USA Today Acknowledges Women Are Capable of Terrorism

	posted by Nightmist on Wednesday January 30, @08:42PM from the news dept.
	Neil Steyskal submitted this column by Patricia Pearson in USA Today. Pearson points out that: Contrary to initial media reports, this was not the first time a Palestinian woman has proved capable of terrorist violence. Far from it. She also warns that likely victims of terrorism should watch out for the use by terrorists of the "least likely suspects." Namely, women.

	Source: USA Today [newspaper] Title: Hard to imagine a female bad guy? Think again. Author: Patricia Pearson Date: January 30, 2002

<  The Other Side of the Pay-Gap Story | Men's News Daily Mentioned in Washington Times  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Not Really Good News (Score:2) by frank h on Wednesday January 30, @08:50PM EST (#1) (User #141 Info) I just ahve to comment before our little troll shows up. I have to say that terrorism, regardless of who perpetrates it is an absolutely dreadful practice. There is no reason for us to celebrate the notion that there are women terrorists as well as men; after all, we knew this all along, didn't we? On the other hand, the plain fact that THIS article got published in a major media organ like USA Today is clearly a good thing.

Re:Not Really Good News (Score:1) by LadyRivka (abrouty@wells.edu) on Wednesday January 30, @09:29PM EST (#2) (User #552 Info) http://devoted.to/jinzouningen On the other hand, the plain fact that THIS article got published in a major media organ like USA Today is clearly a good thing. I agree. I keep telling people terrorism is a HUMAN problem, and they seem to ignore me. "Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.

Re:Not Really Good News (Score:1) by Claire4Liberty on Thursday January 31, @11:27PM EST (#3) (User #239 Info) Here's a thought. Perhaps the reason why we do not see more female suicide bombers is because females involved in terrorist sects might be taught that their sacred duty is to have as many babies as possible, those children being the future soldiers/martyrs of the cause. This is why the Nazis didn't send women into battle. Women were taught that their contribution to the country was to breed soldiers for the Fuhrer. According to an article I read in a WWII era issue of Readers' Digest, Nazi women took this "duty" very seriously. Women who did not produce children for the Fuhrer were not good Nazi women.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]