In the second incident, which occurred Sept. 13, a suicide bomber detonated in the mess hall of a military facility belonging to the Pakistani army's elite Special Services Group in the town of Tarbela Ghazi, Pakistan, killing 20 people and injuring 42. The attack was the latest in a wave of suicide bombings that have wracked Pakistan since the Pakistani army's assault in July 2006 against militants barricaded inside the Red Mosque -- an assault led by commandos of the Special Services Group. A report in the Indian media suggests the suicide bomber was a Pakistani military officer who had lost his younger sister in the Red Mosque operation. This report likely is not true, but nevertheless it raises the issue of the hundreds of women who were involved with the militants in the Red Mosque, many of whom were young students at Jamia Hafsa, the female madrassah affiliated with the Red Mosque.

These two operations were led by national armies in two totally different regions of the world, but their respective targets, concentration of militant Islamists and bloody and violent outcomes -- which, in both cases, were provoked and precipitated by the militants -- were very similar. The operations also were analogous in that they directly affected hundreds of radicalized young women who survived the operations. The factors raise the possibility that at least some of these women could go on to form the next wave of female suicide bombers.

History

Female suicide bombers are not a new phenomenon. They have been around for more than 20 years and have arrived in several waves. The first wave occurred in Lebanon in the mid-1980s. Though Lebanon is where Hezbollah pioneered modern militant suicide bombers, the women in the first wave were not fundamentalist Muslims; they were secular members of the communist Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party who conducted suicide car bomb attacks against the Israeli military and the Israeli-supported South Lebanon Army from 1985 to 1987.

The second wave of female suicide operatives began on May 21, 1991, when a female member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi after placing a garland around his neck at a political rally. Since the Gandhi assassination, the Tigers have used more female suicide bombers than any other militant group, reportedly deploying at least 46 women on suicide missions since 1991.

From 1996 to 1999, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) carried out a series of attacks against Turkish military and police targets using female suicide bombers. Several of the PKK operatives strapped their explosive devices to their stomachs to give the appearance that they were pregnant.

From 2000 to 2004, female Chechen militants, often referred to as "Black Widows," were involved in several suicide attacks against Russian military targets in Chechnya, civilian targets in Russia -- such as subways, rock concerts and airliners -- and an assassination attempt against the Chechen president. The bulk of the attacks in this wave occurred in 2003 and 2004. Female militants also played visible roles in the dramatic Chechen hostage operations, such as the October 2002 seizure of a Moscow theater and the September 2004 seizure of a school in Beslan.

The Chechen group was the first radical Islamist or jihadist organization to employ women as suicide bombers. Though the jihadist theology is very chauvinistic and the concept of martyrdom it dwells upon is largely focused on men, the concept of women martyrs is supported in the Koran. Indeed, Islam's first martyr was a woman named Somaiya. Therefore, it is not surprising to see such groups apply the arguments they use to justify men's martyrdom via suicide bombing to women as well. In addition to the anger and revenge motives frequently seen in other female suicide bombers, the Muslim concept of martyrdom involves the forgiveness of all sins and immediate entrance into paradise, so suicide bombing often is seen as an avenue to atone for the shame and sins of an extramarital affair or out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

With the beginning of the second or "al-Aqsa" Intifada in September 2000, suicide bombers became a commonly used weapon for Palestinian militant groups. However, when Israeli security responded to the rash of suicide bombings by instituting security measures that prevented most of the male suicide bombers from reaching their targets, the Palestinians countered those measures by employing female bombers. The Palestinian militant groups began using female suicide bombers in 2002, when a 28-year-old woman affiliated with the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade detonated in Jerusalem, killing one other person and wounding 100. Following the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade's lead, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas also have deployed female suicide bombers in attacks against Israel. The wave of Palestinian suicide bombers -- and particularly female Palestinian suicide bombers -- has waned dramatically since its peak in 2002-2003; there have been no reports of female Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel since 2005 (though there were two female suicide bomb attacks against Israeli forces in Gaza in November 2006).

