A couple of days ago, on May 13, we learned from the media that about eighty people (mostly military recruits) had been killed in the District of Charsadda, Pakistan, in a twin suicide attack. As reported, e.g., by CNN, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban was quick to explain the reason for the attack: "Osama was our great leader and the killers of Osama will have to pay its price"
[cf. article dated May 13, 2011, published on the web page http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/12/pakistan.explosions/index.html , still available in March 2023]
Note that the above picture is a detail of a photograph that was posted on the same web page in 2011.

Once again, the moral of the story is easy to figure out. There are people who feel a strong need to kill and do not even think about the logic that lies behind their terror attacks.

In fact, radical militants often complain that Western military operations end up with the death of scores of Muslims, but these "holy warriors" are always ready to murder Muslims, whenever they must quench their thirst for blood and are unable to blow themselves up among a crowd of "infidels".

Perhaps more importantly from a political point of view, it is pretty clear that their beloved leader Osama bin Laden would have not been living in Abbottabad if he had not enjoyed the support of authorities and/or soldiers and/or officials and/or security agents. No doubt, these authorities and/or soldiers and/or officials and/or security agents are a minority (most probably, a small minority) in the Pakistani state machine. Nonetheless, fundamentalist groups should not downplay the role of these precious allies. Above all, they should try to understand that certain actions might severely backfire, one way or another.

So, were the suicide bombers and their masterminds absolutely sure that random killings would not induce potential allies to change course in the fear that they might get accidentally killed by mad dogs? Were the suicide bombers and their masterminds absolutely sure that ALL the relatives of ALL the victims were sworn enemies of the Taliban? Let it remain between us, it would not be surprising if some relatives had sympathy for the Taliban movement and now hate it to death. Were the suicide bombers and their masterminds absolutely sure that ALL the victims were sworn enemies of the Taliban? Let it remain between us, some recruits might have entered the military just to earn a salary and might have even become allies of the Taliban in the future―as well as some authorities and/or soldiers and/or officials and/or security agents are already accomplices of the Taliban in these days.

In Jihad Al-Kuffar you often come across comments about the need of putting pressure on terrorist organizations. Emphasis is placed on the importance of fighting "with deeds rather than words" and a good example can be found in Chapter 14. Here, a radical militant suddenly talks about the effects of military attacks from the West, including "preemptive wars":

Consequences would be awful. Military operations would reduce our strength. I'm particularly concerned about the possibility of a domino effect. Muslim rulers who funnel money to our holy war might do a complete about-face, fearing to become the next targets of the infidels. Training camps, weapons supplies, diplomatic cover, financial resources—everything would be lost. Our martyrs would savagely attack the infidels, the hypocrites, and the apostates, but we would kill in a random way, without proper planning. Instead of exporting our holy war, instead of burning the West to ashes, we could only live in the hope of finding easy victims. Eventually, we'd be reduced to slaying our brothers in our own countries.

Needless to say, the last sentence can only remind me of what happened near a training facility in the District of Charsadda, Pakistan, on May 13, 2011.

---

COMMENTS