Printable View
I don't think the sectarian killing is the Bush administration's fault.Quote:
It's called sectarian violence which is pretty normal in such times. Iraqis are divided thus a sectarian violence, thanks to the Bush administration.
I think it's the fault of the people that are doing the killing.
Muslims, and the Islamic world are responsible for almost all (but not 100% all) of their own problems.
I believe most of this is because they follow the Islamic religion.
We discussed this before: suicide attacks were a common tactic in the West prior to Muslims using them. It is an effective means of attack when one lacks a proper army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Chuchok
I guess none of the violence between Protestants and Catholics through the years counts for anyone?
No, not the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by Propagator
A state.
Big, big difference here because laws vary among the 50 states. One state requires the person to take off the veil for a DL photo and another doesn't.
We are talking about Islamist suicide bombers...not what happened in the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasakWe discussed this before: suicide attacks were a common tactic in the West prior to Muslims using them. It is an effective means of attack when one lacks a proper army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Chuchok
I guess none of the violence between Protestants and Catholics through the years counts for anyone?
Can you give an example?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
They weren't "suicide attacks" were they?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
The only "suicides" I can think of that happened before the Islamics made it "popular" in recent years, were the extremely brave people, maybe I should say 'heroic people', who would pour petrol over themselves and set themselves on fire to publicise their cause. Now THAT is something that generates genuine feelings of sympathy, not blowing yourself up and killing innocent bystanders at the same time - THAT just inflames more hatred and turns people AGAINST the cause.
Uh, huh, and if they had strong national militaries do you think it would still happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Chuchok
I'll have to go dumpster diving to find the discussion about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDNCan you give an example?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
You think it turns people against the cause where it happens? If anything it proves that a low life can take on a stronger force without needing much technology. And, in the absense of any organized military it's the only thing a single person can do against a stronger force.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
I think its a relatively effective technique...look at how it has pinned down the world's 'strongest' military in Iraq. IEDs are doing what the lack of a strong military hasn't.
Ah, yes, first suicide bombings: Belgian Revolution, assassination of Tsar Alexander II prior to 1900. Then comes the Kamikaze pilots of WWII, the Viet Minh, and, finally, guerrilla groups in the 1980s (the Japanese being the first to use suicide bombing in Israel).
Quote:
Originally Posted by surasakUh, huh, and if they had strong national militaries do you think it would still happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Chuchok
So what.It was not the question.I said we were not talking about western suicide bombers and you come back with this? :confused: Been drinking?
If you want to understand the background and tactics you must understand how it came about.
^Besides, you were the one asking if it were a relatively recent thing.
Off topic, there's another thread about this.
Great western suicide bomb examples I see.pffftQuote:
Originally Posted by surasak
If you want to go right back in history, I think that the first documented "suicide" dude was samsons suicidal destruction of a temple. I think he came from the middle east too.:cool:
It is a relatively recent thing....in my lifetime so far.
If you discount the 'bomb' portion there were large numbers of suicide attacks in the American Civil War, for example. It was considered an honor, a duty to be the first to die on the battlefield.
The point being that a suicide attack (whether using guns, arrows, or bombs) is a legitimate military tactic when a weaker group is attacking a stronger one. You never see a strong army using those tactics because, inherently, stronger weapons make such use of a primitive tactic unnecessary.
Americans don't need to emply suicide bombing tactics because we have machines such as aircraft, cruise missiles, and nuclear missiles to take our place. We have th luxury to sit in a room across the ocean and fire weapons at those we wish to kill. What luxury do those with no such weapons have?
Suicide bombing as a predominant form of militaristic attack is widespread among people who have no other means to attack their enemies. How do you propose that otherwise weaponless Iraqis, for example, attack and kill Americans?
Want to know how easy it is to be a suicide bomber?
You need about $1 worth of pipe, about 10 cents worth of a petroleum product with a high boiling point such as brake fluid, and, maybe 25 cents worth of powdered chlorine.
Compared to the cost of a gun? Not even close, and, it's easily available in most places in the world.
No ,I don't want to know how easy it is to be a bomber,but thanks for sharing.