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq got into the female suicide bomber business in late 2005, and Iraq is currently where female suicide operatives are used most frequently. Perhaps al Qaeda in Iraq's most highly publicized use of such an operative was in the Nov. 9, 2005, bombing attack against three Western hotels in Amman, Jordan. The female operative involved in the attack against a wedding reception in the Radisson SAS hotel attempted to detonate her suicide belt at the same time as her husband, but her device failed and her videotaped confession was widely covered by the world media. The publicity surrounding the Amman bombings eclipsed another interesting case that happened that same day in Baghdad, when a Belgian-born convert to Islam attacked a U.S. motorcade and became the first European female suicide bomber.

Some recent Internet reports suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq -- the al Qaeda-led jihadist group alliance -- has announced that it has formed a special all-female suicide bomber brigade and made an appeal for women to join it. However, the jihadists have sporadically employed female suicide bombers in Iraq since 2005 -- some were used as recently as this summer -- so even if this report is true, the formation of such a brigade likely will not make much difference tactically, as the use of female suicide bombers in Iraq is expected to continue. However, the creation of such a unit within the Islamic State of Iraq would seem to be ideologically important, signifying that the concept of female suicide bombers is gaining more widespread acceptance in the jihadist community.

Advantages

The advantages to using suicide bombers are obvious. They allow militant organizations to use "human smart bombs" who can guide ordnance around security measures and place a device in close proximity to a target -- such as a heavily packed crowd in a wedding reception, subway car or hotel lobby. Because of this, militant operational planners can use suicide bombers to cause more damage than would be inflicted by a larger device that detonates farther from its intended target.

Smaller explosive devices also are more economical to make. A large truck bomb might contain several hundred pounds of explosives and can only be used in a single location. With the same quantity of explosives required for one truck bomb, dozens of 10- to 20-pound suicide devices can be made. This allows for multiple simultaneous attacks, such as those witnessed in Amman, or the July 2005 London attacks or October 2005 Bali suicide attacks -- though it also can allow for a prolonged series of attacks.

Women provide a tactical advantage in that they do not fit many law enforcement and security professionals' preconceived profile of a terrorist. Mohammed Atta now personifies that profile, but a slightly built 20-year-old woman does not and will not receive the same scrutiny.

There also are cultural issues associated with searching women -- or even looking at them for that matter. This is especially true of Muslim women and of women in general in many Islamic countries. This means that female operatives are given a free pass at many security checkpoints. These cultural and attitudinal issues are expanded when combined with physical issues such as the burqa and the niqab (face covering) that obscures a woman's face. Such clothing not only makes it very easy to conceal an explosive device or other weapon but also hides many of the nonverbal cues that security forces are taught to look for when identifying possible suicide bombers. These factors sometimes lead male militants in Muslim countries to dress as women to attempt to gain an operational advantage.

Suicide bombers targeting VIPs pose unique challenges to protective details due to the close proximity of unscreened people at public events and the VIPs' desire to shake hands and mingle. The use of female suicide bombers in such a situation can be even more effective, as executive protection personnel are less likely to view them as a threat. This tactic was used not only in the Gandhi assassination but also in the May 2003 attempt on then-Chechen President Akhmed Kadyrov.

Using women as suicide bombers also provides militant organizations with a larger pool of operatives and allows a militant organization to deploy its male operatives for other types of missions. The psychological impact that comes with using female suicide bombers also is dramatic.

A Grim Forecast

In addition to the continuation of the current wave of female suicide bombers in Iraq, there soon could be new waves of female suicide bombers spawned by the recent events in Nahr el-Bared and the Red Mosque.

Before the storming of the Red Mosque, the students at the madrassahs associated with it were involved in a number of high-profile incidents. Following the July 2005 London bombings, Pakistani authorities attempted to raid the mosque to look for evidence tying the institution to the bombings; they were met by baton-wielding women who denied them entry to the facility. Earlier this year, authorities in Islamabad began to demolish part of the mosque that they said infringed on public land. This resulted in a group of female students (some toting Kalashnikovs) occupying an adjacent children's library and barricading themselves inside.

Later this spring, students took two groups of women hostage (including one group of Chinese expatriates) whom they accused of engaging in prostitution. In May, the students abducted four policemen and held them in exchange for some arrested colleagues. In all of these militant activities, the female students from Jamia Hafsa were in the thick of the trouble.

