« A Tale of a Windows Loser | Main | An odd dichotomy »

Damn me for being right

In a post a couple weeks ago, I wrote about the idea of armoring Humvees in Iraq and the drawbacks it might incur. At one point, I speculated that it would simply lead to the terrorists using bigger bombs.

Today while patrolling Baghdad, seven soldiers were killed by a bomb. It was one of the larger bombs used so far.

But the soldiers weren't in a Humvee. They were in a M-2 Bradley IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle). The Bradley is the successor to the old M-113 APC, which stands for Armored Personnel Carrier.

That's right. They were in an armored vehicle, and the terrorists just used a bigger bomb. In fact, the bomb tossed the 22-ton Bradley upside down into a ditch.

In the age-old contest between weapons and armor, weapons have always won. We can't afford to simply sit back and let them continue to attack us.

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Damn me for being right:

» Pajama Pundits linked with Kerry's Out to Get Rumsfeld

Comments (46)

I say we build a bigger boo... (Below threshold)

I say we build a bigger boot..

The thing which makes IED's... (Below threshold)
ridgerunner:

The thing which makes IED's (essentially a land mine) so attractive is that the enemy is not vulnerable when they are fired. The enemy is vulnerable only in the transporting and placing of the devise. Out side of some science fiction device giving our forces omnipresent surveilance I think col. West had the right idea. Of course that will only work if the enemy really believes you are going to kill him. Perhaps setting up a situation like the brain teaser on Dean Esmay's site. Three terrorists sitting in the room. Ask one terrorist where the IEDs are. Before he answers shoot one of the remaining two in the head. Ask the question again.
Of course congress is making this very difficult.

Jay, that is a silly compla... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Jay, that is a silly complaint. So your advice is for us to go in with no weapons, no armor, and just a wife beater and a pair of shorts? I mean, I am sure the marines can win in a fist fight. Because, obviously the insrugents are only going to use weapons one small step above our defenses.

No, Bill. That is not what ... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

No, Bill. That is not what Jay is saying.

Why are there always people who presume that if someone declares X is not capable of working every time that that automatically means that someone wants to completely get rid of X?

Are you truly that lazy, or are you hoping your audience is?


I don't think Jay's point w... (Below threshold)

I don't think Jay's point was to leave the weapons and armor at home. Acutally, I don't see anything in his post about weapons. But no matter what kind of defense we have, the enemy will adjust to win. The MSM is making it seem like armor is the solve all answer to our problems in Iraq. They have been hounding anything to do with armor, where as they probably just enjoy poinitng out everything that is wrong, and avoiding anything that is right.

Partially right:" ... (Below threshold)
Bernie:

Partially right:

" The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and only carries six infantrymen. Worst of all, its a huge vehicle with little armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles."

Link

"Are you truly that lazy, o... (Below threshold)
JimK:

"Are you truly that lazy, or are you hoping your audience is?"

Both. Bill K. just likes to argue with any position taken here, but can't be bothered to put forth any intellectual effort to do so.

Bill K. also needs a reading comprehension class. The point here is the ridiculous outcry about uparmoring humvees. Set aside the fact that almost every one of them is already armored. Set aside the fact that they lose speed and mobility that way. The point here is armor doesn't mean magical protection. Nothing more, nothing less. But people like Bill just *have* to try to twist it into "those damn conservatives said this horrible thing" again. It's easier than thinking.

Bernie, in fairness, while the Bradley is a bit of a FUBAR, that link is an OPINION, not a scientific fact.

So your advice is for us... (Below threshold)

So your advice is for us to go in with no weapons, no armor, and just a wife beater and a pair of shorts?

You first, Bill.

STRYKERS - that's what we n... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

STRYKERS - that's what we need throughout that country.

I have a site you should become familiar with:
Hammorabi.com
Stryker Brigade News
and I have all the pages to MY WAR if you want to read them to show you exactly what vehicle should be used in this guerilla/urban type warfare. At least these guys can ride over an IED and it only feels like a speed bump. The only thing that can happen to them is their tires can go on fire but is the safest vehicle for our shoulders in this type of war. By the time they realize it, the war will be over.

