What's wrong with suicide bombings? It's the 'weapon of choice' of some of the militants in the region (as well as Tamil Tigers and others), but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Now, if you're talking about "suicide terrorism" -- i.e. the targeting of civilians in a suicide mission -- then that's a different matter altogether. You are aware of the fact that 'suicide operations' or missions have been even utilized by legitimate military forces in the past, highlighted in the history of some of the major military battles we're familiar with (e.g. Japanese kamikaze pilots of World War II)...right? It's the target of some suicide bombings that's an issue, not the tactic itself...
It's pretty obvious that the tactic referred to in the question is the one that is used against civilians. They aren't asking about Kamikaze pilots here. Gotta agree with Sir Jackie Chiles on this one.
Obvious to whom, you or the participants in the survey? You might be culturally predisposed to connecting "suicide bombings" to "suicide terrorism", but how do you know the locals do? Do you think the average Arab would disapprove of a suicide bomber targeting, say, an Israeli military installation? What about an apartment building? Yippee! So cute... Strong...I got nothing.
Geez, calm down. Yes I think it is obvious to both Muslims and myself. Ask the Iraqis in Baghdad who is mostly the target of suicide bombings. Suicide bombings are very often used against civilians, and anyone asked that question would make that connection. The poll does not have to spell it out and say "We are not asking about Japanese kamikazes." Otherwise, are you suggesting that Muslims are decreasing their support of attacks against MILITARY targets? LOL, I doubt that. The article even says "Muslims around the world increasingly reject suicide bombings and other violence against civilians" They are clearly talking about violence against CIVILIANS. Your point that they were talking about all suicide bombigs, including Japanese kamikazes, is simply off base.
Excellent post, thacabbage. Very well reasoned. And I agree that actions like the invasion and occupation of Iraq only adds to the turmoil, enabling extremists, who are a minority in the Muslim world, to gain supporters. Truly, a mad act by Bush/Cheney on so many levels. No one should seriously believe that the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed and maimed because of this elective war, foisted on the American public by the Bush Administration, hasn't increased terrorism and created a host of recruits for AQ and the like. Not only have we brought destruction upon the country, but the general population blames the suicide bombings, justifiably, not only on the mad extremists, but also on the chaos brought about by Bush's own act of extremism... war upon a sovereign nation that was not part of the attack of 9/11 and was not a clear and present danger to the United States. And it affects the rest of the world's Muslim populations, particularly in the Middle East. They see an Arab and Muslim country invaded and occupied by a Western power, something they have had far too much experience with during the colonial era. tiger, I do not agree with you at all. It is not an accepted method of war, except in extremis, when circumstances brought about during the heat of battle produced acts of self-sacrifice, or critical missions required a military action with little chance that those on the mission would survive. They were never "billed" as suicide missions. There was always a slim chance that someone might survive. It would be presented that way, with everyone knowing that they were going through a charade. I'm not sure you understand the difference from what we see from AQ or the Tamil fighters in Sri Lanka, unusual there, although they occur, and what I am talking about. I would hope so. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Twisted, yes. What about dying for 'country' or some other ideal? How about to destroy a 'bigger evil'? Do you even believe in "good and evil" and how do you define both?
Yeah blowing your self for religion is stupid. However nelson mandela blew up cars too and the American Patriots committed treason. In a 200 years if muslims take over the world how will all this be remembered? The early americans wiped out the indians too and while sad no one seems to view as a tradegy. IN 200 years if muslims rule the world and everyone lives under sharia (sp?) law maybe they will be viewed as freedom fighters. At the end of the day the victor writes the history book. Good thing if that ever happen I won't be alive in 200 years cause that would be a sorry place to live in.
Why? Are you taking 'morals' into consideration? Not always the case, no, that isn't true. In many instances the participants understood that they weren't going to come back alive, or even sought 'martyrdom' or some form of 'glory' resulting from that act of 'self-sacrifice', be it for tribe/country or something else. What do you mean by "unusual there"? The frequency of such acts has no relevance to the discussion. Are you basically arguing that the motive/circumstances of such actions is what -- IYO -- defines their 'legitimacy'? I am making an 'amoral' argument here, and keep in mind that suicide is strictly prohibited in Islam, complete with the promise of eternal hellfire.
