I’ve had my eye on this book for a while – “Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism” by Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. Kevin Drum linked to an interview with Professor Pape in the American Conservative.
He makes some statements sure to raise the hackles on some of our readers…but I’d want to read his research before responding, and to be honest, an exhaustive review of suicide bombing is worth going over, regardless of whether the ideology expressed by the author agrees with your or not. I think hackle-raising is good, and that it’s important to challenge your assumptions to see how well they stand up.
In the interview, he says:
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: 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. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
Now this is an interesting statement on a number of levels, and one I want to think hard about. He ties suicide bombing closely to nationalist (i.e. territorial) aspirations, not to cultural ones.
This seems like one of those “cleavage” notions; your perceptions on this issue will drive you to one side or the other of a deep political divide. If you believe this is relatively tightly tied to nationalist aspirations, then the terrorists become part and parcel of the admirable line of those fighting for their homelands. If not, it’s the Clash of Cultures, and a global war.
I’ve suggested for a while that there are some fuzzy bridges between the two; that Franz Fanon and Che Guevera are connected to Qutb and Osama bin Laden.
I’ll also suggest that – since I now take the words of our enemies very seriously – you go look at Bin Laden’s original 1998 fatwa; which was based largely on his outrage at the US war against Iraq in the first Gulf War, and on the presence of U.S. military on the Arabian Peninsula.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe that there would have been another causus belli for the Islamists had it not been this. But I think this is an interesting question, and look forward to reading the book.
Have not read it yet, sounds interesting though I have questions about the premise already.
I’m curious if the author included the WWII Kamikazes or the People’s Will terrorists in Tsarist Russia since those examples tend to strongly contradict his ” occupation” model.
Iran, of course sponsored Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah militia that pioneered Arab suicide bombing. (Some experts would even say Hezbollah was a creation of the Pasdaran security services) The Shiite version of Islam has different conceptions of martyrdom and its importance than does the Sunni branch and they make greater distinctions between an acceptable self-sacrifice on behalf of the Ummah and suicide from reasons of individual despair, which is forbidden.
The religiouis allowances for Sunni ” martyrs” to do suicide-bombing in Iraq or Israel are, religiously speaking, quite a stretch made possible by highly selective reading of the Quran. It isn’t mainstream Islam at all and some of the bombers in Israel are anti-religious secular Sunni Palestinian nationalists from the PA’s Fatah organization. By contrast, Iraqi secular nationalist Baathist insurgents don’t seem to be doing suicide-bombings.
Not quite so neat and tidy as explained in that interview but I’m sure the book goes on at much greater length. Jessica Stern’s _Terror in the Name of God_ details how potential suicide bombers are recruited and manipulated by HAMAS and other groups in a way that indicates this is not at all a spontaneous phenomenon of resistance. Another key variable is most likely the psychology of the potential bomber.
I think that his point may be one without as much significance as first appears, A.L. In fact, I think it quickly reduces to semantics. After all, Bin Laden counts Andalusia as part of “arab” territory.
In essence, any conflict can be redefined to be “nationalist”.
I have deep reservations about listing Russia as a “democratic state” during the spike in Chechen suicide bombings from 2002-2004. Suicide bombings have also been used against the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan and the Musharraf military government in Pakistan.
And what of the suicide bombings carried out by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in its sectarian war against Pakistani Shi’ites?
This is Horse Pucky!
I would invite the learned readers and thinkers here to Roger L. Simon’s site and follow the links to alternative points of view:
RLS Link
Dr Rusty at The Jawa Report also has an alternative view:
The Jawa Report
No need for apologists here.
What drives this urgent desire by Dems to label terrorism “justified” and “appeasable” if we just do what the nice terrorists want?
A desperate desire to avoid confronting the reality; we have been in conflict with the Islamic world since the early 1970’s and it will not end until the escalation reaches a critical point: nukes.
If Dems can just roll over for Al-Qaeda there’s no need for any military action anywhere, or law enforcement, or gitmo, or anything else.
That’s what drives it.
Pape: The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
Absolutely false. Assuming that this decades-old tactic required a new lease on death – excuse me, life – it got it from the Intifada, which generated huge support for the Palestinian “cause” among idiotarians, left and right.
And the Intifada was an act of violent aggression against Israel, which is NOT a “foreign occupation”, any more than Libya is a foreign occupation of Africa.
