The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the Occupation, not the Fundamentalism

Originally posted by Souljah
The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

I consider that to be absolutely fallacious. Perhaps Dr. Pape should take a close look at the China's occupation of Tibet (nary the Tibetans committing suicide terrorism against the Red Army). Perhaps he should take a closer historical look at the Islamic conquests and occupations of rival powers in the past 1400 years. The same is applied to European powers occupied weaker or declining powers in the same respect.

Occupation of a defeated power (kingdom, nation-state) is as old as war in politics and civilizations. It is considered the norm of warfare and conquest.

Originally posted by Souljah
Again, proof that so-called War on Terror CREATES Terrorism, and does not Eliminate it.

Again, a complete fallacy. The argument is so weak and unconvincing because you choose to ignore that terrorism is rooted from different factors and circumstances (poverty is but one excuse) over centuries.

The Mongols invaded and occupied much of Asia and the Middle East at different periods, some were so bloody, it paled in comparison to other bloody foreign conquests by rival powers. There haven't been any record of "suicide terrorism" against the Mongols and its bloody conquests/occupations by the Muslims. Why is that?

Originally posted by Souljah
Why is that So Hard to Understand?

Why is that it is so hard for you to ignore the historical (and very bloody) circumstances surrounding Islam since its beginning?

Disregard my previously posted message....

The topic has regained it's intended purpose and course.


Thank you.




seekerof

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Souljah

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

Interesting post - but - the bombers who blew themselves up last Thursday were second generation Pakistani immigrants. who by all accounts *loved being British* . So this doesn't compute - British people of pakistani descent becoming mass murderers and blowing themselves up on behalf of their *homeland* of Iraq?

According to the BBC reports, at least one of them had been to *religious* school back in Pakistan in the last few months.

There is no reason why Jihadists would not blow themselves up in the heart of Europe in the future, or kidnap hostages in order to behead them.

From their point of view, the historical dimension of their struggle has a dynamic of its own, and is developing in stages.

Rebekka

Suicide attacks are nothing new, nor are they exclusive to Islam.

Ask any sailor that served in the Pacific theatre in WW2.

The Japanese suicide acts were not prohibited according to their religious beliefs. The Bushido Code ruled.

As such, suicide bombers who are of the Islamic faith are prohibited, as are acts of terrorism, the targeting and killing of innocents, etc.



seekerof

Yes, but we both know that religious fanatics tend to overlook the "letter" of religious law in favor of doing "whatever it takes" to support "the cause".

Murder is forbidden by Christian, Jewish, and Islamic law, yet otherwise devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims have all been known to commit murder in the name of their respective faiths.

Tell Eric Robert Rudolph "thou shalt not kill" and you're likely to get a blank stare, or some convoluted rationale why God is ok with murder, in the name of the greater good.

[edit on 7/13/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
Yes, but we both know that religious fanatics tend to overlook the "letter" of religious law in favor of doing "whatever it takes" to support "the cause".

Murder is forbidden by Christian, Jewish, and Islamic law, yet otherwise devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims have all been known to commit murder in the name of their respective faiths.

Tell Eric Robert Rudolph "thou shalt not kill" and you're likely to get a blank stare, or some convoluted rationale why God is ok with murder, in the name of the greater good.

thats why we arrested him. and these terrorists need to learn from Christians that terror is not the way to do it. so the Islamic extremists need to learn the same. after all u dont see Christians terrorizing in the name of Chrisitianity or martyr themselves on buses and subways and on children. has been for awhile, so these Islamic extremists just need to learn as well.

And how has the invasion of Iraq served that purpose, given that there is now an epidemic of suicide terrorism where there once was none?

Originally posted by xmotex
And how has the invasion of Iraq served that purpose, given that there is now an epidemic of suicide terrorism where there once was none?

none eh? maybe u should look back in the past where there use to be suicide attacks. if not Iraq they can suicide somewhere else.

A) Before the Iraq invasion, there was no major problem with suicide attacks by/against Iraqi's.

B) After the Iraq invasion, there is a veritable epidemic of suicide attacks by/against Iraqi's.

It doesn't take great powers of deduction to see that something has seriously gone awry here.

The invasion of Iraq was precisely the wrong move at precisely the wrong time.
Far from putting a damper on terrorism, it has made the problem far worse.

"Tough guy" tactics are not always (or even often) the correct solution.
Sometimes you have no choice but to go to war (take Afghanistan as an example), but sometimes you do. In Iraq we chose an unnecessary, counterproductive war, now we are reaping what we've sown.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Perhaps he should take a closer historical look at the Islamic conquests and occupations of rival powers in the past 1400 years.

You seemed to Forget about the Brutal and Violent Catholic Chuch History: from Crusades to Insquisitions.

Does that classify as "Violent" in Your Vocabulary?

Occupation of a defeated power (kingdom, nation-state) is as old as war in politics and civilizations. It is considered the norm of warfare and conquest.

So you ARE saying that US Forces are Occupying Iraq and they are not Liberating it?

The Mongols invaded and occupied much of Asia and the Middle East at different periods, some were so bloody, it paled in comparison to other bloody foreign conquests by rival powers. There haven't been any record of "suicide terrorism" against the Mongols and its bloody conquests/occupations by the Muslims. Why is that?

We are talking about the Modern Society and the Effect that the Western "Civilized" Colonization has created on the Rest of the World:

- the "Isolation" of African Continent, creating even more Poverty

- the "Exploatation" of Middle East, which created even bigger abyss between the East and the West, Religiously and Culturaly.

Why is that it is so hard for you to ignore the historical (and very bloody) circumstances surrounding Islam since its beginning?

