[Dangerman]

I have a 3,500 word paper due in a week on Suicide Terrorism, and I thought it would be good for me to start a discussion here to see what you guys think. It would be haphazard of me to just take my own views, there are so many more out there that I cannot see, and I am hoping we can expose some more here

Basically this is a Discussion not a debate, so feel free to discuss what you think. If you have heard something from somewhere state it, this is a sociological paper so anything goes as long as you can prove it (not necessarily with quantitative data) and justify it. There is no right nor wrong.

Here are some questions that I thought would be appropriate to begin with:

1) Why is Suicide Terrorism deemed deviant to you or generally? (by deviant i don't mean purely criminal. deviance is something that violates a social norm(s))
2) What do you see as the causes, intentions, motives, and justifications we use and the the suicide terrorist (also affiliates) use?
3) What is the definition of Suicide Terrorism?
4) Finally, Do you have any questions that you have about Suicide Terrorism.

I know this issue can stir up some aggressive emotions, thats fine we are all human, but if you feel like you need to go on a rant or emotional outburst do it somewhere else not here, thanks.

Also I know there are a few Islamic people on here so if you have any input on this situation, because there is a large majority of fundamental islamic movements that use Suicide Terrorism and use the religion as a justification, this would be excellent. All of the people in my tutorials and lectures are not islamic and I basically have no idea what your opinions are.

Cheers,
Dangerman

[Zen]

1) By right, it's heretical. First off, it's suicide. Secondly, most of the casualties are innocent people. It's not martyrdom. No, it just plain murder, genocide even!

2) Everyone one of those heretics want to die in the Name of God. Well, they did die but for nothing except violence and death. God will not receive them in Heaven and will first throw them into Hell. Making them repent their sins.

3) This definition could be very vague. OK, from what a Terrorist does: He either attached an explosive device or lethal chemical to him and sets it off when he's at his designated target. Another way of this Suicide Terrorism is getting a vehicle, making it more prone to exploding either by fixing bombs on it and so on and either crashing at the target or positioned itself near the target. Though I wouldn't say 'holding a position while surrounded and you're more likely to die than survive the encounter' is suicide. No, that's just holding the line and die standing.

4) Nope. I made my opinion clear on this. I only asked why hasn't the governments make plans to improve social and economic as well as religious development so this kind of people wouldn't exist.

[Zerotrousers]

Originally Posted by Zenai

4) Nope. I made my opinion clear on this. I only asked why hasn't the governments make plans to improve social and economic as well as religious development so this kind of people wouldn't exist.

Sorry, I don't want to sound arrogant, but could you explain to me what Religious development is? And how governments can successfully do this?

[EDIT] @ Dangerman:

1. I see suicide as no more a social deviation as normal mass killings.
2. I believe that it's simply to do with the bomber's indoctrination by their supreriors. When was the last time you saw Osama Bin-Laden blow himself up?
3. I have no clue
4. No.

[Dangerman]

Thanks Zenai for your input, it's greatly appreciated.
I'm Assuming you are muslim? What you have discussed is great. That from the viewpoint of someone who shares a social connection (i.e religion, i don't mean hanging out with them literally, sorry for any offense) with these people are deviant because they believe in a interpretation that a minority preach. Hence to a person who follows the accepted norms we can see that they are heretics. This is great I've got a new angle.

This is excellent. This could be a great discussion. Not for me only, but to open peoples minds a bit to this situation that plagues two great societies, instead of going straight to hatred when the media and other institutions (governments etc.) over exaggerate facts and only depict one aspect of another culture that we see as the only one.

@ Zerotrousers: Do you have any answers to the questions i posted above? If you are only going to pick at other peoples opinions, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could state your views and then maybe you can pick at peoples opinions. I made question 4 open so you can state anything that i may have missed. This is not a thread to discuss religion and how governments can control this, just Suicide Terrorism.

