Bring It On!

Tank vs Taxi…Taxi Loses

July 16th, 2006 | by Omnipotent Poobah |

This video clip may ruin your day, but not as badly as it ruined this Iraqi taxi driver’s livelihood when he was caught looting wood.

When will this crap stop?

Thanks for Frog Style Biscuit for the link.

[tag]iraq, crapsweasels[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 12 Responses to “Tank vs Taxi…Taxi Loses”

  2. By Sandy on Jul 16, 2006 | Reply

    That crushing was SOOO cool. I just wish there were some terrorists in that car!

    If they were warned repeatedly not to steal, not to loot, not to commit crimes, and they STILL did it, then they deserved to be arrested and jailed.

    The car crushing was still awesome!

  3. By Omnipotent Poobah on Jul 16, 2006 | Reply


    I have an idea. Why don’t you start your own blog so we could all see the cool stuff all the time? You seem to have a little time on your hands.

    I’ll visit. I promise.

  4. By L. Long on Jul 16, 2006 | Reply

    Folks, you know this is from back during the invasion? About 3 years old?

  5. By Steve O on Jul 16, 2006 | Reply

    L Long, does it make a difference when it was filmed? Still wrong? Right?

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 16, 2006 | Reply

    Yes, it’s still wrong.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 16, 2006 | Reply

    Sandy, however, has a point; two points:

    1. Looting is wrong and should be punished; this just wasn’t the right punishment.

    2. The crushing WAS cool — in a ‘that’s totally wrong’ way but still, cool.

  8. By L. Long on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply

    One of he many complaints voiced by many was that U.S. forces were not controlling looting and pillaging by the Iraqi populace. How were they supposed to stop looting - a stern talking to?

  9. By ann on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply

    You all must be so proud: Steal wood = lose livlihood. A prime example of the punishment fitting the crime I don’t think. Actually, its kind of reminiscent of events in pre 20th century England, such as like, say, the 8 year old girl I read about recently who was commuted to a prison in Australia for stealing an apple. Are those days back again? Already?? God I hope not. And whether it happened in the dark ages, 3 years ago or yesterday doesn’t matter: this was wrong. And not ”cool” at all. Exactly the opposite, actually.  I, personally, see it as just another symptom of America’s quest to flex it’s collective muscle, beat its collective chest, holler a collective holler and stamp on the little, weedy guy.  So, if you think this is in any way “cool”, then people like you (such as those who are currently running your country)are sicker than I thought - and the rest of us are in a heap bigger pile ‘o shit than we thought. It’s like the bully has found the key to the kitchen cupboard and is running rampage through the playground with the chef’s knives. Unhindered.

    So, just a few questions for your consideration:

    Why were these guys stealing what looked like scrap wood? Was it, perchance, to use it to make a fire for cooking for their families / to keep them warm at night, seeing as the power supplies where damaged during your invasion liberation?  Was it so they could sell  it to make money to feed themselves seeing as there couldn’t  have been much call for taxis in that post invasion liberation period? Or am I missing something: Is scrap wood a key ingredient in making WMD’s? (If so, I bow to your apparent foresight, and apologise wholeheartedly).

    Oh and an observation/question: your guys shot into the car (several times, apparently) before crushing it.  Was that just in case they missed anyone? Or was it just to reaffirm their power/control some more to those watching before they wheeled out the  10 ton (?) tank from it’s hiding place behind a tree?  Almost sounds like Candid Camera, doesn’t it?


  10. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply


    I don’t believe that anyone here, including Sandy, has said that this was the right punishment, have they? I, for one specifically said as much. I said it was cool in a “totally wrong” way. If it were a movie, a set car, nobody’s property or livelihood, it was cool. Just my opinion, of course.

    As I said up front, it was wrong.

