Female bomber kills 45 at food center in Pakistan

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By ANWARULLAH KHAN

KHAR, Pakistan (AP) - A burqa-clad female suicide bomber in Pakistan lobbed hand grenades, then detonated her explosive belt among a crowd at an aid center Saturday, killing at least 45 people in militants' latest strike against the authorities' control over the key tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Police believed it was the first time Islamic militants have sent a woman to carry out a suicide attack in Pakistan, where the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan against al-Qaida and the Taliban insurgents continues to spill over despite Islamabad's repeated claims of victory on its side of the porous border.

The bomber, dressed in the head-to-toe burqa robes that women commonly wear Pakistan and Afghanistan, was challenged by police at a check point, officials said.

She then charged toward a group of 300 people lined up outside the food aid distribution center in the town of Khar, tossing two hand grenades before blowing herself up, officials said. The crowd was made up of people who have fled conflicts elsewhere in the area.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20101225/D9KB1PSO0.html

---

Pakistan army paramedic unload an injured victim of suicide bombing, from a van upon his arrival at Lady Reading hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan on Saturday, Dec. 25, 2010. A female suicide bomber detonated her explosives-laden vest in a crowded aid distribution center in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing at least 41 people and wounding dozens waiting for food stamps, officials said. (AP Photo/Mohammad Sajjad)

[demosincebirth]

1. No comments? Thats strange.

[Cutatious]

2. Maybe because it is quite a common affliction

Muslim bombers happen all too often for it to be a news shocker. Maybe if someone blew up a stack of Korans it would elicit more commentary.

[demosincebirth]

32. I sense a tinge of sarcasm.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. What are the chances that this will be the beginning of the end for the burqa?

[Tx4obama]

4. I was thinking the same thing. n/t

[votingupstart]

5. i sincerely doubt it -

can you imagine a muslim country trying to ban the burqua - unfortunately until people are educated enough to see that they can chose their religions or chose not to be part of a religion - the result of this would be typical religious nut-job fanaticism such as bombings / acid attacks / killing / violence against any "immoral" women / etc.

[dogmom2]

17. ... a guy tried to kill a Saudi Prince... he had packed C4 in his butt. doubt they will ban butts

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2646557/Suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-up-his-backside.html
"Extremist Al-Asiri, who was on a local "Most Wanted" list, tricked his way into a meeting with him by saying he was turning his back on terror..." ..what a pun. he had a bomb in his butt.

[JackRiddler]

6. What a strange question.

The female bombers in Sri Lanka (Tamil Marxists) and Moscow (Chechens) never wore burkas. Burkas are no more useful for hiding bombs than any other article of clothing. So the only way your question would make sense would be if you asked, "Is this the beginning of the end for clothing?"

I'm sure you and I agree that the burqua is a very bad and backward institution, and that there are reasons to ban it -- since calling it "voluntary" is largely a way to force women into it.

But to speak as though there is a causal or necessary relationship between bombs and burquas is really ignorant, reflexive, anti-Muslim hate rhetoric. You're putting the foreigner's burqua-face on "terrorism," when in fact most of the terror in the world is dealt from shiny, high-tech machines paid by your taxes.

The 45 people who lost their lives in this case deserve a better acknowledgement than to be reduced to a point in a rhetorical game.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I think you're succumbing to political correctness.

That's your right. I asked a fair question. One burqa bomber won't make a difference. I think it will become an issue if a trend develops.

I think those 45 people deserve to have people ask hard questions and that means finding people who are brave enough to stand up to sacred cows.

[JackRiddler]

8. I think you're succumbing to right-wing propaganda.

I also asked a fair question, which I will re-phrase in case you didn't get it:

How is the burka a necessary part of a suicide bombing?

Women (and a far larger number of men) have conducted such bombings with their faces fully visible, and in every possible mode of dress. As you know, there was even a guy on a plane one year ago to the day who could have tried it in shorts if he'd wanted to, since the explosive was in his underwear.

Until the end of the Tamil insurgency last year, the secular Marxist guerillas (not Muslims but by tradition mainly Hindus, fighting a mainly Buddhist majority) were responsible for the majority of suicide bombings (including many by females) in the world. No burkas involved.

The burka is an oppressive institution. Feel free to agree.

The burka is not a symbol or tool of suicide bombing. If that's your thesis, it's little more than anti-Muslim hate rhetoric.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. We will agree to disagree.

(1) I think you're being misled by political correctness.
(2) My position is, that the burga may become an issue **if** this becomes a trend. Note, that I said, if it becomes a trend, it will become an issue.
(3) Anyone would logically agree you can hide more under a burqa than you could under more tight-fitting clothing. In fact, it's common knowledge that some women who wear them are hiding western clothing and heavy gold jewelry.

I hope it doesn't come to that, of course. It all depends on what happens next. I just know that I would rather be defending my position, than yours, when the next 45 victims succumb, should that come to pass.

[JackRiddler]

18. "Agree to disagree" works with opinions, not facts.