[Faolin]

1.) It might be a little cynical of me, but I'd say a large part of what makes suicide terrorism so strange is that deliberatley killing oneself for something other then oneself is not a common concept in Western culture (yes, that includes me). Suicide is what you do when your own life is unbearable, and risking death for a higher cause is considered noble, but doing something in which there is no possibility you will live must seem foreign to alot of people.

When you combine the "wierdness" of that action with its horrific consequences, suicide terrorism acquires a much worse reputation then other methods of killing (which are often considered fair game).

2) Despite what I've said earlier, I don't see the motives of a suicide terrorist as that different to any soldier. That is, any soldier that fights for other motives then money. You are putting your own life on the line to kill your enemy, for whatever reason you believe that enemy is "evil". A suicide bomber just takes that self-sacrifice to the next level.

3.) This one's a little harder.....An attack which you intend your own actions to be the death of you, that is intended to cause terror amongst your enemy.

[Zen]

Originally Posted by Zerotrousers

Sorry, I don't want to sound arrogant, but could you explain to me what Religious development is? And how governments can successfully do this?

Meaning like making religion more relevant to modern times. Bringing new issues like video game violence to the table and what does the Holy Book and the Prophet's quote say about them and if they didn't talk about it specifically, the religious council will sit around using their best judgment to decide whether or not is video game violence is bad or not.

Originally Posted by Dangerman

Thanks Zenai for your input, it's greatly appreciated.
I'm Assuming you are muslim? What you have discussed is great. That from the viewpoint of someone who shares a social connection (i.e religion, i don't mean hanging out with them literally, sorry for any offense) with these people are deviant because they believe in a interpretation that a minority preach. Hence to a person who follows the accepted norms we can see that they are heretics. This is great I've got a new angle.

This is excellent. This could be a great discussion. Not for me only, but to open peoples minds a bit to this situation that plagues two great societies, instead of going straight to hatred when the media and other institutions (governments etc.) over exaggerate facts and only depict one aspect of another culture that we see as the only one.

No problem but do note I'm one of the the more liberal free thinking Muslims. Maybe some the younger generation will share this though with me. Actually, I hadn't talk about this kind of things outside of these forums. Talking out loud for here might be dangerous. Not to say I will be endanger of getting tortured. Just they will send me to a religious camp and preach until I'm bored to death :-\

[crisis_vyper]

My point of view may anger some people, but I must warn first that I am in no way a fanatic or anything, just a realist.

1) Why is Suicide Terrorism deemed deviant to you or generally? (by deviant i don't mean purely criminal. deviance is something that violates a social norm(s))
2) What do you see as the causes, intentions, motives, and justifications we use and the the suicide terrorist (also affiliates) use?
3) What is the definition of Suicide Terrorism?
4) Finally, Do you have any questions that you have about Suicide Terrorism.

You assume that everyone thinks that it is deviant. For me I have a different point of view about suicide terrorism. I will answer all your questions in one long answer.

For one I do not think of it as deviant, as deviant is in the eyes of the beholder. A westerner may not understand the ideas of self-sacrifice for the greater good, but an Easterner would. To begin with, the Western world is a very individualistic society, as compared to the collectivist society that most Easterners are accustomed to. In a Western society, the attention is always focused on the individual, which often leads to a more materialistic and to be blunt here, a more selfish society. Every person is for themselves in a Western society, and sacrificing yourself is an act of ultimate foolishness.

However, in a collectivist society, the individual plays a small role in the grander set of things. Each person is like a cogwheel in a finely-tuned watch, each working together for the benefit of all. Everyone will help each other out, and help their society to become better. Thus you can always see values such as clan affinity and also allegiance to a certain group, and also a more socialistic society.

In addition to the societal atmosphere, there is also more militaristic purposes. Partial loss to achieve overall victory is always a tenet of warfare whether you like it or not. Suicide terrorism is just that; another tool for an asymmetrical warfare. Why cares if it is dirty or not bounds to the laws of social norms? Most certainly people will be horrified by it, but that is how warfare goes and if you can instill a sense of uncertainty and paranoia from among the military and also the populace, you have achieved your objective. The Tamil Tigers are using it in the form of their Black Tigers cadre, and actually are the pioneers in terms of systematic suicide bombings. They have explored the many ways of making it efficient and deadly, and they used it as a weapon.