Given the historical trajectory of female suicide bombers and the concept's acceptance in the jihadist community in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, and considering the conditions that have produced female suicide bombers in the past, it is not hard to forecast that some of the young women who survived the bloody attacks against the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp and the Red Mosque will go on to become suicide bombers. In fact, when one considers all the militant activity the women from Jamia Hafsa have been involved in so far, it is amazing they have not yet been involved in a suicide bombing in Pakistan.

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com

Red State Patriot response sent to Stratfor.com:

We’ve given some thought to the 9/19 article (well written) on female suicide bombers. Please forward our constructive comments to the authors.

To begin, please consider this point. By focusing on the female or male suicide bomber, we make the same mistake as those who focus on the gun as the cause of homicide. It is not the gun that kills; it is the person holding the gun. The weapon of choice, whether a bomb, gun or knife, is but a method – just as terror is a tactic.

In the current incarnation of suicide bombers, it is not the female or male who kills; it is the Muslim who kills. It is the Muslim who is all too willing to kill, regardless of perceived motivation or grievance, and then revel in the magnitude of the atrocity. Islam is pulling the trigger.

We also suggest that we turn the coin over on this issue and look at the other side.

It is not only that Muslims are willing to die as it is that Muslims are also willing to randomly kill anyone including the innocent.

May we suggest that, for the foreseeable future, we must address Islam as the core issue and not focus too closely on the gender of the suicide bombers or other distractions? While the article importantly addresses a tactic that we should grow to expect, a gender-focused approach misses the Islamic cult pathology.

Who is a Muslim? For example, can a Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? Can he or she be a Canadian, a Frenchman, a German, an Aussie, a Kiwi or a Brit?

Theologically, no. A Muslim’s allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously, no. No other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Qur’an, 2:256)

Scripturally, no. A Muslim’s allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Qur’an.

Geographically, no. A Muslim’s allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially, no. A Muslim’s allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically, no. A Muslim must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically, no. A Muslim is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually, no. A Muslim cannot accept the United States Constitution or system of common law since it is based on Biblical principles and a Muslim believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically, no. Islam, Mohammed, and the Qur’an do not allow freedom of religion and expression.

Spiritually, no. When we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Qur’an's "99 excellent names."

Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in the United States. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and Americans. Call it what you wish....it's still the truth. To be a “good” American would require that person be a “bad” Muslim. Muslim-American is a profound oxymoron.

The Islamic Wars are bigger, more complex and the stakes far greater than most Americans understand. While a Muslim may be an American citizen, no Muslim can be an American. The Qur’an prohibits it.

To simply re-emphasize in other words, it is not that one variety or another variety of snake may kill you, or that one species is more radical or militant than another. For our own individual safety and for obvious national security reasons, we must assume that any and all varieties of snakes are venomous and will willingly and indiscriminately kill without remorse.

If we can become confident, through proactive measures, that there are no snakes in our backyard, our innocent children, friends, neighbors, schools, cities and nation will be at lesser risk.

Is it foolish as a national policy to welcome snakes into our home and grant them any accommodation? Does it seem rational to try to walk, talk and work among them daily and believe we will not eventually be bitten? Are those who advocate taking the risk of living with snakes simply deluding themselves and engaging in a politically-correct inversion of sanity? We think so. The comparison seems apt.

Why is Islam not correctly classified as a global infestation or pandemic?

How many people of divergent faiths, including secularism, have to die before the realization sets in? By then, will it be too late (as it was in Eurabia)?

Muslim’s hope so.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11th, 2007

Consider two alternative scenarios for the first fourteen days following September 11th:

1. What if the FBI or the President had announced that they were going to immediately begin screening all aviation travelers (get over it or don’t travel), screen libraries for people checking out books on bomb-making (for the safety of families and children in schools), develop an intelligence dossier on every Muslim in America, and follow every possible terrorist lead regardless of any possible offense to any artificial subset of society? What if the President announced that pilots would hereafter be armed for the defense of the aircraft and protection of their passengers (no choice), and all cockpit doors would be fortified (get over it or don’t fly)? What if the President had announced that soft targets throughout the country vulnerable to terrorism, such as water systems, harbors, airports and nuclear plants, would be dramatically hardened with additional security? What if the President had announced that valid passports would be required to enter the United States of America at any Port of Entry? What if the President promulgated an Executive Order that anyone entering the USA illegally after September 11, 2001 would be considered a terrorist until such suspicions could be proven unfounded? What if the President announced that all Islamic males who were in America legally, and who were not U.S. citizens, must register within 30 days? Those that did not register would be considered terrorists. What if the FBI rounded up all non-citizen Islamic males illegally in the United States and deported them without recourse due to a proclaimed national emergency?

