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

Originally posted by Seekerof
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 logical something is depends on your position with it.
I personally condem it.

How 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.

There are diffrent types of morals mate, you and I know that...we cant judge people by our standards...why? Because they are not us...

And I will agree with that, devilwasp. Well said.
But in saying that, as I have shown in another related topic dealing with this matter, though we cannot judge others morality and ethics or apply our standards over theirs, Islam has made it quite clear that these type actions are forbidden, that they will lead the believer in Islam to hell. That concludes to me, that again, though we cannot judge them, there are indeed moral and ethical guides that do bind their society, religion, and peoples. I am only "judging" them by what their own religious moral and ethical guide specifies; not by my standards, but by their own.





seekerof

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Seekerof]

You might actually have a point if the majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq WEREN'T foreigners!

I have seen this claim made a few zillion times in here with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I'm sure some of them are foreign jihadists, I'm equally sure some of them are Iraqi's. I have not seen anything beyond hearsay that the majority are foreigners.

Honestly I think it's wishful thinking from people who can't wrap their heads around the idea that some Iraqi's might not be too delighted with their country being bombed and invaded.

The only reliable related statistic I am aware of is from the US Army, which admitted that somewhat less than 2% of the suspected militants it had captured were from outside Iraq.

[edit on 7/13/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by Seekerof
And I will agree with that, devilwasp. Well said.

But in saying that, as I have shown in another related topic dealing with this matter, though we cannot judge others morality and ethics or apply our standards over theirs, Islam has made it quite clear that these type actions are forbidden, that they will lead the believer in Islam to hell. That concludes to me, that again, though we cannot judge them, there are indeed moral and ethical guides that do bind their society, religion, and peoples. I am only "judging" them by what their own religious moral and ethical guide specifies; not by my standards, but by their own.





seekerof

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Seekerof]

I agree they are breaking their own rules, sad how the truth about a religion can be twisted or overlooked or "changed".

Originally posted by the_oleneo
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?

What about the Christianization of Pagans in the European Area?

Are You aware how many Pagan Nations have been "Assimilated" by the Church with the "Fire and Sword" Technique?

In this Aspect Christianity and Islam have ALOT incommon - they Both spread their Religion across the Borders without any Remorse or Mercy.

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.

Well,

Did Nazi Germany Occupy Poland or did they "Liberate it from Jewish Communuist Terrorists"?

Did Nazi Germany Occupy France and Benelux or did they just "Spread Nationalism"?

For whatever Reasons - when you INVADE a Foreign Country, expect Resistance.

Especially if this Invasion is based on Lies and other Illegal Circumstances.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
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.

Lets read this Passage again:

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.

The US and other Coalition Forces are NOT at home in the Middle East.

Muslim/Arabs are.

Meaning, they ARE Invading their Home - the Result is Resistance in the form of Suicide Bombers.

They deliver a strategic message, which is pretty clear:

"As Long as there are Western Soldiers standing on their HomeLand, there will be More People like us, coming to Repel them."

The More soldiers you bring to "Fight" that Problem - the more Problems you will have to Fight with.

Originally posted by Souljah
Lets read this Passage again:

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.

FALLACY! Pape is wrong on that point.

Originally posted by Souljah
They deliver a strategic message, which is pretty clear:

"As Long as there are Western Soldiers standing on their HomeLand, there will be More People like us, coming to Repel them."

The More soldiers you bring to "Fight" that Problem - the more Problems you will have to Fight with.

If the shoe was in the other foot: if these Muslim soldiers come to invade and occupy the USA and forcibly converting Americans to Islam (as their religious forebears did), we would give them the same bloody treatments.

When you're going to realize that the only reason we invaded Iraq is because we don't trust Saddam Hussein and had enough of his BS?!

Originally posted by Souljah
What about the Christianization of Pagans in the European Area?

Are You aware how many Pagan Nations have been "Assimilated" by the Church with the "Fire and Sword" Technique?

Uhh.... it's the pagans that turned against the early Christians. Pagans that enjoyed seeing Christians getting burned, staked, flogged, murdered or crucified in the Roman arenas, dungeons or forums throughout the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by Souljah
Did Nazi Germany Occupy Poland or did they "Liberate it from Jewish Communuist Terrorists"?

Did Nazi Germany Occupy France and Benelux or did they just "Spread Nationalism"?