In addition, thinking about it in a more innovative side, the suicide bomber is actually a cheap man's cruise missile. Not only is it able to bring and guide itself to a target, but it can also selectively choose the area where it can do the most damage. In addition, it is also a rather stealthy weapon to be used, able to sneak themselves into a zone under the guise of being a civilian. And when it strikes, you have no way to counter it and will strike fear and also much damage. Also, it is immune to jamming and also hacking, and. I addition, if you want a more smarter and craftier version of the bomb, you can teach it tricks and also indoctrinate to be a terminator. "No remorse, no respite" would be a good way to say this whole point. In addition, if you have not noticed, suicide bombers can come in many shapes and sizes, from children to women, to mentally retarded people; the targets that will invite the least amount of suspicion.

Very cost efficient for a weapon. As for new bombs, there will always more to take up the mantle of being the "Living Bomb".

IN addition, you have to consider what those who are resorting to suicide bombing are experiencing and thinking about. Most of the time they are indoctrinated because they have seen what suffering have been brought on them by oppressing powers. But yet, there are those who actually use them in a rather pragmatic way. Osama Bin Laden is a pragmatic man in my opinion, as he not only manipulated religion into such a potent weapon, but also able to let his own allies and also operatives to operate under a basic objective. Each one of the sleeper cells are loyal to Osama, but they do not follow his every word about what to do. They are independent to arrange their own missions and wage the war by themselves. For that I actually respect him for he has a clear understanding of the human mind. People always seek for a better life, and a greater goal in life, and that Osama provides to his followers with a righteous reason. And for that they wage war and die in the name of Osama Bin Laden.

Religion did not make Osama into a terrorist, it is Osama who make religion into a rallying call for terrorism. Take away the Religion, and you can see that his organization is akin to an underworld crime organization. They are able to exert a controlling presence in the world, but yet are so mysterious that no one knows of what they will do next or planning to do next. The get their followers by secret, their followers following their orders and also belief in the organization, and they will die before they tell anything.

IN a Mafia way of thinking, here is how I categorize all of them in Al-Qaeda;

Osama:Capofamiglia
Advisors: Consiglieres
Soldiers: Uomini D'onore

Religion is just a cover to bring in more men so that they can achieve their hidden agenda, which as of now we do not really know. Same thing goes with the Tamil Tigers and other Revolutionary groups. If you have a bunch of grieving people who wants revenge and someone comes in and preach that there is a way to get back at them, there are quite a number that will take up that message and do whatever the person preach.


So if you ask me if suicide terrorism is wrong or what, I would not say that it is wrong or right. It is just people improvising on a method of warfare. The big armies has bombs and planes and shi[ps and tanks, the little guys has the most dangerous weapon known to man; the human adaptability and innovativeness.

[Zen]

Grrrr......Me angry. Me mad. I accuse you of being a heretic speaking such nonsense :P Kidding. You did point out a few good points. However.....

Yes, it may be more efficient and damaging. But still a Man's life is priceless. And I see these suicide attacks not being so significant or damaging except the 9/11 attacks. But still insignificant. They're just making the Giant mad like the Japanese did. And you don't want to make the Giant mad. No offense to any American. It just fit the profile :P

If they really want to make a difference, they should have started a war, not the puny insurgency. I mean full out war. Thousands of men, hundreds of vehicles rolling out, aircraft fighters duking it out in the air, battleships firing their broadsides. Or use more subtler action like stop oil exports to the US etc.

Crisis_Vyper, from what you're saying: I'm more an individualist. Though I wouldn't say that being an individualists nor a collectivists is bad. Again, this is a matter of opinion. But I'm also taught to give myself for the nation and religion but circumstances made me an individualist. I can be a loyal but only if I see the person/faction is fit of my loyalty. I love my country. I love Allah. I love the people.

