[Cody Dawg]

Of course they supposedly say that they are following their god "Allah" and that is why they are about to embark on a mission to murder hundreds or thousands of people.

But, I came across an article this morning in The Guardian that sheds a little light about why suicide bombers are killing - and it's not for the reasons that we all are led to believe:

But why are they prepared to kill themselves rather than conduct "normal" military attacks? A common assumption is that these jihadists must have been "brainwashed" or seized by the fervour of religious fundamentalism and cruelly initiated into a cult of death.

But is that the correct assumption? Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, who has conducted the most in-depth research into the motivations of suicide bombers certainly thinks not.

He has just outlined the findings of his revealing study of 462 suicide bombings across the globe to 50 of the FBI's top counter-terrorist chiefs.

His main conclusion is that suicide bombing is less about religious fundamentalism than secular or political grievances. Let me quote him at length from an interview he gave ABC Television in America:

There's a faulty premise in the current strategy on the war on terrorism. That faulty premise is that suicide terrorism and al- Qaida suicide terrorism in particular is mainly driven by an evil ideology Islamic fundamentalism independent of other circumstances.

However, the facts are that since 1980, suicide terrorist attacks from around the world over half have been secular. What over 95% of suicide attacks around the world [are about] is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly and this is, in fact, a centrepiece of al-Qaida's strategic logic, which is to compel the United States and western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian peninsula.

His remedy, outlined in a piece he wrote for the New York Times last year is that the west should "rebalance" its strategy by withdrawing its forces from Muslim lands and instead support efforts of governments there to tackle the extremists.

He argues that It is the presence of western troops in the region, something which rarely happened in the 1970s or 80s, which is primarily enraging these people.

So, if he is indeed correct, then they are using their religion as a front from which to justify mass killings - but the real reason is hatred of the United States and/or Western allies.

If so, then the fight against terror is really war against the United States, is it not?

[Doofy]

In islam, under normal circumstances there's no certainty that you're going to "paradise" when you die. Your good deeds are weighed against your bad and it's all left up to allah to decide when the time comes. You'd better hope he's in a good mood that day.

However, if you die whilst fighting the infidel in the name of allah, you're assured of a place in paradise - it's guaranteed. So what better way of making sure you die whilst fighting the infidel than suicide bombing?

BTW, you really shouldn't be reading anything in the Guardian if you want a balanced view on things. Or the truth. Or if you're not a complete moonbat lib.

[Cody Dawg]

Oh, I agree about The Guardian, Doofy.



But, I do read a lot of various news articles, even if they are slanted, because I like to try to consider the "other" side.

He did make a good point, though: Which is that this is not a war about religion but is a war against all things Western - in particular the United States and perhaps the United Kingdom.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He did make a good point, though: Which is that this is not a war about religion but is a war against all things Western - in particular the United States and perhaps the United Kingdom.

Yeah, he's way off though. It's a war against all things western because they're not islamic. One only has to look at the events in east Africa (war against non-western territory) or the attitude towards the UAE (westernised facilities but no war, since they're islamic).

This guy is just another stupid lib trying to shift the blame from the actual reason (religion) towards his own little pet hate (western capitalism/imperialism/whatever).

(Note: Just because this guy's a professor it doesn't mean he's not an idiot. Heck, I was a professor and I'm an idiot)

[Cody Dawg]

That's a great point: "Because they're not islamic."

[Big Mac]

Suicide bombers may have attendant political motivations, but their main motivation is in Islam. If not for radical Islamist teachings, there would be few suicide terrorists.

[Cody Dawg]

I agree and I'm sure that Doofy does as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

However, if you die whilst fighting the infidel in the name of allah, you're assured of a place in paradise - it's guaranteed. So what better way of making sure you die whilst fighting the infidel than suicide bombing?

On the other hand, suicide is forbidden as well. Those people interpret religion in the way they want to see it, it's a `rationalization' (for the lack of a better word) of what they do.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

On the other hand, suicide is forbidden as well. Those people interpret religion in the way they want to see it, it's a `rationalization' (for the lack of a better word) of what they do.

