"The Logic of Suicide Terrorism"

I'm sick of the BS about "they hate our freedom" or even worse "they're just psychopaths that we don't need to understand."

However. Even if we do understand their motives and goals, there's still a question of whether they're legitimate.

I'm trying to think of an example - let's say in the mid-1800s, some African slaves in the US started committing acts of terrorism. Everyone would agree that slavery is wrong and the political route to change wasn't working, and in fact never would work. In that situation, even if killing innocents was still wrong, I think everyone would agree that their motivation - to end slavery - was right. So it would be right to meet the terrorists' demands.

But let's assume that this analysis is correct - they want us out of Saudi Arabia. Is that really legitimate? I'm not so sure. At the least, it's not as clear cut as the slavery example.

That doesn't mean going to war with Iraq was a good idea to decrease terrorism. Clearly it's not. But I'm not at all sure that we should get out of the Middle East in order to reduce terrorism, either.

I haven't read the whole article, but don't tell me it isn't about religion. Suicide bombers pray 5 times a day. Not only do they believe they will go to heaven afterward, but get bonuses, like virgins and the such.

you will never find the masterminds killing themselves though.

Your last sentence contradicts your first paragraph.

If it was truly about religion, why wouldn't the leaders do it as well?

It's about religion, because if they didn't think they would go to heaven, they wouldn't do it.

It's obviously not all religion - you need to be fucking nuts as well. The planners are well educated, and are smarter than that.

Good thread. I tend to think that there is a lot of truth in what is being said. I think you have to wonder htough how far back to go in connecting the dots to find other possible causes and corrolaries. The "foreign invaders in our land" is one issue. But take it back a level and how did the foreign invaders get there? In many of those cases those countries/regions already had civil unrest or wars, they frequently had authoritarian systems which preceded (and followed) foreign invasions, they often had meager economic systems (usually correlated to weaker technology which in turn tends to cause the foreign invaders to "win" the conventional war), they generally had questionable civil rights records prior to invasion etc. Or to simplify, most those bad foreign democracies only pick on poor weak countries because those are the ones they can pick on which raises the question of whether the people are pissed because of the foreign invaders or because of the miserable conditions before/during/afterwards while local leadership was in place, or both?

The suggestion that most suicide bombings are though to some extent what you see is a cause celebre effect where you have disenfranched people and they need a scapegoat for their marginalization. Occupiers are a convenient and obvious and perhaps legitimately objectionable source for that. But are they just the target or are they the real underlying issue? I think Iraq and Palestine, while both being legit grievences, are also picked up as symbols and honed in on by people who are already pissed off hopeless mopes for reasons which sometimes have nothing to do with the purported "cause".

One really has to question what exactly the value of being in Saudi Arabia militarily is. For logistical purposes being in Bahrain and Kuwait and small rich kingdowms which enjoy wealth (placates the populace) while being small enough population wise that they are militarily vulnerable and so those seem to me to be even better fits without the sociopolitical complications. Moreover with Saddam gone and the US in Iraq for a while there really is no substantive thread to Saudi Arabia. Israel sure in theory but there is no way that the US would let one of their favorite countries go against their oil dealer. Turkey and maybe Egypt have the might but neither is a threat at all to the Saudis now. Iran would have to go through the US in Iraq and if Iran has a war anyway it will be a civil war between the secularists and the fundamentalists. So really what is the point? Aside from cost and all of the other stuff involved.

Even the neocons get the concept of perception->motivations->terrorism at least to some extent. They wouldnt be starting up all of these advertising campaigns and various radio and TV networks in certain countries, ineffective as they may be, if they didn't realize that this stuff matters. Of course their dual solutions of propaganda and invasion don't do anything except accomplish the opposite ends, but they do at least realize that this is some sort of problem.

Because leaders often know the "truth" i.e., that religion x is a bunch of crap (usually with some universally true things thrown in for credibility - hence so much overlap between religions) - crap designed to keep the people at the bottom scared and under control whereas the rules don't apply to those in control/"in the know" at the topmost levels.

Works for nearly any group.

that sounds suspiciously close to the truth.