If the response is that Palestinians regard Israel as a foreign occupation, then first of all Pape’s thesis has to be amended to “suicide bombers claim that their targets are foreign occupiers” which begs the whole question of motivation.
Pape: It is a demand-driven phenomenon.
No it is not, it is a results-driven phenomenon. Many people have long predicted that if suicide bombers were successful in Israel, we would eventually face suicide bombers in the US (apart from 9/11). This prediction has already come true for Britain.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy.
This of course is the real point – and the only point – that people like Pape are interested in when they talk about hyper-abstractions like “foreign occupation”. They know that the choir will not ask why Syria has occupied Lebanon for decades without “causing” suicide bombing. Likewise the decades-long Soviet presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. And they will not be asked why suicide bombs go off in Indonesia and India – presumably those are part of the anomalous 5% that were not caused by George Bush.
BTW –
It’s pretty rich that Kevin Drum is quoting with approval the “fascinating” toilet paper that calls itself The American Conservative. In no time at all, he’ll be doing lunch with Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. They can introduce him to their buddies, David Irving and Robert Faurisson.
The Moronic Convergence rolls on.
I might be wrong here, but it strikes me that the kamikazes calling themselves ‘Divine Wind’ is a clue to the motivation for suicidal attacks.
Being an operative in the service of the divine — be it the Emperor, the orthodoxy of the Tzar, or Allah — provides a spiritual foundation for suicide strikes. Upon that foundation can be any veneer — fighting imperialists, invaders, Zionists, etc. — it almost doesn’t matter what the stated grievance is.
I think it’s one of the reasons why the Soviets had the losing hand in the longrun. They had no divine inspiration. At best, their inspiration was rationalism; at worst, it was personality cults like Stalin. (Actually, those are both pretty bad). Niether ideology could inspire armies of suicidal heroes without the prodding of bayonets.
And this is the reason why I don’t buy the notion that if the West pulled out of the Gulf these jihadists would be satisfied. Because, in the end, they don’t really care about those earthly objectives. The objective of suicide attacks is Elysium, not Andalusia.
Actually, Marcus, the “Kamikaze” was a reference to a storm that saved ancient Japan from an invasion fleet from the Korean peninsula.
But while the name doesn’t completely support your point, it is true that the Japanese saw the suicide guided attack as a way for them to use their “spiritual” superiority to match America’s material superiority. But I think that the cultural comparisons break down quickly after that.
I would also note that those suicide bombings carried out by Marxist groups generally tend to be the kind that are so driven by personality cults that they border on being nothing short of mini-religions themselves. The PKK, for example, is pretty much stuck at Year 0, complete with gender segregation and its reverence for the now-imprisoned supremo.
The LTTE rank and file, similarly, believes a lot of really whacky stuff about Prabhakaran having supernatural powers and the like, which I think he originally borrowed from Mao.
No it is not, it is a results-driven phenomenon. Many people have long predicted that if suicide bombers were successful in Israel, we would eventually face suicide bombers in the US (apart from 9/11). This prediction has already come true for Britain.
Robin (#2)
_I think that his point may be one without as much significance as first appears, A.L. In fact, I think it quickly reduces to semantics. After all, Bin Laden counts Andalusia as part of “arab” territory._
Good point, but it is not Andalusia, but Al-Andalus, that is, all Portugal and Spain south of a line from Barcelona to Porto: 75% of both countries.
Moreover, the entire World is Dar-al-Islam, that is, the place where someday Islam will prevail, so I don’t think withdrawal is a clever tactic.
Moreover, the entire World is Dar-al-Islam, that is, the place where someday Islam will prevail, so I don’t think withdrawal is a clever tactic.
Not without better spaceflight technology than currently exists nowadays. :-/
Seems to me these territorial aspirations are cultural in origin, such as dar-Islam and the purity of the peninsula. There has been a U.S. military presence on the Arabian peninsula since WWII. It is only with an increasing sense of relative deprivation, that some muslims sought the return to an ideal, religiously pure time.
