetwork that is not dominated by the left gets it right. Good to hear

omg! you are soooo cool. left right left right... like the nazi army...





There are all these people, waiting around for the order from some shadowy figure to strap bombs to their backs and go into public places and kill innocent people! They do it almost everyday!

(Couldn't stay quite any longer)

How is this different than any other army on earth?

[sammi jo]

ISRAELI NATIONALS WERE EVACUATED BEFORE THE ATTACKS:

Direct quote from LA Times article and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

On the 10th of November the Los Angeles Times used this quote in an article: "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israelis staying at the Radisson on Wednesday had been evacuated before the attacks and escorted back home "apparently due to a specific security threat."

Amos N. Guiora, a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official, said in a phone interview with The Times that sources in Israel had also told him about the pre-attack evacuations.

"It means there was excellent intelligence that this thing was going to happen," said Guiora, a former leader of the Israel Defense Forces who now heads the Institute for Global Security Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "The question that needs to be answered is why weren't the Jordanians working at the hotel similarly removed?"

I am reading the hard copy of that LA Times article right here. Staff writersAshraf Khalil (Cairo), Ranya Kadri (Amman), Mega Stack (Bahrain) and Josh Meyer (Washington) all contributed to the article. Looks as if an editor made a big booboo by including some news material in amongst the propaganda.

This is a deja vu of the London bombings of June 2005, when Benjamin Netanyahu and his party received advance warnings early on the morning of the bombings, before the explosions happened. This latest attack looks like yet another false flag operation to "justify" the ongoing war on terror. It's undoubtedly no coincidence that the bombs exploded on November 9th, or 9-11 (in Jordan).

[Frank777]

Or it could just be that the Mossad has deep rooted spies in their network, and act on the information as they receive it.

The Israeli Secret Service is suppose to protect Israelis. Asking why they didn't go out of their way to protect Jordanians doesn't make sense.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Frank777
Or it could just be that the Mossad has deep rooted spies in their network, and act on the information as they receive it.

The Israeli Secret Service is suppose to protect Israelis. Asking why they didn't go out of their way to protect Jordanians doesn't make sense.

Exactly... The CIA is only supposed to protect 'merica abroad and it doesn't make sense for it to help the FBI with domestic matters.

[Frank777]

Bad analogy. The CIA and FBI both serve the same country.
Jordan and Israel are two different countries.

But even so, your first point is wrong. The Domestic and Foreign policing should be separate.

I'll defer to Commander Adama's explanation:

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Frank777
Bad analogy. The CIA and FBI both serve the same country.
Jordan and Israel are two different countries.

But even so, your first point is wrong. The Domestic and Foreign policing should be separate.

I'll defer to Commander Adama's explanation:

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

I disagree (not the second part). The lack of violence in my next door neighbor's yard is a definite benefit for the goings on in my yard.

[sammi jo]

I'll defer to Commander Adama's explanation:

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." [/B]

Oh my. That does sound uncomfortably familiar.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I disagree (not the second part). The lack of violence in my next door neighbor's yard is a definite benefit for the goings on in my yard.

I understand where you're coming from Hardee, but there's a lot of history to get around in the Middle East before you ever get anywhere near to common sense.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
So the onlynetwork that is not dominated by the left gets it right. Good to hear)

Hey Moe_Redundant_Underscore,

Why not give us all a laugh and explain the difference between a 'bombing' and a 'homicide bombing'?

[rageous]

Yeah, let's all get moe to come up with explanations while sammi posts more ultra-conspiratorial hogwash without anyone addressing it.

The reason most of these bombings are initially reported as suicide bombings consists of several reasons. From what I see, the biggest reason for this is that everyone wants to be the first to break news. When real information is scarce, as is always the case immediately after an attack, then the best bet for the media people is to assume what happened based upon the little you've heard/seen and apply what you know in an overall sense, i.e. a house blowing up in Iowa won't be assumed as an attack as readily as a wedding party in Jordan. (I don't condone that, but that's their take. Most people watching the news want the reporter to double-time it as a CSI cast member.)

Personally, I don't give an F if some guy had a bomb on his hip or shoved it up into the ceiling, and care even less if the initial reports jumped to a conclusion or two. I'm a little more concerned about all the people involved in doing the killing and what they think is going to be accomplished by doing what they're doing.

I just find it hard to believe that falsely attributing the bombing of Jordanians to a suicide attacker is somehow going to galvanize the American public into buying into a war they are increasingly growing tired of. It makes little to no sense, intellectually and tactically.

Do these deaths carry any more significance by being attributed to a suicide bomber as opposed to a planted explosive? I don't see how it does. If the US were really trying to get people to buy into the war on terror to the extent sammi wants to think so, they'd be flying planes into buildings everywhere, just like they did on 9-11*, or executing bombing attacks stateside.

