Okay, so we can’t wipe out the religion that may or may not be causing the terrorism.
We can’t attack the families of terrorists.
We can’t restrict the rights of terrorists.
Does anyone have an idea for what we CAN do?
I liked that hold idea I heard once of threatening to wrap a terrorists body in pig fat thus preventing him from getting his 72 virgins after he dies.
Try reading the post by Magiver just ahead of yours. Suicide bombers are a symptom of despair. One or two zealots or nutcases may talk themselves into a suicidal action to make a point, but in order to recruit large numbers of such people to make repeated attacks, you need to be able to tap into a feeling of bleak despair that persuades each of them that glorious death is preferable to their hopeless lives. bin Laden was able to find Mohamed el Amir Atta amid his zealous followers, but I suspect the remaining 18 hijackers were less likely to all have the zeal of Atta or bin Laden. Similarly regarding the Palestinian bombers: most of them have been kids who were among the second generation of people being raised in the Occupied Territories, landless people with no apparent hope that they would ever belong to self-governing nation, whose parents had often never been citizens of any country.
We will never completely eliminate the bin Ladens or the Attas, however, we can seriously reduce their pool of recruits by providing hope to the peoples of any region that is currently producing suicides.
Putting the word in all caps hardly makes your point any stronger.
Become an icon? That’s an absurd and stupid retort. Your original turn of phrase was wrong, so now you’re trying to cover that up, sorry bubby, no game.
Matters not what I like, bub, what matters was your overheated mis-explanation and characterization of Zakat. If not Zakat, some other form of money raising would crop up, the mere existence of the personal obligation to ithe is no more explanatory of the funding of al-Qaeda than the same obligation among Catholics is of the funding of the IRA. Your attempt to use this in an explanatory way was silly and ignorant.
Well, then you failed miserably insofar as your comments began with half-informed non-sense.
Well, in addition to pointing out the excessively broad characterizations you made, I also pointed out you misunderstood and mischaracterized a number of points. In short, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Cheated you? You cheated yourself.
What does attacking the family of criminals do? I would point out that collective punishment went out of Western law a bit back.
Of course you can. Once you identity and confirm someone is a terrorist.
What is being done now, only perhaps to be done better. Rigorous intelligence work, break up organizations, address underlying problems.
It’s a ludicrously stupid idea as (a) depends on a false idea that infidels desecrating the martyr’s body after death prevents a Muslim from entering heaven - that’s not part of their ideology at all, adn (b) insults Muslims generally to the extent of making you look like an ignorant reactionary bigot.
Suicide bombers are a symptom of despair.
Unfortunately after the suicide bombings carried out by the two Brits this rule no longer holds true (if it even held true in the first place). It seems it’s less to do with despair and more to do with the almost fanatical brainwashing that Hamas/Islamic Jihad indoctrinates into it’s members.
There have been people in far worse situations than the current Israel/Palestine conflict where the population did not revert to suicide bombing. The two Brits who carried out the attack on Mike’s Place were, for all intents and purposes, decently educated middle class citizens living a life virtually free of ‘despair’. Yet they were willing to leave their family (and in one case two children), to kill themselves in some conflict in which they have no family directly involved (or indirectly, they were Pakistani with little ties to Palestine except for their membership to extremist goups) or in which they themselves are under threat. I know they that they previously studied in Syria but had they even been to the occupied territories prior to their attack?
The same question must be aked of the terrorist leadership. How often does a well known Hamas leader perform a suicide bombing? Or what about a Hamas leaders child/close relatives? Surely they must be feeling the most ‘despair’ being so involved in the conflict? Instead it’s the job of young indoctrinated men/women who probably know fully well that suicide bombings have had absolutely no affect in the past, but who are so indoctrinated to believe that they are actually making a difference. I’m sure every one is virtually brainwashed into believing ‘You will make a difference’ when otherwise they would know very well it would have absolutely no affect on ending the situation.
It’s my opionion that suicide bombers have little to do with the bombers feeling ‘despair’ and feeling that suicide bombing is the only option and everything to do with the fundamentalist indoctrination/brainwashing found in most of the terror groups (as the Brit bombers demonstrated).
Then they’re absolutley morons and have no chance at all of succeeding in their goal. If you have a gun and you’re facing two people, one of which is a soldier and the other is an unarmed civilian, shooting the civilian is a damn good way to get dead.
Morons can cause a fair bit of damage in the short run, but they don’t affect the long run much.**
Actually it doesn’t matter if I think “Jews”, or citizens in a representative democracy, are legitimate military targets. Nor does it matter if you think they are. What matters is if the people doing the targeting think so. As you are no doubt aware, they don’t ask us for approval before striking. Is there anything you can think of, short of full-scale genocide(which, it is my fervent hope you are not suggesting, but I can’t actually tell), which would eliminate all resistance from those you advocate oppressing?