So you are saying that the Iraqis are weaponless.Are all the suicide bombers weaponless Iraqis?
Are all modern suicide bombers Muslim?
Absolutes are a terrible thing.
There are several related threads, it's almost worth creating a "terrorism" subforum.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
This topic is "The Veil", but we're on page 19, so if it takes a different direction, so be it.
^^Do you know how to absolutly answer a question without putting your own preconcieved arguments on show?
What arguments are those? I don't know about you but I'm not thinking every Muslim is a suicide bomber or that every suicide bomber is a Muslim.
The preconceived notion is that suicide terrorism is a relatively new thing (it's not) and that it's use is predominantly only among Muslims (it's not).
Eample:I asked thisand you start going on about how not all mussies are suicide bombers and about how suicide terrorism was kicked off by the west etc.Quote:
So you are saying that the Iraqis are weaponless.Are all the suicide bombers weaponless Iraqis?
Not the answer to the question at all old boy.maybe you should add what colour I should paint my bedroom.:)
You said (post 174, page 18):
To which I merely stated that 'no, it is not' by giving examples. In fact the most successful campaigns in history utilizing suicide bombing were not even in the Middle East. Some of the greatest examples of suicide attacks weren't even in the Middle East or Asia (the U.S. Civil War, as an example). Putting a bomb in a person's hand is just advancing the weaponry a bit to make the casualty rate higher than it otherwise would be if the same person charged into a checkpoint with a knife or gun. It is a tactic that was refined outside the Middle East.Quote:
Wasn't the in thing then.Isn't suicide bombing (On the scale it is today)a recent thing that started in the ME?
Those using it now (in the Middle East: paramilitary organizations down to ordinary people who have no other means to fight effectively) simply learned tactics that worked against stronger and more powerful forces in other parts of the world (suicide bombings caused Americans to withdraw from Beiruit and led to success in Chechnya). As the government of Sri Lanka about the Tamil Tigers. Very successful campaign of suicide bombings.
In fact, it used to be assumed that air superiority was enough to win a campaign. By utilizing suicide bombings combatants ensure that ground troops must be deployed therefore furthering the chances that the invading army will withdraw (due to homeland public support eroding as casualties increase).
It is used when there are no other alternatives to inflict heavy casualties on the enemy.
Iraqis are weaponless when pitted against coalition forces unless you are suggesting they are sandbagging their massive arsenal of tanks and aircraft. On the one had you have armored vehicles, helicopters, aircraft, etc. On the other you have crude IEDs, AK-47s, and possibly SAMs. So, yeah, suicide bombings are the best weapons of choice given the situation when it's the best weapon available.
You asked about it, I simply gave you something to think about.
^You have told me nothing I don't already know.My question was in responce to a post by Stroll.;)
^
Which was me questioning why there haven't been suicide bombings in the UK 20 years ago, if it's a Muslim thing. My point being that it's more of a cultural/political escalation of conflict with Islam being a vehicle for its expression (in the UK that is).
Quote:
[edit] Profile of a bomber
A common reaction to a suicide bomber is to assume that he or she was motivated by despair, and probably came from a poor, neglected segment of society. Both President George W. Bush and the Dalai Lama have made this claim. However, anthropologistScott Atran found in a 2003 study that this is not a justifiable conclusion. A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast[s] doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."[3] More specifically this is due to the transition of countries towards democratic freedoms. "Intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism".[4][5]
From 2003 to 2004, women were more frequently involved in suicide attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere. In Messengers of Death: Female Suicide Bombers, Clara Beyler writes that women have channeled the frustration stemming from their role in society into ruthless behavior.[6] This can demonstrate strength and power in societies where women have a submissive role. That women have become more involved in suicide bombings makes it more difficult to profile a suicide bomber.
Some suicide bombers are educated, with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Most suicide bombers do not show signs of psychopathology. Indeed, leaders of the groups who perpetrate these attacks search for individuals who can be trusted to carry out the mission; those with mental illnesses are not ideal candidates. They often find solace in the ritualistic communion found in extremist circles, which are often headed by charismatic individuals looking for new recruits.
From Wikipedia