2. Alternatively, what if the President or the FBI announced that there was no serious threat of terrorism and no policies would change?

Which alternative would have been rational or irrational in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001? Which choice would have angered you?

Now consider the Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma alternatives:

1. What if FEMA or the President announced that they were going to staff, operate, supply, coordinate, fund, rescue, rebuild and transport everyone and everything associated with the relief effort, beginning at the instant devastation was certain, as rapidly as they could respond, even if it meant bypassing federal law, state law and elected local governments, and all relief organizations?

2. Alternatively, what if FEMA or the President announced authoritatively that disaster recovery and the welfare of the citizens of every state was, by law, the primary responsibility of individual states, and only secondarily would the federal government assist? What if the President announced that he would respect the inherent sovereignty of state governments first, and would only respond upon written request of State Governors, working in cooperation with civilian relief agencies, after a comprehensive damage assessment had been completed, relief needs were known, and a state-level relief infrastructure was implemented?

Which of those choices would have angered you in the weeks following the hurricanes?

Now ask yourself, why is national defense (our lives, our families, our children, our jobs, our culture and our value systems) somehow less important to Democrats and liberal Republicans, and the Main Stream Media than hurricane-related property damage on the Gulf Coast of Mexico?

Why is the defense of our nation from another terrorist event, protection of our economy, preservation of our manufacturing and technological advantage, safeguarding other forms of industry and particularly jobs, and protecting our sovereignty at the border somehow evil in the eyes of liberals – all of whom hide behind various labels of Party affiliation? You know who they are.

Why is anything pro-American viewed by Democrats and liberal Republicans as unfair, conceived in lies? Why are Congressmen and the media so willing to divulge classified information and give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Why do many politicians think that people of other nations are unworthy of freedom and United States citizens are unworthy of liberty?

Why are the deaths of American servicemen and women greeted with media celebration of milestones? How could liberals in Congress willingly vote to send our young men and women into war and then work tirelessly to insure their defeat, accusing the young soldiers of war crimes at every opportunity?

Why are strategic American military bases foolishly being closed across the country in the guise of cost-cutting? Liberals in Congress view their base-closure actions as a form of political sport, however future generations of Americans will come to realize that it was a cruel hoax, based on liberal anti-military sentiment, that caused whole geographic areas of the United States to become unprotected and vunerable to terrorism.

Why are advanced weapon systems and desperately needed troop equipment somehow unworthy of funding by Congress, but NO amount of money and speed of response would have been sufficient in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Why are modern nuclear energy facilities, oil exploration and new oil refineries STILL blocked by Congress when new capacity would reduce United States dependency on foreign oil from such places as Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia?

How many contradictions can be numbly ignored? Is it probable to surmise, even probable to conclude, that United States Congressmen are on the ‘take’ and so pervasively corrupt and consumed with self-interest that they are willing to sell out their own nation for campaign contributions that originate from foreign sources - from Mexico, China and Saudi Arabia - buying their votes to act against the national interests of the United States?

Why are the lives of “Joe 6-pack” and his family, and the lives of our servicemen and women worth so little? Why do Democrats and liberal Republicans see no need for a strong national defense, energy self-sufficiency, effective and inviolable border control that complies with existing laws, and competent foreign intelligence?

Why have the lives of 50,000 United States citizens been literally sacrificed to illegal aliens, with no end in sight? How many American families who have lost a son or daughter, husband or wife in the War on Terror would proudly proclaim that their family's sacrifice was for "open borders," which is the number one oxymoron of the 21st Century?

Almost seven years later and counting; why does ‘Who is an American?’ mean nothing to those who with authority to protect our borders, and particularly Congress and the Bush Administration? It would appear self-interst is stronger than a politician's sense of duty.

Is anybody listening?