It is clear you believe your ideology superior to your understanding of “theirs” and are willing to advocate forced application of your ideology on “them”. It is equally clear that some extremist Muslims believe their ideology is superior to “ours” and are willing to advocate(and give their only resource, thier lives, in suicide attacks to achieve) forced application of their ideology on “us”. “They” say “Jews are the enemy” and you say “Muslims are the enemy.”
The question has always been, why is your hardline, aggressive, approach intrinsically better than “theirs”? Moreover, what makes you think it will succeed when previous hardline approaches through history(ironically including the one taken by Muslim extremists which has engendered your own vhement opposition) have succeeded in doing little more than galvanizing the occupied/annexed populations and increasing resistance over time?
Enjoy,
Steven
Yeeeesh, Col! Magiver and I had already had an exchange on that point, ending with his post of 05-21-2003 11:26 PM. I’m not nearly as offended by your posting style as a whole lot of other folks, but when an olive branch has been extended, even if you don’t acknowledge it, you don’t need to stay hostile. If you don’t have time for more complete exposition, just let it slide in dignified silence.
A few quotes for Kalt to chew on:
Exodus 32:27 “Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor.”
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 “Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”
Hosea 13:16 “they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up.”
I Kings 22:23 “The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.”
Exodus 21:2,7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do.”
Isaiah 45:7 “I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.”
Matthew 10:34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
II Samuel 21:8-14 “But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land.”
And the ever-popular infidel favorite,
Deuteronomy 13:7,8,9,10 “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.”
So, the Bible sanctions murder, slavery, lying, slaughering innocent children, human sacrifice, and holy war – shall we conclude that Jews and Christians are a bunch of bloodthirsty savages, and give them the same disdain you’re giving for the Muslems? :rolleyes:
I dunno, I’ve always though tomndebb had a bit of a mean look to him.
Guin:
As an Englishman I would agree, but add that neither should England have invaded America and displaced the natives, either.
While it is true that feelings of dispair cause people to do lots of things. But there are two problems with this, 1.) Does it grant anyone feeling dispair (like my homeless case) to commit these acts against the people they are told caused the problem? 2.) This is similar to the idea that poor people are criminals. So what responsibility do rich people have in crime? How much does the rest of the world have to cough up, before these groups of dispair take a certain amount of responsibility for themselves?
Collounsbury, what does a terrorist look like? Can we search them and find a membership card? For a terrorist living the the US, how do you figure out if they’re terrorist without first violating their rates as a citizen? Inocent until proven guilty? What makes someone a terrorist before they commit an attack?
And thanks rjung, I can’t WAIT for someone to come to my door telling me about some other god…
Okay, in response to SentientMeat’s comment, here’s a new problem: What if native Americans or native Canadians, who live in dispair, demand their land back, and begin blowing things up? What is the appropriate response?
In recent months I’ve been changing my position on suicide bombing. I’ve been informally researching the military history of the conflict in the Middle East for a long time now, and a question by gallows fodder allowed me to post some preliminary observations in General Questions a month back.
I’m now not so certain that religion or despair are the primary motivators behind suicide bombing. Rather, I’m beginning to see it as a political and military necessity on the part of the losing side in several ongoing conflicts. Perhaps most telling is that in the above-referenced thread, Tamerlane pointed out that the most prolific suicide-bombing organization is the Tamil Tigers, a non-Muslim group.
Now I envision the situation along these lines. First, postulate a struggle, a political conflict between two or more organizations, one of them being a state. Military technology and training practices have become so sophisticated that it is very, very difficult for a non-state guerilla organization to attack the enemy military, although attempts are still regularly made. Moreover, intelligence and covert operations have likewise grown more sophisticated. The Israelis in particular have been diligent in killing the leaders of “terrorist” organizations whenever they can be found (sometimes with much collateral damage). These advantages rest solely in the hands of the state entity–the opposition cannot afford such luxuries.
What remains is the struggle, and a group of less sophisticated organizations with less experienced leaders and less well-trained followers. So, keeping in mind that the struggle is political, the organizations follow the path of least resistance and hit what they can hit in order to extract what political mileage they can.
Right now, the cheapest bang for the buck is suicide bombings against civilian targets.
Viewed in that light, it seems to me that suicide bombing against civilians appears any time you have two or more opponents who are ideologically strong, but one side has a significant military and intelligence edge over the other. It’s a way of continuing the fight.
I do not subscribe to the idea that the terrorists out there are a small and violent minority, shunned by higher-minded peace-loving folk; rather, I think they are the most vocal expression of a much larger component group, one which supports them by providing training, hiding places, transportation, identity, money, recruits, and most importantly, moral support. It doesn’t have to be an explicit moral support for terrorism, it just has to be support for a same or similar cause–and no better way of continuing the fight.
The bottom line is that suicide bombing is just a continuation of a larger war on another front. When it becomes inexpedient to suicide bomb, the battle will move to yet another field. You want to end the bombing forever? End the struggle.
