Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suicide bomber blows up own family (accident)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Suicide bomber blows up own family (accident)

    An Afghan suicide bomber wearing a vest got into an argument with his mother. During a struggle the vest detonated killing the failed bomber, the mother and two siblings. The young man had given his mother $3,600 which in Afghanistan must equal a lifetime of earnings.

    Clearly those young people who become suicide bombers don't just throw their lives away for Allah-as we tend to think. Affluent Muslim individuals and organizations (and possibly governments like that of Iran) from around the world provide cash that sets the bombers' families for life. Eternal life in paradise is just a bonus to the bombers.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/...as/afghanistan
    Last edited by MonsterZero; 15 Oct 07, 19:21.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    One less we gotta worry about.
    Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

    Comment


    • #3
      This is the pilot plot for a new sitcom, right?
      "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

      Comment


      • #4
        His mother tried to stop him.
        That was a very loving and brave thing to do.
        How very very sad.
        Last edited by Slug; 15 Oct 07, 23:45.
        "Advances in technology tend to overwhelm me."

        Comment


        • #5
          No 100 virgins for that lad. (Is there a consolation prize? Say a mere 25 virgins for "intent"?)

          Well.... no one ever said suicide bombers were the brightest bulbs on the Christmas, oooops, .......Ramadan tree.

          GG
          "The will of a section rooted in self interest, should not outweigh the vital interests of a whole people." -Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-

          "Fanatics of any sort are dangerous." -GG-

          Comment


          • #6
            The point MonsterZero makes is a good one. Follow the money, and you will find the culprits. And I do agree -it's governments like Iran that are responsible. But you can't combat these acts with invasion and nation-building. You need a more 'tit for tat' response that will leave the culprit worse off than he started. I suggest taking out a bridge or...a weapons factory. Immediately. Don't think about it. Treat them like Pavlov's dog. Send a clear message to our enemies that when that happens, this happens. And make sure they know that it'll cost us less money to destroy...what will cost them more money to repair(the opposite of what we're doing now) Oh.Sorry. I forgot. I'm a left-wing nutjob. We're not supposed to have solutions, just criticism.

            Sickpup, what the hell is that avatar?

            Comment


            • #7
              like that kid character from the Simpsons wouls say:

              ah-ah!


              yeah, follow the money.... but Talibans's support would not come from Iran but more likely from the usual Saudis ... of they are your friends... ooops.

              ?
              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

              Comment


              • #8
                Let's say it is the Saudis. Perhaps we can get more specific. A Tomahawk missile can get very specific. If it's an individual that cannot be located, then find something stationary of vital importance to that individual and destroy that. If you want to avoid innocent victims you make a last-minute notification of that piece of infrastructure's impending destruction. Essentially we should be conducting our own terrorist campaign against the terrorist supporters. Our enemies regenerate from the innocent victims of our attacks, so let's make an overt effort to keep them to a minimum. If they are being used as human shields, they should know that. Certainly invading and occupying a country is an extreme form of overkill,resulting in countless innocent victims. I dare say, if you could hit 100 targets successfully, you could destroy Al Qaeda. I'm not saying this is possible. But it might be something to strive for. At roughly $600,000 each, you could launch several thousand Tomahawks a week before incurring the kind of expenses we're incurring now. Not that we should launch that many.
                Last edited by macgregr; 16 Oct 07, 10:26.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by macgregr View Post
                  Sickpup, what the hell is that avatar?
                  Not entirely sure... some kind of decomposed, maggot infested zombie would be my guess.

                  Our enemies regenerate from the innocent victims of our attacks, so let's make an overt effort to keep them to a minimum.
                  Depends on who you ask. Some folks on the left believe that it's an economic equation. Poor people more readily become jihadis, etc. If that's true, then you're plan to destroy infrastructure would create even more terrorists.

                  I like the idea, though. If we start destroying Saudi infrastructure, they can't make any money selling their oil... and that's all they have. So, prevent them from pumping oil and you might get their attention.
                  Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by sickpup View Post
                    Not entirely sure... some kind of decomposed, maggot infested zombie would be my guess.



                    Depends on who you ask. Some folks on the left believe that it's an economic equation. Poor people more readily become jihadis, etc. If that's true, then you're plan to destroy infrastructure would create even more terrorists.

                    I like the idea, though. If we start destroying Saudi infrastructure, they can't make any money selling their oil... and that's all they have. So, prevent them from pumping oil and you might get their attention.
                    You'd also get the attention of most of the western worlds economies. Which countries could withstand the hit???????? Who would blink first.......
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      At some point in time, we ARE going to have to address this problem. Obviously the Saudi's are playing both sides of the fence here and thus, we are holding hands with the devil himself. We must find a way to break free from Saudi oil dependence. The oil revenues we give to them are finding their way into the enemy's pockets. It is like a bloody merry-go-round here.
                      I don't have nor have ever professed to have a solution to this problem BUT it sure makes me sick and mad , when I fill up my tank with fuel and the thought passes through my mind that I am contributing to the death of one of our young servicemen/women for whom their parents now suffer such great loss.


                      D1
                      Last edited by DeltaOne; 16 Oct 07, 14:33.
                      "War is hell, but actual combat is a motherf#cker"
                      - Col. David Hackworth

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        its sad yeah that other innocents were killed and its coming down to money ... that the extremists are now paying would be bombers to do it ..
                        owner of the yahoo group for WW1 ,WW2 and Modern TO&Es
                        (Tables of organisation & equipment or Unit of action )

                        http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/TOandEs/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by thomas.tmcc View Post
                          its sad yeah that other innocents were killed and its coming down to money ... that the extremists are now paying would be bombers to do it ..
                          The extremist/terrorist have been paying people to pull the trigger/plant the charge/spot the convoy for a long time, years..... When I was there the payment for initiating an IED was around 100-200 dollars.
                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sickpup View Post
                            Not entirely sure... some kind of decomposed, maggot infested zombie would be my guess.
                            In that case, it certainly doesn't betray your nickname.

                            Originally posted by sickpup View Post
                            Depends on who you ask. Some folks on the left believe that it's an economic equation. Poor people more readily become jihadis, etc. If that's true, then you're plan to destroy infrastructure would create even more terrorists.
                            The left...they're like DeGaulle. They ain't even in this war. They're the peanut gallery right now. And there's not enough unification to crush and make a sandwich. I thought we were sending 2 billion dollars a week to Iraq for that exact reason, and Bush doesn't look like a left-winger to me.

                            Originally posted by sickpup View Post
                            I like the idea, though. If we start destroying Saudi infrastructure, they can't make any money selling their oil... and that's all they have. So, prevent them from pumping oil and you might get their attention.
                            I'm willing to bet that the ruling party of Saudi Arabia needs it's business with the west more than it needs the support of it's terrorist-supporting constituents. At some point I think we're going to have to find out. Their current strategy is to charge us enough for that oil to fund our own destruction.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Combatengineer View Post
                              The extremist/terrorist have been paying people to pull the trigger/plant the charge/spot the convoy for a long time, years..... When I was there the payment for initiating an IED was around 100-200 dollars.
                              thanks john i didnt know that ..

                              thomas
                              owner of the yahoo group for WW1 ,WW2 and Modern TO&Es
                              (Tables of organisation & equipment or Unit of action )

                              http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/TOandEs/

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X