For whatever Reasons - when you INVADE a Foreign Country, expect Resistance.

Of course, resistance is necessary... until the people realized they have been fighting the wrong enemy.

Originally posted by Souljah
Especially if this Invasion is based on Lies and other Illegal Circumstances.

Whatever. The war on Iraq was necessarily made to remove an untrustworthy, uncooperative dictator with a long history of supporting terrorism, oil market manipulations, threat of violence, and genocide.

[edit on 7/14/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by Souljah
Lets read this Passage again:

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.

The US and other Coalition Forces are NOT at home in the Middle East.

Muslim/Arabs are.

Meaning, they ARE Invading their Home - the Result is Resistance in the form of Suicide Bombers.

They deliver a strategic message, which is pretty clear:

"As Long as there are Western Soldiers standing on their HomeLand, there will be More People like us, coming to Repel them."

The More soldiers you bring to "Fight" that Problem - the more Problems you will have to Fight with.

With respect how is hurting iraqi police fighting invaders?
If they where fighting a guirilla war they would pick military only targets , NOT physological targets.
Yes there is a physcological war on BUT terror tactics are hardly the way to get the people on your side....

Originally posted by Souljah
Did Nazi Germany Occupy Poland or did they "Liberate it from Jewish Communuist Terrorists"?

They occupied it , because "liberateing" it would have meant a democratic election.

Did Nazi Germany Occupy France and Benelux or did they just "Spread Nationalism"?

Firstly they where at war with france so it cant be "spreading nationalism".

For whatever Reasons - when you INVADE a Foreign Country, expect Resistance.

Yes you expect resistance but you dont expect people to go around killing civilians and saying its resistance.

Especially if this Invasion is based on Lies and other Illegal Circumstances.

The thing is, its not lies, its half truths.

As much as I despise the insurgents targeting the Iraqi police is a legitimate tactic among resistance organizations. People viewed as collaborators have always been targeted by partisan groups. It was the same way in world war two if you dealt with the "enemy" you were fair game. Its unpleasant but its not exactly unprecedented.

By the way to those who think Christians never spread their religion by the sword in Europe I suggest doing a little research on the baltic crusades and the order of Teutonic Knights. Lets just say they weren't on an expediton to hand out evangelical leaflets.

Originally posted by boogyman
As much as I despise the insurgents targeting the Iraqi police is a legitimate tactic among resistance organizations. People viewed as collaborators have always been targeted by partisan groups. It was the same way in world war two if you dealt with the "enemy" you were fair game. Its unpleasant but its not exactly unprecedented.

Technically not, they police are not assisting the enemy in anyway. Only keeping the peace and stopping deaths.
The iraqi police didnt invade thier own country did they?

I agree with you however the Iraqi police force was organized essentially by American interests and they do cooperate with the American Army which is why they would be viewed as collaborators.

Originally posted by boogyman
I agree with you however the Iraqi police force was organized essentially by American interests and they do cooperate with the American Army which is why they would be viewed as collaborators.

Yes I can see how they would be.....still doesnt justify it.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
When you're going to realize that the only reason we invaded Iraq is because we don't trust Saddam Hussein and had enough of his BS?!

FALLACY!

I think thats on the Bottom of the List of Reason why Bush Administration invaded Iraq.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Uhh.... it's the pagans that turned against the early Christians. Pagans that enjoyed seeing Christians getting burned, staked, flogged, murdered or crucified in the Roman arenas, dungeons or forums throughout the Roman Empire.

And What Happened after the Fall of Roman Empire?

The Church Spread its Infulence across the Borders with Fire and Brimstone.

Of course, resistance is necessary... until the people realized they have been fighting the wrong enemy.

Wrong Enemy?

So, who is the RIGHT Enemy then?

Whatever.

The war on Iraq was necessarily made to remove an untrustworthy, uncooperative dictator with a long history of supporting terrorism, oil market manipulations, threat of violence, and genocide.

Are you Aware how many Dictators like that are currently in Control around the World?

MAIN REASON - OIL FACTOR.

Why dont the US World Police go and Remove the Dictator of Sudan, who has slaughtered MILLIONS in the recent Decade?

I guess its not that Important, or its not HIGH on the List of Priorities, right?

No OIL - No USA Intervention.