Now I remember Pape. He wrote an editorial attempting to discredit any connection “between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.”:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0506290016jun29,0,3610018.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
I found some of the statments in that editorial to be two-clever-by-half or misleading. Example:
_Iran, with 70 million people, three times the population of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, has never produced an Al Qaeda suicide terrorist._
The main problem though (“Rev. Sensing pointed out”:http://www.donaldsensing.com/?p=293 ) is that suicide bombing is only a tactic and Pape treats it like the entire issue (such as ignoring Iranian financial support for suicide terrorists).
For the individual suicide bomber, the motivations are likely to be multiply determined. However, to discount the religious motivations is absurd. The Western world is filled with people who cannot imagine that ayone could be motivated by religious fervor (except, of course, right wing Christians, who are dismissable by them). The secular community takes it as a matter of faith (my contradiction is intentional) that no one can believe strongly enough in their religion to kill themself in a suicide attack. They would never feel that strongly about their beliefs to risk their livces, so how could anyone else?
_I think it’s one of the reasons why the Soviets had the losing hand in the longrun. They had no divine inspiration._
Except they used suicide bombers in WWII. But who needs reality. Also the communist PKK and LTTE use them.
_Upon that foundation can be any veneer — fighting imperialists, invaders, Zionists, etc. — it almost doesn’t matter what the stated grievance is._
Except the three examples you give are all occupiers. Besides it is quite obvious that the people of Islamic Jihad would still bomb Israel even if all Israeli’s would change to become muslim tommorow but that this would be doubtfull if they left (greater) Palestina
_Iran, with 70 million people, three times the population of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, has never produced an Al Qaeda suicide terrorist._
Maybe it also has to do with AQ Sunni Iran Shiite. Besides is this true for MEK and the terrorists in what Saddam called Arabistan?
a #17:
Besides it is quite obvious that the people of Islamic Jihad would still bomb Israel even if all Israeli’s would change to become muslim tommorow but that this would be doubtfull if they left (greater) Palestina
Just like the Hizb’allah folks would not target Jews outside of Israel, well, except for that little thing in Argentina… I’m sure that the friendly folks at the Islamic Holy War would decide to stop the day after every Israeli emigrated. After all, there’s a huge history of Muslims treating the untermen- er, Jews, just like equals, right? Meanwhile, in real life, long before the creation of Israel, Muslim treatment of Jews was never fantastic. When my mom was a kid in Morocco, the Jews in villages would be rounded up and burned at the stake. I happened to be in Morocco in synagogue when the king died – the fear spread across the room, palpably; a fear that the Muslims would take out the king’s death on the Jews. Recall, by the way, that Morocco is a “moderate” country.
Even if Israel picked up and disappeared tomorrow, Muslim fanatics, such as those in Jihad, would not stop their atrocities.
When even our broadcasts over satellite are considered “imperialism” and ANY cultural contact at all is construed as subversive then our very existence is what truly offends the Jihadists.
First, what is “nationalist” in that context? Nationalism is, in it’s European origins, not defined by religion, religion is transnational. If you count all countries where muslims live their “nation”, than we talk about more than Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the West Bank, than we talk about global dominance.
I think that geting American’s out of Iraq is not a strategic, but a tactical goal: a first step.
Second point, suicide bombers are human weapons that are especially useful for the Djihadist, as they are not able to talk afterwords. It’s a clean operation.
They are used for spreading terror, that means spreading fear and anger. But it’s not just terror for it’s own sake, it’s always part of a strategy. Getting the Infidels out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, than out of Palestine (the entire Palestine). These are first steps. There are more to follow. Why London now? Because it doesn’t work in Iraq and Afghanistan: no mass movement against the occupation. They are loosing. So the choose to repead Madrid: bomb the British, and they will withdraw. But this doesn’t work either. British people are not afraid.
The price of the War on Terror is high, yes, but not to fight the War on Terror would mean to pay a much higher price, in the long run.
Suicide bombers are essentially war products, or more precisely terrorism munitions, like trashy, non-bullet-proof terminators. In Israel, one can see the entire process of manufacturing, from the fertile womb to the systematic indoctrination in hatred to the final payment of the families. The process is deliberate, systematic, organised and effective. We can see how the production runs have been improved, from the early and crude standard military-demographics line, to the more varied and appealing Innocent Child and Pregnant Woman models. There’s no mystery about any of it.
To say that this is demand driven and not supply driven is the same as saying that light antitank weapons are demand driven and not supply driven. It’s gobbeldygook.