Cindy

Last Christmas, Diane Sawye... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Last Christmas, Diane Sawyer had an interview with President and Mrs Bush. She asked him "what would you like for Christmas?" He answered "that there be no IED's." very unselfless of him. More concerned about the troops than himself. That man puts himself in so much danger all the time, showing up here and there, going here and there, keeping the secret service on their toes, they never know what he's going to do. The strykers are made up at the base that takes up both Washington State and Iowa on the border.

IED's are not basically land mines as one commenter noted. These things are made by someone in their kitchen with whatever they have and the more they make, the better. We have one choice here. NO ONE IN IRAQ DRIVES A CAR unless it's the police, the Iraqi National Guard or the Military. Anyone else is a terrorist. Also, anyone seeing someone with a camcorder should be taken and arrested because what they are filming are vehicles blowing up. Check the women for vests; get rid of Sistani Al Sadr and put Saddam on trial and then put him to death. Put out real pictures of Al Zaqawi, not those old scrathcy pencil drawings done years ago. Have NO ONE give them sanctuary and turn them in if they know where he or any others from other groups are making it the responsibility of the Iraqi people to turn them in. And of course no one out of their homes by 9 am and back in by 5 pm - give the Iraqi people a chance; with these terrorists, even the regular Iraqi people, the Christians in that country don't have a chance in hell for peace. WIRE along the Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syrian borders until long after their voting and making of a constitution. Turn in all the guns; they don't need them and put them all to work to reconstruct their nation, clean it up, and soon, able to sleep but always keep an eye open. This way no one can get in and no one can get out. Why this has not been done yet is beyond me - these people need protection and dammit, they should get it and it will bring the death rate and injury rates down dramatically.

Cindy

Bradley's burn - despite ar... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Bradley's burn - despite armor, they burn and are dangerous especially if they can't get out. Stryker's do not burn and in northern Iraq - ie Mosul - are the only place they have strykers. Even RPG's cannot destroy a stryker. The soldiers in strykers live by it. They can't help Baghdad or southern Iraq because they are only based in Mosul and if a Bradley goes out, a stryker is right behind it. That's what we need: more strykers.

Cindy

"In the age-old contest bet... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"In the age-old contest between weapons and armor, weapons have always won. We can't afford to simply sit back and let them continue to attack us."

So our troops have just been sitting back, letting themselves get attacked? I'm not tracking this comment. Indeed, I'm not tracking this post.
Let's recap: Okay, If we up armor the humvee's the terrorists will just use bigger explosives so we are so bent out of shape about armor when what we really need is a plan to stop them from attacking. Is that it? It makes sense but it also raises the questions:

Isn't uparmoring the humvees as fast as we can still a good thing? At the very least it forces the terrorists to make bigger boms
Why don't we have a plan now to stop the terrorists from attacking us?
And BTW, a bonus questions, where are they getting these bigger explosives?

*patiently waits for the Bu... (Below threshold)
Darby:

*patiently waits for the Bush bashers start blaming our president*

Frameone.see the pos... (Below threshold)

Frameone.
see the post from patrick about x's. It doesn't mean stop up-armoring our Humvee's.
I bet we have a plan to stop terrorists, unfortunately the media likes complaining about eveything and anything that goes wrong.

when asking quesitons about explosives, you apprantly don't have much fun on 4th of July. If you take two fire-crackers and put them together, or even better, empty the powder into one firecracker, you know have a bigger, more powerful firecracker. Now replace firecracker with bomb, and you answered your own question.

As far as the Stryker goes, yes the armor on it is good, the problem ,they didn't forsee is that the wheels blow off fairly easy. It is far superior than the m-2, though.

"patiently waits for the Bu... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"patiently waits for the Bush bashers start blaming our president"

Blame what on the president? Do you think blame needs to be assigned?
If someone, however, does have a valid criticism about some aspect of the war on terror don't you think the most logical place to take it would be to the commander and chief?
Doesn't aksing the president and his officers some tough questions make more sense than blaming the media for something or other?

Also, I did read Patrick's post and it didn't help. Jay and Rumsfeld are saying the same thing: answering legitimate complaints and questions about a short fall of armor by asserting that, well, armor isn't really that big a deal anyway, the terrorists will just make bigger bombs.

