What triggers the suicide bomber - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13531126
Los Angeles Times
Foreign occupation, not religious fervor, is the primary motivation behind this form of terrorism.

On Oct. 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with explosives into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines as they slept. This dark chapter of American history was one of the country's first experiences with suicide attack since the Japanese kamikaze pilots during World War II. The attack, combined with the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that April and a sustained terrorism campaign waged by the group that came to be known as Hezbollah, was a major reason President Reagan ordered American forces to leave Lebanon in 1984.

The barracks bombing is perhaps the most well known attack in Lebanon during that period, but it was far from an isolated incident. Hezbollah's campaign of suicide terrorism, mainly against American, French and Israeli military forces along with Western political targets, killed about 900 people. And the attacks would serve as a major inspiration for future terrorist groups that adopted similar tactics, most notably Hamas, Al Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers.

At the time, the prevailing narrative was that these attacks in Lebanon were the result of Shiite Muslim fundamentalism. It has become a common refrain over the last several decades that religion, and Islam in particular, is the primary cause of suicide bombings. This is an easy, convenient and clear argument that fits with the United States' approach to the war on terror over the last decade.

There is just one problem with this argument: It's wrong.

Research I and my colleagues conducted at the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, in which we analyzed each of the more than 2,200 suicide attacks that have taken place throughout the world since 1980, shows that though other factors matter, the primary driver of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation.

In Lebanon, for example, of the 32 successful suicide attackers from 1982 through 1989 whose ideology was identifiable, 22 were communists and socialists with no commitment to religious extremism; five were Christian. Religion served as an auxiliary recruiting tool, but the root cause of the attacks was foreign occupation, and the attacks were designed to coerce the occupying forces — Israel, France and the United States — to withdraw.

The United States has not learned the lessons from Lebanon and is failing to realize that prolonged troop deployments abroad are leading to an increase in suicide attacks and violence against troops and civilians.

What we should be doing is asking whether our military presence in Afghanistan and continued campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan are making us safer. Unfortunately, our research suggests just the opposite.

A more effective approach would be to revert to a policy of working with local governments and institutions and selectively using air power and special forces to accomplish important military objectives. This is an intermediate approach that is neither "cutting and running" nor "staying and dying." It is a way to achieve political objectives without subjecting U.S. forces to unnecessary harm and without further inflaming local passions that in turn lead to a rise of hatred and violence against an occupying power.

Many worry that shifting to such a policy would embolden the terrorists. However, Hezbollah suicide attackers did not follow the Americans to New York, or the French to Paris or even the Israelis to Tel Aviv after those nations left Lebanon. Since the last Israeli ground forces left in May 2000, there has not been a single Hezbollah suicide attack, not even in the summer of 2006, during the three-week air war between Israel and Hezbollah. To be sure, ordinary terrorism has continued, but causing far fewer deaths than suicide attacks.

The U.S. has important strategic interests in Afghanistan and the region and in the Middle East, and it should use all instruments of national power to achieve them. But to continue on the current path is to ignore the causal link between foreign occupation and terrorism, which will make it less likely that we will be able to eradicate this threat in the years ahead.

Robert Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and an expert on terrorism and international security, is the author of the just-released "Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It."


The first female suicide bomber was Sanaa Mehaidli, a Lebanese Socialist!
By mordechaj
#13531699
I agree would be easier to push buttons on rocket launchers then blow yourself up. But its most showing readiness to die for a true, for believes and freedom. West will never understand east way in this show of valor.
By William_H_Dougherty
#13533426
I would say religious stupidity...

I mean...err...not implying that all religious people are stupid...but...

Seriously...have you ever heard of an Athiest Suicide Bomber?

- WHD
By Pants-of-dog
#13533430
Seriously...have you ever heard of an Athiest Suicide Bomber?


Yes. They are called the Tamil Tigers and are responsible for the majority of suicide attacks.
By BassHole
#13533745
Atheist


Tamil Tigers


The majority of Tamils are Hindu, with a reasonable number of Muslims (minority). The Muslim Tamils, in the east of Sri Lanka, are largely afraid of being ruled by the Hindu Tamils, who constitute the majority in the north. This is where the Tamil Tigers are/were based. Tell me where the "atheism" is here?
User avatar
By SecretSquirrel
#13533793
What triggers the suicide bomber


Some sort of fuze attached to a dead-man's switch, I'd reckon


Ter
User avatar
By Verv
#13533860
One thing that helps trigger the suicide bomber is the amount of money that they are promised to be given to their family for their sacrifice.

General ideological zeal contributes to it...

According to the Washington Times, the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are foreigners...

Why would Saudis, Jordanians and the likes desire to blow themselves up for 'Iraqi freedom?' No, it is a much larger perspective focused on an anti-American view and the view of Dar Es Islam, Islam over everything.

This isn't a young movement, either...

Rather, we are going to be stuck fighting Islam as it expands until it either modernizes or becomes extinct.

William_H_Dougherty wrote:I would say religious stupidity...

I mean...err...not implying that all religious people are stupid...but...

Seriously...have you ever heard of an Athiest Suicide Bomber?

- WHD


I thought the point of this thread was that the majority of Lebanese suicide bombers between 1982 and 1989 were identifiable as Socialist or Communist? :)

Other examples of atheist suicide bombers in the broad sense of it would be the human wave attacks conducted by the Chinese & North Korean Inmingun during the Korean War; I am sure if they could have gotten behind enemy lines and infiltrated they would have done it.

