A talk with a young failed suicide bomber
Mikey 14 comments
Time magazine have talked with a failed suicide bomber, a 17 year old boy who intended to assassinate the governor of Nangahar Province.
What's most interesting and somehow not surprising is his limited view of the world around him, and it became clear he had been indoctrined by the Taliban just like many others his own age. From the article:
"Only 17, he was terrified. Not only because of an uncertain fate, but perhaps more so because the world was not as the Taliban had described it. The Taliban indoctrinated him well, convincing him the Americans were stealing the faith of Afghan Muslims. Turning them into kafirs. I asked him if he hated the governor. No, it was simply that in working with the Americans he'd fallen away from Islam. He deserved to die."
It is a good read. See the complete article here.
Rodney
Thursday 26th July 2007 | 04:50 PMPowerful stuff indeed. It is deeply troubling that someone can be so indoctrinated yet clearly have never asked any questions or done research on his own. I think growing up in the Australia, were we are (supposedly) taught to think for ourselves, we should find this difficult to fathom?
Imagine believing in something so deeply you'd willing die and kill for it, yet not understanding a single word of it? That strikes me as just plain crazy.
Still, without jumping on too high a horse, it does serve to confirm the point I've made a dozen times here on this site that the religion here is not the problem - it's the people who are supporting their own powerbases and using whatever means they can to do so. One must assume that if they have not taught this young man the entire Quoran, it is because they didn't want him to read other bits which presumably say killing is wrong, yadda yadda.
Instead they fill his head with junk they themselves don't even believe in, to serve their very human purpose. The truth of their relgion clearly has nothing to do with it.
Also, to stave off people claiming that religion allowed this occur because he belives in it:
a) He clearly doesn't belive in it, as he doesn't know what it says. He believes in something else.
b) Plenty of people have killed for communism, capitalsim, nationalism, etc, just as blindly. More so, in fact.
The root issue here appears to be more than the youth can easily be taken advantage of by older, more savvy people, for terrible ends. Just ask a previously patriotic American PI from the Veitnam era (or Iraq for that matter). Average age: 19.
Jasmin
Thursday 26th July 2007 | 06:45 PMPowerful and concerning but lets not kid ourselves like we didn't know this sort of thing goes on all the time. I wish there was more to the Time article.
Rodney
Thursday 26th July 2007 | 06:55 PMYes, I think it's certainly somethign we know goes on all the time. What I wouldn't have guessed was the ignorance the young man had of his own Quoran. What we are shown by the media here is groups of Muslim men sitting around all day, "being radicalised", in learning centres. If they're not learning the Quoran, what are they learning?
As I mentioned above I am just blown away (no pun intended) that anyone could get so deeply involved in something without taking home a few books and having a bit of a read? If I was trying to learning something new and the authorities kept me at arms length from the details... I think I would be turned off the idea, not further engaged.
Jake
Friday 27th July 2007 | 09:28 AMWhile priests and alike are still viewed as the intermediary between the individual and the almighty, messages will always be hindered by selfish interpretation and benign reasoning.
Rodney
Friday 27th July 2007 | 11:18 AMYeah that's a fair call, Jake. But does Islam have intermediaries?
Gilly
Friday 27th July 2007 | 11:40 AMQuote Jake
[While priests and alike are still viewed as the intermediary between the individual and the almighty, messages will always be hindered by selfish interpretation and benign reasoning.] End Quote
Perfect statement
and that is why Dawkins and his mates are so far off the mark with there comments on religion. They are not all the same.
Mans religions have millions of faults.
The Christian "faith" (Bible based) has none.
If we seperate the teachings of religious people from the teachings of the Christian Bible, all Christians would end up like Mother Teresa, not George Bush.
Then again if this Terrorist/Child, didnt feel so isolated by the world, so threatend even scared. Had some hope in his life. Had a big screen TV and broadband, just maybe he would not have been so open to suggestion.
We have everything, he probably had nothing.
The Koran can easily be interperated as a book of violence as well as a book of peace, that is a problem.
Jake
Friday 27th July 2007 | 12:56 PMWell you're part of the way there Gilly. Mother Teresa was indeed a wonderful person, however a lot of what she taught was about beleif in humans and was not jesus' or her gods' word but her own based on her experience. Keep in mind that this woman had seen war, famine and seen the human spirit (metaphorical not metaphysical) prevail. These were people of many different faiths, and none.