What kind of attitude is that? Seriously. This kind of logic is tortuous. It makes my brain hurt. It's like from day one we've been told that every terrorist attack is a sign that were winning because every attack is a sign of the terrorists desperation. Uh? What? If you can really explain any of this to me I'll believe we actually have a plan to win this thing.

"we simply can't afford to ... (Below threshold)
ridgerunner:

"we simply can't afford to simply sit back and let them continue to attack us"

When I refferred to an IED in my post above as essentially a land mine (which it is) but to describe it's attributes and liabilities. When they use these things how is the enemy vulnerable?
We know the military is armoring up these existing vehicles in order to better protect our guys. This they should do and are doing. But that monster explosion today would probably have taken out an Abrams tank. But you still need trucks and humvees are still needed. Armor helps in that it may reduce casualties. the enemy is forced to bury of otherwise conceal devices which are bigger and heavier and may make the enemy more likely to be discovered when placing them. And that of course is the answer. Once these devises are set they can only be discovered and detonated/disarmed. the enemy has lost no one.
We know the military is making use of UAV and other technical means of surveilance.
But millions of people getting up everyday and going about their daily busiiness is a hell of a maze.
We know the military is making use of human intelligence from those who resent the terrorist to out right bribes.
We know sweeps are made thru terrorist strong holds and they are arrested almost everyday. Prisoners are screened in an attempt to glean out the "hard core". But we have given up coersive interogation (torture) and battlefield execution as a tool. We have essentially given the enemy a sanctuary as surely as cambodia was a sanctuary for the VC. They know if they can endure what is esentially a college hazing nothing is going to happen. If they tell us anything the "insurgents" will behead them with a dull knife, kill their wife and rape their dog. If they don't tell us anything-nothing. Our government has decided torture is immoral and our troops do not have access to this tool. Actually i don't completely believe this, I think they have decided it's unwise. This is a war to prevent a general conflageration. We need the active help of Jordan and the other Arab counries.
This war is on a clock. It all depends on the Iraqis. They have to come forward to defend themselves and agree to form a government in which they are free.
If the Iraqis are unwilling to step forward then the alarm clock will ring and the american people will demand we get out. We won't simply set back and let them blow up our young people.
Than you Wizbang for allowing me to post on your site.

BillK:I'm starting... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

BillK:

I'm starting to wonder -- obtuseness of the degree you demonstrate can NOT be accidental.

My earlier thesis was "no matter what Bush's critics say, simply adding armor to Humvees is not a cure-all." I also predicted that the terrorists would react to armored vehicles by simply using bigger bombs. Today that is exactly what happened.

Simple enough?

J.

Frameone: Listen very, very... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Frameone: Listen very, very carefully. It's very, very simple.

In the long run, armor is almost never a winnning strategy. The attacker will simply adjust their tactics to deal with it.

Further, it is a purely defensive action. No purely defensive move is a winning strategy. It gives all the advantages to the other side. Battles and wars are won by attacking, not defending. We need to stop them before the bomb goes off. We need to fight them in a time and place and manner of our choosing, not theirs.

Armored vehicles have their place, as do unarmored ones. Read the earlier pieces and, with luck, you may gain a clue or two.

J.

Nobody said it was a cure-a... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Nobody said it was a cure-all...NOBODY. The fact is, you guys can't even admit that our humvees not being properly armored was a problem. You are so far up Bush's ass you won't even admit the most obvious of blunders.

I don't think armoring all the Humvees is going to make the insurgents wimper, throw up their guns, and run to their nearest polling place. But, it may save a life. Or many. So, when there is outrage from the left about something that is costing the lives of American soldiers, how about you not just say, "well, they are going to die anyway." Which is what this post says. To argue otherwise is just dishonest. "Oh, see, that armoring mess was a stupid MSM topic, because, I mean, look, they can blow up tanks anyway."

J --I totally agre... (Below threshold)
frameone:

J --

I totally agree with you that a good defense ain't going to get us anywhere. But after listening very, very carefully I have to agree with Bill here. No one ever said, "Uparmor the vehicles and we'll win." To suggest otherwise is simply to set up a strawman (and not a very well armored one at that). Speaking of which, how is it that well-armored vehicles aren't an essential component of any sustained offensive? I mean I gather you still support uparmoring vehicles right? So where's your beef without the strawman?

