Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
CHICAGO — Suicide terrorism has been on the rise around the world for two decades, but there is great confusion as to why. Since many such attacks — including, of course, those of Sept. 11, 2001 — have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists professing religious motives, it might seem obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause. This presumption has fueled the belief that future 9/11's can be avoided only by a wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which in turn was a core reason for broad public support of the invasion of Iraq.
However, this presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is wrongheaded, and it may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies that are likely to worsen America's situation.
I have spent a year compiling a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 to 2001 — 188 in all. It includes any attack in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while attempting to kill others, although I excluded attacks authorized by a national government, such as those by North Korea against the South. The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have have committed 75 of the 188 incidents).
Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective
The writer somehow fails to convince.
Are we to think of the AQ and Hamas leaders as unbelievers who manipulate muslims?
And why does the Ummah only work in one way? When injustices are performed on muslims, all other muslims suffer with them, but when muslims perform injustices, then by definition, they couldn't have been good muslims to begin with, so the other muslims are off the hook. If you ask me, that's called cognitive dissonance.
Are we to think of the AQ and Hamas leaders as unbelievers who manipulate muslims?
I think of them as Muslims with political goals, in a Muslim population from which they draw their membership and who express their goals in Muslim terms.
I also think of Mr. Bush as a Christian with political goals, in a Christian population from which he draws his followers and who expresses his goals in Christian terms.
Yes, I am drawing a moral equivalence.
Well, if you describe events in the most general terms, you arrive at equivalencies. That only goes to show that one should instead describe events in specific terms.
Both I and Stalin try/tried to influence events in our favour by our actions, but that doesn't make me feel equivalent to the Megakiller.
I think I've been a bit more specific than you. More:
Neither the Bush regime nor Hamas has a great attachment to the truth.
Both the Bush regime and Hamas has territorial aims that have not proven to be in the best interests of their followers.
Both the Bush regime and Hamas use religion as a whip and goad.
Both the Bush regime and Hamas have escalated violence in the name of protecting their followers, and both have increased the risk to those who trusted them…as well as to those who haven't.
Neither the Bush regime nor Hamas scruples about sending people to their death to pursue their aims while their leaders sit back in safety and comfort.
And in fact, the Bush regimes goals have less legitimacy than Hamas'.
Holy shit! You hit that one out. But I still think the original point from Pape is a good one. Terrorism is only possible in certain circumstances and is potentially valuable against certain kinds of targets. That's a very useful insight.
Holy shit! You hit that one out.
Easy target.
It's important to make sure folks keep the motivation seperate from the explanation. Muslims are getting screamed on because of the explanation part. Meanwhile, it's actually the same old alpha primate jostling causing all the problems.
Exactly. But I fear that separation is too subtle a notion for some and that, as a result, the primates will continue flinging feces around and screaming.
It may be too subtle for people to notice on their own (and even that is due to lack of practice) but they can see it when it's pointed out.
You probably have to be nicer about it than I was, though.
Well, I still say it's easy to see similarities if you want to.
I also take offense at the perception that AQ and Hamas are, because of their "underdog" position, somehow justified in no longer following the rules of war, and behave in a manner that endangers citizens of both parties, by not wearing uniforms and hiding amongst civilians and only attacking soft targets.
Just like we had the "noble savage", we now have the "noble guerilla fighter" myth. I fail to see the nobility of killing as many civilians as possible. In my book, that's just evil.
Where did I approve of their actions? I'm disapproving of the Bush regime's actions…to approve of Hamas' would break the moral equivalence.
Their GOALS…dominion of a land their people had been living in for centuries if not millenia…are more legitimate that the Bush regime's…establishment of world dominance through the destruction of a regime which was incapable of hurting it, merely as an example.
First of all, if you (as in generic you, not you Earl) cross a certain line with your "actions", your goal becomes irrelevant to me. From where I'm looking, blowing up people has become the goal of Hamas, and their stated goals an excuse for doing that.
If we have learned something from similar conflicts between India an Pakistan or Greece and Turkey it is that the only possible solution is to draw a line and everybody staying on his side. This means for Isreal giving up the contested settlements, and for the Palestinians giving up the right of return.
Okay, we got agreement.
Israel is a fact on the ground, a fait accompli, stuff like that. Palestine and all the other locals have to understand that, The Arabs ain't going nowhere and have the right to live, and the right to an independant homeland…and the modern political construct named Israel is NOT the Israel of the Old Testiment.Israel needs to understand that.
I believe the citizens both sides already understand what they must. As usual it's the alpha primates that are the problem.
Wait a minute.
You're saying Hamas is killing people for kicks and jollies?
I'm saying that I don't see how their actions are furthering their goals.
That could be either because they're not letting me in on the master plan, or because they don't have any realistic plan at all, but just send some brainwashed kids to blow themselves up, so they can get more money from people who don't like jews.
So...blowing people up is or is not their goal, in your opinion?
Just getting clear on how thick the rhetoric is being applied so I can adjust my filters.