Of course there’s not just a few hundred of them and when they’re used up there can be no more. You can make more, as with any other munitions.
Of course the implication that it’s not supply driven so there’s an infinite supply is nonsense. There’s not an infinite supply of anything in war, and if you attack the various stages of the manufacturing processes, from the importation of labour, raw materials and specialists to the construction of jihad indoctrination sites and onwards, you can inhibit supply.
Naturally if you don’t attack the stages of the manufacturing process, regarding the mosques where the hate-programming goes on as religious sites and off limits, then manufacture of suicide munitions is correspondingly less limited.
The enemy cobbles them together from Downs Syndrome and retarded children. It’s just kit-bashing.
“RP: Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop — and often on a dime.”
Gee – can you really stop manufacturing improvised explosive devices – ambulatory and non-ambulatory – just like that!? “… on a dime” – wow!
Naturally, people make more of what works. If we prove to the organisers of jihad that we can be beaten by suicide munitions, then we will see a lot more of them, until all jihad ambitions, which are unlimited,. are satisfied. And if we utterly crushed the enemy, which will not happen for many reasons prominently including our weakness of will, we would see an end to them, at least as much as you can end any terror weapon. That is, we would see less of them till the next evil enemy decided that this class of weapons was useful and easy for them to build, and started making them in numbers.
It’s not mysterious. It really isn’t.
But, when you’ve finished the book, I’ll read your thoughts with interest anyway. 🙂
Wow, how many times have we heard, terrorism is a tactic, how can you fight a war against a tactic.
Pape may (or may not) be correct on a tactical level.
But what about on the strategic level.
What is the enemies strategic goal in removing us from Iraq and the Middle East?
Where is this consideration in his research?
I think Pape’s phrasing is also interesting.
He notes that tens of thousands of American troops have been stationed “on the Arabian peninsula.” But notice that what fired up Osama bin Laden was their presence in Saudi Arabia, i.e., the “land of Mecca and Medina.”
By Pape’s argument, it would seem that the presence of US troops anywhere in the region will result in suicide bombings. American troops in Kuwait, in Qatar, in Bahrain (current home of the US Gulf squadron), in Oman.
If one were to extend the “Arabian peninsula” just a tad, our presence in Jordan or Iraq will lead to the same effect—even if there were no US troops in Saudi Arabia.
Apparently, the only solution is a US withdrawal from the region.
Bin Laden’s statement also talks of Andalus. Exactly what are we supposed to do about that? One might also wonder exactly what Thailand is “occupying” besides Thailand. Or the Christians of Aceh, other than their homes.
I, too, take the terrorists’ words seriously – but that is different from taking their excuses seriously. Read enough of their words, and one realizes very quickly that excuses is all they are – they are connected to, but not related to, the fundamental ugliness underneath.
_Just like the Hizb’allah folks would not target Jews outside of Israel, well, except for that little thing in Argentina… I’m sure_
Hizb’allah did do that ones and after that Israel behaved much better. Wonder why.
_that the friendly folks at the Islamic Holy War would decide to stop the day after every Israeli emigrated. After all, there’s a huge history of Muslims treating the untermen- er, Jews, just like equals, right?_
minorities are always treated second best. Has nothing to do with being jew. But the Arabs did have a good record for the treatment of minorities. Atleast when compared with European Christians.
I actually don’t think it would stop immediately but it would be gone in a generation and it would be in much lower numbers than what you now have in Israel
_Nationalism is, in it’s European origins, not defined by religion, religion is transnational._
You must be joking. The only real difference
between a Croat, Bosnian or Serbian is faith. The same is true in Northern Ireland. A core part of being French, Spanish or Italian was being catholic and a core part of being Dutch, British or Swedish was being protestant.
_no mass movement against the occupation._
So those Iraqi mp’s who want the americans to leave have no backing. Nor the insurgents in Western Iraq.
_To say that this is demand driven and not supply driven is the same as saying that light antitank weapons are demand driven and not supply driven. It’s gobbeldygook._
The production of anti tank weapons is obviously demand driven. In peace time you design them but make only a few while in war time the number of weapons build is increased significant. It is like the production of the Sherman tank was supply driven. Those factories would have produced cars and trucks instead if there wasn’t WWII
_What is the enemies strategic goal in removing us from Iraq and the Middle East?_
Dumb question. What was the goal of the Americans when they tried to remove the British in the war of independence.