Ultimately though, this isn't a debate about armor: everyone wants our troops to have the best armored vehicles possible. It's a question of whether or not this administration is able to face and deal with the situation in Iraq precisely as you see it. I mean, seriously, you have a firmer grasp of what need to be done than Rumsfeld and Bush.

This administration has responded to almost every issue to come out Iraq with bromides and double talk. We have yet to come up with a viable offense that isolates the terrorists from the surrounding population both militarily and politically (and for the record torture and summary execution are not tools, they're acts of barbarity). Why haven't we done this? It ain't because of the "liberal media," jack. It's because whether its the armor issue or, indeed, the ability of the terrorists to adapt so quickly to a changing situation (and our slow response, in kind) this administration seems under the thrall of a doctrine that suggests every terrorist attack is a victory for us. Can you think of a more passive attitude?

OK Bill, I'll bite. Our Hu... (Below threshold)

OK Bill, I'll bite. Our Humvees weren't properly armored. They're not bulletproof either, so if the terrorists change tactics we're screwed while we figure out a way to react, again.

As I recall there was lots of pre-war worry about street to street combat and the rear flanks of APC's, but I don't recall a lot of pre-war worry about IED's. That may be an intelligence failure or a stroke of bad luck, or bad memory on my part.

Most people with passing familiarity with military procurement know that doing these things (armoring humvees) takes time - in this case too much time. The military is an organizational bureaucracy after all, with all the built-in impediments to change that implies...

Kevin,I think the ... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Kevin,

I think the combination of your and frameone's comments form the rational response from the right. Yes, it is a problem. Yes, it needs to be fixed. No, you can't really blame, you just accept and move on.

I don't agree that you can't blame poor leadership and planning on Bush, but at least I can see how your arguement is rational. To protect and defend the fact that we don't have armor though, as many of the responses to this situation do, is ridiculous.

Case in point, Jay said:

In the age-old contest between weapons and armor, weapons have always won. We can't afford to simply sit back and let them continue to attack us.

My response to that is, even the most aggresive attacker weilding a sword probably is carrying a shield. And, you seem to agree with that statement, so long as the lack of a shield isn't blamed on Bush. Again, that is fine. To defend the lack of a shield as being okay though, is not.

That was my disagreement with Jay's post.

"I think the combination of... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"I think the combination of your and frameone's comments form the rational response from the right."

And here I was thinking I was giving the rational liberal/progressive response!

I meant this part:... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

I meant this part:

"Ultimately though, this isn't a debate about armor: everyone wants our troops to have the best armored vehicles possible. It's a question of whether or not this administration is able to face and deal with the situation in Iraq precisely as you see it."

Not, the part about the double talk.

The rational line from the right is to say, "it is a problem, we are fixing it, sometimes these things aren't known until we get in battle." (as Kevin noted) Then come back on the left with, "Ultimately though, this isn't a debate about armor: everyone wants our troops to have the best armored vehicles possible. It's a question of whether or not this administration is able to face and deal with the situation in Iraq precisely as you see it; and I think they are." Maybe something about how the left shouldn't make hay over something that is being fixed just to make the administration look bad.

Personally, I still think it is a cause of poor pre-war planning that was forced by a rush to war. But, I wouldn't have anything to say to the above response except, I disagree.

And BTW, a bonus questions,... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

And BTW, a bonus questions, where are they getting these bigger explosives?

Posted by: frameone at January 6, 2005 11:53 PM

Frameone: Yesterday I saw a poll done by Iraqi's and to only be answered by Iraqi's and they pick Syria as their major problem, then Iran came in second.

Cindy

You are so far up Bush's... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

You are so far up Bush's ass you won't even admit the most obvious of blunders.

Well, gosh, when you put it that way I just feel like agreeing with you for some reason. Not.

Quick! Wave a bloody shirt!

So, when there is outrage from the left about something that is costing the lives of American soldiers, how about you not just say, "well, they are going to die anyway."