It is nieve to think that the christian faith is any better or worse than any other religion and it only serves to propogate the old tradition of segregation based on religious beliefs. Peoples faith in something greater than themselves does not make them a better person, it is what thay do throughout their life that dictates that.
Michael
Friday 27th July 2007 | 01:05 PMGilly says "and that is why Dawkins and his mates are so far off the mark with there comments on religion. They are not all the same. "
Sorry, I have to correct you on that. Maybe try reading even just one of his books, instead of just piecing together and misinterpreting what you have read on web sites.
< fact >
Dawkins doesn't say all religions are the same. He clearly understands the diversity among religions, acknowledging, as any educated person would, that they are not all the same.
< /fact >
Although I can't defend 'his mates' as I haven't read any of their books :-)
Please continue...
Gilly
Friday 27th July 2007 | 03:57 PMDont change the TOPIC Mike. There are places for that. Tut Tut.
Dawkins says all religions are wrong, that is like somebody saying all theories on science are wrong. Stupid
Jake you still have not based any of your morals on anytghing. Is it ok for you New Agers to kill, rape kids, steal lollies from woolies. What do you base your beliefs on? Are all those things I have stated ok. Child sacrifice maybe?
I base my beliefs on the New Testament, you base your beliefs on WHAT.
Michael
Friday 27th July 2007 | 05:16 PMGilly...read what you said closely.
You said "Dawkins and his mates are so far off the mark with there comments on religion. They are not all the same."
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not imply that Dawkins and his mates say all religions are the same?
Dawkin's doesn't say that. He says religion is wrong sure - its just an opinion - but he doesn't say they are all the same. One thing he has said is that all religions 'have guilt and holidays' associated with them - it's an experssion of humour - not an actual professional evaluation. Anyone with half a brain could see that.
You on the other hand said that as if it were fact - you didn't prefix or suffix with anything to suggest it to be your opinion.
But if you want to interpret that as he thinks Christianity is the same as Hinduism is the same as Buddhism is the same as Islam is the same as Judaism etc...then I don't know what to say.
In short, it's clear you haven't even picked up one of Dawkins' books, read a single page of his web site or viewed any of his documentaries. Instead preferring to regurgitate misconstrued 'trivia' that has managed to make it's way in front of you over the years.
You remind me of that moron http://www.billoreilly.com/">Bill Oreilly. He has a bad habit of making a complete bullshit statement (just like yours) and then continuing to flap his gums as if everything he says afterwards based on the statement were true.
But hey on second thoughts, if you want to go on telling bullshit like it's fact then be my guest...a lot of people see it here as a sort of confirmation... :-)
Jake
Sunday 29th July 2007 | 04:05 PMGilly; Morals? Your morals are environmental, i.e. learned concepts and values. Child sacrifice? What sort of crack have you been smoking?
My morals are contrived from societal norms, i.e. that which exists within our system of governance. Your set of morals are derived from the same elemental pool of societal evolution as all others in this nation of hours. Given, yours might be more fundamentalist and conservative, though they are still aligned.
Why label me a 'new ager'? Does it help you to stereotype me?
Lets talk beliefs though for a second; while what I believe allows me to let you both co-exist and flourish unhindered, you believe me to be less of a person for not conforming to your set of principles. Who is more christian now?
Next time you speak to your parish minister, perhaps you should ask what a Shepard would do with a lame sheep?
Gilly
Monday 30th July 2007 | 07:01 PMA shepherd would tend a lame sheep. It is in the Bible.
What is your point. Try and understand this simple point, as a Christian I am bound by the laws of Christ not the laws of a minister a church or a business.
My morals are Biblically based. Simple.
Where do your morals come from? It is a simple question, no trick question here. I might be a bit confused here, if you think you are a god, why be bound by societies Christian laws
New age, yes you are, go read some Shirley Mclane books, it is what she teaches, and that is what it is called.
Mike I am a Moron, thanks
Dork- ins, (couldnt help myself this time- Joke, or is that blasphemy to an atheist-another joke. I am on a roll) sais all religions are wrong, so in that way he is saying they are all the same. Simple miss understanding. No?
You are a hypocrite Mike. In another thread you carried on like a spoilt child when I talked about this same issue with somebody else, (I WILL DELETE YOUR POSTS, OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC, sais you) and you now carry it on in this thread.
piss week fella. _Pathetic.
Jake
Thursday 26th July 2007 | 02:26 PMWow, powerful stuff. Really not surprising though.