Posted on 09/27/2006 12:38:22 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
How about a quick summary?
Israel is a unique problem. It doesn't really seem to matter what Isreal does, insofar as terrorism levels go. To say that there is less or more as a result of what they do is probably pretty hard to prove statistically.
Likewise the withdrawal of American troops and assets from Saudia Arabia, supposedly UBL's number one complaint, has had no effect on al Qaeda's hostility toward America.
That's kind of hard to guage, since we're now in Iraq. It certainly took it off the table, as far as a PR issue. At the core, al-Qa'ida holds a very unpopular philosophy, but they latch on to popular issues to gain support. U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq are two such examples. Without some kind of concrete boogeyman to rally the people against, AQ would only appeal to a very tiny fraction of extremists.
Al-Qa'ida, in many ways, is a political movement masquerading as a religious one. They need current issues to keep themselves relevant, or they will have no meaningful resources or support rolling in.
That, IMHO, is not rational.
Agreed. And Pape misses the fundamental precursor skewing-radicalizing-of the target population of the recruiters. That has already been accomplished in full in the radical mosques and madrassas. All these recruiters then is throw the match of a specific perceived Western provocation into the pool of gasoline of the existent islamo-nazi insanity/.
Cato is full of crap...to say that suicide attacks are up because from foreign occupation not Islamic fundamentalism is idiotic. If they wanted to say that RPG attacks were up because of our having taken the fight to them that would be a correct statements...suicide attacks on the other hand are an idiological weapon used, in this case, by Islamic extremists.
I notice that you inadvertantly missed my question to you earlier. What do you think about the following?
If suicide bombing was caused only by Islamic extremism, then there would have been no statisitcal difference from the rate of incidents pre and post invasion Iraq. We're no more or less infidel now than we were then. Whether or not we agree with it, the perception in the Arab world is that we're a foriegn invading army in the heart of the Arab wrold, and that propaganda is what's used to induce new recruits. Otherwise, we'd be seeing suicide bombers in places other than Iraq.
Before Iraq, the experiences the U.S. had with suicide bombers were seperated by many years. Now we experience them daily, and only in Iraq. That's significant, and the cause is obviously more than simply 'Islamic extremism'. How to handle it is more complicated, of course, but before we can fix a problem we need to figure out what causes it.
Feel free to take a stab at that one.
I did answer it...your example would be fine for RPG attacks and is ludicrous when trying to claim suicide attacks aren't endemic to irrational beliefs...Islamic extremists.
Would the brand name of that matchbook happen to be "Iraq"?
Where were the vast numbers of suicide attacks against Americans prior to 2003? Why are there now hundreds of attacks, and only in Iraq?
That's not an answer, it's a statement unrelated to my questino. It's like saying "Your point is wrong, but you would have been right had you said 'The sun comes up in the east'".
Yes, the sun comes up in the east. You need to have Islamic extremist beliefs before you become a jihadi suicide bomber. Good points all. How does that relate to my post?
Robert Pape's argument that suicide terrorism is an inherently rational act (however evil) stemming from a political agenda is incomplete, in my opinion.
In the short term, obviously Al Qaeda's objectives are politcal. They want us out of Iraq. But long term what they want is the Muslim caliphate, and, I believe, beyond. The caliphate as I understand it would encompass anywhere Muslims used to rule or believe they used to rule. They want absolute Wahabbi rule from Spain to Indonesia, with absolutely no Christian or Jewish presence of any kind in this holy kingdom of Allah, which they believe is a geopolitical reality here and now.
This is not merely a political goal, and it is certainly not rational. It is fundamentally a religious goal.
Given the nature of radical Islam as a relentlessly offensive religion that utilizes jihad as a method of expanding Allah's kingdom, the ultimate goal cannot be anything other than the worldwide dominance of Islam. The fact that suicide bombers aren't necessarily dying with this wish on their lips (yet) doesn't mean that this is not the inevitable goal of radical Islam. Islam, like Christianity, seeks the widest possible influence for its creed and faith. Christianity does it by socialization and evangelism. Islam appears to do it by education and jihad.