That's the spirit! Bloody shirt-waving AND slaughtering strawmen! Now they'll be galloping to your side! Really.


Obviously you read all my c... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Obviously you read all my comments. Good job.

"torture is not a tool, it ... (Below threshold)
ridgerunner:

"torture is not a tool, it is barbarity"

The reason I used the terms coersive interrogation and torture together is the definition of "torture" does not now exist as a reasonable guideline for our military forces and intelligence agencies as well. It is obvious from the above quote that the writer has a clear idea of what torture is in his own mind. It is kind of like pornography, you know it when you see it. That's great for the individual as he surfs the internet but we are talking about questions of national policy in the prosecution of this war.
Col. West saved his troops from IEDs by coersive interrogation. His method was effective and it worked. It was a tool. It protected his troops far better than up-armor. Was it torture? I am certain that in the eyes of certain senators and the NY Times it was. One thing for certain. In order to keep using this tool some prisoners would have to be actually shot.
The debate on up-armor is intriguing to me not because of the up-armor process but because of what it says about our leaders are willing for our troops to suatain and the length of time they feel our troops may have to endure this situation. I listened to Commanding Generals in charge of this up armor program as was impressed by their planning and sincereity. We have the best officer corp in the world.
I was also impressed by Col. West.
there are real people walking around hugging their babies and making love to their wives because of him and "coersive interrtogation".
Have you ever seen the WWII combat footage showing a japanese soldier running out a cave obiviously fataly burned and a marine calmly puts him down with a garand? The man was running away apparently unarmed. We have an army sergeant serving a three year prison sentence for shooting an Iraqi fataly injured when one of the IEDs he was placing exploded. What is the difference? Obviously it is perceived threat and war aims.
Without a meaningful definition of "torture" and how to impose extreme sanction on our enemy this proven tool is out of the box.

This whole thing, though, i... (Below threshold)
Red Five:

This whole thing, though, is predicated on a single question planted by a moonbat newspaper reporter from Chatanooga and asked by a soldier to give it credence. The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld gave the right answer to the question: you go to war with the army you have, and try to improve things as you go along. That's what we did in WWII, and it's what we're doing today. Our military was so badly cut by Clinton that it's no wonder the Hummers don't have the armor.

The soldier who asked the planted question didn't know that at the moment he asked it, most of the Hummers in his regiment were already armored, and the last group were getting upgraded.

BTW, the reason that we haven't come up with a strategy to isolate the terrorists (NOT insurgents or militants) has very little to do with the Bush administration refusing to roll with the punches. It has everything to do with liberals in leadership and control positions who have tied the hands of the battle commanders, and a liberal media crying about any little war-related "atrocity". Remember Abu Graihb? It was fewer than a dozen soldiers acting like a bunch of rednecks on a couple dozen Arab (not all Iraqi) terrorist prisoners of was. The media blew the whole thing up and acted as if orders had come from Bush himself, and because he "talks to God", that it somehow was ordered by God (that last little bit I added for absurdity, but I'm sure there were some moonbats who thought along those lines). The liberals in leadership have demanded that we fight "humanely" so that we avoid killing civilians, which we have done, quite well IMO. The problem is that we are fighting an enemy who sees no differene between innocent civilian and soldier, on either side, and who hides itself among the very people we are trying to protect and free. Would you want to be responsible for an attempt to clear out the enemy, and end up killing more civilians than enemy combatants who were hiding like cowards in a school or hospital?!? I sure wouldn't, especially if certain media figures would scream about it as a reason to pull out, and liberal leaders would demand an explanation of why we didn't protect the civilians.

Come on, people, these terrorists hide among civilians (women and children!), kill civilians, and even dress up like women in burkhas so they can hide the vest-bombs they are wearing! We can't fight them with traditional, "humanitarian" methods!

You're right Jay in the lar... (Below threshold)

You're right Jay in the larger sense; at some level armor is just more Maginot Line siege mentality just begging for the invention of a longbow.

The only solution is to eliminate the bombers, which will require an effective Iraqi force.