If you do it alone for selfish reasons (i.e. can't pay your bills, no hope), it's suicide.
If you do it for tactical reasons (i.e. attacking the enemy), is it suicide? Or is it martyrdom?

(just thinking aloud, not making a statement)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yeah, he's way off though. It's a war against all things western because they're not islamic. One only has to look at the events in east Africa (war against non-western territory) or the attitude towards the UAE (westernised facilities but no war, since they're islamic).

You seem to forget that Sunni and Shi'a don't consider the other faithful followers of Islam either. (Perhaps many people still wonder why Iran and Al Quaeda aren't exactly best friends …) It's just another example of religion being used as a pretext for a power struggle.

Originally Posted by Doofy

This guy is just another stupid lib trying to shift the blame from the actual reason (religion) towards his own little pet hate (western capitalism/imperialism/whatever).

Why do you try to change the subject here and allude that this `stupid lib' hates Western capitalism/whatever?

Originally Posted by Doofy

(Note: Just because this guy's a professor it doesn't mean he's not an idiot. Heck, I was a professor and I'm an idiot)

How presumptuous of you: you don't agree with him and hence you immediately allude he's an idiot

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you do it alone for selfish reasons (i.e. can't pay your bills, no hope), it's suicide.
If you do it for tactical reasons (i.e. attacking the enemy), is it suicide? Or is it martyrdom?

(just thinking aloud, not making a statement)

It's still suicide. Those people just rationalize it so that they can claim it's not suicide.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Suicide bombers may have attendant political motivations, but their main motivation is in Islam. If not for radical Islamist teachings, there would be few suicide terrorists.

Islam is not their main motivation, it's their main mean of rationalization.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

This guy is just another stupid lib trying to shift the blame from the actual reason (religion) towards his own little pet hate (western capitalism/imperialism/whatever).

If that's the case, how do you deal with his research showing that the majority of suicide attacks in the past 25 years have not been religious in nature?

[moodymonster]

There's been Hindu suicide bombers in the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a lot of them actually. Also women Tamil Tigers. IRA used involuntary suicide bombers. Japanese used Kamikazes.

Not just Muslims who do it.

[BRussell]

Here's (pdf file) a good article on suicide terrorism. Here's (large pdf) another.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Why do you try to change the subject here and allude that this `stupid lib' hates Western capitalism/whatever?

Because he's attempting to remove the religious cause of these suicide bombings and replace it with an assignment of blame on western foreign policy. Since suicide bombings happen elsewhere, not in the west and not under western foreign policy, his reasoning cannot be accurate.

Thus, by attempting to shift the blame to the west, he's just another lib going on about how bad the west is.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

How presumptuous of you: you don't agree with him and hence you immediately allude he's an idiot

You missed the bit where I also called myself an idiot. And I agree with myself. Most of the time.

Originally Posted by BRussell

If that's the case, how do you deal with his research showing that the majority of suicide attacks in the past 25 years have not been religious in nature?

Show me the research.
Oh wait. It's only available in a book which I can buy if I fancy upping the aforementioned professor's pension fund.

Anyone, anyone can come out with BS stating that "the majority of suicide attacks in the last 25 years have not been religious in nature" to a captive audience (fellow libs who're likely to actually buy the book). If he's right, let's have his findings out in public on the net so we can analyse and disprove them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Show me the research.
Oh wait. It's only available in a book which I can buy if I fancy upping the aforementioned professor's pension fund.

Anyone, anyone can come out with BS stating that "the majority of suicide attacks in the last 25 years have not been religious in nature" to a captive audience (fellow libs who're likely to actually buy the book). If he's right, let's have his findings out in public on the net so we can analyse and disprove them.

So because you haven't read it, you get to evaluate it negatively? A simple "I don't know" would be more appropriate, no?

And there are plenty of his writings about this available on the internet. Here's one, here's another.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

So because you haven't read it, you get to evaluate it negatively? A simple "I don't know" would be more appropriate, no?