  11. By ann on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply

    Craig: (sorry, I almost missed this, and you might do too!). Just to clarify: my post was mainly aimed at Sandy and her ilk (Gawd help us if there are more Sandy clones out there), whose first reaction to the tape was, apparently, to express jubilation that a car had been crushed by a tank (Whoopee.) with no consideration whatsoever for the person to whom the car belonged, or why he (allegedly) deserved such treatment.  That’s what got my back up as, aside from the fact that I can’t bloody stand this oh-so-damned prevalent gung-ho American attitude (the ‘whoo-oo-oo’ ‘go-USA’ mentality) to the slightest thing, I was also pissed that she saw what I saw, but she saw it as an ‘awesome’ and ‘cool’ spectacle which, definitely where not words that had sprung to my mind. In fact, that the sight might be considered ‘cool’ or ‘awesome’ wasn’t something that had even occurred to me at all - I was far too distracted/concerned by the unnecessary demonstration of might by your troops – until I read the comments section afterward.


    So, no, you’re right, none of you said it was the right punishment. And yes, you did say it was cool in a ‘totally wrong’ way. So, had it been in the circumstances in which you describe (in some far off place totally removed from reality - which, for me to be watching such a stunt by choice, it’d have to be), then, yes, I might concede that, the car crushing could – perhaps - be described as ‘cool’. (OK, sorry, that’s probably not true at all. Demolition Derby is not my sort of thing, even in fantasy land). 


    However, my point was this: This wasn’t fantasy, this was real. This was someone’s reality. Someone’s livelihood.  Someone’s life. And, in such circumstances, it just seems, well, inappropriate to be so flippant.  To take something like this incident, dissect it and, make light of it, or part of it, in some way, just seems obscene and smacks to me of being like the rest of the class laughing at the weedy kid wetting himself, whilst the bully knocks seven kind of shit out of him (sorry to rehash that analogy but, that’s how I see it).  I’m sorry if that makes me ‘uptight’, humourless or something, but that’s just the way I’m wired. I don’t see faux machismo as ‘cool’ or ‘awesome’, and I don’t appreciate people who make light of something which has hurt others and, by rights, shouldn’t have happened in the first place (but that’s a different argument altogether).  


    So, let me put it to you another way: how would you feel if someone were to describe, say, the sight of the planes hitting the twin towers, or indeed the sight of the towers falling as ‘cool’ or ‘awesome’? Not what happened to the people inside, of course, just the images as I’ve separated them out? Cool, huh?




  12. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply


    As images, watching the scene unfold on 9/11, the images were stunning. Had they been produced on a set for a made-for-tv special edition of ‘24′, knowing that they were hollywood creations, I would have gone “Wow! That’s impressive!” because there would be no human suffering involved, just cool cinematography. So I would have to say that, as images, quite aside from the human suffering, the outrage against our people and sovereignty, the images were, well, spectacular. And the image of first the first and then the second tower dropping, I even mentioned to my wife at the time, was like they’d been suspended by an invisible thread and someone had cut the thread. Perhaps I’m wired differently but, yes, I am able to think of the images, divorced from the rest, and to think of them as, well, ‘cool’ is perhaps not the word, but ‘awsome’, in the older sense of truly inspiring a sense of awe and dread. 

    Of course I definitely have to work at it to divorce the images from the act and the suffering and consequences of the events of that day, but I’m able to do it.

    How would I feel about someone saying that to me? Well, I’d probably feel the way I felt as I watched the thing happening: numb disbelief followed hurt and sympathy for those inside, followed by anger at the purpetrators. However, if I allowed myself to detatch, which I’m pretty good at, I might have to agree that the images of that day were akin to ‘awesome’ as I defined it above.

    I don’t think that this makes me inhuman or flip or unfeeling, since I definitely do have feelings. It just means that I am able to separate out those feelings and look at things dispassionately.

    On the other hand, I don’t think that you are ‘uptight’. Just very compassionate. I don’t know whether my ability to be dispassionate and to look at things divorced from emotion as I do is something that all people are able to do. It doesn’t appear to be so. I am confident, though, that it is a genuinely human ability, as I find that others are able to do it too and as I have never done any of the things that are associated with sociopathy, I am confident that I am not a sociopath. That’s just the way I’m wired.

    In any case, I’m sorry that you were so hurt and offended. Not something that I would want to do. I’m just trying to explain myself as clearly as I can. 

  13. By Omnipotent Poobah on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply

    For a followup post and a little more commentary, stop by The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Post a Comment