" Yes, it is a problem. Yes... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

" Yes, it is a problem. Yes, it needs to be fixed. No, you can't really blame, you just accept and move on. "

Bwahahaha! Suuure you do. The anti-American Lefties/Dems/MSM breathlessly reported the uparmored Humvee 'scandal' so as to spin it against Bush and Rumsfeld. The reporter giddily bragged about planting the (ignorant, as it turns out) question during Rumsfelds Q&A session.

So now I see the tactic is to turn coy and say 'Well, no one is trying to blame anyone.'


I was saying that would hav... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

I was saying that would have been the rational response from the right to the criticism from the left.

"We can't afford to simply ... (Below threshold)

"We can't afford to simply sit back and let them continue to attack us."

We could leave them alone. That would end the insurgency and end the killing.

Yeah, let them re-establish... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Yeah, let them re-establish the Baathist government in Iraq. That'd end the killing. Riiiight.

Oh wait, let me guess: you think the people using IEDs, car bombs and the such are merely "defensive" in nature, and the atrocities they commit are really the fault of someone besides themselves. Right?

Too bad the bushies didn't ... (Below threshold)
bushluv:

Too bad the bushies didn't think about all this when they are telling us about how the Iraqis would greet us with roses and kisses.

It's the next phase of the refusal to foresee the looting, which set the whole war on a bad trajectory to what's going on now.

So which is it - are the bushies incompetent or liars?

Great choice, eh?

yo JAY TEA, man your thick.... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

yo JAY TEA, man your thick. you said that just 'coz i call myself a "babe" my male realatives wouldn't like it, that's bullshit.
my mum is spanish and she lets me do anything. she knew all the boyfriends i had and she still knows the boyfriend i am with, so why don't you stop judging people you don't know and haven't seen? oh yeah, whats that stuff about you been a kuffir? man your such bastard, for us muslims people who consider themselves as kuffirs get burned in hell for eternity, too bad you mother fuckers deserve it. man what kind of life are you living as kuffirs??? don't think a ugly hairy old fool like you can get away with cussing as muslims, i dare you to go into a mosque and say that your a kuffir, watch them kill you.
don't mess with islam, if your a cheap
non-believer!!!

from AMELIA MARTINEZ from LONDON

Let me see if I got this ri... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Let me see if I got this right, Amelia. If I were to walk into a synagogue and declare myself not Jewish and proud, they'd ask me to leave. In a Christian church, the same thing. But if I go into a mosque and say I'm proud I'm not a Muslim, they'll kill me? I thought Islam was the religion of peace.

And you ask why I judge people. It's because I have a brain, and am ready and willing to use it -- something heavily discouraged in Islam. You might disagree with the judgments I make, and that is certainly your right, but since we don't live in Dar El-Islam and the Caliphate is still a wet dream of fanatics everywhere, you don't have the right to stop me.

Maybe some day you can arrange to have me stoned or beheaded or burned or whatever ghoulish method appeals to the savages who espouse Islamism and global domination of Shariah for daring to challenge a Muslim, but it ain't happening today. Tomorrow doesn't look good, either. In fact, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for it to happen.

No, on second thought, please do.

J.

JAY TEA your thicker then i... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

JAY TEA your thicker then i thought , i didn't say that if you go into a mosque and declare that your a christian or jewish, they will kill ya, i meant if you were a person who was agianst Islam and didn't respect us for who we are then they'll kill the fuck out of you.
muslims ain't that strict like other ppl.

YOU KNOW WHAT JAY TEA, I JU... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

YOU KNOW WHAT JAY TEA, I JUST WISH ALL YOU PEOPLE TURN INTO A MUSLIMS AND BELIEVE ME WHEN YOUR SOULS REACH JUDGEMENT DAY, YOU PEOPLE WILL BE THANKING ME FOR LIFE. I AM TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE TO LIVE THEIR SOULS INTO THE RIGHT PATH AND THAT IS ISLAM, NO OTHER. I KNOW I CAN'T GET IT INTO YOUR THICK HEADS VIA INTERNET, BUT AT LEAST I CAN SAY I TRIED. THERE IS NO HARM IN THAT , IS THERE?

