# Taliban Zen:  When is a suicide bomber not a suicide bomber?



## The Bread Guy (18 Apr 2009)

When he comes back from the mission, of course (.pdf of original posting attached in case you don't want to link to the Taliban's web page).....



> *Self-sacrificing Mujahid fighter returned safely to his centre after attack*
> 
> A self-sacrificing mujahed of the Islamic Emirate, who was wearing an explosive vest, carried out an attack with RPG rocket launcher on a military convoy of the joint enemy in Bangash area of Samkanai District of Paktia Province last night (17 April 2009).
> 
> Two tanks and one Ranger vehicle belonging to the enemy were destroyed and the soldiers on board were either killed or wounded in the consecutive rocket attacks.Reported by  Zabihollah Mojahed


----------



## Franko (19 Apr 2009)

Ha ha ha...he failed in his prime objective, yet the Taliban call it a victory!

I doubt that there even was an attack in Paktia province.

Regards


----------



## JBoyd (19 Apr 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I doubt that there even was an attack in Paktia province.



I have been trying to find a news report of this supposed attack but have not found anything as of yet, has anyone else located a news report from North America?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> I have been trying to find a news report of this supposed attack but have not found anything as of yet, has anyone else located a news report from North America?



I'm looking, too, but like the tree that falls in the forest, did an attack happen if a reporter isn't there?

Don't be surprised, though, if we see an ISAF or member country statement shortly mentioning an awful lot of bad guys no longer breathing from the area (sometimes, the Taliban statements come out to give "their version" before we hear about the REST of the firefight).  

And how well could it have gone for the bad guys if they're spinning a suicide bomber coming back is a victory?


----------



## JBoyd (19 Apr 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm looking, too, but like the tree that falls in the forest, did an attack happen if a reporter isn't there?



I would suspect that if two tanks and a ranger vehicle indeed were destroyed and even one soldier was killed that there would be some type of media coverage stating that X number of soldiers had been killed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> I would suspect that if two tanks and a ranger vehicle indeed were destroyed and even one soldier was killed that there would be some type of media coverage stating that X number of soldiers had been killed.



Seen.  You're right - Allied deaths=coverage.  According to the Pentagon, latest American fallen is from 15 Apr 09 in an IED attack in the Kornegal valley (announced today), but nothing since re:  more cas.

That said, and I know you'll be shocked _*(not)*_, Taliban reports exaggerate the number of dead/wounded (in March, the Taliban claimed 46 Canadians killed to an actual number of 8 ) - what Zabi Mo' is writing about, _*if *_it did happen, may have been a TIC with no Allied deaths or injuries.


----------



## Greymatters (20 Apr 2009)

This title reminds me of an old and very bad joke that can apply:

When is a suicide bomber not a suicide bomber?
When he burns his lips while trying to blow up the bus... -


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2009)

Yet another "heroic" Talib heads out to blow himself up, blows stuff up, and returns intact - .pdf attached if you don't want to link to a jihadi web page.



> *Self-sacrificing Mujahid fighter destroyed three tanks and  returned safely to his centre after attack*
> 
> Today 20-06-20092 at approximately 10 am local time  self-sacrificing mujahedeen of the Islamic Emirate, who were wearing an explosive vest, carried out an attack with RPG rocket launcher on a military convoy of the joint enemy in Mandozi area near thec center of Khost city.  Three tanks of American invader were destroyed and 8 the soldiers on board were either killed few wounded in the consecutive rocket attacks. Reported by  Zabihollah Mojahed


----------



## dustinm (20 Jun 2009)

Weird. The website (alemarah1.org) has its WHOIS information blocked by a company called "PrivacyProtect.com", and Pings are not responded to, except for this little tidbit:



> Name Server:NS105.CANADIANWEBHOSTING.COM
> Name Server:NS106.CANADIANWEBHOSTING.COM



The name servers translate the IP address (123.456.789.012) into a domain name (www.yourname.com), and are usually owned by the company doing the web hosting...perhaps the Jihadis are running their website off of a Canadian server, or at the least through a Canadian company?

Edit: Fixed domain name


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2009)

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> Weird. The website (alemarah1.org) has its WHOIS information blocked by a company called "PrivacyProtect.com", and Pings are not responded to, except for this little tidbit:
> 
> The name servers translate the IP address (123.456.789.012) into a domain name (www.yourname.com), and are usually owned by the company doing the web hosting...perhaps the Jihadis are running their website off of a Canadian server, or at the least through a Canadian company?
> 
> Edit: Fixed domain name



Or they may just have the name/domain registered with a Canadian company that offers re-direct service to the server, wherever it may be.  I've noted the Netherlands hosts a number of jihadi domains/sites.


----------