If a wedding party got bombed tomorrow in Alabama, just one bombing here at home, all Bush would have to do is say the Democrats have tied his hands with all these "inquiries" and his approval ratings would skyrocket, as would his ability to further any agenda he may have.

---

Now, the fact that Israelis were evacuated doesn't mean a whole lot. It's not like they were shepherded out 15 minutes beforehand while Jordanians were secured inside the building at gunpoint.

This reminds me of that stupid attempted pirate attack. The US issued a warning shortly before that pirate attacks may occur in the area, and suggested people not take cruises there. And then they did! CRAZY! Any US-Israeli tie in there? I don't remember hearing of any Jewish presence on that ship whatsoever. Anomalous to the point of warranting a new thread, me thinks!



* except for that truck bomb at the pentagon, of course.

[Gene Clean]

Yeah, let's all get moe to come up with explanations while sammi posts more ultra-conspiratorial hogwash without anyone addressing it.

You didn't lock this thread? My my.. we're improving. ;)

[rageous]

I understand how locking one thread every 3rd month or so might be oppressive, but sometimes you kids get out of line.

[Gene Clean]

You understand. That's all that matters.

[Moe_in_Texas]

All political smack aside, this is really sad. Just sad.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_explosion_130;_ylt=AjQ8au.OIHZoUBjJriMmpYNY U.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4433712.stm

Moe


AMMAN, Jordan - An Iraqi woman confessed on state television Sunday to trying to detonate explosives strapped around her waist while she was in one of three Amman hotels bombed by al-Qaida in

"My husband wore an (explosives-packed) belt and put one on me. He taught me how to use it," said Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, 35, who appeared on television wearing a white head scarf, black gown and the disabled bomb belt tied around her waist.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by rageous
Now, the fact that Israelis were evacuated doesn't mean a whole lot. It's not like they were shepherded out 15 minutes beforehand while Jordanians were secured inside the building at gunpoint.

The Haaretz newspaper did precise there was no truth to report of Israeli evacuations before Amman bombs (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643661.html), just so you know.
Excerpt:
“The Israelis were escorted back to Israel by Jordanian security personnel only after the attacks had taken place, contrary to earlier reports.”

Expect the usual explanation how this is Haaretz doing the usual “damage control” as is common among the “smoke and mirror industry” of which the Tel-Avivite bourgeois rag must be part and parcel.

[BRussell]

What is it with this bogus "the Israelis all got out" meme that seems to follow every terrorist attack?

[sammi jo]

Suicide bombings or otherwise, the point is clear. Islam and Muslims, in the absence of a national (potentially hostile) superpower such as the USSR, are now the enemy, and are being (must be) portrayed as such at every available opportunity. The West (most especially the US) needs an enemy, for without one, (with the way our economy has developed, is currently structured and prioritized), we have a big problem, namely: how to publicly justify the extraordinarily disproportionate, and increasing spending on "defense". The message is now "demonize Arabs and muslims". And the message is catching on an ever faster rate... for obvious reasons.

Yes, there are extremist groups amongst the Islamic world, no question about it; I didnt not dispute that. All communities and peoples have their lunatic fringe who stop at nothing... but the wildly disproportionate amount of crazy suicidal attacks by "Muslim groups" compared to other religious/national/ethnic etc groups throught the world is anomalous and statistically peculiar, expecially considering that the tactics employed by Islamic terrorists and Islamic suicide bombers contravene every tenet of the Islamic belief system.

It seem far more likely that "al Qaeda" and others are thetools of parties who wish (or need) to demonize the Muslim faith and Arabic peoples of the world, by recruiting the craziest/stupidest/lowlife/most susceptible & manipulated/those with nothing to lose/criminal elements/ from within those communities, perhaps by those who wish to create the impression of a new and deadly enemy in the collective psyches of the American (and other western) peoples and democracies. The difficult question that has to be answered, is who are the recruiters, and who are the paymasters?

One of the most obvious facts in this sad and sorry picture, is that the fanatics in charge of the killing spree are well aware that (a) terrorism and arbitrary killings is anti-Islamic in nature and (b) the overall strategy is not only destroying the worldwide image of Arab peoples, but also a vile heresy which is wrecking the very faith are seeking to "promote". So the terrorists are effectively doikng an amazingly good job of self-sabotage. Why?