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect how is hurting iraqi police fighting invaders?
If they where fighting a guirilla war they would pick military only targets , NOT physological targets.
Yes there is a physcological war on BUT terror tactics are hardly the way to get the people on your side....

Well, Iraqi POLICE is not really mede out of all 3 member of Iraq Ethnic/Religious Groups - but its mainly made just out of one.

As are the Insurgents, who are representing the other Religious Group.

So, we are not talking about a Guerrill War anymore, since the opposing sides are clearly divided not just by the uniform they are wearing, but also by the divided past and divide religious views.

Its Civil War.

Originally posted by devilwasp
They occupied it , because "liberateing" it would have meant a democratic election.

So, the US Forces are also Occupying Iraq?

Democratic Election - Please!

Firstly they where at war with france so it cant be "spreading nationalism".

Why not?

They spread German Nationalism across the Borders of Germany to the countries of Benelux and France - and after the Invasion these countries were Assimilated in the Third Reich, where rules were different then before.

Yes you expect resistance but you dont expect people to go around killing civilians and saying its resistance.

Welcome to the 21st Century Warfare - Expect the Unexpected!

Remember Nicaragua where Contras slaughtered thousands of Innocent Civilans? They were sponsored by Reagan Administration. Does that make it any better then?

Remember Vietnam War, where the US Forces killed ALOT of Innocent Civilians to infulence the Resistance of VC Forces? Are those Crimes Justified?

Bottom line is that Civilans Population pays the Price in EVERY War - and since dear President Bush declared War in Iraq by saying "Bring It On!", so be It. The Iraq Resistance did not start this War, Remember that!

The thing is, its not lies, its half truths.

Half Truths?



OK, if that makes you Sleep Better, then its Half-Truths.

Originally posted by Souljah
Well, Iraqi POLICE is not really mede out of all 3 member of Iraq Ethnic/Religious Groups - but its mainly made just out of one.

So now your saying the iraqi police are only letting certain religious groups join?

As are the Insurgents, who are representing the other Religious Group.

So now your saying the insurgent groups are only from certain religious groups.

So, we are not talking about a Guerrill War anymore, since the opposing sides are clearly divided not just by the uniform they are wearing, but also by the divided past and divide religious views.

Its Civil War.

Then how do you describe parts of the insurgent strategy?
If it was a civil war they would declare war on the other religions and openly attack them NOT fight in the shadows and hit mainy co-alition targets.
That is a guirilla strategy.

Originally posted by Souljah
So, the US Forces are also Occupying Iraq?

Democratic Election - Please!

No not really, if they where they would put an american government in and not a local.
Did they have an election?
Yes they did.
Its your opinion if it was democratic or not.

Why not?

They spread German Nationalism across the Borders of Germany to the countries of Benelux and France - and after the Invasion these countries were Assimilated in the Third Reich, where rules were different then before.

Definition: Nationalsm
1)Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2)The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3)Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination

None of the french people wanted to join with germany, it cant be nationalism but instead invasion.

Welcome to the 21st Century Warfare - Expect the Unexpected!

So by makeing the exscuse its 21st centuary warfare your saying I could kill any civilian I want and rape, pillage and basically break every rule in any religion?.

Remember Nicaragua where Contras slaughtered thousands of Innocent Civilans? They were sponsored by Reagan Administration. Does that make it any better then?

No it does not, but does that mean people should drop to thier level?
No it does not.

Remember Vietnam War, where the US Forces killed ALOT of Innocent Civilians to infulence the Resistance of VC Forces? Are those Crimes Justified?

Hell no, but that does not mean people should be allowed to kill civilians.

Bottom line is that Civilans Population pays the Price in EVERY War - and since dear President Bush declared War in Iraq by saying "Bring It On!", so be It. The Iraq Resistance did not start this War, Remember that!

So thats the exscuse is it?
Because the good old USA done it before that makes it all right?
Takeing that view simply proves that those americans that think the iraqi's are savages where right.
But hey its not whats inside that dictates what we are, its what we do.

Half Truths?

OK, if that makes you Sleep Better, then its Half-Truths.

If your going to laugh go ahead, but you are the only one being ignorant here.
A half truth is the easiest and best way to justify anything.
Why?
Look at the iraq war, did they have WMD's = yes.
Where they being destroyed? = Yes
Is that justification for war? =NO

Try and understand both sides an argument before joining one side.