You're not dealing with the fact that at least 95 percent (probably 99 percent) of suicide bombers are NOT women wearing burkas.

There is no "agree to disagree" about that.

Women wearing burkas as a group probably have enough problems to deal with, without being falsely associated with suicide bombers as a group.

Your point Number 3 is an argument for banning loose clothing of any kind. (Like drug dealers in the projects who started the loose-pants trend back in the day - no burkas involved.)

About all we can "agree to disagree" about is my opinion that if your immediate reaction to the story of 45 people being killed horribly is to talk about the relation of burkas to bombing, then you may not be listening to Mr. Limbaugh, but you've eaten up the same poison from somewhere.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. You quote statistics.

Therefore, you are aware of the significance of what will happen if this burqa bomber situation becomes a trend. If it does become a trend, then you know there will be a point that not even you can defend any longer. That's the only point I was trying to make. Thanks for supporting it.

Point number three. They ARE feeling genitalia at airports, so there is no longer a dispute that burqa clothing has a special dispensation. Your shock is about three months too late.

The only thing you've proven is that you're overly sensitive about this issue.

[JackRiddler]

21. Insane logic.

What will happen when the clothed bomber situation becomes a trend?!

You need to examine whatever it is that makes you feel as though it's the burkas, and not the bombs, that explode.



(Another no-burka bomber.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Did you happen to notice that everytime something DOES happen,

that we have responded by tightening security, which is why we're getting our genitalia felt up at airports? I don't approve of the situation, I'm just telling you logically that people will reach their own conclusion. And the one that's a no brainer, is that you can hide larger bombs under a burqa than under tee-shirts and jeans, which means there will be a bigger kill zone. The concern is that you don't get the same kind of security check walking in a mall,that you do in an airport.

On the other hand, the threat of banning the burqa might have a counter-effect. Maybe the religious zealots that support these things will forbid suicide bombings in this type of clothing to avoid the obvious backlash?

[eggplant]

9. I agree completely.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. We might just as well ask if the underwear bomber spelled the end of underwear.

All sorts of people blow up all sorts of shit for all sorts of reasons. To be more concerned with what they were wearing than what their motivation was is just stupid.

May we all have a more peaceful new year. Every year.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Two things:

(1) The underwear bomber was on a plane where even a small bomb would have an impact.

(2) The woman in a burqa took down 45 people. I am willing to bet that the bomb she was packing was larger than what you could pack in an underwear.

[JackRiddler]

19. Please, for your own sake: Accept that cluelessness is not a sin, and correct your misconceptions.

Just about the worst thing that anyone could try as a strategy against suicide bombings would be to ban burkas. This would objectively result in many more suicide bombings. It's what your fundamentalist Islamists are hoping for! (Burkas need to be phased out for sound reasons that have nothing to do with suicide bombings.)

And now you can have the wonderful experience of admitting when you are wrong. No one will hold it against you, once you do.


Tamil Tiger female fighters -- many of whom engaged in suicide attacks in Sri Lankan cities. No burkas.


One of the bombers who killed 16 at a rock concert in Moscow, 2003 - both in Western dress. When I see this horror, it would be highly illogical to say: ban camo styles.

.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. All I said was, what are the chances that this will be the beginning of the end for burqas?

Notice that I really didn't have any committed opinion one way or another. I just asked a question. However, your obvious attempt to paint me as someone who was fighting to put an end to the burqa was so laughable, that I thought it deserved a response.

I couldn't care less, at this point, what the policy is. I imagine that those countries where it is abundantly used will enforce whatever rules they feel are appropriate SHOULD THIS BURQA BOMBING SITUATION BECOME A TREND. Which is what I've been saying all along.

By the way, I still think you're overly sensitive about this particular thread. However, I can see your concern because it's true, that if this were to happen here in the U.S., I will give you this prophecy: It will only take one time for this to happen on our soil before these things get banned. It doesn't matter how I feel about it, that's just what's going to happen.

[JackRiddler]

24. Oh, I see. You mean that as, what are the chances that...

a) a "burka-clad" bomber will detonate in the US

and

b) a (twisted) campaign ensues in which the Limbaughs (in complete irrationality) call for banning burkas, since they can hide bombs (totally unlike all other items of clothing).

and

c) this becomes "inevitable" for those not infected with the (mostly fictitious) "political correctness" that (the Limbaughs think) dominates this country, like yourself.


And obviously, though you're not a right-winger yourself, you have understanding for the idea that a burka after all is so much more ideally suited for bombing things in the US than other forms of clothing, baggy pants, coats, jackets, bags, knapsacks, suitcases, cars, pickup trucks, shopping carts, private one-engine planes, UPS deliveries, library books full of C4 and the 100,001 other inconspicuous looking delivery vehicles for bombs (suicide and otherwise) that one might dream up.

Really, out of all those, you have to wonder why it's not ALWAYS a burka, because who can imagine a more effective means of hiding a bomb, and anyway, we know that burka=killers in disguise. By nature!

