Interesting article on suicide terrorism.

[Orsorum]

Link

I just found this article fascinating, I did not know that much about the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, I must confess my image of the typical Iraqi suicide bomber was that of an Islamic fundamentalist.

Hope you find it worth the read.

 

[Sheepathon]

Quality

 

[syzygy]

the guy doesn't seem to be factoring in the not-so-subtle point that osama and company are wrong in their perceptions, and probably grossly paranoid, if not outright insane.
he seems to be taking their words and pronouncements at fave value, and blends, statistically, the bombings of all groups the world-over and drawing conclusions from that,
rather than looking at the personalities of each organization. additionally, his cause-and-effect thinking is off.

from the article, the author says:

Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the Arabian Peninsula than ever before.

this is flat wrong. we control nothing institutionally within saudi arabia. in fact, we never have. no westerner does, and probably no outsider who does not champion
the wahhabi line. they asked us to rollback our presense there and we complied, without hesitation. we've been sensitive to their internal affairs and tried to be as
discrete as possible given the size of the force we had there pre-2003.

The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

wrong, again. the pivotal factor is osama's insanity, his skewed perceptions, his anti-islamic rantings, and the simple fact that
there are other impressionalble loons out there looking for a purpose in their rootless lives through global mayhem.

 

[Thump553]

Very interesting article. I admit that I have not given much thought to the nuts and bolts of suicide terrorism, but if Professor Pape's research and conclusions are correct, 90% of my preconceptions were dead wrong.

This part especially worried me (TAC is The American Conservative-the interviewer, RP is Professor Pape:

TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?

RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America?s allies in order to try to split the coalition.

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.

I was a bit disappointed that the article did not touch on what Professor Pape would advise us doing in Afganistan, as a central premise of his it that the presence of American troops is a catalyst for terrorism.

 

[homercles337]

@ syzygy, did you not read the article? I get the idea you just clipped pieces you disagreed with. Pretty stupid, IMHO, given that its really informative.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: homercles337
@ syzygy, did you not read the article? I get the idea you just clipped pieces you disagreed with. Pretty stupid, IMHO, given that its really informative.

yes, i 'clipped' PIECES from the article i disagreed with, as anyone would to point out false premises that underlie
the wrongheaded conclusion drawn by the author. there are other 'pieces' i could highlight to undercut the article
further.

he claims that al-qaeda has 'strategic objectives'. brilliant ! so what and no kidding ! but looking at their methods
and the resultant carnage should also inspire a little doubt (and moral revulsion) about the subject's 'grip on reality',
no ?

so you don't like the soldiers in your backyard; so you don't care that your gov't is friendly towards us; so you
don't care for the long term ramifications, whatever they may be, excusing your paranoia . . . and that still would
not justify suicide bombings. placing the loci on american military presence, the terrorist's strategic aims, and their
justifications, turns your attention away from the logic and claims made by osama, zawahiri, et al. thats nuts.

 

[homercles337]

You have MUCH difficulty with communication, eh? Would you care to attempt to make your point (err, your gripes with Prof Pape) in english? Because you seem very confused, or rather i am in attempting to figure out what the hell youre on about. He's not "justifying" suicide-bombing, he's explaining the logic. Get it?

BTW, you dont need to space between the end of a sentence and an exclamation point or question mark.

 

[shira]

Wow! Amazing article. Filled with insights. For example:

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.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: homercles337
@ syzygy, did you not read the article? I get the idea you just clipped pieces you disagreed with. Pretty stupid, IMHO, given that its really informative.

yes, i 'clipped' PIECES from the article i disagreed with, as anyone would to point out false premises that underlie
the wrongheaded conclusion drawn by the author. there are other 'pieces' i could highlight to undercut the article
further.

he claims that al-qaeda has 'strategic objectives'. brilliant ! so what and no kidding ! but looking at their methods
and the resultant carnage should also inspire a little doubt (and moral revulsion) about the subject's 'grip on reality',
no ?

so you don't like the soldiers in your backyard; so you don't care that your gov't is friendly towards us; so you
don't care for the long term ramifications, whatever they may be, excusing your paranoia . . . and that still would
not justify suicide bombings. placing the loci on american military presence, the terrorist's strategic aims, and their
justifications, turns your attention away from the logic and claims made by osama, zawahiri, et al. thats nuts.

Nobody is justifying their logic, simply explaining it. There is a difference, and it's very valuable to be able to get inside the minds of others, even (or maybe especially) if you don't agree with them. Why? Because defeating a person is easy, defeating an ideology requires that you understand it, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Looney]

Good article... started out reading it with much skepticism, but i agree with it by the end.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

What the author fails to account for are the significant religious fundamentalist undertones that tend to define terrorist organizations.

Osama, in many of his statements, makes reference to Islamic folklore, heroes and history...he often evokes the name of Allah, and defines his operations as a "jihad" against the west...suicide bombers are praised and celebrated as martyrs.

Of course terrorist attacks serve a clear strategic objective, and in some, but not all cases, those objectives include combating an occupational force...however, the author fails to address the fact that the common bond, recruiting tool and propganda machine that fuels these terrorist organizations is very much rooted in Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

What the author fails to account for are the significant religious fundamentalist undertones that tend to define terrorist organizations.

