>>I think there already has been a bomb inside a bomber. I remember a case.He caused quite a lot of damage and injury but field to kill his target.
>
>Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, Saudi assistant Interior Minister (some irony there <g>) was the intended target.
>The explosive was probably inserted into the anus, but was not sufficient to kill the Prince.
>To address that problem, it is said that al-Quaeda is now trying to recruit even bigger axxholes for this type of mission ...

Or people more often and heavily shafted will make better assassins...

Part of the reason of the terrorist attack vector comes from the facts that casualties from conflicts involving US troops are getting
a) more lopsided during the conflict and
b) the ration of involved combatants and non-combatants on the receiving side is getting worse
even when facing regular troops.
While the loosing side has less to fear after a town is taken today compared to times with mustle activated weapons, the noncombatants are in more danger during the action in these days. I fully understand the military trying to keep own losses at minimum through technical superiority, but such an imbalace as the US already has established will just move the area of conflict as a side effect.

regards

thomas