Police Officer Hugs Suicide Bomber To Save Civilians

An Iraqi police officer saved numerous lives when he hugged a suicide bomber who was detonating an explosives belt near dozens of Shiite pilgrims, according to Agence France-Presse.

The bomber still managed to kill five people and wound 10 on Wednesday in the town of Khales, near Baghdad, but the number of dead would probably have been higher if 34-year-old Ayyub Khalaf hadn't sacrificed himself by grabbing the militant, AFP reports.

"He was a brave man who loved his country and sacrificed himself for it," a police colleague of Khalaf's told AFP. "I am proud of him."

Many Shiites are on the road these days, making the pilgrimage to the Iraqi city of Karbala to observe Arba'een, which commemorates the death of the prophet Muhammad's grandson.

Many Iraqis have died in rising violence in recent months. In December alone, 580 civilians have been killed, according to IraqBodyCount, which documents violent attacks by cross-checking media reports with official figures. This year, the organization says, as many as 9,000 civilians have lost their lives to violence across the country.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/iraq-police-officer-sacrifice-suicide-bomber_n_4468677.html

Brave man.   Saddam might have been a despot, and did many terrible things, but the one thing he did do was hold all the factions together.

Indeed

22 views
1 comment

how very odd

codemaster wrote:Indeed

22 views
1 comment

how very odd

I see this all the time when people encounter information that doesn't fit neatly into their worldview. They look, they're probably trying to find some fault with it or come up with a counterpoint, and then they give up and don't say anything. They're not about to say something like, "See, they're not all bad people. Some of them are heros." Makes their worlds too complicated to think something like that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

codemaster wrote:Indeed

22 views
1 comment

how very odd

I see this all the time when people encounter information that doesn't fit neatly into their worldview. They look, they're probably trying to find some fault with it or come up with a counterpoint, and then they give up and don't say anything. They're not about to say something like, "See, they're not all bad people. Some of them are heros." Makes their worlds too complicated to think something like that.

i must admit i never found it complicated
some people are good some people are bad
fortunately so far they are more good people than bad

You never found it complicated. But.

I'd agree Ben, some people simply can't take it when something comes up that gives the lie to a prejudice.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You never found it complicated. But.

very interesting ben
mental rigidity and closed-mindedness.... says it all really

Well done the policeman - 5 dead and hopefully 2 of them were the bomber and the good cop.

As for Sadam holding Iraqis together sassy - not too sure about that - how did he hold them together?

I've been there a few times and it aint that bad over there - obviously I wasn't there beforehand but people did seem happy and optimistic for the future.

It's gone through some bad times, let's hope things keep on improving.

BigAndy9 wrote:Well done the policeman - 5 dead and hopefully 2 of them were the bomber and the good cop.

As for Sadam holding Iraqis together sassy - not too sure about that - how did he hold them together?

I've been there a few times and it aint that bad over there - obviously I wasn't there beforehand but people did seem happy and optimistic for the future.

It's gone through some bad times, let's hope things keep on improving.

hopefully 2 of them were the bomber and the good cop.??? eh

codemaster wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Well done the policeman - 5 dead and hopefully 2 of them were the bomber and the good cop.

As for Sadam holding Iraqis together sassy - not too sure about that - how did he hold them together?

I've been there a few times and it aint that bad over there - obviously I wasn't there beforehand but people did seem happy and optimistic for the future.

It's gone through some bad times, let's hope things keep on improving.

hopefully 2 of them were the bomber and the good cop.??? eh

Meaning that only 3 other bystanders were killed.

I actually thought it didn't sound too great while I typed it but hoped most would understand lol

BigAndy9 wrote:

codemaster wrote:
hopefully 2 of them were the bomber and the good cop.??? eh

Meaning that only 3 other bystanders were killed.

I actually thought it didn't sound too great while I typed it but hoped most would understand lol

yes grammatically, very confusing

No, I understood andy, T. He was hoping the damage was minimal.

Original Quill wrote:No, I understood andy, T.  He was hoping the damage was minimal.

There are two ways of using the adverb hopefully. Traditionally it means ‘in a hopeful way’:
She smiled at him hopefully.

This sense has been used since the 17th century, so it’s very well established. In the second half of the 20th century, a new use developed, with the meaning ‘it is to be hoped that’:

Hopefully we’ll see you tomorrow.

When it’s used in the second way, hopefully is acting as a sentence adverb, a type of adverb that comments on the whole of a sentence rather than just a part of it.

Many people object to the use of hopefully as a sentence adverb. They compare it with other sentence adverbs such as ‘unfortunately’ or ‘clearly’, which can be paraphrased as ‘it is unfortunate that ...’ or 'it is clear that ...':

Unfortunately, he missed the train. [i.e. it is unfortunate that he missed the train.]
Clearly, they have made mistakes. [i.e. it is clear that they have made mistakes.]

It’s certainly true that you can’t paraphrase hopefully as ‘it is hopeful that’. But this is no reason to ban its use as a sentence adverb: there are no grammatical rules that say the meaning of a word mustn’t be allowed to develop in this sort of way.

The second meaning of hopefully is now much more common than the traditional one and there’s no need to avoid it in most everyday contexts. Nevertheless, if you are making a formal speech or writing formally (e.g. preparing a report or drafting a job application), you should be aware that there are people who intensely dislike this usage. For some, it has become almost a test case of ‘correctness’ in the use of English, even if the arguments on which their view is based are not very strong. Consequently, in this type of formal situation, it would be better to choose a different adverb or reword your sentence altogether.


but as he later commented

"I actually thought it didn't sound too great while I typed it" recognising the possibility of misconception of the statement

Might be over-analyzing there T, with the tools of grammer. You have got to read the context...and that sometimes means the context of the whole conversation.

One time at Berkeley I wrote a paper on a textual analysis of Plato. The great Sheldon Wolin gave me an "A', but wrote this admonishment: "When we drafted this assignment, we assumed tacitly that no one could read Plato textually. In this, you proved us wrong. But wisdom comes from understanding the total context."

Of course I was so thrilled with the 'A' that it took me weeks to understand. But finally I went back and studied his words. You can't do text, if you don't fully understand context.

@andy
I understood what you meant
:-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 
Down with Grammer Nazis  ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: 

veya_victaous wrote:@andy
I understood what you meant
:-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 
Down with Grammer Nazis  ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: ::resmahauth:: 

I don't think that that is necessary. Codemaster is simply expressing a viewpoint.