PLEASE!!! LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!

AND GIVE ME A PUKE BUCKET!!!

[Bragi]

25. That response is totally uncalled for

Seriously, you sound like someone who wants a fight more than someone seeking an intelligent discussion.

[JackRiddler]

27. "Intelligent discussion" and "fight" are not mutually exclusive categories.

Thanks for your view.

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. I assume that suicide bombers are smarter than Limbaugh,

maybe that's why it's not ALWAYS a burqa. But in each case that a terrorist has used an item of clothing in an airport, we have responded. When it was a shoe bomber, we were forced to remove our shoes. When it was an underwear bomber, we were forced to submit to sexual harassment. Coats, jackets, bags, knapsacks are already put through special screening. We have special rules for vehicles around airports and cement barrels have been placed in front of government buildings to prevent cars or trucks from driving into buildings a la Timothy McVeigh.

And, yes, I still contend that you can pack a bigger bang in a burqa, which is why, when that should ever happen on U.S. soil, you can expect to fight more than Limbaugh.

Now, you seem to be emotionally distraught about the possibility that the burqa will soon be targeted because of this event. If you are unable to discuss these matters in a rational way, maybe you should step away from the talk shows and internet boards? Because you look awfully silly when all it takes is finding someone who disagrees with you to get violently ill.

[JackRiddler]

31. Your attempt to slander me is irrelevant, your spreading hate rhetoric not so.

Your third paragraph is presumably some kind of fantasy about people who contradict your irrationality on the Internet boards that you, too, frequent. As it has no relation to me, I don't care. Wanking is a harmless activity that, in your case, is probably better than exposing yourself as a fool on the Internet. So enjoy.


In a crime in Pakistan, something like 50 people were murdered. And your first reaction, when you read about it, was to introduce, and show understanding, for a completely irrelevant reaction you predict (or hope) will occur in the US -- a campaign to ban burkas. Not because burkas are bad for those forced to wear them (they are). But because burkas are deadly weapons!


It indicates a blind, obsessive logic to write: "you can pack a bigger bang in a burqa." Anyone can read our prior posts in which I demonstrate the complete irrelevance of the burqa to packing any kind of bang. (The power and type of the explosive is pretty much the only determinant that matters, one can then decide on a target and improvise the carrying device and camouflage out of an infinite number of possibilities.)


As you have nothing to say about baggy pants and pick-up trucks and knapsacks and all the rest, or the decidedly non-burqaed female bombers I drew your attention to, it's no wonder you prefer your pleasant dreams of how your interlocutors must be crazy, high-strung nuts!

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Jack, see if you can manage to write your next post without losing it.

We disagreed on several points. You are so blinded by PC that you won't see the weakness in your arguments. I pointed out how baggy pants are already suspect at airport security, how all kinds of vehicles are now kept at a distance from government buildings to prevent kamakazi suicides. So you've lost on that ground. What you have failed to do is see how larger bombs can be used to get a wider kill zone. That's a logical argument that you won't be able to find your way around.

I think, with fifty people dead from all this, we deserve to review the facts with an open mind. What kind of bomb was it? How large was it? Maybe then, you'll begin to see the fallacy in your position.

[Codeine]

10. Not human enough to dress as you please,

but human enough to blow your fucking self to hell for the privilege of taking some innocents with you. Fucking vile.

[JI7]

11. killing people who don't have enough food and people who were trying to help them

[AlphaCentauri]

26. Best way to end poverty is killing the poor

:sarcasm:

[Hulk]

12. How absolutely cowardly and low-life.

These suicide bombers are such pathetic, evil, satanic bastards. All in the name of what? Allah? Give us all a break.

Not only cruel and inhumane in every sense....but just plain ignorant dumb asses.

[bvar22]

15. One of the predictable results of invading and occupying a country....

...is the radicalization of neighboring countries.

[Cutatious]

16. I don't recall too many suicide bombers blowing up people in soup lines

When Hitler invaded and occupied all of those countries. It seems radical has a religion now.

[east texas lib]

34. Suicide bombers predate the U.S. led Iraq and Afghanistan wars...

Suicide bombers are used to take out political rivals, settle internal religious feuds, assert control over populations, etc. It will still be occuring long after we've gone.

[Cardcaptor Roosevelt]

28. Should we be tolerant of the intolerant

If we despise Christian fundamentalists because of their actions and words, it would only be logical to despise Muslim fundamentalists as equally. We have respected Muslims continually. Respect is a two-way path, and the respect to us Westerners from Muslims is declining rapidly.

[tblue37]

29. A paragraph from the article at the link:

"Male suicide bombers often don the burqa - an Islamic dress that also covers the woman's face - as a disguise. In 2007, officials initially claimed Pakistan's first female suicide bomber had killed 14 people in the northwest town of Bannu but the attacker was later identified as a man. Islamic militants in Iraq have used women suicide bombers several times, since women in their all-enveloping robes are seen as able to pass more easily through security, especially since male security officers are often hesitant to search women."