Osama, in many of his statements, makes reference to Islamic folklore, heroes and history...he often evokes the name of Allah, and defines his operations as a "jihad" against the west...suicide bombers are praised and celebrated as martyrs.

Of course terrorist attacks serve a clear strategic objective, and in some, but not all cases, those objectives include combating an occupational force...however, the author fails to address the fact that the common bond, recruiting tool and propganda machine that fuels these terrorist organizations is very much rooted in Islamic fundamentalism.

Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

What the author fails to account for are the significant religious fundamentalist undertones that tend to define terrorist organizations.

Osama, in many of his statements, makes reference to Islamic folklore, heroes and history...he often evokes the name of Allah, and defines his operations as a "jihad" against the west...suicide bombers are praised and celebrated as martyrs.

Of course terrorist attacks serve a clear strategic objective, and in some, but not all cases, those objectives include combating an occupational force...however, the author fails to address the fact that the common bond, recruiting tool and propganda machine that fuels these terrorist organizations is very much rooted in Islamic fundamentalism.

Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.

Like the Tamil Tigers, Marxists?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.

So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.

So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?

most of them are religiously motivated. that speaks for itself

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: raildogg
most of them are religiously motivated. that speaks for itself

Not really. Check this out from the OP's linked article:

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

So now tell me what the primary factor is for these increased suicide terror attacks in Iraq.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.

So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?

I can't answer that. There is no "more to blame."

 

[raildogg]

So suicide terrorist attacks are only limited to Iraq now?

are we forgetting other conflicts?

secondly, its homicide bomber, not suicide bomber

for example, the homicide bombers in the Palestinian areas often make a video confessional where they praise allah and how they will go to heaven

for many of these people, religion is a very important factor in how they die and kill other people

the reason the attacks are increasing is because our enemies are becoming less patient and they realize that their time is running out. also another reason is because our post-war planning has been terrible

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: raildogg
So suicide terrorist attacks are only limited to Iraq now?

are we forgetting other conflicts?

I'm simply using Iraq as the most recent example.

 

[piasabird]

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.

This statement says it all.

However, I just cant understand how an Engineering student with a bright future just decides to strap on a bomb and blow innocent people up. How someone that believes in a God can think this is a good idea is a bit wierd to me.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: raildogg
most of them are religiously motivated. that speaks for itself

Not really. Check this out from the OP's linked article:

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

So now tell me what the primary factor is for these increased suicide terror attacks in Iraq.

Is that really a quantifiable fact? If even true there could have been many circumstances that curtailed these attacks. Like for instance maybe Saddams brutal regime?

While there may not have been many official suicide attacks there were many suicide missions by Kurds and Shias in the south over the years.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Osama may be radical, but he definately not insane.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I wish I had four hands, so I could give the article four thumbs up!

Seriously, Dr. Pape's research is extremely articulate (go read the book they mention at the beginning of the article), insightful, and draws upon a vast body of solid facts & evidence. Anyone who reads it and dismisses it is a non-thinking automaton.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.

So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?

Obviously the occupation. Show me in the Quran where it says to suicide bomb.

 

[Fern]

Anyone who reads it and dismisses it is a non-thinking automaton

Yes, just like anyone who reads it and immediately accepts it is a non-thinking automaton. Actually, I think it more like political partisans who immediatley accept it because it supports the view that a war on terrorism creates/breeds more terrorists.

Regardless, at first blush I find it does raise some questions etc:

1) How to determine the motivation of such bombers? I mean, they are dead no?. Well you can't ask them, so clearly assumptions are made (in fact, he cites "demographic data" to support his conclusions regarding these individuals. Demographic data? Seems weak to me). We all know what "assumptions" can lead to.

Geez, I'm wondering how many of these peeps can even be positively identified. After all many were blown to smithereens.

Seems to me the info we've been fed so far by the media would indicate that the actual bombers are more like those who have been taken advantage of by the "terrorist", and not the hard core terrorist themselves. They never blow themselves up.

Remember the retarded kid, or the women who had suffered burns and felt she could never have a family etc. These didn't seem to be motivated in any way by occupation etc. However, their religion does seem to make these "life" choices more acceptable than those of other cultures/religions (70 virgins and a place in heaven under the muslim religion. Even though a distortion of true Islam perhaps).

How about the peeps who apparently did it for the money? Poverty stricken peeps who did it for the $10K or whatever to get their family out of poverty and gain some "fame"?

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never

Speaking of money, didn't Saddam pay for Palestinian suicide bombers? Hence this statement is questionable, even if technically correct.

Ummm, the "suicide bombers of 911 certainly muffed it "big time" if their objective was to drive US forces out of the Middle East, no?

Weren't there Egyptians and other non-Saudi's (U.A.E & Lebanese) involved in 911?

Overall I find that the conclusion regarding the motive for these suicide bombers being "foriegn occupation" is a bit facile and overlooks what appears to be a clear connection to radical Islam fundamentalism and "jihad"

EDIT: Well, he also mentions the Tamils in an effort to extend his analysis and conclusions beyond Arab Muslims. What about Japanese Kamkazzee pilots? They don't seem to fit his paradigm.