Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by LessBread What Makes Suicide Bombers Tick? Interesting article, but it doesn't answer the question posed by the title. The motivation of Islamic suicide bombers is well known, suicide bombing is viewed as a form of martyrdom and a ticket to paradise. What drives suicide bombers from these supposedly secular groups like the PPK? I'm genuinely curious because I've never seen an answer to that, are you aware of any sources? There's a long tradition throughout human history of religion being used to encourage people to face death in combat with promises of rewards in the after life. For the non-religious facing possible or even likely death in combat there are other possible motivations: the desire to defend your family or your country, the desire to be rewarded and recognised for bravery and heroism in this life (assuming you survive), the risk of certain death if you don't fight (execution being a common punishment for desertion in the military through much of history). Facing certain death in combat is a lot harder to motivate without recourse to religion though. What drives a suicide bomber if not the promise of an afterlife?

Quote:

... While he waits, he spends much of his time rehearsing that last prayer. "First I will ask Allah to bless my mission with a high rate of casualties among the Americans," he says, speaking softly in a matter-of-fact monotone, as if dictating a shopping list. "Then I will ask him to purify my soul so I am fit to see him, and I will ask to see my mujahedin brothers who are already with him." He pauses to run the list through his mind again, then resumes: "The most important thing is that he should let me kill many Americans." ...

Quote:

... Evidence of the broad nature of Hezbollah’s resistance to Israeli occupation can be seen in the identity of its suicide attackers. Hezbollah conducted a broad campaign of suicide bombings against American, French and Israeli targets from 1982 to 1986. Altogether, these attacks — which included the infamous bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 — involved 41 suicide terrorists. In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon. What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force. ...

Quote:

... Now there's an important point, before we go on, which should be made. It wasn't the case that there was no evidence for the answer to this question about the logic behind suicide terrorism, but [that] everybody thought we knew the answer. Many people thought they knew the answer. It's also fair to say many people realized there's more to the puzzle than meets the eye, because of course religion has been around for centuries, and of course there are many religious people who don't commit suicide, even when stretched in these conditions. So the project, as I began to unpack it -- it was clear to me that many people assumed Islamic fundamentalism was the central cause, but it was also clear to me, as I looked especially at the research underneath that, that many people realized that might be a hollow presumption. They were presuming it given the absence of data that showed anything else. So, as I began to collect the data and as I put the data set together, that's when it also jumped out at me what was driving suicide terrorism, because what over 95 percent of all suicide terrorist attacks, around the world since 1980, have in common is not religion but a specific strategic goal: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw combat forces -- I don't mean advisors with side-arms; I mean tanks, fighter aircraft, or APCs -- from territory the terrorists view is their homeland, or prize greatly. From Lebanon, to Chechnya, to Sri Lanka, to Kashmir, to the West Bank, every suicide terrorism campaign since 1980 has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory that the terrorists prize. This is very important. Let's take apart all that you've just said. You're saying that nationalism, or a national liberation movement, is a driving force in all of these cases. Suicide terrorism is an extreme form of a national liberation strategy. Nationalism, that is nationalist commitment to the territory that's at issue, is the core driving force, and of course, some nationalists are also religious. It doesn't mean that nationalism is always fundamentally opposed to religion, but it's terribly important to see that the key concept underneath suicide terrorism, the key driving factor, is a deep anger over the presence of foreign combat forces on territory that the terrorists prize greatly. Absent that core condition, we rarely see suicide terrorism. An important characteristic that you identify in these groups that you're looking at is their weakness vis-à-vis the occupier. So, this is an alternative that develops in a context where there isn't much that can be done militarily in a normal set of interactions. Well said. The key purpose of suicide terrorism is not to die but to use the person's body as a weapon to kill, to try to put pressure on the opposing society so that society will put pressure on its government to change its military policies. What's interesting about this tactic is that we see it as a weapon of last resort. We don't see suicide terrorism often as the first choice of a terrorist group. Instead, we see it as the choice after many other things have failed. In fact, suicide terrorist groups are often large guerilla organizations with thousands and thousands of members who have tried ordinary guerilla tactics, or even ordinary terrorism, before resorting to suicide terrorism. And they're evolving from a very large group. The PKK in Turkey, for instance, has 10,000 cadres who are armed fighters; the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, 5000 to 10,000 armed cadres. What's occurring here is that these groups are evolving to suicide terrorism when other means have not gained the concessions, the independence of the territory. They don't look like what we might think, which is a cult -- thirty people sitting in a room at the feet of a leader. Before I did this research, I was expecting to see suicide terrorist groups looking a bit like the Branch Davidians -- that's David Koresh out in Waco, where David Koresh has forty-some followers who stayed at his feet for hours every single day, and he essentially brainwashed them. That's not what suicide terrorist organizations look like. They're very large, and in fact, the suicide terrorists themselves are typically walk-in volunteers and not long-time members of the group. ...

