}

Working for Al Qaeda

Think your Job Sucks?

Well, it probably does suck, but don’t you derive some comfort from the knowledge that others have it worst than you? Like when you read an article about how awful Walmart’s employment practices are. You think to yourself “Gosh darn! Those people at Walmart have it so bad!” Then you promise yourself not to shop there ever again – at least until the next time they have socks or some made in China shit you absolutely need on sale. You are of course horrified by how badly employees are treated and how little they are paid, but really you’re glad it’s not you.

In that vein, there’s news out about Al Qaeda’s employee compensation practices. These egg heads from the Rand Corporation got their hands on some captured Al Qaeda spreadsheets or something and released a study detailing some interesting facts about their financial situation. For instance, in 2005 and 2006, Al Qaeda in Iraq’s Anbar Province subsidiary was generating about $373,000 in monthly revenue. This was generated via blackmail, extortion and fencing stolen stuff. Excess revenue went to Al Qaeda Iraq’s central HQ. The Rand guys also figured out that each terror attack cost an average of $2,732 and each militant was paid $491 per year, more if they had a family.

The average household in Anbar earned $6,177 per anum while the average Al Qaeda household earned only $1,331. However, Al Qaeda employees got certain benefits – like medical coverage for instance. Also, while Al Qaeda employees had a 5000% greater yearly risk of violent death than their non-Al Qaeda neighbors, said death is when the really awesome benefits kick in – namely those 72 eternal virgins with automatic, self healing hymens! Scoff all you like, but what kind of benefits does your job offer, eh? Sign me up Osama!

Follow me

ck

Publisher at Jewlicious
Founder of Jewlicious? Publisher? Man I hate titles. I coined the name Jewlicious and I slave over the site. I live in Jerusalem and I need to get some breakfast.
Follow me

2 Comments

  1. Ben David

    12/24/2010 at 6:55 am

  2. observer

    1/3/2011 at 8:17 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *