Why they aren't suicide bombers.

[GHook93]

Your a terrorist, so you opinion on the matter means very little!

Its like asking a NAZI his opinion on the SS!

No, they aren't suicide bombers. They are, in at least some cases, shuhada'. When you kill the family members of brave young women like Aiza Gazuyeva and rob them of their will to live, you can expect to accompany them into the afterlife. That was the case for General Gaidar Gadzhiyev, who had killed her husband in front of her and had been responsible for the brutal murder of a large number of civilians over the years -- typical behavior for a Russian soldier in Chechnya. She repaid him by personally delivering a bundle of hand grenades.

Was this woman a terrorist?

 

[Jos]

If they were suicide bombers, all they'd be doing is blowing THEMSELVES up.

But since they are also supposed to be killing others (their enemies, or innocent women, children, etc), they are not suicide bombers. They are homicide bombers who are willing to die in the process.

Of course SOMETIMES they fuck it up:

* * * * TALIBAN killers have blown themselves up laying booby-trap bombs, we can reveal.

Up to 20 are thought to have died planting Improvised Explosive Devices.

* * * *

20 Taliban blown up by their own bombs | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys



allah oooops!

Now THOSE were suicide bombers!

Not to mention asshole scumbag fucking stupid imbecile rat-suckers.

No virgins for YOU!

And this story is based on what, some Hacks opinion?
The Sun (newspaper) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liability]

If they were suicide bombers, all they'd be doing is blowing THEMSELVES up.

But since they are also supposed to be killing others (their enemies, or innocent women, children, etc), they are not suicide bombers. They are homicide bombers who are willing to die in the process.

Of course SOMETIMES they fuck it up:

* * * * TALIBAN killers have blown themselves up laying booby-trap bombs, we can reveal.

Up to 20 are thought to have died planting Improvised Explosive Devices.

* * * *

20 Taliban blown up by their own bombs | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys



allah oooops!

Now THOSE were suicide bombers!

Not to mention asshole scumbag fucking stupid imbecile rat-suckers.

No virgins for YOU!

And this story is based on what, some Hacks opinion?
The Sun (newspaper) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The story couldn't possibly have any truth to it? Is that your considered opinion? Those Taliban bomb-vest wearing and IED-planting cocksuckers are way too good at their jobs? Is that it? Have I insulted your heroes? Go have yourself a good cry.

 

[Jos]

The story couldn't possibly have any truth to it? Is that your considered opinion? Those Taliban bomb-vest wearing and IED-planting cocksuckers are way too good at their jobs? Is that it? Have I insulted your heroes? Go have yourself a good cry.

In the UK The Sun is about as reliable as
The National Enquirer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it does have lots of pictures and no big words

 

[Liability]

The story couldn't possibly have any truth to it? Is that your considered opinion? Those Taliban bomb-vest wearing and IED-planting cocksuckers are way too good at their jobs? Is that it? Have I insulted your heroes? Go have yourself a good cry.

In the UK The Sun is about as reliable as
The National Enquirer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it does have lots of pictures and no big words

Yeah. Lord knows that The New York Times would never post anything fictional as news.



In any event, regardless of you opinion of The Sun (nobody cares about your opinion, to be clear), the story itself is either truthful and accurate or soemthing which falls short.

Do you have anything factual and verifiable to provide which would legitimately cast actual doubt on the veracity of that story?

 

[Jos]

A bit hard to prove a negative, but there are no links or any reference to any named person in the story,
That said any fool can blow themselves up
Stupid Marines Blow Themselves up With Mortar - Filestube Video Search

 

[Liability]

A bit hard to prove a negative, but there are no links or any reference to any named person in the story,
That said any fool can blow themselves up
Stupid Marines Blow Themselves up With Mortar - Filestube Video Search

Yes. It is often difficult to prove a negative, but that doesn't seem to deter you from positing your mere speculation almost as though your doubts were somehow factual weight evidence.

And yes, handling explosives CAN be dangerous, so why is it (exactly) so difficult to believe that maybe The Sun did get validly informed about some of those asshole Taliban scumbags mishandling explosives badly enough to blow themselves up?

 

[Jos]

Yes. It is often difficult to prove a negative, but that doesn't seem to deter you from positing your mere speculation almost as though your doubts were somehow factual weight evidence.

And yes, handling explosives CAN be dangerous, so why is it (exactly) so difficult to believe that maybe The Sun did get validly informed about some of those asshole Taliban scumbags mishandling explosives badly enough to blow themselves up?

I repeat my ¨speculation¨

And this story is based on what, some Hacks opinion?

So until you can bring any proof to this story, I call it BS

 

[Liability]

Yes. It is often difficult to prove a negative, but that doesn't seem to deter you from positing your mere speculation almost as though your doubts were somehow factual weight evidence.

And yes, handling explosives CAN be dangerous, so why is it (exactly) so difficult to believe that maybe The Sun did get validly informed about some of those asshole Taliban scumbags mishandling explosives badly enough to blow themselves up?

I repeat my ¨speculation¨

And this story is based on what, some Hacks opinion?

So until you can bring any proof to this story, I call it BS

The story is what the story is and nobody cares that you "call BS" on it or not.

Nonetheless, since you are the one contesting it, you have the burden of persuasion. So, try again.

Demonstrate in some rational, realistic, factually-based way that the story isn't true.

But good luck, because such "news" isn't found just in The Sun. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/world/asia/09pstan.html

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Funny.

Facts are posted and you're avoiding them like the plague.


Why am I not surprised?

 

[Liability]

Funny.

Facts are posted and you're avoiding them like the plague.


Why am I not surprised?

Funny. You again start a bombastic bit of fluff rhetoric with the word "funny," when your ensuing observation is once again neither funny nor insightful.

I just posted facts.

You deflected.

Typical behavior from your ilk.

 

[Jos]

The story is what the story is and nobody cares that you "call BS" on it or not.

Nonetheless, since you are the one contesting it, you have the burden of persuasion. So, try again.

Demonstrate in some rational, realistic, factually-based way that the story isn't true.

But good luck, because such "news" isn't found just in The Sun. Ammunition Explodes at a House in Pakistan, Killing 7 - NYTimes.com

I dont need to post how this story is Bull shit, I do not 'have the burden of persuasion'
you do, you make a claim, that claim is shot down back up your claim with facts
Loser

 

[Liability]

The story is what the story is and nobody cares that you "call BS" on it or not.

Nonetheless, since you are the one contesting it, you have the burden of persuasion. So, try again.

Demonstrate in some rational, realistic, factually-based way that the story isn't true.

But good luck, because such "news" isn't found just in The Sun. Ammunition Explodes at a House in Pakistan, Killing 7 - NYTimes.com

I dont need to post how this story is Bull shit, I do not 'have the burden of persuasion'
you do, you make a claim, that claim is shot down back up your claim with facts
Loser

I made a post citing an article. YOU chose to challenge it. To challenge it YOU offered nothing.

Moreover, I added additional NEWS accounts from a different source which you (presumably) are not as antagonistic to.

And yet still you offer nothing.

You are also wrong. Having elected to offer a challenge, you do have some burden of persuasion, loser.

But you choked.

No surprise.

You = FAIL.