Why did you Choose to Ignore Historical and also Very Bloody Circumstances surrounding Catholic Church? Crusades? Inquisition? Colonization of America (and systematic Elimination of Indian Civilization)?

Originally posted by the_oleneo
The Mongols invaded and occupied much of Asia and the Middle East at different periods, some were so bloody, it paled in comparison to other bloody foreign conquests by rival powers. There haven't been any record of "suicide terrorism" against the Mongols and its bloody conquests/occupations by the Muslims. Why is that?

I take it you've never heard of the Hashshashin?
A cult where young men were brainwashed with promises of a langurous afterlife in order to get them to martyr themselves by infiltrating the enemy and assasinating a high placed target. "Typically they approached using a disguise; their weapon of choice a dagger, rejecting poison, bows and other weapons that allowed the attacker to escape."


The cult was only destroyed when its leader and its mountain fortress was taken by the mongols.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by boogyman]

Originally posted by xmotex
And how has the invasion of Iraq served that purpose, given that there is now an epidemic of suicide terrorism where there once was none?

You know folks I've seen this statement bantied about a lot, the truth is if there was any we would not have knowned about it...

You see Saddam Hussein supressed any bad reports going out of Iraq, in fact he was knowned as a "a predator of press freedom", in other words if it made him look bad, it didn't get printed...

Saddam Hussein is widely known to be among the worst violators of press freedom in the world. He has already been denounced as "a predator of press freedom" by Reporters Without Borders.

Saddam is perhaps the only leader in the world who has personally signed a decree prohibiting criticism of him, his family and associates. The restrictions are backed up in the judiciary when in 1986 he signed Decree Number 840 under which such criticism can result in the death penalty.

Under this law, hundreds of people, among them scores of journalists, are reported to have been executed for allegedly insulting the president.

On direct orders from Saddam, mukhabarat or intelligence agents periodically mount a hunt for satellite dishes across the country. Anyone found with a dish risks a heavy fine and at least six months in prison.

www.gvnews.net...

So if there were any bombings in Iraq, I don't think we would have heard about it...

Originally posted by Seekerof
The Japanese suicide acts were not prohibited according to their religious beliefs. The Bushido Code ruled.

Yeah, those kamikaze Japanese pilots sure thought the US was "occupying" the entire Pacific Ocean.

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, suicide bombers who are of the Islamic faith are prohibited, as are acts of terrorism, the targeting and killing of innocents, etc.

Coincidentally, that didn't seem to stop leading Islamist clerics from preaching violent martyrdom among Muslims against infidels. I would suggest they are simply changing the tune from what is allowed from the Qu'ran to reinforce justification for jihad against "infidels" without pointing out what is forbidden in the Qu'ran. Kinda skirting the issue, you know?

Sorry, I don't buy it. There are verifiable suicide attacks above and beyond against "occupations". I would like to see a breakdown of terrorist attacks, especially suicide attacks, by religion over the last 50 years. I think we all know what we would find..

Originally posted by Souljah
You seemed to Forget about the Brutal and Violent Catholic Chuch History: from Crusades to Insquisitions.Does that classify as "Violent" in Your Vocabulary?

I haven't forget its history. Yes, the Crusades were violent and insane in different periods of time, justified and necessary in another, at least in the eyes of the medieval-era and Renaissance-era peoples. We're talking about different mindsets and perceptions of the Middle Ages in Europe and the Middle East.

Take a look at the very beginning of Christiantiy - Jewish followers and Gentiles spreading the gospels of Jesus throughout the Roman Empire passively. Did they take up arms and commit violent conquests against the Romans in the name of the Christ?

Compare that to the fast rise of Islam after the death of the prophet Mohammed and what they did to the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe in the process. Passively spreading the gospels of Mohammed just like the early Christians?

Originally posted by SouljahSo you ARE saying that US Forces are Occupying Iraq and they are not Liberating it?

Iraq was already liberated on April 9, 2003 (the day of the fall of Saddam Hussein). Occupation was a necessity for stability. Are you suggesting the US forces shouldn't occupy a defeated power? I can't imagine if the US and the Allies wouldn't occupy Germany and Japan after they defeated the Nazis and the Japan Imperialists and leave both of them to fend for themselves or at the mercy of the Soviet Union.

In the logic of warfare, a victorious military force cannot just get up and leave a defeated power to fend for itself.

Originally posted by SouljahWhy did you Choose to Ignore Historical and also Very Bloody Circumstances surrounding Catholic Church? Crusades? Inquisition? Colonization of America (and systematic Elimination of Indian Civilization)?

I'm not even ignoring that, Souljah. I'm very familiar with those darker aspects of the Middle Ages periods. Again, like I said above, different mindsets and perceptions of the Middle Ages. Most people didn't understand or learn anything better except for the few who did.

NO Occupation = No Suicide Terrorism

You might actually have a point if the majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq WEREN'T foreigners! The occupation doesn't cause "suicide terrorism", rather the occupation just provides an easy target for these already radical and easily brainwashed young men who are sent over for the sole purpose of blowing up innocents. Iraqi's don't kill Iraqi's. The tide is turning as the people of Iraq are sick of these foreign terrorists blowing them and their families up.

Terrorism= A type of war by a desperate person.

What this person is desperate for or how he/she got like this is another story entirely.

There is no logic to suicide terrorist acts: none.
And what I am finding to be highly disappointing is that there are actually some within this thread that agree with it, condone it, sanction it, and are defending its use.

How very sad.
Islam itself condemns it, and yet, some within this very thread give that no value or consideration. You may vigorously condemn the actions of the US and the Coalition in going to war with Iraq, but do condone the use of suicide terrorist acts, it speaks volumes for your ethical hypocritical stances.







seekerof

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Seekerof]