47 thoughts on “Where’s Monty Python when you NEED them?”

  1. Note that she was a MASSIVELY INCOMPETANT suicide bomber. She got herself… and… well that was it. I think one soldier got a stubbed toe.

      1. What’s worse is when she get to the afterlife. If their 70 odd virigins are all women, well, that’s boring unless she’s a lesbian. And if they’re all men, well, she’s going to be very very tired of gang rapes.

        1. Somehow, I don’t think she’s going to have to worry about what to do with all those virgins. I doubt the afterlife exactly has “rewards” in store for these suicide bombers.

          5. I don’t think there’s any afterlife at all, and that’s why I don’t think there are any rewards awaiting the suicide bombers.

          6. Right. But if I believed in one, I still didn’t think they’d be headed there. Of course, this is why it’s “belief” instead of “knowledge”, so far be it from me to say what would actually be the case.

          7. The afterlife has a reward for me. The posters read “$50,000 Dead or Alive.” which, frankly, I find hilarious. I mean, how is anyone going to return me to the afterlife alive, really?

        3. that’s boring unless she’s a lesbian

          And if she is, then she’s not getting to paradise, since homosexuality is bad…

          talk about bad luck

        4. I’ve heard some people say that there won’t be any virgins at all. My sources tell me that the passages around the reference in question are all talking about feasting and food as a metaphor for heaven, and that the word in question would be better interpreted as “raisin” (language is funny like that). According to some, interpreting it as a promise of 70 virgins makes about as much sense as asking your mom to bake some extra virgins for Thanksgiving.

          1. That’s the alternative etymology of the word; see the last bit here. The original article in Newsweek that brought up that interpretation seems unavailable online; the refutation of that theory is here.

        5. Their books say they get 70 virgins. As far as I know, there is nothing mentioned about ever having the opportunity and ability to change that.

    2. Damn those Belgian jerks! What have they ever given us, besides French fries, waffles, and suicide bombers?
      I say we bomb the whole country; it’d only take an hour or two. Although, if we had a bomb go even a little astray, we might hit the Netherlands, and that’d just be mean; they’re already below sea level.

          3. Fine, but aside from French fries, waffles, tarted-up chocolate, diamond cartels, chiaroscuro artists, and light beer that doesn’t taste like spring water with cheap beer flavoring added, what have the Belgians ever done for us?

            Screw ’em, I say! tossers!

      2. Nah, I’d rather send a force 3 or 4 hurricane up that way and see how well the Netherlands could deal with it.

        THEN they could bitch about New Orleans not having good dikes. (or maybe they were talking dykes…)

        BW

  3. In response to the “doing nothing right” thread (which got turned into an “afterlife” thread):

    I’m not convinced the Jordanian woman screwed it up. After all, she LIVED. That’s pretty impressive work for a suicide bomber. And the Belgian woman… do we ascribe her incompetence to her gender or her nationality? Either way it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

    –Howard “oh, look… here come the flaming fish” Tayler

        2. I don’t know about you, but I use a gun barrel when I’m trying to shoot things. Know what happens when you stick a gun barrel in water, then pull the trigger?

          I’ll give you a hint. Water doesn’t compress.

          BW

          2. Actually depending on the weapon in question it works just fine if the entire thing is submerged. Revolvers for example work just fine under water.

          3. This doesn’t mean you’ll be able to actually hit the fish, though. As I recall, water stops bullets extremely quickly, though I’m not sure what it’d do if the revolver’s totally submerged.

    3. Well, of the job description of “suicide bomber”, she managed neither “suicide” nor “bombing”. At least the Belgian wasn’t waffling. managed to accomplish both of those items, even if she didn’t do so in an effective (i.e. homicidal) manner.

    4. After all, she LIVED. That’s pretty impressive work for a suicide bomber.

      Gotta disagree here… The idea is to blow up an die… She did neither… She’s not even batting .500

      It’s like the old paradox “If you try to fail, and succeed at failing, what exactly did you just do?”

    5. The (apparently Islamic) suicide bomber American of German name in Oklahoma certainly screwed up — he could not get into the stadium with 84,000 people, so he merely blew himself up on a bench a hundred yards away.

      I guess he had psyched himself up — and may have had a timer rather than a button.

      That little college town’s becoming famous for jihadists. But Hinrichs certainly did not look the standard part.

      ===|==============/ Level Head

        1. When you say “no evidence”, you are not literally speaking the truth. It is fair to say that there is no evidence that convinces you that he was a Muslim.