Furthermore, I always seem to have a difference of opinion than the people around me. I think differently. I dress differently. I speak differently. I am different. But enough about me :P What I'm trying to say is: Ya, you're right about Easterners might be more collective but it isn't bad nor is being an individualist.

Ah, friggin' hell. I forgotten what I was going to say......oh, well. It'll come back sooner or later :P

[crisis_vyper]

Originally Posted by Zenai

Grrrr......Me angry. Me mad. I accuse you of being a heretic speaking such nonsense :P Kidding. You did point out a few good points.

Accuse me all you want, but it is the truth of things.

Yes, it may be more efficient and damaging. But still a Man's life is priceless. And I see these suicide attacks not being so significant or damaging except the 9/11 attacks. But still insignificant. They're just making the Giant mad like the Japanese did. And you don't want to make the Giant mad. No offense to any American. It just fit the profile :P
If they really want to make a difference, they should have started a war, not the puny insurgency. I mean full out war. Thousands of men, hundreds of vehicles rolling out, aircraft fighters duking it out in the air, battleships firing their broadsides. Or use more subtler action like stop oil exports to the US etc.

No....a man's life is worth only a penny. You know why? That's how much a bullet cost. And also Chivalry and kindness kills soldiers.

Pearl Harbour and 9/11 are two different things, because one is a direct conflict while the other is what you can call a 'bush' war. The methods of waging war are different, and so is the objective of the war.

A conventional war is like any other war; bring in the guns blast each other to bite-sized pieces and the voctor is the one who is not dead by the end of the day. Insurgencies however are more subtle, as they use indirect ways of weathering down the opponent until they are forced to give up or comply to the pace that the insurgents made. From hacking, propaganda, to terrorism they will Aulma you off and lead you down a wild goose chase, wasting loads of money chasing what are essentially 'ghosts'.

In that sense, a insurgency is actually much more potent than conventional warfare as they do not need to spend as much manpower and also energy to defeat their opponent. When you think insurgencies, you must think David and Goliath, where the insurgents are Davids. How is this related to suicide bombing?

Suicide bombings are not there to be a blunt instrument weapon. And yes, I did say they are weapons, BUT they are political weapons. They are meant to make the populace unsure of themselves and also the effectiveness of their government protecting them. Paranoia starts to creep in, and then people start to try and find out who did it. If the organization that planned the suicide bombing shuts it, the populace will sooner or later will shift from finding out who is the culprit to blaming their government as to why they are not protected enough, and in the case of foreign troops, the nation where the foreign troops come from will begin to wonder why should they fight in another nation that is not even important to them. One suicide bomb can do ten, no one hundred times more damage than what a normal conventional warfare can do. With the mass media these days, you can make one attack look like a Hiroshima any day.

A similar example can be seen in the Tet Offensive of 1968 in South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong are the underdogs in the war, but one single offensive in the hearts of the cities sprawling with US reporters caused many Americans at home wonder if the war is going well at all, and thus this led to the US leaving South Vietnam and also lead to thwe reunification of Vietnam in 1975. They may lost the battle, but they definitely won the war. In this example, there is no suicide bombing, but the use of fear and doubt as a weapon enable them to won in terms of grand strategy.

To make things easier to understand, I will use a boxing analogy here. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour is a straight out boxing match, between a featherweight(Japan) and Heavyweight(US). In this type of battle, even though the featherweight has the advantage o speed, bu not in terms of durability and firepower. That two would be the department of the heavyweight.

As for insurgents and A nation, they play shadow boxing with you. They are striking you from within the shadows, weathering you down slowly. The heavyweight, which in this case the nation, will try to punch the enemy or what they think is the enemy, but they will invariably miss and tire themselves even more. By the time the Heavyweight is exhausted, they deliver their knockout punch.

Similarly, in a normal boxing match, you want to win in the fight. But there are two ways on doing so; one is a Total Knockout,and the other a Technical Knockout. The total Knockout is when two boxers punch each other till one knocks out or throws in the towel while a Technical Knockout aims to get enough points to win the match. Thus a direct conflict can be seen as a Total Knockout match, while an insurgency is a Technical knockout.