Prominent politicians and media elites have refused to listen to a huge majority of United States citizens, choosing instead to rule rather than govern. Liberal state governors, legislatures and politicians in Congress steadfastly refuse to embrace their own responsibilities of United States citizenship, which should include a defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For decades, these same liberal luminaries have been intent on demonstrating that allegiance to the United States is not important and a world government would be preferrable. However, they fail to understand that it is the American "heart" which has made the United States great. The American heart is that individual nucleus of loyalty to a faith of personal choosing, country and family. It is the American heart that forms the core of our nation's excellence, initiative, integrity, moral character, voluntary charity, duty and responsibility of citizenship.

Why, then, is it not reasonable to compare politicians with a large, ugly and odiferous snail, going nowhere slowly, doing nothing constructive, serving no useful purpose, feeding off the fruits of fellow citizens, pathologically seeking power, and leaving behind an unmistakable trail of corruption and slime so plainly visible that every legal United States voter should be able to trace them in November, 2008.

Only one question remains. How many registered voters really have an aberrant fetish for slime? Voters face some difficult decisions in 2008. The choices seem limited to two choices, a liberal Republican or an extreme socialist Democrat? Neither choice will return conservative "citizen legislators" or sanity to Congress anytime soon. Neither choice will seal the nation's borders, develop domestic energy resources, return excellence to education, protect citizens from crime and terrorism, resurrect manufacturing in the United States and create jobs, and put an end to the incessant taxation and growth of government.

Being an equal opportunity offender, it appears to be a ‘given’ that either Senator Hillary R. Clinton (the Queen of corruption) or Barrack Hussein Obama (the closet Muslim) may become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. This comes on the heels of such patriots as presidential candidate Senator John Kerry in 2004 and ex-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Given the narrow outcome of recent elections, it would appear that too many United States voters have demonstrated their penchant for collectivism, or too many ineligible people are voting.

Not to be outdone on the Republican side, Mayor Rudy Guiliani, a closet advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, has said he will secure our nation's borders but at the same time renounced enforcement of immigrations laws as they apply to illegal aliens currently in the United States. Governor Mitt Romney has a bicoastal reputation for changing his position on important issues on each tidal change and lunar cycle. While either Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney would be excellent administrators in the Office of the President, and Hillary Clinton would be an excellent Czar with all that implies, and John Mccain would be a formidable Caesar, and Senator Obama would be an outstanding advocate of all things racial and Muslim, at this point in history the United States needs a conservative leader. Where are the viable alternatives of Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo when we sorely need them? And what about Fred Thompson who spent a year "gaming" the system saying he couldn't make up his mind? If it takes that long for Fred to make a decision, to light his own fuse, we are left wondering if Fred is a conservative firecracker, as he wants to portray himself, or a "dud."

Why does, ‘Who is an American?’ still mean nothing to the 'front runners' in both political parties? Why do liberals in general, and politicians and academicians in particular, all of whom feed at the public trough (in elected office, or whose life is taxpayer funded), think of themselves as elite emmisaries of a world- or hemispheric-government without personal allegiance to the United States of America? As Ann Coulter observed, if liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. Neither are good choices for the White House.

As the real United States citizens begin to focus on the merits of the candidates for the presidency of the United States in 2008, maybe we should avoid those candidates with an emphasis of, “Who am I?” (front runners) and focus instead on the words and actions of the second tier of candidates, those who emphasize, “Who are we?”

We are Americans.

We are Americans and we will never forget.

We are not Mexicans. Nor are we members of the Cult of Islam dedicated to the annihilation of Christians and Jews. Nor do we advocate for one race at the expense of all other Americans.

We are Americans, not the North American Union.

No fence, no campaign contributions, no votes. Yes, that's my final answer.

Too subtle?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Here are a few phrases that immediately come to mind:

Inductive logic
Anecdotal evidence
Civil war
Microsoft works
Credible liar
Empty calories
Good grief
Tragic comedy
Junk food
Pretty ugly
Original copy
Butthead
Crisis management
Victimless crime
Standard deviation

Other oxymora have political overtones:

Democratic leadership
Congressional ethics
Government dignitaries
Compassionate conservatism
Political Science

And now my newest favorites:

Illegal immigration
Guest workers
Open borders

Should we also add 'United States Senator' and 'Rule of Law' to the list?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It