There is nothing in the brains or belief systems of Muslims and Arab peoples that automatically make them more susceptible to becoming murderous terrorists. Muslims don't have "terrorist genes", or some part of the brain that makes them want to "go on murderous rampages as soon as they reach puberty" or whatever. But that is the message that is being promulgated in the West, on a subtle and not-so-subtle basis. Please, someone, point me to a set of peer-reviewed scientific papers that can proove the relationship within the brains of Muslims: then I might join the mainstream. Many of us want to believe in the link and the propaganda, because thats what we are told what to believe: it is easy on the comfort zones, and it's easy because of the unfamiliarity of the Islamic belief system in (most of) mainstream America. The message being promoted is both racism and BS akin to that classic (and godawful) example of junk science "The Bell Curve" (Charles Murray et al)... and wacky conspiratorial hogwash thrown out there by the infinitely undiscerning corporate media gutterpress.

"Al Qaeda" is a tool, and they are doing their duty with remarkable effectiveness. Terrorists are stupid, which makes them all the more dangerous and manipulated...but the their masters are the clever ones. They don't go strapping bombs to their chests...leave that to the idiots But whatever the motivations, their behavior and methods remain equally evil.

The first question that any rookie detective investigating a crime will always ask is "whats the motive?" In the case of Islamic terrorism, the motive is nebulous and indeterminate. People don't go killing themselves for no reason, or recruiting others to kill themselves for no reason. And anyone who honestly believes that "its in the character of the Muslim peoples" to do such heinous acts is in cloud cuckoo land. Pragmatically, maybe we should look at "who's getting rich off 'al qaeda' and its actions": History shows that when bad stuff happens, its always about money and power, or the subversion/reinterpretation of religious faith/s to manipulate the masses, in order to wield more power.

Who are they working for? I don't know, and nobody's telling. What doesn't stand up is the notion that they are doing it just for the hell of it, or because it's "part of their nature", or they are out to get us. That, is garbage.

And one more thing... our oil is under their sand. Nuff said.

"They attacked us because they hate our freedoms". Do people really believe horse-shit like that?

szheeszh.

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by BRussell
What is it with this bogus "the Israelis all got out" meme that seems to follow every terrorist attack?

The CIA always notifies Israel before it's agents launch a fake suicide attack.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The CIA always notifies Israel before it's agents launch a fake suicide attack.

Right, and a pig just flew by my window.

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Right, and a pig just flew by my window.

The Pink Floyd pig?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The Pink Floyd pig?

No. But it was pink.


On another, nitpicky note, 'fake suicide' bombings involve suicides so they are still real 'suicide' bombings...

[Moe_in_Texas]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No. But it was pink.


On another, nitpicky note, 'fake suicide' bombings involve suicides so they are still real 'suicide' bombings...

"staged"

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Harald
Hey Moe_Redundant_Underscore,

Why not give us all a laugh and explain the difference between a 'bombing' and a 'homicide bombing'?

bombing == just a bombing

homicide bomding == intentionally (or accidentally, I suppose) killing people

?

Just a thought.

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
bombing == just a bombing

homicide bomding == intentionally (or accidentally, I suppose) killing people
Proof that the misguided term just confuses some people.

[Moe_in_Texas]

Somehow missed Harry's post.

The comparison is between "Suicide" and"homicide" bombings, not "bombings" and "homicide bombings". We prefer to discuss "homicide bombings" because this term stresses that the purpose is to murder folks. "Suicide" bombing stresses the death of the bomber, not the innocent folks. Hope this clears it all up.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Did they use "homicide bombs" as opposed to "just bombs?"

It isn't really hard to see that the "homicide" part refers to the intention of the bombing. But if you are just trying out your new comedy material, I'll just chuckle and politely applaud.

[giant]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The comparison is between "Suicide" and"homicide" bombings, not "bombings" and "homicide bombings". We prefer to discuss "homicide bombings" because this term stresses that the purpose is to murder folks. "Suicide" bombing stresses the death of the bomber, not the innocent folks. Hope this clears it all up.
Exactly. But it's a really bad term for two reasons:

First, as demonstrated by Chris' post, it causes confusion in people who don't know the background, since its literal meaning is very different than the actual one.

Secondly, and most importantly, the "homicide" part is generally implied in the "bombing." The reason it's called "suicide bombing" is because it describes the type of bombing. How do we know whether the "homicide bombing" was a car bombing or an IED or a suicide bombing? We don't, and unless you awkwardly place homicide in front of every kind of bombing term (homicide roadside bombing, homicide car bombing and even homicide suicide bombing), it's an empty and redundant term.

Things like this are why smart people hate FOX news, BTW, much more so than probably any other reason.

[BRussell]

Of course it should also be pointed out that the term 'homicide bombing' was invented by the Bush administration, and Fox News merely dutifully obeyed the linguistic directive from above.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
First, as demonstrated by Chris' post, it causes confusion in people who don't know the background, since its literal meaning is very different than the actual one.