So what I am saying is that if they are done right, insurgencies can win wars with the least amount of effort and also bloodshed. Bloody wars are not popular these days, and fighting like those times is downright stupid in terms of grand strategy and also politically.

[Guitardian]

FIGHT OFF THE U.S.A. BY CUTTING OIL EXPORTS TO THEM??!! wow Zenai, that's a bit silly when you think about it. Don't fool yourself for a second that the Pentagon cares a rat's ass about some Iraqui common citizen. They just have to play nice enough to look to the U.N. like they aren't an unreasonable behemoth.

Good idea... well no not really... extremely bad idea. It would start a war by stopping oil exports because the U.S.A. and allies will just come and take it anyway. If anyone thinks they can outmuscle the big beef of the U.S.A. When it comes to the ability to smash a city to pieces they are very optimistic and foolish. The United States cannot be assaulted conventionally, or 'occupied' by a foreign force because it is just too big to occupy. The only alternative is little jabs of terrorist attacks, if anyone wants to disturb the American military power to defend itself. Look where does that get them? Someone bombs the twin towers, so kills some people... In response, the U.S. smashes a whole city to rubble overnight because their government were distantly supportive of the people responsible for the attack on the trade center.

It's one thing to be 'losing' an ongoing struggle to occupy a country in order for radicals and insurgents to be put down and eventually make peace.... So the U.S.A. looks a bit foolish because they have to fight on the terms of the insurgents, while at home, anarchists and pacifists are unsupportive of the idea. If the middle east countries decide they will not export the oil to the U.S., they will find out just how heavy the hammer is.

No more reconnaisance patrols and peacekeeping, no more worry about the 'civilians' just a lot of cruise missiles and airstrikes and no care about the carnage.

That scenario simply will not happen, because the U.S.A. is fighting with the kid gloves on, worried about civilians. You cut off an Oil Supply - which, on a side topic - doesn't really belong to one country or another, it's a NATURAL resource. Nobody earned the oil they sit on -

and that will be the logic spin behind the smackdown if such an unlikely scenario were ever to happen. If the most valuable resource in the world is hoarded by a small group of states who stand no chance of fending off the Giant, They will go down like the Japs in wwII... huge destruction... etc (not nukes I think, but there's plenty of 'conventional' weapons that could smash a city flat if the U.S.A. decided they don't care any more about civilian casualties they just want to get their way) They will come down so hard there will be no civilization in the region to sit on the oil any more.

enter stage left:
Suicide terrorists....

cowardly and irresponsible some of you have said.
yes I agree.
however... the act of terrorist attacks on a population is essentially redefining how wars are fought... If you have a big machinegun and a machette, and I have a pocket knife... I am not going to have a standoff on your terms, am I? I will kill you in your sleep rather than letting you take advantage of your obvious martial superiority.

Involving suicide in it serves two purposes... Firstly it shows the world the message 'yes we are that serious about this', a message that unites the terrorist state and confuses the terrorised one.

The second purpose is that no-one can be captured. When you fight from the shadows the worst thing that can happen is someone knowing where you are. If they caught a single person, the risk of tortured information would jeopardize the entire organization, and that hammer would hit very quickly and very hard. Blowing oneself up in the process minimalizes that risk. If a cause really is that important, then someone will die for whatever they believe in... otherwise we wouldn't have wars at all.

Grabbing a rifle and storming a city is putting yourself at risk of death, knowingly, so in a way the only difference between that and being a suicide bomber is the uncertainty.

All the religious stuff about what is or is not a sin has nothing to do with the practical realities of what it achieves. Arguing that suicide is a mortal sin is difficult because that really just depends on what myth you buy into. Just because a Catholic belives that suicide is a sin doesn't mean a Discordian or a Satanist or a Subgenius cares. Its the practicallity of sending a message 'we are dead serious', and avoiding interrogation that makes suicide bombing a logical way to wage war. If you are going to KILL, then DIE.... be ruthless about it if it's that important.

personally I wish people wouldn't think that anything is that important to want to kill and/or die for, but that's just me.