2)So, you said exactly what I have said. That in the Qu'ran...the whole world is to be dominated by Islam. So, in the 7th and 8th century, while they were well on their way to accomplishing their goal... they divided the world into two parts. What they had and what they still had to get.
3) Your third point is psychobabble.
4) I wasn't glibly talking about the terrorists. I was talking about Robert Pape's point that it was our occupation of Iraq that has caused the increase. Of course it has, but there is more to it than the reasons he laid out in his article. He is only looking at the fruit of it. He missed the root of the conflict.
They call it a number of things. One is a 'wedding', a term first seen in the classic Battle of Algiers, (which was AMZ's favorite movie) which means an 'operation'. Another is shaheed, a martyr, one who dies for the cause. VBIED cells use a number of derogatory terms, the most neutral being 'drivers'.
They do consider it a legitimate form of warfare. They don't think that dropping a bomb on a house from 30,000 feet is playing fair, and we don't think suicide bombings are fair. As the terrorist leader in the movie above mentioned, when accused of being a coward for planting bombs in baskets, "We use baskets for the same reason you use bombers. Because we have them. Trade us your bombers, and you can have our baskets"
2)So, you said exactly what I have said. That in the Qu'ran...the whole world is to be dominated by Islam. So, in the 7th and 8th century, while they were well on their way to accomplishing their goal... they divided the world into two parts. What they had and what they still had to get.
No, you said that the whole world IS Islamic territory. That's a very important distinction when we're talking about a tactic inspired by territorial issues. If you misspoke earlier, than we are in agreement.
3) Your third point is psychobabble.
Let me show you what I was talking about, by rephrasing your comment.
They were given a very clear mandate by the Emperor to dominate and not be dominated. Yet, they are being dominated. So, they cling harder the words of the Emperor and fight with more determination against the Allied invasion. That is what drives them.
Does that make more sense?
4) I wasn't glibly talking about the terrorists. I was talking about Robert Pape's point that it was our occupation of Iraq that has caused the increase. Of course it has, but there is more to it than the reasons he laid out in his article.
Such as?
He is only looking at the fruit of it. He missed the root of the conflict.
That's not the point at all. No one is saying that fanaticism and territorialism are divorced in this suicide bombing phenomenon. Only that to get this effect, you need to have a fanatical mindset, and then be faced with a territorial threat.
If you're merely a fanatic, you won't conduct suicide attacks on territory you don't consider yours. Aside from 9/11, it's unheard of. Even then, the hijackers used a twisted version of cultural self defense to rationalize their attacks. That's a very esoteric viewpoint that very, very few people can be sold on to the point of their own deaths. For most, territorial defense involves the land of their people.
If you're faced with a territorial threat, but you're not a fanatic, then you'll form resistance movements, fight a guerilla war, and take your chances. You'll fight back and risk death, but you won't fling yourself into the fire just to make a point. Normal resistance fighters want to win so they can enjoy what they had before. Even in desperate times, when a vital 'suicide mission' is proposed, it's usually not suicide per se, but a mission with very low odds of survival.
Non fanatics can be talked into that kind of risk if the stakes are high enough. You need a real die hard to do the job if the odds of survival are zero.