I've been watching a certain religion since 1988, when some of their number blew a friend of mine out of the sky. Even a quick overview of his findings simply doesn't tally with what I've been looking at.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Because he's attempting to remove the religious cause of these suicide bombings and replace it with an assignment of blame on western foreign policy. Since suicide bombings happen elsewhere, not in the west and not under western foreign policy, his reasoning cannot be accurate.

BS, he's not removing religion from the picture. He just concluded from his statistics that most of the suicide bombers tried to accomplish political rather than relgious aims.

The rest of your reasoning is flawed as well, because you want to connect it to liberalism per se, no matter the cost. Netanyahu for instance came to a similar conclusion when he said `Hezbollah became a problem, because we [the IDF] stayed too long [in Lebanon]' during a Fox News interview.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Thus, by attempting to shift the blame to the west, he's just another lib going on about how bad the west is.

He's not saying that either. He concludes from his statistics that there is a misconception on the motivation of the large majority suicide bomber.

Originally Posted by Doofy

You missed the bit where I also called myself an idiot. And I agree with myself. Most of the time.

I haven't missed that. Since it was neither funny nor anything to do with the topic, I decided to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Show me the research.
Oh wait. It's only available in a book which I can buy if I fancy upping the aforementioned professor's pension fund.

No, it isn't. If you are using the internet from within a university network one of his articles may be downloaded here. If you want to have the article, but cannot access it, pm me your e-mail address and I'll mail it to you.

PS Professors who write books usually don't make any money to speak of with them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

BS, he's not removing religion from the picture. He just concluded from his statistics that most of the suicide bombers tried to accomplish political rather than relgious aims.

He must have missed the fact that in islam, there's no difference between politics and religion.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The rest of your reasoning is flawed as well, because you want to connect it to liberalism per se, no matter the cost.

No. I just know lib thinking when I see it.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

He's not saying that either. He concludes from his statistics that there is a misconception on the motivation of the large majority suicide bomber.

Let's look at what he says here:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm.../11187/printer

third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective: from Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign - 18 organizations in all - are seeking to establish or maintain political self-determination.

At the moment, our best information indicates that the attackers in Iraq are Sunni Iraqis and foreign fighters, principally from Saudi Arabia.

Soooo... All of these Saudi fighters in Iraq are there to establish self-determination? For who? Saudi? Seems Saudi already has self-determination. And they couldn't possibly be doing it for their brothers, since religion isn't involved. So why are they there?

The whole point made by this professor is just your standard lib "US foreign policy is flawed" mantra, repackaged. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I haven't missed that. Since it was neither funny nor anything to do with the topic, I decided to ignore it.

You missed the point. It was illustrating that simply because the bloke is a professor, it doesn't mean he knows what he's on about.

[Kerrigan]

Eventually, the UK will have to deport all those Pakistanis, unless they want to continue in fear.

[Monique]

They are cowards and always will be cowards.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You missed the point. It was illustrating that simply because the bloke is a professor, it doesn't mean he knows what he's on about.

No, I haven't. You questioned his ability solely on the conclusion he draws from his research. Which is what I have criticized in my first post. You just label him liberal which seems to be enough these days to be responsible for whatever evil you'd like.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Islam is not their main motivation, it's their main mean of rationalization.

Really? I think you could only consider suicide if you think death is better then your life. And how could you think that without the promise of a wonderful afterlife made by your religion?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You just label him liberal which seems to be enough these days to be responsible for whatever evil you'd like.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Really? I think you could only consider suicide if you think death is better then your life. And how could you think that without the promise of a wonderful afterlife made by your religion?

Right, it's their rationalization, it's what allows them to justify violence against political opponents. If it was their primary motivation, they'd just stay at home and slit their throats.

[awcopus]

Incentives, in no particular order, to kill yourself as part of a homicidal act:
1. Money for one's family: lack of economic options drives people to extremism

2. Strong belief that one is achieving a moral goal: I doubt that these people consider themselves or their act to be immoral.

3. Strong belief that one will have everlasting pleasure in a life better than the one they are currently living: the 100% guarantee that they get housing, food, and sex-on-demand in perpetuity is a pretty compelling incentive.

