It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Bomber confession' shocks Jordan

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky

Touche'. You got me there.

She wanted to do it, tho.

That's true. I guess her belt just sucked, luckily. Maybe Jordanian intel will be able to track down big Z.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:49 PM
Perhaps she was not indented to detinate and get caught. Wouldn't that be a conspiracy?

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:32 AM

Perhaps she was not indented to detinate and get caught. Wouldn't that be a conspiracy?

Now there's an intriguing idea! So now everyone thinks we have a real songbird to interrogate. So she sings, but is her tone false? Is she feeding us lies?

But what could she lie about to us that would harm us?

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:25 PM
Mod Edit: Removed Post.

[edit on 15/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:48 PM
IMHO, I don't think she was meant to blow herself up. By being broadcast internationally in her full terrorist regalia, coupled with her stone-cold confession, this woman was able to generate more fear than the aftermath footage of a suicide bombing we've all grown accustomed to.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:51 PM

Is it really hard to understand why that much damage is on the ceiling compared to the floor? Think about what both are made out of, one is a flimsy like partical board the other is likely concrete.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:58 PM
There was an article in Time or Newsweek (I forget which one) about female suicide bombers on the rise.

It was a quite interesting article.

The women do it willingly in support of their men and the young women who were training to carry out such attacks were surprisingly beautiful.

The last two words in the last statement is the key. Since Western men fall all over themselves at the sight of a beautiful woman, he and his friends (especially someone with influence) could be prime targets for these people.

What I'm trying to say is that we need to suspect everyone without being paranoid or stereotyping.

Just watch "E-Ring" on NBC at 8:00 EST, 16 Nov 05. You'll get the picture.

[edit on 15/11/05 by Intelearthling]

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:07 AM
Jordan security aide and 10 others resign

A security official, meanwhile, said lights in sections of both the Radisson and Hyatt hotels went out just before the near-simultaneous blasts in apparently coordinated fashion.

A man who was working as a disc jockey at the Radisson, where a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding reception was bombed, also recalled how the ballroom where the party was being held mysteriously went dark.

"The lights at the wedding hall went off seconds, maybe just one second, before the blast, although there was electricity outside the room in the corridor, the nearby lobby area and the reception," said Fadi al-Kessi.

"For some reason, I looked to my right in the darkness and saw what looked liked lightning, then there was a loud boom. It felt like the explosion came from the ceiling, then people started running out."

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:48 PM
You're extrapolating too much from what I've said, but you're not alone. It's not our fault that people choose to blow themselves up, it is our fault that we invaded and brought misery to people. Do bad things, bad things happen. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and we're helping it along nicely.

My point is that if you provoke a group of people, for whatever reason, you are not directly responsible for their choices, but you are absolutely responsible for defining the context in which they are forced to make their decisions.

If you put a man in a room with no doors, and he breaks his way out through the drywall, is it not partially your fault that the wall was damaged? Certainly the one doing the kicking and the punching, and the tearing down, is MOSTLY responsible, but to ignore the primary act is to be blind to the nature of consequence.

No, she definitely wasn't the first female suicide bomber. The fact that never before, to my knowledge, has an Iraqi woman had cause to terorize another nation signifies, to me at least, that something has changed. We invade, people start blowing themselves up in the backyard of our supporters. It's just cause and effect, and I want people to recognize that fact.

It's not an issue of responsibility for the act, which should be clear just by looking at who pushed the button so to speak, it's an issue of willfull negligence. Was the goal of opening the Iraqi market worth the cost of tens of thousands of human lives? I don't think it was.

Again, it was most definitely her choice. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, you'll see that theme repeated over and over in my posts. The point I'm trying to make is that we need to examine OUR personal responsibility for the condition of the world, and do what we can to create a world where necessity of murder cannot be widely rationalized, as it is today.

People in the West are using the same exact process to rationalize massive violence. The similarities between the opponents in this conflict run deeper than the differences, and that needs to be explored.

If I thought I was wrong, I would have stated whatever opinion I thought was right instead. The opinion stated is the one I think is right. The fact that I even have to explain this baffles me.

Where have I justified the act? Can you quote the portion of my post where I said I agreed with the methodology of suicide bombers?

Sane, rational people don't blow themselves up to prove a point, or to protest injustice. If she set herself on fire in a concrete depression or something, I could justify her action, and I would indeed do just that. Self sacrifice is one thing, sacrificing the lives of strangers for your own pet cause is insane, it's murder, there is no justification.

The fact that I have to say this in every Iraq/terrorism discusion is disconcerting to say the least.

Can anyone explain that to me? Why is that?

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
If you put a man in a room with no doors, and he breaks his way out through the drywall, is it not partially your fault that the wall was damaged?

Well said.

I do think, however, that there are doors. They just don't like what's on the other side of the available doors and are trying to make their own. I know, the available doors don't lead to where you wish to go, but the hole in the wall is only an entrance to another place you don't want to be.

I think if there was a genuine outcry that didn't involve terrorism the rest of the world would be more receptive to thier points of view. Or perhaps we don't approve of where they want to go and are keeping those doors closed. A real discussion is needed for sure. The Arab leaders need to convey what the Arab people actually want, and the US & Co. should listen. I don't know if either end of the phone line works.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in