[abu_rashid]

In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.

In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 2001. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.

---
U.S seems to have the midas touch.

[Saeko]

In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.

In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 2001. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.

---
U.S seems to have the midas touch.

Good.

Also, what are IED's?

[KlassWar]

Improvised Explosive Devices, from jury-rigged munitions to the good ol' fertilizer truck. Pretty much anything and everything that's not regular explosive ordnance or a proper plastic explosive.

[Saeko]

Improvised Explosive Devices, from jury-rigged munitions to the good ol' fertilizer truck. Pretty much anything and everything that's not regular explosive ordnance or a proper plastic explosive.

Yeah... I know...

[abu_rashid]

Also, what are IED's?

Not 100% sure what is meant by this, but one can only assume it's something along the lines of: "Well they didn't commit suicide bombings, but they must've been doing IEDs or something!! Because we all know they're violent lunatics.."

IEDs were first used by Westerners, the Irish, who also happened to be suffering invasions and occupations. Seems there's a constant in all these places where violence occurs. I wonder if we can guess what it is? Hint: It's not Muslims (nor any other bogeyman for that matter). Muslims first began using IEDs in the 1980's against, you guessed it, a foreign invasion/occupation force.

[Saeko]

Not 100% sure what is meant by this, but one can only assume it's something along the lines of: "Well they didn't commit suicide bombings, but they must've been doing IEDs or something!! Because we all know they're violent lunatics.."

Lol ok. What I meant was that there were so few suicide bombings in the past because there were no cheap and effective bombs back then. Rest assured that Muslims were pretty creative about slaughtering each other and those around them in all sorts of creative ways since the beginning of time.

IEDs were first used by Westerners, the Irish, who also happened to be suffering invasions and occupations. Seems there's a constant in all these places where violence occurs. I wonder if we can guess what it is? Hint: It's not Muslims (nor any other bogeyman for that matter). Muslims first began using IEDs in the 1980's against, you guessed it, a foreign invasion/occupation force.

Did they learn how to make weapons and war from the Great Satan for the first time in the 80's too?

[abu_rashid]

Prior to Western invasions of Muslim lands there was pretty much no conflict, certainly not on the scale we see today, and even that scale is nothing compared to Western conflicts of recent times anyway. The idea Muslims are violent is just ridiculous, we don't even come remotely close to the West.

[Saeko]

Prior to Western invasions of Muslim lands there was pretty much no conflict, certainly not on the scale we see today, and even that scale is nothing compared to Western conflicts of recent times anyway.

Nice opinion.

The idea Muslims are violent is just ridiculous, we don't even come remotely close to the West.

If you sincerely believe this (which I doubt) then you deserve what you get for being weak and stupid.

[Pants-of-dog]

Lol ok. What I meant was that there were so few suicide bombings in the past because there were no cheap and effective bombs back then.

Do you seriously believe that cheap and effective bombs were unavailable to Muslims prior to 2001?

Rest assured that Muslims were pretty creative about slaughtering each other and those around them in all sorts of creative ways since the beginning of time.

Did they learn how to make weapons and war from the Great Satan for the first time in the 80's too?

I completely agree that Muslims (like everyone else) are capable of being violent, and that they (like everyone else) have a history that shows exactly that.

[taltom]

In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.

In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 2001. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.

---
U.S seems to have the midas touch.

Were I a bit cynical, I'd point out that "Iraq" has existed as a modern nation only since 1920, and during much of that time until now has been ruled by ruthless men with very active secret police. It's hard to gin up suicide bombings when your neighbors are eager to turn you in, and little point to it when the police might arrest and kill most of your family. The dearth of suicide bombings doesn't mean that Iraq was a peaceful place. Far from it. Kurds have been killed by the thousands, and the death toll from the Iraq-Iran war was likely in the hundreds of thousands. Internal sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni was kept low only by constant government oppression of the most brutal sort. Factions in Islam have gone to war many times over the centuries.

The data you cite is obviously meant to buttress a claim that the US is somehow responsible for Iraq's violence, but that doesn't hold water historically. Suicide bombing is but one method of revolt. Give the suicide bombers a bigger group and better weapons, and they stop killing themselves.

The argument that Islam is either violent or not is specious because the concepts are nebulous - there are pacific Muslims and warlike Muslims. But it's undisputed that the religion originally spread through the region at the point of a sword. Islam's formative stage was not pacifistic, but violent.

[Saeko]

Do you seriously believe that cheap and effective bombs were unavailable to Muslims prior to 2001?

No, just that there were very probably less of them on a per year basis in all the hundreds of years before 2001 but after the beginning of Islam.

I completely agree that Muslims (like everyone else) are capable of being violent, and that they (like everyone else) have a history that shows exactly that.

