Yeah. While I don’t support suicide bombing- the argument isn’t valid. That’s like saying “if a coach can really get you to win games he’d be on the field himself...” or a more direct parallel would be the many armed forces who hold death in the line of duty as a sacred honor. You don’t see a lot of 5 star generals- or the President, a 6 Star general and commander and chief, setting up their office on the front lines in the hope they can become a martyr. The logical counter is simple- the afterlife is for people who have finished their business or if one believes, fulfilled their “purpose” or “destiny.”
The average suicide bomber or foot soldier tends to make a far less capable commander to oversee that the larger conflict is finished after a single action is taken.
Likewise- by the same logic if it was all about an “easy” road to an eternity of bliss- anyone who believed in the rhetoric and the cause would just blow themselves up and there’d be no one with those beliefs left. If all one cared about was an afterlife, and if suicide was a sure way to paradise in one, and comparing a relatively short life with a fair share of struggle and suffering to an eternity of bliss- why wouldn’t everyone who believed such a thing get the whole family together and blow themselves up at the first chance? Probably because most theologies with an afterlife still believe that life is worth something- so I mean, yeah the concept of suicide bombing is flawed, but in a simplistic straw man argument that reads like an angry 10 year old wrote it isn’t really the best counter to it.
Except for a few trifling details: One of which is: it's not a choice of "hey, I think I'll suicide today instead of living". It's death in jihad that's the critical factor.
We all die someday. Some people only care about the world as long as they are in it. This becomes especially obvious when someone finds out they are going to die, or decides they are. If a person knows their family will be taken care of well, and finds out they have 1 week to live- does that person dedicate that week to charity, give away their earthly things to others who will outlive them; or do they “cash out” all they have because they won’t need it and go on spending sprees and try to achieve life long dreams or have the sort of fun for that week of a person who doesn’t have to plan for a future or deal with consequences?
People may do one, the other, or some combination of both. But “going out in a blaze of glory” isn’t exclusive to jihad or any particular culture, nor is the idea of leaving a legacy. From outlaws to mass shooters and other criminals on up to wealthy socialites the core idea is wide spread. “Live fast, die young” or some version is also often a popular staple of counter culture.
How many rock stars and the like have died from overdose, intentional or accidental, and other forms of self destructive behavior? The ubiquitous car chase is another fine example of a human being defying logic in a self destructive way that can also harm others. So I don’t really know what it having to do with Bihar or not has to do with anything. Tankdozer was built by a man pissed off by local politics and his loss of livelihood.
It’s certainly common, or more common, to see these sorts of behaviors exhibited by those who do not have or feel they have opportunities, and often a combination of personality and or mental illness can factor in too- but at the core of things, remotely intelligent and sane people do not generally blow themselves up if they feel that they have another better option.
The average suicide bomber or foot soldier tends to make a far less capable commander to oversee that the larger conflict is finished after a single action is taken.