4. Revenge, or a sense of justice: avenging a killed family member or dear friend is probably one of the saddest incentives I can imagine. One might reframe this as 'the strong belief that one is avenging the death of a loved one caused by the enemy.'

5. Peer Pressure: combined with a lack of exit options, individuals have a tough time developing a sense of themselves as having a choice to act based on individual preferences in communities as smothering and extremist as produce suicidal homicide bombers.

***

Asking "why they do it" is a good way to shed light on the perverse incentives underlying the actions of extremists. Changing the incentive structures is the key to constructive change... not just in the Middle East.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Really? I think you could only consider suicide if you think death is better then your life. And how could you think that without the promise of a wonderful afterlife made by your religion?

That's the rationalization part. The point is that they want to achieve something in the real world and use religion either as a pretext or as a mean to cope with the consequences.

PS It's not `my' religion, I'm a Buddhist.

[Chuckit]

The article uses a bait-and-switch. It starts out asking about their motivation, but the professor is talking about their goal. Answering what they are trying to achieve does nothing to explain why they kill themselves to do it.

[f1000]

"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by
making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This thread illustrates why the term 'suicide bomber' isn't suficient to begin with. If all they did was use a bomb to commit suicide, few people would give two squats.

The operative term should be homicide bomber- these are people trying primarily to kill other people, and willing to give their own life in doing so. And yes, a lot of it is motivated and justified by religious belief; those same religious beliefs then fuel the political beliefs. It's silly to pretend they can be so neatly separated.

(By the way, the same was true of Japanese Kamikazes who were following Shinto beliefs- the very name means "Divine Wind, or a wind sent by the gods.)

[Chuckit]

The term "homicide bomber" is stupid, redundant and imprecise. The "suicide" part is to distinguish them from normal bombers, who also kill people.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The term "homicide bomber" is stupid, redundant and imprecise. The "suicide" part is to distinguish them from normal bombers, who also kill people.

Perhaps, but the fact that they kill other people, and that is thier primary goal, not just commiting suicide, is more important to note than the suicide part.

[Chuckit]

It is noted in the "bomber" part. The "suicide" modifies it to describe a particular method of bombing, much as "car bomber" does. Do you think mobile phones should be called "calling telephones," since calling people is the primary goal?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It is noted in the "bomber" part. The "suicide" modifies it to describe a particular method of bombing, much as "car bomber" does. Do you think mobile phones should be called "calling telephones," since calling people is the primary goal?

Relax, don't get your panties in a twist over it. Neither term is a perfect fit.

I'm merely saying, rather than spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what motivates these people to commit suicide, I'd rather focus on the more important element: what motivates these people to kill other people, usually innocents, and as many as possible.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I'd rather focus on the more important element: what motivates these people to kill other people, usually innocents, and as many as possible.

See post #2.

[mojo2]

I am amazed that there is still doubt about this.

The goal of Islam
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/post-44...watch.html#416

Understanding Islam requires knowing its goal. Throughout the world today we see Islamic tyranny, terrorism, political and economic jihad, rioting and mayhem, injustice, and human rights violations. This has been going on for the past approximately 1400 years, beginning with Mohammad’s rise to power. It is impossible to make sense out all of this without first understanding the actual beliefs and goals of Islamists. Simply put, Islam’s goal is to conquer the entire world, all of humankind, by force if necessary, to set up Koranic law, convert as many people to Islam as possible, and to destroy polytheism and disbelief. Islam is an inherently imperialistic enterprise. These notes present information about Islam's goal and the means permitted to achieve it.

Jihad In Islam: Is Islam Peaceful Or Militant
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/is_i..._militant.html


Numerous Meccan passages from the Qur’an uniformly indicate that while Muhammad resided in Mecca, he preached Islam patiently and peacefully, avoiding physical warfare with his enemy. Probably few would challenge this fact. Given this fact, then, it becomes understandable that some Muslims, claiming that Islam means peace and avoids violence, are able to substantiate their claims with Meccan passages from the Qur’an. So let all, Muslims and non-Muslims, recognize this thirteen year period of peace which endured until the Hijrah.