Many of the Japanese kamikaze were Mahayana Buddhists probably of the Sohn/Zen school, which would mean that technically many may have been atheist.

Euh, you get the point...

If there is one thing we can learn from history and observation:

Religion does not have the monopoly on ideological zealotry that translates itself into shocking acts of horror.
By Pants-of-dog
#13533891
The majority of Tamils are Hindu, with a reasonable number of Muslims (minority). The Muslim Tamils, in the east of Sri Lanka, are largely afraid of being ruled by the Hindu Tamils, who constitute the majority in the north. This is where the Tamil Tigers are/were based. Tell me where the "atheism" is here?


Not a single Tamil Tiger joined the Tamil Tigers because of their Hinduism. None of them blew themselves up because of their Hinduism. It has far more to do with foreign occupation than religion.

Evidence: the news article in the OP. You don't even have to click on a link!
User avatar
By Ter
#13533899
Interestingly, the Tamil Tigers were annihilated. totally and irreversibly.
The suicide bomber campaign backfired. The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi set India against them and the whole world was disgusted.
The same goes for the Muslim suicide bombers. Normal people are disgusted, it is a public relations disaster.
To make matters worse, they most often chose innocent civilian victims.
Their struggle will never yield victory.
They are losers.


Ter
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#13534013
I don't see what people have against suicide bombing as a tactic. Targeting civilians with suicide attacks is reprehensible, but non-suicide attacks against civilians are equally so, so the ire seems misuided.
User avatar
By Ter
#13534034
ThereBeDragons wrote:I don't see what people have against suicide bombing as a tactic.


No ?
Maybe you don't see it but most people in the West see it as abhorrent.
Is is the lunatic tactic of fanatics. It adds lunacy to terrorism.


Ter
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#13534037
Martyrs are celebrated by all cultures. Fanatical, maybe, but lunatic is a stretch.
By Smilin' Dave
#13534125
TBD has a point. Suicide bombings against civilian targets are essentially low-tech versions of aerial terror bombing. As I recall, the leader of the FLN in Algeria remarked on just such a comparison. It wasn't that long ago that aerial bombing of civilians was common tactics for the West (and modern air campaigns are still focused in part of their morale effect), and people are still arguing the case for area bombing in WWII with similar arguments deployed for suicide bombers
- It was all we had, didn't have the capacity for anything more sophistocated.
- Had a decisive impact on the civilian targets/economy.
- It was revenge/it was a morale booster.
Certainly not something I favour, but it is hardly that exceptional.

So the revulsion of suicide bombers is the attacker kills himself in the act? Symbolic points aside (lol crazy/omg brave), this seems a side issue to the practical elements of the tactic.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#13534134
I don't see what people have against suicide bombing as a tactic.


Its use against non-combatants is what produces the main objection. We're not talking about Hezbollah's bombings of the US Marines barracks in 1983 are we? That wasn't controversial then nor now as far as I can see. It's use as a terrorism tactic, especially by Palestinians, when peaceful negotiations are a fare less costly effort, it what's disgusting.
By BassHole
#13534252
Not a single Tamil Tiger joined the Tamil Tigers because of their Hinduism. None of them blew themselves up because of their Hinduism. It has far more to do with foreign occupation than religion.

Evidence: the news article in the OP. You don't even have to click on a link!


That doesn't make them Atheist in any way, PoD. Religion is clearly a relevant factor, since Muslim Tamils and Hindu Tamils are not unified in their "fight for freedom".

:knife:

Evidence: Analysis: Tamil-Muslim divide
By Decky
#13534276
Tell me where the "atheism" is here?


The Tamil Tigers are Communists, with a mix of atheists hindus and muslims. Their reliion is nothing to do with their suicide bombing.
By Pants-of-dog
#13534376
OMG! Ethnic strife as a result of British colonialism. I"ve never seen that before!

BassHole, the conflict between Tamil Muslims and Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka is due to the effects of British colonialsim. Religion may be another factor, but the main one is the typical "divide-and-conquer" policy of British imperialism.

From your article:

In the east, Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalese constitute a third each of the population.

If the northern and eastern provinces were to be merged as part of any political deal, the Muslims fear they would have to live under the Hindu Tamils of the north.

They have better social and economic mobility, thanks to the historic headstart they had in getting education and government jobs under British colonial rule.

With this in mind, the Muslims in the east have historically tried to forge a separate identity for themselves, based more on religion than on language.
By BassHole
#13534392
From your quote, PoD:

In the east, Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalese constitute a third each of the population.

If the northern and eastern provinces were to be merged as part of any political deal, the Muslims fear they would have to live under the Hindu Tamils of the north.

They have better social and economic mobility, thanks to the historic headstart they had in getting education and government jobs under British colonial rule.

With this in mind, the Muslims in the east have historically tried to forge a separate identity for themselves, based more on religion than on language.


Clearly, religious differences are relevant.
By Pants-of-dog
#13534399
Clearly, religious differences are relevant.


Unless the Hindu Tamils were suicide bombing the Muslim tamils, it is actually irrelevant to the OP.

@JohnRawls 1st I am a Machiavellian... In one t[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]