Quote:

... I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. And of how few Hellenes 1 can it be said as of them, that their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found equal to their fame! I believe that a death such as theirs has been the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valor with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honorably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonor, but on the battlefield their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory. ...

Quote:

Original post by LessBread What motivates suicide bombers from secular groups? It seems to me the same thing that motivates American soldiers to take on missions they won't likely return from. They believe they are fighting for something worth dying for.

Quote:

What drives a suicide bomber if not the promise of an afterlife? What drove the men on the beaches of Normandy?

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by LessBread What motivates suicide bombers from secular groups? It seems to me the same thing that motivates American soldiers to take on missions they won't likely return from. They believe they are fighting for something worth dying for. There seems to me to be a huge difference between a soldier going into combat with the possibility, even the likelihood of death, and the suicide bomber going into an attack with the certainty of death. I can understand the first, even though I have no religious belief I can imagine a situation where I would be prepared to go into combat with a risk of death. I cannot understand the second except in someone who truly believes they will be rewarded in the afterlife. As humans we are all used to accepting a certain amount of risk in all our activities but there's a big difference between even the most risk taking base jumper and a suicide jumping off the same high object. Having a possibility of surviving combat and going into it intending to die are very different from the point of view of motivation. Quote: What drives a suicide bomber if not the promise of an afterlife? What drove the men on the beaches of Normandy? Again, I see a huge difference between the strong possibility of death and the absolute certainty of death. Even on Omaha beach the casualty rate was less than 10%, though the first wave probably suffered a far higher rate. I can understand how those soldiers were able to motivate themselves to leave the boats, even though I'm sure I can't imagine quite what it must have been like to face the guns in the first wave. Certain death still seems a qualitatively different thing though.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Pape's theory is certainly interesting but it still doesn't explain the motivations of the bombers themselves sufficiently for me. It makes sense from the point of view of the commanders directing the tactics and strategy of the campaigns but how do they motivate the individual bombers? The only example I'm aware of in conventional warfare which comes close is the Kamikaze pilots in WWII.

Quote:

Suicide terrorism is an extreme form of a national liberation strategy. Nationalism, that is nationalist commitment to the territory that's at issue, is the core driving force, and of course, some nationalists are also religious. It doesn't mean that nationalism is always fundamentally opposed to religion, but it's terribly important to see that the key concept underneath suicide terrorism, the key driving factor, is a deep anger over the presence of foreign combat forces on territory that the terrorists prize greatly. Absent that core condition, we rarely see suicide terrorism.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Explain Kamikazis. It seems to me they believed they would live forever in the memories of the nation. That's the significance of the Pericles reference.

Quote:

Secular or religious, they are motivated by their beliefs. Their secular beliefs are not the same as ours. They are more likely to be communitarians than individiualists. In the case of communists, their beliefs strangely parallel religious beliefs - with the historical inevitability of communist revolution taking the place of God's plan for humanity. Just the same, the core motivation is bringing an end to foreign occupation.

Quote:

Suicide terrorism is an extreme form of a national liberation strategy. Nationalism, that is nationalist commitment to the territory that's at issue, is the core driving force, and of course, some nationalists are also religious. It doesn't mean that nationalism is always fundamentally opposed to religion, but it's terribly important to see that the key concept underneath suicide terrorism, the key driving factor, is a deep anger over the presence of foreign combat forces on territory that the terrorists prize greatly. Absent that core condition, we rarely see suicide terrorism.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by LessBread Explain Kamikazis. It seems to me they believed they would live forever in the memories of the nation. That's the significance of the Pericles reference. I can't explain them, any more than I can explain secular suicide bombers. That's why I brought them up in my post and that's why I'm asking the question of what motivates suicide attacks other than religious belief.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Secular or religious, they are motivated by their beliefs. Their secular beliefs are not the same as ours. They are more likely to be communitarians than individiualists. In the case of communists, their beliefs strangely parallel religious beliefs - with the historical inevitability of communist revolution taking the place of God's plan for humanity. Just the same, the core motivation is bringing an end to foreign occupation. Communism does seem to have a lot in common with religion, as do several other ideologies that have sprung up over the years, including fascism. They share a commitment to belief in an idea without regard to evidence or rational investigation together with a social structure that encourages conformity and punishes dissent. Videos of fascist rallies are strikingly reminiscent of religious leaders like the pope addressing crowds of followers or evangelical preachers holding forth in front of their congregations.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Suicide terrorism is an extreme form of a national liberation strategy. Nationalism, that is nationalist commitment to the territory that's at issue, is the core driving force, and of course, some nationalists are also religious. It doesn't mean that nationalism is always fundamentally opposed to religion, but it's terribly important to see that the key concept underneath suicide terrorism, the key driving factor, is a deep anger over the presence of foreign combat forces on territory that the terrorists prize greatly. Absent that core condition, we rarely see suicide terrorism. How do you explain the apparent exceptions, like the September 11th attacks, the London bombings last year or indeed the plot we're discussing in this thread? The 9/11 attackers seem to have been partially motivated by a desire to see American troops leave Saudi Arabia but many of the attackers were not residents of any country they wished to see freed of American 'occupation'. The London bombings and todays alleged plot were carried out by British muslims residing in Britain and were launched (or planned to be launched) on British soil. It's suggested that some Iraqi suicide bombers are foreign nationals rather than Iraqis protesting at the American presence in Iraq. I don't know what percentage of the attacks fall under that category.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by firahs Quote: Original post by BigFreak Can these bastards leave our countries alone? Thanks. Thats what they said. Who's that? The British muslims who were arrested for planning the attacks in Britain today?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Moving back to Sam Harris, it seems to me that the main thrust of his book is that the major problem with religion today is that religious moderates provide cover (or run interference) for religious extremists. And that this cover precludes the widespread application of skepticism to religious claims of various sorts. One of the central themes of this book, however, is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. With that in mind, it strikes me as a distortion to cite his book to condemn one religion rather than all of them.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by LessBread What motivates suicide bombers from secular groups? It seems to me the same thing that motivates American soldiers to take on missions they won't likely return from. They believe they are fighting for something worth dying for. There seems to me to be a huge difference between a soldier going into combat with the possibility, even the likelihood of death, and the suicide bomber going into an attack with the certainty of death. I can understand the first, even though I have no religious belief I can imagine a situation where I would be prepared to go into combat with a risk of death. I cannot understand the second except in someone who truly believes they will be rewarded in the afterlife. As humans we are all used to accepting a certain amount of risk in all our activities but there's a big difference between even the most risk taking base jumper and a suicide jumping off the same high object. Having a possibility of surviving combat and going into it intending to die are very different from the point of view of motivation. Quote: What drives a suicide bomber if not the promise of an afterlife? What drove the men on the beaches of Normandy? Again, I see a huge difference between the strong possibility of death and the absolute certainty of death. Even on Omaha beach the casualty rate was less than 10%, though the first wave probably suffered a far higher rate. I can understand how those soldiers were able to motivate themselves to leave the boats, even though I'm sure I can't imagine quite what it must have been like to face the guns in the first wave. Certain death still seems a qualitatively different thing though. Pape's theory is certainly interesting but it still doesn't explain the motivations of the bombers themselves sufficiently for me. It makes sense from the point of view of the commanders directing the tactics and strategy of the campaigns but how do they motivate the individual bombers? The only example I'm aware of in conventional warfare which comes close is the Kamikaze pilots in WWII.

Quote:

Original post by firahs Quote: Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by firahs Quote: Original post by BigFreak Can these bastards leave our countries alone? Thanks. Thats what they said. Who's that? The British muslims who were arrested for planning the attacks in Britain today? Who have no ties to the countries that have been ruined by colonialism and are still being ruined today?

Quote:

Original post by CharlesFXD All the menacing chatter about the insidious Bush conspiracy, black helicopters, religious right police, tracking microchips and the one Big Eye watching your every move may fly on your collage campus and your weekly ISO meetings but not in the real world. You guys talk about the freedom to bring water onto a plane as if you as if you had any real experience to compare it against. Take a gander at the real world and listen to what the radical Imams, Ahmadinejad, and the others like them actually have to say about the west, not just the United States, and its total destruction. You people have no idea what’s truly waiting out there for us but if it ever shows up at your door step you could care less if doors were kicked down and the Miranda Rights vanished if it meant your kids wouldn’t be blown up at school. Please stop the preaching and tough-talk about standing up to the supposed Fascist America, American staged terrorist plots, and black clad Bush ordered SturmTruppes breaking into your home and taking you away in the dead of night. It’s an infantile hallucination that you torture yourselves with and its growing tiresome.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Quote: Original post by LessBread Moving back to Sam Harris, it seems to me that the main thrust of his book is that the major problem with religion today is that religious moderates provide cover (or run interference) for religious extremists. And that this cover precludes the widespread application of skepticism to religious claims of various sorts. One of the central themes of this book, however, is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. With that in mind, it strikes me as a distortion to cite his book to condemn one religion rather than all of them. I'd agree that his main message is that religious moderates, by defending religion against rational analysis, provide cover to religious extremists whose beliefs threaten world stability. I also agree that all religions are dangerous and don't think Islam is qualitatively different in it's level of threat, just quantitively different. Harris does spend some time in the book quoting the Koran and arguing that Islam is unusually prone to being used to encourage and / or justify violence however and I think that's also an important point.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Saying that all religious viewpoints are equally valid and equally fault-free is just playing the same game as those who preach 'religious tolerance' when what they really promote is a defense of irrational beliefs against any kind of analysis, experimental test or rational investigation. The fact is that Islam has an unusually strong relationship with extremist violence and that's something worth looking at. We shouldn't allow the taboo of 'religious intolerance' to get in the way of really looking hard at what it is about Islam that makes it such a fertile breeding ground for violent extremism.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport Why is it that Islam, which was such a shining beacon of intellectual development in the middle ages, is now associated with some of the most backward and oppressive regimes in the world? Why is it that so many acts of terrorism are committed in the name of Islam and defended by people who claim to speak for Islam (even if there are many moderate muslims who attempt to distance themselves from that position)? Why are so many human rights abuses committed in the name of Islamic law? Why are Imams who preach messages of hate and violence tolerated in some Mosques in London and other muslim communities? These are questions worth asking and we shouldn't be scared off by accusations of religious intolerance, prejudice or racism from trying to find some answers. Many countries already recognise that some ideologies are dangerous, some from bitter experience (Germany and fascism for example), I don't accept that religion is somehow immune from criticism for its role in encouraging violence and conflict simply because we fear offending peoples religious sensibilities or appearing 'racist' (this has nothing to do with racism, religion is a choice, not a matter of genetics).

Quote:

Original post by _nomad_ why is Islam in this topic? isn't the culprit British?

Quote:

CNN article Authorities immediately banned all passengers headed to or departing from U.S. airports from carrying any liquid in their carry-ons.

Quote:

Original post by CharlesFXD All the menacing chatter about the insidious Bush conspiracy, black helicopters, religious right police, tracking microchips and the one Big Eye watching your every move may fly on your collage campus and your weekly ISO meetings but not in the real world. You guys talk about the freedom to bring water onto a plane as if you as if you had any real experience to compare it against. Take a gander at the real world and listen to what the radical Imams, Ahmadinejad, and the others like them actually have to say about the west, not just the United States, and its total destruction. You people have no idea what’s truly waiting out there for us but if it ever shows up at your door step you could care less if doors were kicked down and the Miranda Rights vanished if it meant your kids wouldn’t be blown up at school. Please stop the preaching and tough-talk about standing up to the supposed Fascist America, American staged terrorist plots, and black clad Bush ordered SturmTruppes breaking into your home and taking you away in the dead of night. It’s an infantile hallucination that you torture yourselves with and its growing tiresome.

Quote:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Quote:

Original post by irreversible Quote: CNN article Authorities immediately banned all passengers headed to or departing from U.S. airports from carrying any liquid in their carry-ons. So it seems Eddie Izzard's prediction is becoming true sooner than anticipated: soon it'll be just cheese - people trying to sever each other's necks with sharpened rolls of cheddar on airplanes.

Quote:

Original post by kryat You are a shitty american.

Quote:

Original post by mattnewport What class would you put the 9/11 attacks in? Taking planes full of people and forcing them to act as part of the bomb? Does that not count as a proxy bomb because the terrorists took their own lives as well?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread The motivation isn't martyrdom, the motivation is to expell the invaders. The martyrdom angle is merely the sugar that helps the medicine go down.

Quote:

Original post by CoffeeMug Quote: Original post by LessBread The motivation isn't martyrdom, the motivation is to expell the invaders. The martyrdom angle is merely the sugar that helps the medicine go down. If I had to guess I'd say it's the other way around. Russia "occupies" Japanese territories, the Japanese don't blow themselves up. Turkey and Greece have contested territories. Overall, there are plenty of countries that have such issues yet people don't blow themselves up. I'd say that territories are far more important for Japan (which has nothing, land-wise) than to the arab world. Sorry, but reality is against your argument. Medieval interpretation of religion is the primary reason for such issues, occupation is just a cover.