It is just as clear, however, as Muslims generally have understood, that after the Hijrah Muhammad resorted to the sword in support of his ministry, at first by the permission and later by the command of God. True, a few Muslims in the past, and more at present, have described this warfare as defensive only. On the other hand, all the recognized source materials for jihad have led their traditional Muslim expositors to acknowledge a development of jihad by stages during the ministry of Muhammed, a jihad which is both defensive and offensive, a jihad which the Muslim community is to pursue until the end of time. What it has signified in the past and signifies at present for masses of Muslims is well summarized in a statement by the world renowned Ibn Khaldun (A.D. 1332-1406), Islam’s great historian, sociologist and philosopher:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same. [24]

Are the Terrorists True Muslims?
http://www.knowislam.info/terrorism

First, when Mohammad began his revelations of the Quran, he produced mostly more "kind & gentle" verses. As time went on, the verses became more and more violent and harsh. It is agreed upon by most Islamic scholars that the later verses abrogate the earlier ones, since they contradict each other.

Now about [context], and taking verses in or out of context. Taking out of context can mean two things: First, the historical context to which the verse refers, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available to Muslims, since the Quran is the eternal word of God and is true and valid eternally. Thus, for Muslims there is no historical context.

Let us assume some verses are wonderful when read in context, but horrible verses when read out of context. Doesn't Allah know that people will misinterpret them and take them out of context? The Quran itself says it is clear and easy to understand:

54:40, And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand ...
12:1, These are verses of scripture that make it plain.
15:1, These are the verses of the Book and (of) a Quran that makes (things) clear.

Some verses regarding unbelievers, which means all non-Muslims and this includes people of the book. (Jews & Christians)

2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them
2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression
4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them
9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.
9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya* with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

In the last verse above, the Jizya tax is mentioned. In an Islamic nation, under Islamic [Sharia] law, people of the book are to be offered the chance to accept Islam, and if they do not, they must pay this tax, in order to be tolerated and they are treated as second-class citizens anyway. If you are a non-Muslim and not of the book, the choice given you is convert, leave or be killed.

Not all Muslims are in the same mindset as Al-Qaeda, but why do you almost never see Muslims protesting or speaking out against them or Saddam Hussein, for that matter? Why, anywhere in a non-Muslim country where there is any Muslim community, that community demands more and more rights (even rights no other religion has) and become politically involved in order to bring more of Islam's influence. This might be ok, but the more power Islam has, the more others' rights are quashed. Islam cares not about anyone else's rights; there are no individual rights in Islam. An example: CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations a mainstream Islamic organization in the US, has openly and publicly stated that they would like to see the US as an Islamic nation one day, and they strive towards that goal:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
- Omar Ahmad of CAIR

Once Sharia is in place, if one insults Mohammad, any of his relatives or companions, or the Quran, or Allah, it is considered blasphemy, which carries the death penalty. To deviate from the main way of interpreting Islam also constitutes blasphemy. [Apostasy], which is to leave Islam, also carries the death penalty. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Nigeria and parts of Malaysia all have this law system in place. Other Islamic nations have political parties in favor of enacting Sharia law. Under Islam, there can be no freedom of religion. It simply is not possible within Sharia law.

The Quran is considered the final, complete and direct word from God, so it cannot be changed or reformed. In addition to that, the majority of Muslims actually do not speak Arabic, (Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran, Indonesia for example) yet they are required to pray, read & recite the Quran in Arabic. Many of them do not read translations, and do not know what the Quran actually contains, they only know whatever they've been taught.

Consequently, those Muslims who are more moderate and are good people are good DESPITE Islam. Either they are unaware of the harsh teachings, in denial about them, or afraid they will be disowned by their family in the least, killed at worst if they denounce these teachings. Al Qaeda follows Islam to the letter, in all of its bloody, violent, suffocating glory.

Can we save ourselves by appeasing them or backing out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16349

We are fighting a global war against international terrorists because the terrorists are engaged in a global jihad against infidels. The scariest thing about it is that a good many people in this country believe we actually have the luxury of opting out.

Isn't the operative assumption that we are dealing with a reasonable enemy that doesn't want war any more than we do?

[...]

The uncomplicated answer is that no matter what we do, policy-wise, we will remain infidels with gigantic bull's-eyes on our backs unless we renounce our capitalistic ways, destroy our churches and synagogues, outlaw our pluralistic religious society, convert to a radical Islamic theocracy and join the global jihad en route to a worldwide caliphate.

We are in this war for the long haul whether we like it or not. The only question is whether we intend to fight it or roll over in shameful appeasement until we are in a much weaker position to fight at such time as even the appeasers realize we have no other choice.

Myths & Facts Online

Arab/Muslim Attitudes Toward Israel

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...yths/mf25.html

2003 Palestinian Authority Textbook Calls for Jihad and Martyrdom
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...atextbook.html

Suicide bomber videos: Footage of hate
Farewell message: 'There is no blood better than the blood of Jews'

An organization monitoring Palestinian media has compiled a collection of farewell videos of suicide bombers that demonstrate the virulent anti-Semitic message of the terrorists.

"The romanticized view of suicide terrorists in the Oscar-nominated Palestinian film 'Paradise Now' bears little resemblance to the real world of suicide bombers," writes Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of Palestinian Media Watch. "The terrorist videos include calls for Israel's destruction, the belief that killing Israelis will guarantee entrance into paradise and the belief that as reward for their terror, the men will marry maidens of paradise."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49085
http://pmw.org.il/

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy

See post #2.

I certainly don't disagree with it.

I just saw something blip on the news that it's thought the current crop of arrested 'chemical bombers' had martyr statements. It'll be interesting to see if that pans out.

[Kevin]

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

[Ulrich Kinbote]

In my opinion, the Samurai practice of Seppuku or hara-kiri—ritual suicide by disembowelment—is far more difficult to comprehend, in terms of willingly facing death, than suicide bombings.

I think the Samurai philosophy toward seppuku could shed light on how someone prepares for death:

In the Hagakure, Yamamoto states that “The way of the Samurai is
Death" and gives advice in how to prepare for seppuku :

Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily. Every day when one’s body and mind are at peace, one should meditate upon being ripped apart by arrows, muskets, spears and swords, being carried away by surging waves, being thrown into the midst of a great fire, being struck by lightning, being shaken to death by a great earthquake, falling from thousand-foot cliffs, dying of disease or committing seppuku at the death of one’s master. And every day without fail one should consider himself as dead.

As for rationalising the death of innocents, that is, sadly, easy. First, one must become convinced in advance that every possible moral objection to the undertaking in question—including, perhaps, an ineradicable remorse of conscience—is outweighed by the value, reward, or exigency of that act. Then, one must repress both the conviction, and every possible moral objection in order to execute that act. It's just a case of inducing a state of moral or conscientious automatism.

[Chuckit]

Samurai are an interesting case. As I understand it, their religion was almost entirely geared to eliminate fear from its adherents. I'm not sure that's exactly true of Islam.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It is noted in the "bomber" part. The "suicide" modifies it to describe a particular method of bombing, much as "car bomber" does. Do you think mobile phones should be called "calling telephones," since calling people is the primary goal?

I agree.

suicide noun the action of killing oneself intentionally OR a person who does this.
OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY

"Suicide" just modifies "bomber". The fact other people die and are intended to die is covered by "bomber"; otherwise, a miner who uses dynamite in a quarry is also a "bomber".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

All this is true, and of course technically suicide bomber is a correct term, but it’s just a curious fact that we focus so much on the suicide aspect, as if that was what was so remarkable or most relevant. The fact is, people from all walks of life commit suicide, routinely. Old ladies take handfuls of sleeping pills. Jilted lovers put guns to their heads and blow their own brains out. Unfortunately, it's not all that unusual.