I would like to point out two misconceptions in this (without trying to break up the argument). First, that that Arabs have some sort of temporal claim is erronious. There have always been small Jewish and Arab populations in the Palestinian Mandate area, but there was never any significant Arab density until the Zionist pre-1948 Jews began moving in and developing. The Pre-1948 Jews brought the vast majority of the capital and skills that developed the area and made it livable by modern standards.
Second, the idea that the Arabs deserve a homeland is both correct and misleading. There is an Arab homeland established as part of the same UN resolutions that established Isreal from the Palestinian Mandate -- Transjordania. When the Arabs had this homeland, they used it to attack Israel (several times). It is also worth noting that Jordan and Syria have consistantly refused to integrate the Israeli refugees into their countries, while Israel has always integrated Jordanian and Syrian refugees (along with Iraqi and Egyptian refugees.)
Well, the stated goal of Hamas is "the liberation of Palestine". Do the bombings facilitate this liberation? I would say not, especially as they go mainly for soft targets, hence the cynical thought that they're mainly for fund-raising and "brandname" purposes.
For me to guess what goes on in the minds of the Hamas leaders, I should be in a state of mind where the Hamas charter makes sense, which is quite an effort.
Phelps:
Sorry, I missed that response.
First, that that Arabs have some sort of temporal claim is erronious.
I can see that as a legitimate viewpoint. Can you see the idea that there is no continuity between the current state of Israel, which in my opinion is a construct of Eurpoean guilt over not acting against the Nazis, and the Israel of the Old Testament?
Palistine's temporal claims are MUCH sounder than those of the settlers trying to recreate a millenias-gone nation.
Second, the idea that the Arabs deserve a homeland is both correct and misleading. There is an Arab homeland established as part of the same UN resolutions that established Isreal from the Palestinian Mandate -- Transjordania.
This is valid if you accept the idea that Europeans have the right to make such dispensations. I'd need that right justified before I accept the point.
You and my father raise the same points.
DoF:
Well, the stated goal of Hamas is "the liberation of Palestine". Do the bombings facilitate this liberation? I would say not, especially as they go mainly for soft targets, hence the cynical thought that they're mainly for fund-raising and "brandname" purposes.
So you're saying they're going about it wrong, that's all. Correct?
Do you judge Israel's policy the same way? Are Sharon's actions making Israelis safer?
Well, if Hamas went for strategic targets, there would be some connection between its actions and its goals. Without such a connection, does it make sense to talk about the goals of Hamas? If your actions don't further your goals, at some point your stated goal becomes just an excuse.
I guess Sharon does the best with the information he has available, which is the past behaviour of his adversaries. I don't believe for a moment that if he didn't retaliate, the Hamas people would say: hey, they didn't retaliate, maybe we should stop bombing. They're not really into peace, at least that part is clearly stated in their charter.
Without such a connection, does it make sense to talk about the goals of Hamas?
Of course it does.
If your actions don't further your goals, at some point your stated goal becomes just an excuse.
Has Sharon reached that point yet?
If you want to be a famous footballer, you can call it a "goal". But if you only watcht TV and eat junkfood, others could call it a "dream" instead.
As for Sharon, I can "get in his mind", that is, I can make a model where his actions make sense. Speaking of Sharon, at least he put the settlements on the negotiating table. I'm still waiting for the Palestinians to do the same with the right of return.
If you want to be a famous footballer, you can call it a "goal". But if you only watcht TV and eat junkfood, others could call it a "dream" instead.
So…you're equating the Palestinian demand for a respected homeland to watching TV and eating junk food?
As for Sharon, I can "get in his mind", that is, I can make a model where his actions make sense.
So can I. But I can also look at things in a way that Hamas' actions make sense. This is not a matter of agreeing with either side for me, but of assuming what they assume, denying what they deny and thinking through the consequences.
From the outside of the entire situation, I have to observe that both parties have been carrying on their actions for roughly the same amount of time, so if one has reached the point where the "stated goal becomes just an excuse" so has the other because neither has enhanced their own security.
Nope, just using an extreme example to illustrate that "goal" might not be the correct word to use if there is a serious disconnect between your aspirations and your actions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the other" here. Hamas is not interested in security, but in the "liberation of Palestine", which encompasses Israel in toto according to Hamas.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the other" here. Hamas is not interested in security, but in the "liberation of Palestine", which encompasses Israel in toto according to Hamas.
Both are interested in sole possession of what they consider to be their homeland.
Both have pursued that goal for roughly an equal amount of time. In fact, if you consider Hamas' creation as the reaction to Isarel's existance, Israel has pursued it longer.
So, since they are pursuing the same goal, if Hamas' failure for this length of time indicates a disconnect between their stated and actual goals, Israel's failure for a greater length of time indicates a greater disconnect, no?
Israel, unlike Hamas, is a democracy. The goals of Hamas are stated in its charter, I'm not sure what the goals of Israel would be. Whatever the majority of voters want, I guess.
I think I've reached the "what-EVA!" point.
No, I'm sure I have.