_in Bahrain_
I doubt there will be American troops in Bahrain after the next democratic elections
_Apparently, the only solution is a US withdrawal from the region._
Seems to be the best solution. Why is the US anyway in that region?
_One might also wonder exactly what Thailand is “occupying” besides Thailand. Or the Christians of Aceh, other than their homes._
Thailand only conquered those muslim areas very recently so it is not like the occupation of the Basque. Christians of Aceh are most like people from other parts of Indonesia and as such colonists in the eyes of the locals. I seriously doubt that it matters that they are Christians.
a (#18): I agree with you. Pape wrote an editorial denying the religous significance of suicide terrorism and for support he states that (shiite) Iran had not produced any (sunni) Al Qaeda suicide terrorists. I find this to be a quite disingenous example of mixing and matching to produce an outcome. I do not trust him.
“a”, your reference to the Arab treatment of minorities being good in comparison to european christian might have been correct half a millenia ago, but since the 19th Century your point fades. Today, the culture demonstrates a racism second to none and not solely in the form of an anti-semitism more virulent that Alfred Rosenburg would recognize.
Most Christians living in the Moluccas and Sulawesi are ethnically identical to their Muslim oppressors. They are targeted out of a mixture of ultra-nationalism (wanting to prevent the Christians from breaking away a la East Timor) and religious bigotry, with the latter in particular being a major motivator for the fighting in Sulawesi.
a #26,
Hizb’allah did do that ones and after that Israel behaved much better. Wonder why.
I don’t even know where to start with this one. Did Israel “behave better” after the Olympics massacre? Do you think that Hizb’Allah’s terrorism is justified by Israel’s “better behavior”? What exactly constitutes “better behavior”? And if Hizb’Allah saw “better behavior” after bombing some innocents in Argentina, wouldn’t they keep on doing it? I don’t understand why folks who clearly don’t place much value on the human life of their enemies would not want more “better behavior”.
minorities are always treated second best. Has nothing to do with being jew.
When the Christians conquered Spain, IIRC, they gave Jews three days to leave and the Muslims about a year. Even if I don’t recall correctly, the time frame was much longer for Muslims than Jews.
But the Arabs did have a good record for the treatment of minorities. Atleast when compared with European Christians.
I’m not sure that the Berbers would agree with you, given the suppression of their culture and indigenous religion over the millenia-long rule by Arabs. Jews, specifically, were at times treated better by Arabs than by Christians – but the best treatment of Jews was under Ottoman rule or at the periphery of Arab territories (Andalusia), not in the heart of Arab lands. Further, if you take a walk around the Jewish ghetto in Rabat and realize that Jews were forced to live there until the founding of Israel, you might even be forced to conclude that Arab treatment of Jews (as a minority living in their country) has improved since the creation of Israel.
I actually don’t think it would stop immediately but it would be gone in a generation and it would be in much lower numbers than what you now have in Israel
That’s because you don’t understand the Arab mentality.
PD Shaw, I do not trust Pape either, not at all.
But even if a liar says the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, it still does.
I am inclined to think that the specifically Muslim angle in suicide terrorism is being exaggerated.
Terrorism in general, sure: there I think the connection is being understated. The salafists are telling the truth: Mohammed was like the worst terrorists we see today, or even worse than most. It’s a tremendous advantage for jihadis in a scriptural and literalist religion that all they have to do is quote the holy texts and all the history we have, and it backs them up. You will never get that out of Islam.
But suicide, no. That is not Muslim. Muslim is a triumphalist religion, even taking the assassins into account, even taking Shi’ite martyrdom into account. Be as fatalist as you like – and Islam can be very fatalist indeed – but deliberate suicide is still an extra step, it is still against the rules, and it is still awkward to square with the psychology of victory and plunder, with the golden promises that you will take the lives, the women, the property and the lands of the infidels, no matter how averse they are. Muslims are supposed to dominate, not “die like the carp”.
I honestly think that for specifically suicidal terrorism, you could do just as well with Christians. Get a Klan style race holy war thing going, emphasise sacrifice and the Cross … It can be done.