Secondly, and most importantly, the "homicide" part is generally implied in the "bombing." The reason it's called "suicide bombing" is because it describes the type of bombing. How do we know whether the "homicide bombing" was a car bombing or an IED or a suicide bombing? We don't, and unless you awkwardly place homicide in front of every kind of bombing term (homicide roadside bombing, homicide car bombing and even homicide suicide bombing), it's an empty and redundant term.

So..."suicide" refers to the mechanism or technique of the bombing. Which I would agree with, but might argue isn't really communicating anything meaningful either.

And..."homicide" refers to the intention or the purpose of the bombing. Which, I would argue, does communicate something useful. I wouldn't automatically assume that all bombings are intended to kill someone...they could be just intended to create fear...disruption...chaos...all without killing anyone.

This is somewhat of a semantical argument...and, perhaps, interesting only in an academic sense.

[Outsider]

Are there bombs that don't murder people? I mean other than most Hollywood movies...

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Outsider
Are there bombs that don't murder people? I mean other than most Hollywood movies...

Yes.

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Which I would agree with, but might argue isn't really communicating anything meaningful either.
Of course it is, which is why people use it and know what it means without further explanation.
And..."homicide" refers to the intention or the purpose of the bombing. Which, I would argue, does communicate something useful. I wouldn't automatically assume that all bombings are intended to kill someone...they could be just intended to create fear...disruption...chaos...all without killing anyone.
First of all, you are being completely dishonest because the term "homicide bombing/er" specifically refers to "suicide bombing/er" and is intended to put the focus on the victims and horror rather than the bomber (which happens to be a good motive).

But as I said in the post you quoted (but apparently didn't digest):
Originally posted by giant
How do we know whether the "homicide bombing" was a car bombing or an IED or a suicide bombing? We don't, and unless you awkwardly place homicide in front of every kind of bombing term (homicide roadside bombing, homicide car bombing and even homicide suicide bombing), it's an empty and redundant term.
Like "homicide sniper" or "homicide shooter," it's redundant and not descriptive, sacrificing meaning for a political statement. In fact, FOX uses it for any suicide bombing, including ones in which no one but the bomber dies, making it actually completely inaccurate.

The thing that makes a suicide bombing unique is that the bomber kills himself, not that the bombing kills others.

It's simply a political statement, and arguing otherwise is both extremely flagrantly dishonest and an implicit admission that you feel the political statement isn't sufficient for you to back the term.

[Chris Cuilla]

nevermind...not worth it.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The Haaretz newspaper did precise there was no truth to report of Israeli evacuations before Amman bombs (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643661.html), just so you know.
Excerpt:


Expect the usual explanation how this is Haaretz doing the usual “damage control” as is common among the “smoke and mirror industry” of which the Tel-Avivite bourgeois rag must be part and parcel.


Haaretz retracted the retractions (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051113&articleId=1238) Just so you know.

But those who rely on the mainstream, ie the big majority, will never hear.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Haaretz retracted the retractions (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051113&articleId=1238)…
One notes that rather than sending to some actual article in questions, this link is to an article titled “Did Israel have Prior Knowledge of the Amman 11/9 Terror Attacks?” by one Monsieur Chossudovsky which could be summed up as “stuff I read on Haaretz”.
He does link both to the article I linked to above (No truth to report of Israeli evacuations before Amman bombs (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/643661.html)), posted November 10 at 17:03 and to what he claims is the retraction of the retraction (King Abdullah cancels trip to Israel after Amman triple suicide bombing (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/643639.html)) posted November 10 at 22:13 hence included in the November 11 issue.
There, M. Chossudovsky reads and quotes (emphasis added by him):

“It was still unclear whether there were any other Israeli casualties in the attack. Hours before the bombings, many Israelis were evacuated (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643661.html) from the Radisson SAS, one of the hotels hit in the attacks, apparently due to a specific security alert.”

The article about King Abdullah by Yoav Stern and Zohar Blumenkrantz links to the previous retraction (on the word “evacuated”) without retracting it, but since it was posted a few hours later it might lead to confusion.

But those who rely on the mainstream, ie the big majority, will never hear.

Those who actually read Haaretz rather than rely on M. Chossudovsky to read it for them, could read in that very November 11 issue yet again that
Reports of Israelis evacuated before attack were false (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/644169.html) where the same M. Stern (sans M. Blumenkrantz this time) writes:
“The groups of Israelis who were staying at the Jordanian hotels that were bombed on Wednesday were evacuated from the hotels immediately following the attacks, and not before they occured, as Haaretz erroneously reported yesterday.”

M. Chossudovsky didn't include that in his own piece, dated November 13, not that his usual audience might care.

[some grammar error edited]

[steve666]

Originally posted by BRussell
What is it with this bogus "the Israelis all got out" meme that seems to follow every terrorist attack?

It helps feed the anti-Israeli trolls like sammi jo who get off on spreading anti-Israeli propoganda.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.