"BISMILLAH RAHMANU RAHIM" FOR LIFE

YOU KNOW WHAT JAY TEA, I JU... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

YOU KNOW WHAT JAY TEA, I JUST WISH ALL YOU PEOPLE TURN INTO A MUSLIMS AND BELIEVE ME WHEN YOUR SOULS REACH JUDGEMENT DAY, YOU PEOPLE WILL BE THANKING ME FOR LIFE. I AM TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE TO LIVE THEIR SOULS INTO THE RIGHT PATH AND THAT IS ISLAM, NO OTHER. I KNOW I CAN'T GET IT INTO YOUR THICK HEADS VIA INTERNET, BUT AT LEAST I CAN SAY I TRIED. THERE IS NO HARM IN THAT , IS THERE?

"BISMILLAH RAHMANU RAHIM" FOR LIFE

Amelia, read it again. I di... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Amelia, read it again. I didn't say I'd proclaim myself a Christian or a Jew in a mosque, but that I was not a Muslim, and proud of it. You yourself brought up the idea of me getting myself killed in a mosque.

But thanks again for reminding me that Islam is a Religion Of Peace. And that the Violent Muslims Are A Very Small Majority.

While you're considering that, would you also like to buy some lovely beachfront property I have in Arizona?

J.

yo, JAY TEA your really fun... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

yo, JAY TEA your really funny, HA HA. Arizona is full of shit like you people. answer my question please
"how can you live with out begin a muslim?" don't you get second thoughts about converting into a muslim? thesedays, there are lots of people converting into muslims, i guess your an unlucky fool.

Amelia, why don't I become ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Amelia, why don't I become a Muslim? For many reasons. I like treating women like equals, not property. I like being able to think for myself. I'm rather fond of ham and other pork products. I can't bring myself to think of as "holy" any man that marries a 6-year-old, even if he does restrain himself from consummating it until she's 9.

I could go on, and will if you like, but I think that says all that need be said. And go put your burkah on and stop speaking to kuffir men, lest you be stoned for adultery.

J.

all that shit fake stuff yo... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

all that shit fake stuff you wrote about muslims ain't true and you know it. i can't believe a jewish jealous fool would say such sad and cruel and inhuman things towards us muslims. as a muslim, i am ashmed to say that i don't even know how to pray at this 17yrs old age, but no matter how bad i am, im still better then you jews.
there is this jewish pervet who lives right near my mate's house, he always eyes us girls up. and he even invites us to his flat. i bet your one just like him,

no islam-----no life

I don't recall saying I'm J... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

I don't recall saying I'm Jewish, Amelia, but if it makes it easier for you to dismiss the truths I speak, fine. I don't consider "Jew" an insult, and whether or not it is true is irrelevant.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with Aisha, The Prophet's "favorite wife," who he married when she was all of six years old and he was 54. Here's the proof.

You say you're 17? Then there's still hope. Open your eyes, child; the world is a much bigger and much better place than you've been taught to believe and allowed to see. Embrace life, cherish it, LIVE it. You deserve so much more than to be locked up as the property of your male relatives, until they turn custody of you over to the husband they choose for you.

I have but one wish for you, Amelia: may you someday be free and happy. But it has to be your choice -- and if you refuse, it will probably be the last time in your life you get to choose anything.

J.

JAY TEA do you really think... (Below threshold)
AMELIA_MARTINEZ:

JAY TEA do you really think that muslims are that sad?????? you were saying im 17 and i should enjoy life and be independent. yes, as a muslim with this family i have im proud to be a muslim. my mum wants me to marry someone i love, but my dad he wants to choose my husband to be. i use to care, but you know what i don't mind if i get a arrange marriage, its better that way 'coz if its a love marriage in most cases the husband has the rights to live his wife and get another, but in a arrange marriage no matter what the husband can't leave his wife for another unless she dies. A muslim girl can only marry and have sex with one man in her life, but a muslim man can have upto four wives, this is mainly like this 'coz prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him)had around that much wives. i told believe in love, which is why i don't care who i marry 'coz at the end of the day its a great sin that you have let your parents arrange you way of life before marriage.
JAY i know you don't agree, but at least try to respects us muslims. Life is a test thats going to be judged on the judgement day when your souls go up to the only and merciful Allah. so no i wouldn't think for a second following your way of life, not now, not for ever. i rather die so.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy