Thread: The 'Veil'

That's exactly what it is: a vehicle for escalation against those who have (for better, for worse, or imaginatively) occupied someone else's land.

It has nothing to do with religion. By blaming it on religion it's a convenient way to avoid discussing the truth about why people must resort to such measures in the first place.

"Dying to Win"

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Originally Posted by surasak

That's exactly what it is: a vehicle for escalation against those who have (for better, for worse, or imaginatively) occupied someone else's land.

It has nothing to do with religion. By blaming it on religion it's a convenient way to avoid discussing the truth about why people must resort to such measures in the first place.

So it suicide bombings happaned willy nilly in northern Ireland then

I'm not an expert on Irish matters but I believe the idea was to lose as few PROVO members as possible. I believe most of the bombings were designed to intimidate and harass Britons everywhere and British soldiers in Northern Ireland (a campaign which ultimately did force the UK to negotiate with Sinn Fein). With a limited population recruiting people would be difficult for suicide missions.

More often than not suicide campaigns (modern ones involving bombs as well) have been successful in obtaining the stated political goals. It certainly worked against the U.S. in Beiruit and it's working again in Iraq.

No suicide bombers that i can recall.If the IRA were Islamsts,what do youthink would have happened?

"A limited population recruiting people would be difficult for suicide missions"...dosn't wash either.

Why should it have turned out any different?

Just in case there was any confusion about suicide bombing being some kind of psychotic Islamic reaction to the world: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13. The suicide aspect seems pretty unambiguous to me. If some GI charges a machine gun nest in World War 2 and is obvioulsy going to die in the process, I can't see how that is any less suicidal than the actions of a Tamil Tiger or some boy from a militia in Baghdad. Or how about the bomber crews in WW2? The fatality rate amongst them was extraordinary and surely verged on the suicidal. The civilian deaths caused also dwarf anything which has gone on in the Middle East. There is no moral high ground to be had here.

D-Day. Biggest suicide attack in the history of man.

The IRA cannot be directly compared to the present terrorism.
Different background culture - yes, Islam has to do with it, no doubt, but think further.
How is the individual's live being valued in a Christian, individualistic society, how is the individual's relation to the community in a Muslim Pakistani community?

I don't have the answers, just raising a question.

What is clear to me, is that we need to look further than religion, or would it be sufficient to say that the IRA are Catholic to explain the violence? Throughout history, Catholics haven't exactly been known for their peaceloving nature - if one wants to focus on religion for a moment.

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

I now live and work in a muslim country

Australia?

Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'

By RICHARD SHEARS Last updated at 12:45pm on 26th October 2006
Reader comments (16)
Controversial: Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali




A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats.

Link: Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat' | the Daily Mail

As I said before the key words are integration into a non Muslim society. What this cleric said would passed unnoticed if it had occured in his own country. He appears to be stoking the fire and creating more ill feeling against the majority of good muslims that there are.

Originally Posted by surasak

D-Day. Biggest suicide attack in the history of man.

This might be quoted as a suicide attack but all people were combatants and were acting under orders. IMHO a suicide bomber is a person who will strap himself with explosive or into a car etc laden with same, and deliberately take his own life and those of innocent people. This term suicide bomber if feel mainly has come to notice during the Israel/ palestine confrontation. I would presume that all people that took part in the D Day landings hoped they would survive so this therefore cannot compare to that of a suicide bomber. Might as well include the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Originally Posted by Propagator

Originally Posted by surasak

D-Day. Biggest suicide attack in the history of man.

This might be quoted as a suicide attack but all people were combatants and were acting under orders.

More importantly, they were soldiers, fighting other soldiers.
Not 'civilian' combatants attacking civilians.
That's where I disagree with surasak. It's not the same thing.

Agreed - I forgot to add the word soldiers.

The underlying characteristic is the same: put your life forward for a cause.

Isn't that the reason why people join the military? "To die for your country." Dying for a cause isn't that much different is it?

Suicide bombings are more organized than you think: someone has to get the explosives, make the belt, find a weak spot to exploit, etc. It's more complex than a person waking up one day and thinking 'think I'll blow up a bus today since I'm bored.'

Oh, and the Tamil Tigers use of suicide bombings predates the use of suicide attacks in Israel. Where do you suppose the Palestinians and Hamas got the idea?

You step into a minefield when comparing soldiers, 'combatants' and civilians. Were the Colonists who took up arms part-time against the 'Red Coats' soldiers, combatants, or civilians?

How about the strategic bombing of Germany? Except on the narrowest, legalistic interpretation, the fact that the people doing the bombing happened to wear spiffy uniforms and were all frightfully decent chaps doesn’t really provide much reason to distinguish between them and a suicide bomber in Iraq. The wholesale murder of civilians, coupled with a very high possibility that the perpetrator of the murders will die seems like a good reason to think that there is more that links them than divides. And are the war memorials across England so different to posters of martyrs in Gaza and the West Bank? The cult of death and sacrifice seems pretty similar to me.

You step into a minefield when comparing soldiers, 'combatants' and civilians.

For sure, there are similarities, there are differences, and there are 'overlapping' areas.

But I can't see for the fekk of it how the allied troops attacking the German army has anything in common with a MUslim youth blowing themselves up on a London tube.

Originally Posted by Gerontion

How about the strategic bombing of Germany?...

That was pure terrorism, the Brits should be ashamed of having build a monument for the General responsible. I hope it gets spat on and paint-bombed every single day.

Originally Posted by surasak

The underlying characteristic is the same: put your life forward for a cause.

Isn't that the reason why people join the military? "To die for your country." Dying for a cause isn't that much different is it?

Suicide bombings are more organized than you think: someone has to get the explosives, make the belt, find a weak spot to exploit, etc. It's more complex than a person waking up one day and thinking 'think I'll blow up a bus today since I'm bored.'

Oh, and the Tamil Tigers use of suicide bombings predates the use of suicide attacks in Israel. Where do you suppose the Palestinians and Hamas got the idea?

You step into a minefield when comparing soldiers, 'combatants' and civilians. Were the Colonists who took up arms part-time against the 'Red Coats' soldiers, combatants, or civilians?

Not the same. A soldier will give up his life, but, he hopes that that situation will never happen.
A suicide bomber knows he will die.

People call the firebombing state sponsored terrorism. It used to be called total war. Allied soldiers climbed into aircraft clearly identifiable and they were met in combat by opposing german forces while on their bombing missions. Granted the targets were civilian in Dresden. Terrorism and total war have enough differing characteristics to allow for words which distinguish between the two.

There was no real war during 9/11 and the London bombings. What made the Dresden bombings so horrific was that it was packed with refugees fleeing the Russians.
I'm not denying that it was a horrible thing to do. With the benefits of hindsight, you know that it was towards the end of the war. At the time, nobody knew that.
You seem to conveniently forget London and Coventry.
At that time in the war, Dresden's civilian population was a legitimate target. In fact, civilian targets had been considered legitimate on both sides for at least a couple of years before the Dresden bombing.

Originally Posted by stroller

You step into a minefield when comparing soldiers, 'combatants' and civilians.

For sure, there are similarities, there are differences, and there are 'overlapping' areas.

But I can't see for the fekk of it how the allied troops attacking the German army has anything in common with a MUslim youth blowing themselves up on a London tube.

Because Britain has troops in a Muslim country?

If Germany is attacking Britain you attack both the bombers and the factories in Germany. No more factories = no more aircraft.

If you cannot attack the troops because they are too well armed then you attack civilians.

Attacking the tube in London follows the same logic: make England pay a price for getting involved in Iraq.

Were there any Muslim suicide attacks/attempts prior to London's involvement in Iraq 2003?

^^
Ok, "considered legitimate".

I don't have the time now to dig up sources, but from what I remember, it was pretty obvious it was near the end, it was also known that Dresden had no strategic significance at that time, but was full of refugees.

I cannot see anything legitimate here, only retribution - which you might consider legitimate in itself.

But then the London bombings are legitimate as retribution for the UK's Iraq invasion, too.

Can't have it both ways...

Originally Posted by surasak

...

Attacking the tube in London follows the same logic: make England pay a price for getting involved in Iraq.

Were there any Muslim suicide attacks/attempts prior to London's involvement in Iraq 2003?

Sorry, I got sidetracked with the Dresden bombing.

Yes, I can understand the logic, and why they do it, but it doesn't serve any purpose other than retribution, it's pathetically misguided.