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH POD!?!?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, just that there were very probably less of them on a per year basis in all the hundreds of years before 2001 but after the beginning of Islam.

How does this refute the OP's claim that suicide attacks seem to correlate with foreign invasion and/or occupation rather than religion?

[Saeko]

How does this refute the OP's claim that suicide attacks seem to correlate with foreign invasion and/or occupation rather than religion?

Suicide attacks correlate with effective suicide attack methods. 9/11 would not have been possible before the invention of the plane, for example. However, abu_rashid seems to be blaming the Wright Brothers rather than the Jihadists who carried out the attack.

He also claims that before Western intervention in the Middle East, there was very little war among Muslims, which is certainly false.

[Pants-of-dog]

Suicide attacks correlate with effective suicide attack methods. 9/11 would not have been possible before the invention of the plane, for example. However, abu_rashid seems to be blaming the Wright Brothers rather than the Jihadists who carried out the attack.

Well, like I said, effective suicide attack methods definitely existed prior to 2001, so the massive uptick that coincides with foreign occupation cannot easily be attributed to a lack of effective suicide attack methods.

He also claims that before Western intervention in the Middle East, there was very little war among Muslims, which is certainly false.

Considering how many wars Europeans have among themselves, can we just admit that no religion gets to claim that particular moral high ground?

[Saeko]

Well, like I said, effective suicide attack methods definitely existed prior to 2001, so the massive uptick that coincides with foreign occupation cannot easily be attributed to a lack of effective suicide attack methods.

Considering how many wars Europeans have among themselves, can we just admit that no religion gets to claim that particular moral high ground?

I'm not disputing the claim that people in a wartorn region occupied by foreign powers would resort to suicide attacks. I'm only disagreeing with abu_rashid's insinuations that the Islamic world would be a pacifist paradise without Western meddling.

[Pants-of-dog]

While it would not be a pacifist paradise, there would be less violence and death without Western meddling.

There would be less suicide attacks, certainly.

[Saeko]

While it would not be a pacifist paradise, there would be less violence and death without Western meddling.

There would be less suicide attacks, certainly.

Why? Europe was no more peaceful despite the absence of American imperalism on its shores.

[neopagan]

Singling out Iraq and Pakistan is pointless. Muzzlims have a long history of running amok. It is to be understood when considering the primitive, tribal adherence to Mohammed’s psychotic delusion that he spoke to angels and to God, and the Koran’s separation of the world’s peoples into the faithful and infidels.

But while we are on the subject of chronology here are some Koranic atrocities predating 2001. Of course you could include the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden too, but our resident Muzzlim fanatics will immediately try to say that the ship was in Aden to coerce the will of the people against Allah and Mohamed, so the US could steal Arab oil. Enjoy your petro-dollars. Good explosive don’t come cheap.

1990 EgyptAir Flight 990 217killed (co-pilot’s Islamic rant recorded)
1998 Nairobi: 224 killed, 4500, maimed.
1999 Moscow 293k 651 maimed.

[abu_rashid]

1990 EgyptAir Flight 990 217killed (co-pilot’s Islamic rant recorded)

What did he say?

Most speculation had been based on leaks to the press--in particular, a statement from an unnamed federal law enforcement official on 17 November that the crew member in the co-pilot's seat was recorded as saying: "I made my decision now. I put my faith in God's hands." On 20 November, however, the Associated Press and other papers quoted a senior American official involved in the investigation as saying that this phrase is not actually on the tape.

http://web.archive.org/web/200003030920 ... touti.html

This kind of propaganda often arises from twisting the idea that any Muslim who faces death would ultimately declare their faith in God as their last act, just as I'm sure a lot of Christians would too. The idea that it suggests an evil intent is just ludicrous.

1998 Nairobi: 224 killed, 4500, maimed.

It was post-Iraq invasion (Phase 1).

1999 Moscow 293k 651 maimed.

Would this event have had anything to do with the absolute carnage the Russian military had reaped on the people of Chechnya in your mind? In which about 100,000 civilians were killed?

293? Compared to 100,000? Seriously? don't you feel just ridiculous even mentioning such an insignificant little drop compared to an ocean?

[Pants-of-dog]

Why?

Well, there is the clear correlation between suicide attacks and foreign occupation. If we get rid of the latter, the former should also dwindle to nothing.

Europe was no more peaceful despite the absence of American imperalism on its shores.

Some of the violence in Europe can be attributed to foreign occupation. The IRA are the obvious example.

The fact that Europeans are violent with each other even in the absence of foreign occupation does not contradict the OP's claim that certain types of violence are due to foreign occupation. It is possible for foreign occupation to lead to suicide attacks and for Europeans to have other reasons for killing each other.