orion
December 6, 2009, 8:09pm
21
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Suicide bombers are not exclusive to occupation.
The 9-11 hijackers were not the result of occupation.
Kama kaze pilots were not the result of occupation.
And you are wrong, fanaticism, political, religious, ect, DO play a part suicide bombings.
The IRA did not (best of my knowlege) use suicide bombing as a tactic.
As far as your question goes…what would that tell us? You lost me there.[/quote]
But there is a study that suicide bombings are usually the result of occupations by a far superior enemy.
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism is Robert Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism from a strategic, social, and psychological point of view. It is based on a database he has compiled at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST). The book's conclusions are based on data from 315 suicide terrorism attacks around the world from 1980 through 2003. Of these, 301 were classified into 18 different campaigns by 11 different militan...
Ch. 4: Targeting Democracies
Pape claims that his is the first complete analysis of suicide terrorism, as such revealing that not religion but â??to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from the terroristsâ?? national homelandâ?? is its key (38). Patterns of timing (39-41), nationalist goals (42-44), and the targeting of democracies (44-45) reveal its logical, not irrational, nature. â??At bottom, suicide terrorism is a strategy for national liberation from foreign military occupation by a democratic stateâ?? (45). Foreign occupation is defined in terms of control of territory (not military occupation alone) (46). The targets selected by suicide terrorists suggests nationalist, not religious, aims (46-47). Hamas (47-51) and Al-Qaeda (51-58) are analyzed in some detail. In general, the harshness of occupation does not strongly correlate with suicide terrorism (58-60).
Terrorists are predisposed to attribute success to their technique whenever plausible (62-64). Pape claims that â??recent suicide terrorist campaigns . . . are associated with gains for the terroristsâ?? political causes about half the timeâ?? (64-65). Hamasâ??s success is difficult to evaluate, but Hamas spokespersons express belief in their own success (65-73). Terrorists learn from each other; the spread of the method is therefore neither irrational nor surprising (73-75). But suicide terrorism has failed â??to compel target democracies to abandon goals central to national wealth or securityâ?? (75-76).
â??[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalismâ?? not religion (79). It is â??an extreme strategy for national liberationâ?? (80). This explains how the local community can be persuaded to re-define acts of suicide and murder as acts of martyrdom on behalf of the community (81-83). Pape proposes a nationalist theory of suicide terrorism, seen from the point of view of terrorists. He analyzes the notions of occupation (83-84), homeland (84-85), identity (85-87), religious difference as a contributor to a sense of â??alienâ?? occupation (87-88), foreign occupation reverses the relative importance of religion and language (88-92), and the widespread perception of the method as a â??last resortâ?? (92-94). A statistical demonstration leads to the conclusion that a â??linearâ?? rather than â??self-reinforcing spiralâ?? explanation of suicide terrorism is best (94-100). However, different future developments of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism are very possible, and more study of the role of religion is needed (101).
With increasing knowledge of al-Qaeda, we see that â??the presence of American military forces for combat operations on the homeland territory of the suicide terrorists is stronger than Islamic fundamentalism in predicting whether individuals from that country will become al-Qaeda suicide terroristsâ?? (103). â??Al-Qaeda is less a transnational network of like-minded ideologues . . . than a cross-national military alliance of national liberation movements working together against what they see as a common imperial threatâ?? (104). The nature of Salafism, a Sunni form of Islamic fundamentalism, is complex (105-07). Statistical analysis fails to corroborate Salafism-terrorism connection, but it does corroborate a connection to U.S. military policies in the Persian Gulf (107-17). Al-Qaeda propaganda emphasizes the â??Crusaderâ?? theme, which is inherently related to occupation (117-24). Pape concludes that â??the core features of al-Qaedaâ?? are captured by his theory (125).
[quote]lixy wrote:
Of course you can’t. Because there are so many backwards violent Muslims.
If you distance yourself from the backward violent types nobody will have a problem with you reading the Qur’an etc.
The problem is most Muslims “distance” themselves the same way most evangelicals “distance” themselves from the people who bomb abortion clinics.
Note: I’m in no way saying that bombing abortion clinics is in the same league as Islamic suicide bombings. I’m talking about how people who are either in support of, or aren’t very bothered by, the activity claim they don’t approve to appear moderate.
Gkhan
December 7, 2009, 2:01am
23
Orion, if the study was confined only to Islamic terrorists, then religion would be a factor.
orion
December 7, 2009, 2:15am
24
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I think the Tamil Tigers were in there, they are nominally Buddists?
Gkhan
December 7, 2009, 2:59am
25
The study did not say why there no athiest suicide bombers.
According to the study, the suicide bombers and terrorists rally around their religion in a form of nationalism, so what that tells me is they in fact use their religion as a cohesion which gives moral and spiritual justification for their attacks.
Gkhan
December 10, 2009, 2:53pm
26
I’m calling BS on this study.
This weeks attacks in Iraq attacked civilians, not occupiers. The terrorists are striking against the legally elected government of Iraq.
Plus, there’s no occupiers in Somalia, the Ethopians left months ago, and yet, still a suicide bombing.
Same goes for Pakistan, who’s occupying Pakistan?