Incorrect. Correlation does not imply causation. In addition, it is up to the claimant (i.e. YOU) to prove there is a causative link, not others to prove there isn't (see the logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof).
There are many reasons, independant of territorial concerns, that would explain an increase in suicide bombings in Iraq. First, it might be closer to the bombers, thereby making it easier for them to bomb (it's much harder to slip a terrorist with explosives into the US... plus, the closer to the bad guys, the more of them that will be able/willing to attack). Or the terrorists might see suicide bombing as a more viable tactic (based on local conditions) there than here. Or the increase in attacks might be a sign that the terrorists are afraid their religious, cultural, or political goals are in danger of failing, and they could be a sign of desparation. The Japanese didn't start the war with banzai charges and kamikazes; only after their supplies and escape routes were cut off or when they had run out of trained pilots did they resort to suicide attacks.
There are many plausible explanations for the increase in suicide bomobings in Iraq that have little to do with territorial concerns (especially since many of the terrorists and bombers are being shipped in to Iraq in the first place...). It is your job to prove that their motivation is purely territorial, which so far you have shown little persuasive evidence for...
Fair enough. Occam's razor is a pretty effective tool with issues like this, but we'll dig a little deeper.
There are many reasons, independant of territorial concerns, that would explain an increase in suicide bombings in Iraq. First, it might be closer to the bombers, thereby making it easier for them to bomb (it's much harder to slip a terrorist with explosives into the US... plus, the closer to the bad guys, the more of them that will be able/willing to attack).
Rather than risk repeating myself, please reference post 80.
In addition, I'll point out that many of the suicide bombers in Iraq have traveled from places as far as Pakistan, Morocco, and central Africa, and on their own dime. They could make it, if not to America itself, than to somewhere adjacent with lax borders (if there were such a place) and either slip across, or attack the first outpost they ran across.
If they attack checkpoints in Ramadi after flying in from Algeria, certainly they could have hit one San Diego border station by now? The bar is slightly higher, but it's still quite feasible, and would have a far greater impact, if you're motivated by sheer anti-American religious fanaticism, and not a sense of cultural and territorial defense.
Or the terrorists might see suicide bombing as a more viable tactic (based on local conditions) there than here.
It's a viable tactic only insofar as you can motivate people to do it. The materials can be bought or smuggled for close to nothing, and assembled with information available on the internet. Once you have willing subjects, you're 95% of the way there.
The equipment is the easy part. There's no reason you have to ship the bombers with the bombs. That's not how they do it in Iraq, so there's no reason they'd want to do it here. You'd have one cell that's responsible for making the vests or VBIEDs, and another that facilitates travel. Again, this can be done for almost as little money here as it is in Iraq, and would have considerable greater impact.
There are many plausible explanations for the increase in suicide bomobings in Iraq that have little to do with territorial concerns (especially since many of the terrorists and bombers are being shipped in to Iraq in the first place...).
First off, no suicide bombers are "shipped" to Iraq. They travel to adjacent countries under their own means, or paid for by others after being recruited, link up with smuggling networks, and are handed off to the VBIED cells after crossing the border. We've intercepted large numbers of potential suicide bombers, and their debriefings are pretty consistent.
In many cases, they're basically spending their life savings to get to Iraq to blow up Americans. That's an act clearly grounded in fanaticism, but real fanatics would want to attack the threat at it's roots, not at the leaves. If they hate America, why in every case are they going to Iraq to attack us? Does Tunisia not have an American embassy they could attack? It's not like security there is more tight than an armed Humvee patrol in Fallujah.
Black market bombs are available anywhere in the Middle East, and homemade ones are available anywhere you have an internet connection, some cash and some time on your hands.
There's no plausible explanation why U.S. interests aren't attacked everywhere in the Middle East (or where there are Muslims) with the same rate of incidence that they are in Iraq.
Or the increase in attacks might be a sign that the terrorists are afraid their religious, cultural, or political goals are in danger of failing, and they could be a sign of desparation.
Careful. You're getting dangerously close to the truth, FRiend.
The Japanese didn't start the war with banzai charges and kamikazes; only after their supplies and escape routes were cut off or when they had run out of trained pilots did they resort to suicide attacks.
So, the Japanese didn't start with the banzai charges and kamikazes? They only came into play when they were losing, and the Japanese home islands were in danger? Their home territory? That sounds like you're awfully close to making my point for me, doesn't it?
It is your job to prove that their motivation is purely territorial, which so far you have shown little persuasive evidence for...
That's what I have you here for. I'm glad you picked up on the kamikaze attacks being defensive in nature. Even though the phenomenons of suicide bombing jihadists and Imperial Japanese pilots were very different in culture and philosophy, they had two things in common. They were both fanatics, and they both were triggered by territorial instincts.
It's not purely territorial. I never said that. You need to have the key ingredient of fanaticism as well, or there's no platform for the suicidal rage to stand on. You'll just wind up with people who will risk death to fight back, not leap into it's mouth intentionally.
That's the key issue. Fanaticism is the foundation of the suicide attack, but it's not triggered without a sense of territorial threat. The 9/11 pilots are the only real exception to the rule, and even they would tell you that they were responding to world-conqueraing American cultural aggression and all that crap. In the vast majority of cases, it needs to be a clear, concrete territorial issue, not an abstract one.
What are your questions? You're clearly too smart a guy to avoid figuring it out on your own, even though you don't like where the answer is taking you.