Ultimately the creation of suicide bombers is a fairly mechanical process. You have a lot more work to do it you start with Amish, and a lot less if you start with Muslims, but this is ultimately about the straightforward cultivation and application of hate. No one religion deserves the rap for it, not even all religions, since you can brainwash atheists as suicide terror munitions too. We’re just a sucky species in some ways.
I think we need to realize that not all suicide terrorists are alike. There is surely a continuum on one extreme of which are religious fanatics who will not cease to be militant as long as there is someone who disagrees with their views. These types make up an incredibly small minority. At the other extreme we have a relative (and by relative, I mean to militarism) moderate who is attracted to the views of the extremist as a result of circumstance. This type of suicide terrorist surely makes up the vast majority of what we end up experiencing in the form of actual suicide attacks.
So if we set our sights on improving conditions for these relative “moderates” who are opportunistically brought over to extremism we can eliminate an extreme percentage of the human resources that suicide terrorists have. However, if we impoverish these populations of non-terrorist but religous we provide a HUGE resource for the opportunistic suicide-terrorists to draw from.
So you’re right that withdrawing may not eliminate the problem. However, I would certainly prefer to have suicide terrorists grasping for absent support in their own lands rather than opportunistically expanding into whatever place we decide to blunder into and mess up enough to make people consider complete extremism.
(Understand that my “moderate” I refer to someone we would generally consider extremist, but who is not terrorist.)
David Blue: I agree with much of what you say, particularly the distinction you draw between terrorism and suicide terrorism. Pape’s focus on one, but not the other, limits our ability to extrapolate broadly from his findings.
But the other thing you brought up is also important. _Ultimately the creation of suicide bombers is a fairly mechanical process._ Pape is focussed on one “input” in that process, which is the human component. Doing so, he gets to ignore financial, educational, and territorial support offered by some of the countries like Iraq and Iran that contribute to that process.
#28
_but since the 19th Century._
Make that 20th century. And that is more a reaction on the Nazi’s and Urbanisation than anything else
#29 But aceh is not exactly in the neighbourhood of the moluccas. Wouldn’t have made that argument it that case.
#30 Israel bombed innocent people too. And they did that a lot less after Argentina. Besides Hezbollah was obvious the during assholes who fought on the good side during the Israeli occupation of lebanon. I don’t think you want to hear it but it is true.
_When the Christians conquered Spain, IIRC, they gave Jews three days to leave and the Muslims about a year. Even if I don’t recall correctly, the time frame was much longer for Muslims than Jews._
What has did to do with how Muslims treat minorities?
_I’m not sure that the Berbers would agree with you, given the suppression of their culture and indigenous religion over the millenia-long rule by Arabs._
Berbers still exist.
#31
_Mohammed was like the worst terrorists we see today_
Terrorisme is a methode you use if you can’t use real a militairy. Mohammed had an army. And for his time he wasn’t particulary war like, but he was extremely succesfull. He is the L. Ron Hubbard of the 8th century
_You will never get that out of Islam._
Nor out the Bible or most other religious text. Even the pacifised can be contorted into a call to arms. My suggestion is to ban religion.
a #34,
Israel bombed innocent people too. And they did that a lot less after Argentina. Besides Hezbollah was obvious the during assholes who fought on the good side during the Israeli occupation of lebanon. I don’t think you want to hear it but it is true.
Let’s just assume what you say is true. If Hezb’Allah managed to change Israeli behavior by bombing innocents, why wouldn’t they keep on going?
What has did to do with how Muslims treat minorities?
It doesn’t. It has to do with how dominant groups may treat different minorities differently.
Berbers still exist.
Jews still exist too. That doesn’t mean that Berbers haven’t been persecuted or that their culture hasn’t been all-but eliminated.
Sorry to come in so late…
What intrigued me about this is that at the same time I was reading the Kevin Drum post, I happened to look up and see Conrad’s ‘The Secret Agent’ on my bookshelf, and was reminded that there have been waves of terrorist activity – even in Europe – in the past. We’re highly focused on Islamist terrorism (for a good reason) and spend a lot of time seeing what’s unique about it.
It might be useful to see what is not unique about it as we look for levers to effect change.
A.L.
PD Shaw, thanks for the kind words. We are on the same page.
