French 'Terrorist' - "he's not my boyfriend"

[AbeSaidYes]

I wondered how other people were feeling about Hasna Aitboulahcen, the woman who was wearing a suicide vest in the recent Paris Siege?

I have just seen that she had shouted 'he's not my boyfriend' in response to the security forces and also I have read that she called 'help me' before the bomb went off.

It seems to me that there is every chance she was an unwilling victim of this atrocity - does anyone else feel the same? it just doesn't sit right with me.

Patsy Gillespie was the first human proxy used by the IRA and a cowardly and horrible act.

www.belfastdaily.co.uk/2013/11/07/patsy-gillespie-widow-i-dont-want-revenge-i-just-want-justice/

This woman was very brave to do what she did. It must have been terrifying.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/21/derry-bus-driver-bomb-selfless-heroine

in a

I don't presume an assumption of innocence simply because she's a woman.

In forming an opinion I took into account the reported circumstances about what she shouted, the fact that women don't tend to be suicide bombers willingly, the possiblity that she may have been forced into that position, my awareness that suicide vests can be remotely detonated, my own view that IF I were a victim in that situation, 'help me' is pretty much what I think I'd be begging of the security forces and the fact that no women have been reported as being involved directly in the shootings that occured. Hardly a presumption of innocence simply because she's female, more an acknowledgement, that, on balance, the probability was weighted more towards her being a victim than not.

I still recognise that women can and do take part in terrorist activity but until there is more evidence that this particular woman did so, I will continue to give her the benefit of the doubt.

here's lots of evidence of women being willing participants in suicide bombings

Lots?

Sure, there is enough evidence to prove that women CAN be willing participants in suicide bombings.

It is still unlikely, statistically speaking.

If someone else actually triggered the detonation, then that means it is more likely that she didn't happily volunteer, though she may be pressured into it. If they trusted her fully, then why not let her do it herself?

Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a female suicide bomber. Female suicide bombers are pretty common within Chechin and Kurdish groups. I think there have been fatwas lifted regarding female suicide bombers in Iraq and Syria.

You know what. I give up.

I am not saying she was a bomber. I am not saying she was a victim.

I am saying that I find the speculation really fucking distasteful. No matter how well read we are. No matter how immersed in class analysis and statistics. No matter how much we care about the media response to women. No matter how clever.Maybe, just maybe, we don't know enough to decide we get to start discussing our views on likely guilt or innocence of a particular individual in a still unfolding and confused terrorist situation

However the terrorists win if we stop debating anything. Everything should be up for debate.

Rajiv Chandhi was indeed killed by a female suicide bomber. She was 17.

I think that any 17 year old, male or female, who is a suicide bomber is clearly a victim.

Caprin I didn't know about that. Horrific.

It seems she didn't detonate the vest

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8611756?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

I thought that Rajiv Ghandi's assassin's age hadn't been conclusively established Blistory but I'll take your word on it being 17.

I think that any 17 year old, male or female, who is a suicide bomber is clearly a victim

Absolutel bollocks. A 17 year old is not a child. Under the law of Scotland for example a 16 year old may leave school and get married. A 17 year old suicide bomber is not a victim.

The independent are also reporting this morning that she did not detonate a vest. It's unclear whether they are suggesting someone else detonated a vest she was wearing... It actually reads more like she wasn't actually wearing a vest or the one she was wearing wasn't detonated at all and one of the men detonated a vest they were wearing.
I don't think the OP was at all wrong to raise the possibility. It doesn't seem disrespectful to me.

I absiolutely disgree with all 17 year olds being victims. I was very adult at 17 as are many 17 year olds. I was away at university, just as conscious and able to take decisions as an 18 year old. In England you can marry at 16 and join the army.

However in all these cases we need to wait for the facts - her cousin mightr have kidnapped her, chained her near the window and she might be an atheist for all we know or she might have gone in there to citizen arrest her cousin and his fellow terrorists although I very much doubt all that.

You can join the army but you won't be allowed on active service until 18.

A 17 year old doesn't just decide to strap on a suicide vest and end their life. Someone has recruited them to use as cannon fodder. Just because individual posters feel they mave have achieved full maturity at 17 doesn't mean that applies to the majority.

It's entirely possible to be both victim and perpetrator and to feel compassion for the individual whilst condemning their actions.

So you feel compassion for this woman Blistory even though she may be guilty of terrible atrocities?
I have to say that I'm not sure I could do that but I take my hat off to you if that is how you feel. Do you share that compassion for all the terrorists?

"So you feel compassion for this woman Blistory even though she may be guilty of terrible atrocities?
I have to say that I'm not sure I could do that but I take my hat off to you if that is how you feel. Do you share that compassion for all the terrorist?"

I think I get what blistory is saying. I absolutely condemn the actions of terrorists but part of me also wonders about the reasons behind them becoming a terrorist. Why they feel strongly enough to do these things, were they groomed (I don't like the term brain washed but I can't think of a better one), what are the social reasons behind large numbers of youth ( male and female) feeling oppressed/ outcast enough that they look for belonging in these death cults.

I understand that Mide7 but I feel that takes a huge amount of rationality that I don't think I could muster in the light of what the consequences of those actions were.

Don't be so daft PirateSmile. So its offensive for the OP to speculate and to question the official version of events? Do you swallow everything you're told by the mainstream media then??

I hope I don't batshitlady

A suicide bomber blows himself and others up outside the Stade De France yet his paper passport survives according to the media. Believe that one?

I don't believe everything the authorities and media say but in all honesty, I think that the Grench are in such a state of utter shock and disbelief at the moment I'd be amazed if they had the time and inclination to concoct anti-immigrant and misogynistic propaganda.

French not Grench.

Whether she was a hostage or not she was amongst a group of terrorists in a shoot out who were hell bent on killing everyone in their way. I don't see how the police could have rescued her under these circumstances. Either the terrorists murdered her or she detonated the bomb herself.

I think you're being a bit naive there Ginand. Sorry, I'm not picking on you, but it's the press' job. I worked for a national newspaper for some years. NOT THAT THAT MAKES ME AN EXPERT!!!

But its common knowledge that the press make things up, elaborate and are in a perpetual conflict with their rivals for - the better story, the grittier angle etc. Fully aware that once people have seen and absorbed the initial 72pt headline on their local newsstands, they find it harder to process new, conflicting information.

Headlines go halfway around the world before truth gets its boots on.....