How do you do that? Hell if I know. At this point, however, I’m certain that the violence will continue so long as there is a glimmer of hope for the losing side which refuses to change its ideals.
Nothing justifies or excuses bombing attacks on civilians, regardless whether the perpetrator includes himself or herself among the dead.
Rather, I am suggesting a pragmatic approach. There will always be ether zealots or kooks (e.g., the two Brits mentioned above) who will be willing to carry out suicide attacks. However, they are a finite set. Each zealot who commits suicide by bombing is no longer able to commit another bombing. On the other hand, the majority of the bombers are not zealots, per se. They tend to be people who see no future to whom the zealots can appeal with emotional arguments playing on their feelings of despair. (Which lets the zealots live to recruit the next bomber from outside the ranks of the zealots–how convenient.) To the extent that we can raise hope among those who are not zealots, we reduce the number of people who can be recruited to suicide.
This is one of my objections to the practice of halting discussions every time a bomb goes off. Every breakdown in the talks persuades more people that the side that disengages has no intention of pursuing peace, so they see no reason to continue living in that situation. (And, yes, I can also point out fallacies in that line of thought. However, such decisions are not made on a strictly rational basis. Pure logic will not dissuade them; hope probably will.)
I would agree with this analysis. I would also point out that my use of the word despair should probably be linked to Sofa King’s description of the struggle. I am not aware (one way or another) that Palestinian youth is more or less suicidal in general than any other youth on the planet. (My vague memory is the suicide is highest among the former Soviet nations.) However, the view that one will live out one’s entire life as a non-citizen in the land of one’s birth, subjected to military assault any time one of my neighbors is suspected of committing a crime, even when I have had no part in that act, connected to the idea that one might change that future through struggle, would lead to the lack of hope that makes it easier to recruit “combatants” (suicide bombers) to the struggle.
On the other hand, the majority of the bombers are not zealots, per se.
I have to disagree. From this article from the BBC.
It seems to never be the case where a potential bomber becomes so full of despair at the current situation that he calls up his local Hamas representative to volunteer to be a suicide bomber.
Rather it is a gradual process of indoctrination in an extremist, fundamentalist environment designed to bend their will to that of the terrorist groups leadership. Isolation from your biological family, and being placed in a new ‘family’ (ie your terrorist cell) are used to remove any influence that might cause you to have second thoughts. It has all the characteristics of the tactics that cults use in keeping their members under control.
Suicide bombers are not created by the Islam. People are desperate and feel it is the only way that they can make a difference. I do not agree with the suicide bombers but how can you condemn a whole religion.
I am currently living in the Middle - East, I actually live in the one of the countries of the “axis of evil” and I have not yet seen anything that shows that Islam creates suicide bombers.
And all that the US has achieved with thier war on terror is reated more hatred against the US because they are depicting Islam and ALL arabs as maniacal suicide bombers, this is the way you will create more hatred are casue more attacks.
The only way the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved, is when Americans stop siding with the Israeli’s and give the peace talks an honest chance, the anti-arab environment is not exactly helpfull to the situation.
Of course, not. In fact, I would have characterized that sort of person as a zealot. What your link describes is a process of culling, recruitment, and creation of a suicide bomber. And where are they selected?
Notice that the article mentions that they are indoctrinated into the political issues after the initial culling and recruitment. I’d have characterized a zealot as one who was already fully imbued with the desire to attack, and then chose bombing as their method.
I have not the words to express my utter contempt for your vile post. So shocked am I that I almost doubt that I have read what you have written.
But you did, didn’t you? You did say “In most cases, the families are not “innocent.” The families encourage these suicide bombers, venerate them as martyrs, and get rewarded financially by the terrorist groups” without irony, apparently oblivious to the fact that there are people in this world with their hearts full of hatred who deliver corresponding bile on the subject of American GIs or British soldiers.
Your emphasis of the word might I consider to be unworthy and cowardly – is this a new thing ot the first time I’ve seen it?
The only way the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved, is when Americans stop siding with the Israeli’s and give the peace talks an honest chance, the anti-arab environment is not exactly helpfull to the situation.
I can reverse that and the meaning stays the same. The only way the Israeli-Arab conflict can be solved, is when Arabs stop siding with Palestine and give peace talks an honest chance. The anti-Jewish environment is not exactly helpful to the situation.
Even if Palestinians vote on an agreement, outside organizations like Hamas will not honor it. They have made it clear that they will continue to attack Israel regardless of the situation. If anything, the attacks have increased whenever any credible progress is made. It would appear that the goal is to prevent a Palestinian state because that would also include a Jewish state.
If you have some Axis-of-Evil insight then spill your guts. You don’t have to post a debate, just put your observations down. They will surely spark more questions for you to expand on.
My apologies if this gets formatted incorrectly. I’m claustrophobic about typing in small boxes and find it necessary to write this using a word processor.