Saddam certainly believed if you pay for something you get more of it. He wasn’t shy about his suicide bombers’ bounty. (link)
Muslim education worldwide emphasises hatred and jihad. Not because that’s in the self-interest of every Muslim community. Not because that’s the only imaginable kind of Islam. Because Saudia Arabia pays for Wahhabi hatred, and they get what they pay for.
When someone’s hyped up, paid up, funned up and doped up (which means someone has to supply the drugs and the whores) and ready to blow, they still need the tools, and it’s not abstract “nationalism” or Islam in the abstract either that’s advancing the science of vehicle borne improvised explosive devices by leaps and bounds in Iraq.
All this is not more mysterious, ultimately, than delivering an artillery shell to a target.
On motivation, I’m going to quote this bit from Michael Yom (link), because his posts are so long I don’t want to send you on a lengthy search.
“The Mythical Heaven’s Houris
Many things are well-known here in Iraq but seldom, if ever, mentioned in the news. For example, Jihadist bombers are notorious for engaging in debauchery on a stag party scale the eve of their “holy mission.” The modus operandi for their crime against humanity is to get drugged up and thoroughly drunk the night before, lay up with a prostitute and then start the countdown on their souls by turning themselves into bomb delivery devices which explode while they are still high on drugs.
Many believe that what motivates many of the murderers is a selfish belief that their final actions ensure a most comfortable eternity, after a painless passage to Heaven where a harem of 72 Houris waits to service them. The word Houri describes a sensuous dark-eyed maiden, untouched by man or jinn, reserved for faithful Muslim men in Heaven. (This topic is apparently highly debated in America, but not here.)
In fact, one citizen of Mosul told me that the 72 is just a number that the Americans made up; a kind of exaggeration. “They only get 7 Houris,” he said, turning his nose up at the insignificance of that deal. Others think it’s just a sham, like those “great” time-share “deals” where the duped buyer arrives at the airport of a tropical paradise, only to find no one waiting to transport them to their “luxury vacation home.” Still others say it’s less about fanatical glory and more about familial greed, with survivor benefits exceeding annual household income exponentially. Plus they get the Houris.
Apparently it is taking a increasing amount of trickery and coercion to transform someone into sanctimonious shrapnel.”
I admit, when I say you could get Christians to do this, that’s sheer assertion. What we see here is Islam, plus basic biology and chemistry. (But hey, drugs are interdenominational.)
But it seems to me there’s no case at all here for Robert Pape’s alleged nationalism, striving to expel the foreigners. What we see here is the purest transnational fanaticism, with foreigners unambiguously motivated by Islam swarming in to Iraq to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqis in the security services, oh and Americans too.
Ariel:
bq. I don’t even know where to start with this one.
‘a’ is a European leftist. Is it any wonder he can see the bright side of Jews being slaughtered?
72 black-eyed virgins
#37 David
My sources indicate you got part of the 72 black-eyed virgins partially right.
This is a myth prepetuated by a slick fraud or so they say on recruits induced to become assassins by a sect of Islam that eventually the word “assassins” is derived.
The new recruits were secretly “drugged” and then moved to a room with virginal delights. They were drugged again and moved back to the original room. They were told what they “dreamed” was a foretaste of what Allah had prepared for them in Paradise when they died. They fought furiously, believing that their death would only return them to that Paradise.
Read More Here
[See heading History of the Hashshashins]
Pape is one of those guys who fits the facts to his theory.
Do the Palestinians claim they are an occupied people? Check the occupation box. Do they want to drive the Jews into the sea? A mere bag of shells.
Do the Iraqi insurgents want to overthrow a democratically elected government because it is dominated by Shia and Kurds? No. They only want the Americans to leave. Which is why they go around bombing civilians.
And of course they only want force the Spanish to stop their occupation of El Andalus.
Let me vamp for a minute while I think up a strategic reason for bombing London, or Bali, or Istanbul, or Rihyad, or Manila.
The point is that Pape needs to spit out the kool-aid, or maybe have an exorcisim.
Colt #38,
It’s the “better behavior” thing that gets me. I really want to know what is meant by that. And why a bunch of murderers would stop conducting that same sort of action if it resulted in better behavior. Did they suddenly grow scruples after getting a small amount of “better behavior”? There’s an inconsistency here. (As you might expect…)
Because Hezb’Allah has the same weak spot as Israel. Both like it when their army is fighting but they both rather not see their civilians hurt. They can both go full out and target civilians but they don’t do that because they know that that their own civilians will also be hit.