Any thoughts on this theory?
The reason they haven't is because suicide attacks are not a weapon of sane and rationale people...in other words, it is the result of the Islamic fundamentalism not occupation or warfare.
I'll see what I can do.
Under your example suicide attacks by U.S. troops against terrorists would have escalated in proportion because of our being there.
Whoa, no fair. You just made the rule, and now you're cheating.
The reason they haven't is because suicide attacks are not a weapon of sane and rationale people...in other words, it is the result of the Islamic fundamentalism not occupation or warfare
If that's the case, then explain this:
If suicide bombing was caused only by Islamic extremism, then there would have been no statisitcal difference from the rate of incidents pre and post invasion Iraq. We're no more or less infidel now than we were then. Whether or not we agree with it, the perception in the Arab world is that we're a foriegn invading army in the heart of the Arab wrold, and that propaganda is what's used to induce new recruits. Otherwise, we'd have seen far more before Iraq, and we'd be seeing suicide bombers in places other than Iraq.
The thesis is pure balderdash, it does not survive elementary contact with history.
Up next from Cato: suicide attacks in Israel result of Israeli occupation of Israel not fault of freakin crazy jihadists.
Mull this over for a bit: al-Qa'ida is a armed political organization masquerading as a religious one.
AQ not only believes in the afterlife, but they have a plan for hhow to fix what's wrong with the world, right here and now. The state of men's souls is of secondary interest to them; it's control the temporal world they're after. While they use and believe in extremist Islamic beliefs, they're
Given the nature of radical Islam as a relentlessly offensive religion that utilizes jihad as a method of expanding Allah's kingdom, the ultimate goal cannot be anything other than the worldwide dominance of Islam.
In that respect, Islam uniquely differs from other religions. (Although it's a textbook example of a cult.) Islam, as an entity, is half religious, and half political. You're not necessarily dealing with both or either at any given time, because in the mind of a Muslim, much of what we separate down lines of 'church' and 'state', they consider interchangeable.
It is possible that over time the movement itself can be deterred. Their goals are irrational, but their decision-making and tactics are intensely rational. If suicide bombing seems not to work, or is resulting in this ideological loss of more and more population centers, they might decide that it just isn't worth the trouble anymore. But something will probably have to change in radical Islam for that to happen.
1. No one is saying that suicide bombing is independent of fanaticism. Kamikazi bombers weren't independent of it. Jihadis aren't independent of it. The point is that it's a phenomenon triggered by territorial concerns. A point that you've been utterly unable to refute.
2. I take it this is your way of saying "I have nothing for your arguements, except for a Maureen Down-esqe jab." I'll see if I can get anyone else to take up the challenge. FReegards.
CATO: "We must understand that suicide terrorism results more from foreign occupation than Islamic fundamentalism..."
Do both of us a favor...try peddling it to someone who might actually believe that kind of BS.
The idea that the Turks or Arabs didn't use suicide bombings earlier may run along the same lines as why samurai didn't use Zeros as kamikazi weapons.
(Insert "elementary contat with history" joke here)
Nor centuries of incessant frontier warfare, nor crusades.
Suicidal charges are quite common in Arab history. Accounts of battles with crusaders and others have numerous accounts. The Hashishim of the Middle Ages being the more famous of the type.
Bali is not famously occupied territory, nor east Africa, nor London.
You're thinking like a Westerner. Muslim hardliners still consider Spain to be occupied territory. In their eyes, anywhere that Islam sets foot is claimed by God to be Dar al Salaam, the house of peace. It's Islamic territory as soon as Muslims congregate there and set up mosques.
How, then, does this totally secular motive explain the suicide attacks since we entered Saudi Arabia in order to protect it from invasion by Iraq in 1991? Or after we left Saudi Arabia for Qatar in 2002?
In all due respect, methinks Pape organized his thesis around a conclusion he was predisposed to support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.