During the Columbine shootings, the two killers took their own lives- no one refers to them as “suicide mass murderers”. That they took their own lives is treated as more of a footnote to the larger crime.

Hitler is remembered as many things- dictator, mass murderer, tyrant, etc. Suicide doesn’t proceed any of those things.

To a good many people, it’s just not the most defining part of the act that the bomber also committed suicide- an all too common act. Who cares if the guy lived or died- the relevant element is that he committed mass homicide of innocents. Committing mass homicide is an uncommon act, and far more remarkable and unusual than suicide.

[Chuckit]

The suicide is remarkable, because it's different from most other suicides and most other bombings. Most people commit suicide because they feel they have no other option. These people willingly volunteer for death even though they may have hope in life. If only clinically depressed folk did these bombings, there would be less of a problem.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The suicide is remarkable, because it's different from most other suicides and most other bombings. Most people commit suicide because they feel they have no other option. These people willingly volunteer for death even though they may have hope in life. If only clinically depressed folk did these bombings, there would be less of a problem.

That's true, but it's not only clinically depressed folks that commit suicide in other cases as well. As per my examples and I'm sure countless others, other voilent murder/suicide acts rarely are labled "suicide___" with the suicide part being the defining aspect.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

During the Columbine shootings, the two killers took their own lives- no one refers to them as “suicide mass murderers”. That they took their own lives is treated as more of a footnote to the larger crime.

Hitler is remembered as many things- dictator, mass murderer, tyrant, etc. Suicide doesn’t proceed any of those things.

Unlike in your examples, in the case of suicide bombers, the suicide and the crime happen simultaneously. The term describes that fact. The fact that the word "suicide" precedes "bomber" has nothing to do with order of precedence. It's just syntax.

I read a while back that someone proposed the term Kamikaze bombers, but, not surprisingly, the Japanese didn't like the idea.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

In my opinion, the Samurai practice of Seppuku or hara-kiri—ritual suicide by disembowelment—is far more difficult to comprehend, in terms of willingly facing death, than suicide bombings.

I think the motivation is very different.
If we leave seppuku aside for a moment (afaik hara-kiri is the wrong reading, like fuji yama instead of fuji san), the philosophy you described has very little to do with the inner workings of a suicide bomber. Samurai philosophy is designed to suppress the fear of death so that a warrior can fight more effectively and not waiver. Warriors would accept that they would die the day they were supposed to die, but they would neither seek death nor avoid it.

Seppuku is a very different situation: it was usually used to regain face in the eye of the community or a superior when that person (or someone that person is responsible for, a subordinate or a family member) had done something shameful, for instance. To put it in abstract terms, it's a regulatory mechanism of Japanese society to make up for someone's mistakes.

I find Asian philosophy hard to compare with Western and Middle Eastern societies: Asians use shame as a regulatory mechanism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism use guilt.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

I read a while back that someone proposed the term Kamikaze bombers, but, not surprisingly, the Japanese didn't like the idea.

Well, that's hardly surprising. The Japanese know very little about what really happened between 1909 and 1945 …

[Cody Dawg]

What is the difference between shame and guilt? Aren't they variants of the same?

Yes, familial shame in Asian cultures is huge. I find it also in the Jewish culture quite frequently. (And then there is the proverbial "Jewish guilt" that Jewish mothers are quite adept at. )

[Wiskedjak]

My guess is that they used the suicide bomb tactic because they lack the resources and numbers to use "regular" military tactics.

Democracies are a difficult entity to attack if you lack the ability to completely defeat it's military since the decision to surrender/cease operations usually rests with the government rather than the military. Of course, if you lack the ability to defeat the military through "regular" military tactics, you probably lack the ability to convince the government, through regular military tactics, to change it's course of action. So, in a democracy, who gives the government it's marching orders? Some on these boards have already started down the path of saying that electors can be held responsible for the actions of the government they elect, if only in case of the elected Hamas government. Electors are certainly the easiest target and suicide bombers are the ultimate smart bomb.

Note: this is not a justification of their actions; just an assessment as to why they use the suicide bombing tactic.