This is so amusing. All of a sudden tiger decides to educate us on some perceived difference between 'suicide bombing" and "suicide terrorism". When you have this sort of denial coming from even American Muslims, it is not difficult to comprehend how nearly half an entire nation can unashamedly subscribe to this death culture.
I'm not understanding you here. History is a passion of mine, and during WWII there were many, many instances of people in the military, or resistance fighters, taking a mission that they knew had little chance of success. They were never told, "this is a suicide mission... go die for your country." They might be told that the mission had little chance of success, but that by taking it on, they were helping create success in the broader battle. A flank attack by a small force, for example, against overwhelming odds, to draw the enemy away from the real point of attack. Actions of that nature. Men sent on bombing missions against very heavily defended targets, knowing that few aircraft would return, but that the target was vital. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, during the invasion of the Philippines, a fleet of American ships, including carriers, was unexpected attacked by a very powerful Japanese task force, including the super battleship Yamato and the battlecruiser Kongo. Two Navy destroyers, and two destroyer escorts charged the Japanese fleet, knowing they had no chance. It was an amazing act of heroism, but it wasn't considered an act of suicide. Incredibly, the attack helped the American fleet, badly out-gunned, to escape. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, tiger. What the Japanese did was extremely unusual, and didn't occur until late in the war, when they were desperate, and even then, possible only because of their unique culture. Amoral? Again, what is your point? D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
"Perceived" difference? So the target is irrelevant, it's the act in and of itself that is the issue at heart of suicide bombing...that's what you're protesting, right? I understand you have a short attention span, but try to focus for a second here...unless you're a business major, then I completely understand. Is that supposed to silence me or something? May be scare me? I find the "culture of death" remark rather amusing coming from you. But OK. So suit yourself. Don't forget to link me to the neo-Nazis before you call it a night...
So intentions/context is the key, not the fact that they knew they wouldn't survive the operation? Pretty simple one: a 'suicide operation' is a tactical weapon that can legitimately be used as part of a military operation. The INTENTION itself isn't to just commit suicide, but to inflict some form of damage on the 'enemy'. The fact that we find it distasteful or 'shocking' to our values is irrelevant. But that's just it: THEY viewed it as an honorable act, as the ultimate self-sacrifice for country. They defined it differently. They called it heroism. You don't see it that way, and that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't make it any less legitimate of a 'tactic' to utilize in warfare. I think I see where you're coming from, but it seems to me that we have a difference of opinion here...
The poll makes pretty clear that this is about terrorism and the targets are civilians. Everyone seems to know that, except you. Besides, if it's about military operations, then can you explain the bizzare drop in support Muslims have for military operations?
While I know this comment was meant primarily to serve as an annoyance, I think it is important to touch on this.. While Western Muslim apologists will generally describe terrorism as "having nothing to do with Islam" or Islam as a "religion of peace" and spout all other types of BS, I find this very troublesome and disingenuous. Looking at this through a political science perspective, the sole motive is not "to please a god and enter paradise" as you so simply put it. But this does not mean that Islam is not utilized as an aiding component. Simply put, someone does not blow themselves up to obtain heaven but rather to protest some form of political disenfranchisement with the consolation that they will obtain heaven. Extremist ideology calls for this clash with the west, but the masses that are indoctrinated by such dogma are largely ignorant of it and I think simply persuaded by the desperation of their seperation. So the perception by those in the 'right' that terrorist acts are commited in some collaborative effort to fulfill some Islamic vison is completely unsubstantiated. I would compare Islam to being analogous to Marxism as serving as the uniting banner for a political cause. The most simple solution would be to wipe out the entire Middle East. This would surely eliminate all factions of extremism as well as the seeds. However, I think most would agree that this is not a viable solution. The ideal solution would be for Muslims to police themselves and eliminate extremist sentiment - however, as we know, nothing exists in a vacuum. The only way to eliminate terrorism is to completely marginalize the extremist voice and aid the moderate voice by giving it credibility and justification. This can't happen if the West continues the hegemonizing process of the Middle East which it has been conducting for the past 80 years. And it won't happen because idealists don't want to look at themselves for the possibility that their actions contributed to a condition but rather point the finger solely at others. And in turn, many in the Middle East only want to point the finger of blame towards the West for all of its problems. Both sides are at a loss.