          It isn’t being a Muslim that is the real issue here. What seems fairly obvious is that he was a jihadist terrorist, using the bombmaking techniques and attack style of jihadists, and associating with the same mosque, and same people, who are associated with the “20th hijacker” Moussaoui. The various reports and evidence connecting Hinrichs to this movement are not conclusive — but they are are far cry from the characterization of “no evidence”.

          Would you say that there was “no evidence” that, say, his roommate was a Muslim, or that he attended the same mosque as Moussaoui?

          ===|=================/ Level Head

          1. It isn’t being a Muslim that is the real issue here.

            I was not aware that one could be a jihadist without being a Muslim.

            Would you say that there was “no evidence” that, say, his roommate was a Muslim, or that he attended the same mosque as Moussaoui?

            I would say there’re conflicting reports on the latter. Until the FBI talks, no, I can’t say there’s evidence of that.

          2. “No evidence” means what it says.

            “Conflicting reports” means that someone, somewhere, says something different.

            These are very different — and the level of knowledge as well as motivations need to be understood for the origins of these various reports — and the reporters.

            I’ve done this at some length, and drew the conclusions that I mentioned — that Hinrichs was apparently an Islamist terrorist.

            I prefer the term “jihadist”, as it more clearly separates the radical faction from the majority of Muslims who are not jihadists.

            It’s also possible that Hinrich heard from his roommate about the roommate’s radical friends, and showed up at the mosque and said “Hey, guys, I hate America too — and I’d like to kill a few thousand of them. Can you help?”

            This way, he could have been equipped with the TATP-powered backpack and such, and encouraged to show up at the stadium with 84,000 students inside. Happily for us all, he was not able to get in, and killed only himself sitting on that park bench.

            This theory would mean that Hinrichs was a sort of “assistant jihadist” — and that the bombmaking materials were partly his, but that the jihadist writings taken from the apartment were his roommates’ only.

            This is plausible, but doesn’t make me any happier about the incident. And it would make him a jihadist, but not technically a Muslim.

            It would be interesting to see that suicide note.

            ===|==============/ Level Head

          3. well, sure

            There are conflicting reports about the existence of UFOs — that doesn’t translate to “evidence” to me, either. I need something more solid than some people saying (“hearsay”) Hinrichs attended a mosque vs others saying he didn’t.

            I’ve done this at some length, and drew the conclusions that I mentioned — that Hinrichs was apparently an Islamist terrorist.

            And that conclusion is based on beliefs, not evidence. It’s nothing you can use to convince someone else to believe as you do (well, certainly not in my case).

            This theory would mean that Hinrichs was a sort of “assistant jihadist” — and that the bombmaking materials were partly his, but that the jihadist writings taken from the apartment were his roommates’ only.

            The news reports also point out that his roommate didn’t attend mosques, was angry at God for some medical problem he has, or something. Hardly the type of person you’d expect to religiously motivate his housemate to convert or whatever. Maybe there is a sleeper cell in that area, maybe there isn’t. No one else has been arrested or indicted so far, so it seems unlikely that he had outside help.

            And it would make him a jihadist, but not technically a Muslim.

            It doesn’t work that way. A Muslim is a Muslim, whether s/he lives a pious life or a debaucherous one. While you might prefer one label (“jihadist”) to another (“Muslim”), you can’t be a jihadist without being a Muslim.

        1. The father of Mohammed Atta claims that Atta was not the lead hijacker, that Atta was non-violent and shy, and that Atta is still alive.

          The protestations of the father are interesting, but hardly compelling.

          First, the bomb was made with TATP, and with shrapnel. No one intends “harmless” suicide by a bomb loaded with shrapnel. And the very idea of a shrapnel-packed backback bomb next to highly occupied stadium being intended to be harmless to others boggles the imagination.

          Of course, it wasn’t the only bomb — more explosions were heard later that evening as “a second device” was found by police and detonated. Not to mention the other explosives at his shared apartment.

          Amusingly, some defenders are claiming that the explosives cache at his apartment were all “deactivated munitions” that he was supposedly fond of collecting. But those have no explosives in them — and what was taken from Hinrichs’ apartment was indeed detonated later.

          I note with interest that what the police were searching for, and what they found, has been kept under seal, except for anonymous reports. This is not consistent with the idea that what they found did not link him with the jihadists.

          The Unibomber was a very disturbed man. I don’t think he’s connected with the jihadist movement, though he might have cheered them on.

          ===|==============/ Level Head

Comments are closed.