#48 I don’t like to see the death of anybody. Not innocent jews nor innocent moslims. But you do as if the only guilth party was Hezbollah in this dance of death while it was Israel who occupied Lebanon.
Ariel, Israel was running a large bombing campaign in Lebanon, mostly for their colatoral damage. They stopped doing that after Argentina and as such their behaviour was a lot better.
a #42, #43,
Just out of curiousity, why did Israel “occupy Lebanon”? And during which time frame was Israel occupying all of Lebanon?
Incidentally, when the enemy is placing their arms dumps under civilian buildings, as the PLO was doing in Lebanon, by the laws of war, its their responsibility, not Israel’s, if the building is bombed. Despite your lies, Israel’s aim was not collateral damage – it was to take out the weapons of the enemy. Collateral damage was caused by the enemy placing its weapons on and under civilian targets as in this case noted by Muravchik, where Israel “soon released reconnaissance photos showing the embassy area honeycombed with tanks, mortars, heavy machine guns and antiaircraft positions.”
Also, there is a timeline problem to your lies. (As an aside, one problem with lying is that it is difficult to unentangle yourself.) Argentina was bombed in 1992 and 1994. Israel was most active in Lebanon in the 1980s – by the 90s, they were scaling down, if anything.
Israel invaded Lebanon to get rid of the PLO. It was gone in 1983 but Israel was still there in 1994. Why i don’t know?
AFAIK i never said that Israel occupied the whole of Lebanon but does that matter. It still occupied the southern part. And we are talking about Hezbollah not the PLO. Hezbollah isn’t really friendly with the Palestinians in Lebanon. (I share Hezbollah’s opinion that they should be kicked home. That Israel would lose its Jewish majority is not my problem).
_Israel’s aim was not collateral damage _
That is never their aim, they just can’t aim.
Argentina actions came always after a few months of intense battle and they died down after that
“a”, now you are oversimplifying the history of Israel’s intervention in Lebanon. The hypocrisy of attacking Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon is always amusing given the far more extensive occupation ( and creation of puppet governments ) by Syria.
Historically the IDF is actually relatively careful of civilian casualties. You are just slandering baselessly again.
a #45,
Israel invaded Lebanon to get rid of the PLO.
Was there any reason why they wanted to do so?
i never said that Israel occupied the whole of Lebanon but does that matter.
You said that there was an Israeli occupation of Lebanon. It doesn’t really matter.
And we are talking about Hezbollah not the PLO.
Given that Hizb’Allah is not native to Lebanon being an Iranian plaything, it’s not at all clear that it wasn’t Hizb’Allah occupying part of the territory as well as Israel. Regardless, Hizb’Allah continued the PLO tricks of hiding military installations in the middle of refugee camps or using the UN for cover. So if Israel was aiming for collateral damage, as you mistakenly assert, or if the collateral damage was merely, as the phrase denotes, collateral, the responsibility is still on the folks who refuse to separate their military installations from their civilian ones.
Hezbollah isn’t really friendly with the Palestinians in Lebanon. (I share Hezbollah’s opinion that they should be kicked home. That Israel would lose its Jewish majority is not my problem).
While that’s an interesting opinion, given “Palestinian” history, it’s more than likely that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Egypt is their home. You can read about Mark Twain’s journeys in the Holy Land to hear more about this.
bq. (I share Hezbollah’s opinion that they should be kicked home. That Israel would lose its Jewish majority is not my problem).
But ‘palestinians’ in Lebanon is your problem?
Any excuse to destroy Israel, eh?
I sincerely think the main cause is more inmediate, Colt. Probably any excuse so TOTAL can sign a new agreement to obtain cheaper oil, though anti-israelism and anti-semitism complete the ideological side of the matter.
#47
The PLO wanted top go home (and remove the illegal immigrants)
Israel occupied a 10 km large buffer zone inside Lebanon. Don’t be dumb and say it wasn’t so.
If the locals say that Hezbollah are occupi
#48
Not destroy Israel. Just have them abid by normal rules. The cleansing of Muslims and Croats by the Serbs in Bosnia was also succesfull but they were also forced to take them back. That that would mean that Israel would loose its Jewish majority is not my problem.