...let me point you guys to a couple of articles:

Faith Invaders

Religious War and Peace

I think you haven't quite got his point.

Nightcrawler

What a nonsense, do you really think prophet Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed were thinking the revelations, messages.. they received from God were crap, or selfinvented crap to keep people scared and under control...?

Nightcrawler

What do you think about L. Ron Hubbard?

That more of a "better you than me" thing.

Nightcrawler, check out that second article, here is a quote:

Religion may not be the basis of the leaders motivation, but it is often used to incite those who die. In WWII, the Japanese religious-like dedication to their Emperor drove the kamikaze mentality. I think most suicide bombers believe they are serving someone stronger than any man and that they will be rewarded and protected by that force. How often do those giving the orders share this zeal? I don't know.

Religious beliefs and the promise of an afterlife undoubtedly assist an individual (be it a suicide bomber, a kamikaze pilot or Bruce Willis on that giant asteroid) in deciding to give their lives for what they consider to be a worthy cause...but it doesn't necessarily mean that such individuals are spending their lives lightly. The point made in Papes book stands irrespective of Religion



I heart L. Ron. Dude was so f***ing crazy. Ive been reading all about the evil Galactic Overlord Xenu and how he killed 178 billion aliens on the planet Teegeeack (or "Earth") and then brainwashed their souls in the three-D super colossal motion picture for three days leading to the survivors (or "humanity") being tormented throughout the millenia by confused ghosts manifesting as sadness and mental illness. That people pay millions of dollars to learn about this shit is proof positive that the population of this planet taken as a collective group is clinically (or "batshit") insane.

Just give it a few hundred years . . . . after Scientaology has its fair share of 'Nicene (sp?)Councils' and heresy trials . . . then soon enough it will be hard to Not think of it as the ground of truth . . . . in the same way that other such stories have encrusted over time . .

as far as the thread topic: the point of the article is that we should LEARN how to deal with these people and their desires.

It in no-way legitimizes what they are doing: it doesn't mean that because they want democracy out that we should say 'oh, now I see, you're really good-guys'
It does mean, though, that we probably shouldn't imagine that the reactionary denizens that co-inhabit a region in high density are going to embrace our 'freedoms' when we drive those freedoms into their hometowns in large armored vehicles right after killing a few neighbors and their children with 'intelligent' (read demon possessed) bombs.

What needs to take place is what I have been constantly spouting since shortly after Afghanistan: thoughtful strategic thinking that works with regions and their modes of life, police and intelligence work and, concerted and intelligent media PR work that aims at dissolving the bonds that bind reactionary thought
The probelm with that last tactic is that it takes real critical thought on all sides of the coin: can't have reactionary Christians with dogma tying their eyes closed using subtle techniques of world-view changing self-critical media . . . we can see how resistant reactionary ideas are by simply watching the dogmatic cling tto unreasonable ideas at all costs . . . Hmm?!

The other mode of working intelligently is, going hand-in-hand with the above listed tactics, to immediately start working intelligently With regional economies and practices, Not forcing Islamic regions to trade unreasonably through coercive WTO stipulations etc . . . but also just to use trade and its inherent crow-bar-to-the-mind capabilities as a way to change people's attitudes: . . the forceful use of the solvent of mass media and capitalist incentives: meaning smart politico/economic power-playing and the lure of the freedom to Buy-Stuff

They just want to give some back. They feel aggrieved, and want revenge.

They have no other viable military options. If they fought conventionally, they would be crushed and die without doing any damage to the enemy (us). If they take the suicide approach, at least they can take a few of us with them.

cf Japan's Kamikaze attacks towards the end of world war 2. It only became widespread once they realised they had no other alternatives: the only way they could inflict damage was through suicide attacks.

He was referring in a general way about all religions and claiming they were invented for selfish purposes of control and might by their own prophets, and you as a christian should object to that notion and not supporting it.

Nightcrawler

no, I didn't mean that, I was more in reference to the guys who are sent on their suicide missions, more of a cheeky boss/employee schtick.

but then when you have to explain the joke --- I guess it wasn't that funny. Hmmmm where's my shoe.....Oh Look!! it's right here in my mouth!

shutting up.

(be sure to check out those articles, though)