Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago has studied more than 300 terrorist incidents since 1980 and found that they were uniformly directed against foreign occupation. Whether Marxist or Islamic or Sikh or secular, all such attacks reflected "a nationalistic response" to outside intervention. That seems no less the case when it comes to Islamic strikes against the U.S. After 9/11 a Saudi poll found that 95 percent of educated Saudi men shared Osama bin Laden's professed goal of ridding their country of U.S. military forces.
This is simple to understand.
Anyone who inject moralism into war is simply taking up the cudgels of the propagandist. "Oh, how terrible those fanatics were to bomb the World Trade Center."
Right. And how terrible it was for the US to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians with Shock and Awe. And before that with the boycott to slowly kill Iraqi kids and oldsters with a lack of medicine. And equally terrible to rake German and Japanese cities with carpet bombing, to delibearately terrrorize the civilians of those countries.
War and violence are terrible. Unlike lone gunmen and mad bombers, tho, it always has a rational cause. It is rational for a population to want to rid their land of foreign occupation. Rational and natural. As natural as breathing.
As in conventional warfare, there are "atrocities" on both sides - we are not more "moral" because our violence and terror springs from our government, while "theirs" issues from their militants, their "militias" so to speak.
The war the US is waging on an independent globalist-rejecting Islam is not a war of liberation. It is a war of domination, where the converging forces of the globalism of Money and the Zionism of Israel have shed American blood to realize their grand schemes.
And what old entertainer was it who used to say: "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Anyone who inject moralism into war is simply taking up the cudgels of the propagandist. "Oh, how terrible those fanatics were to bomb the World Trade Center."
Right. And how terrible it was for the US to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians with Shock and Awe. And before that with the boycott to slowly kill Iraqi kids and oldsters with a lack of medicine. And equally terrible to rake German and Japanese cities with carpet bombing, to delibearately terrrorize the civilians of those countries.
War and violence are terrible. Unlike lone gunmen and mad bombers, tho, it always has a rational cause. It is rational for a population to want to rid their land of foreign occupation. Rational and natural. As natural as breathing.
As in conventional warfare, there are "atrocities" on both sides - we are not more "moral" because our violence and terror springs from our government, while "theirs" issues from their militants, their "militias" so to speak.
The war the US is waging on an independent globalist-rejecting Islam is not a war of liberation. It is a war of domination, where the converging forces of the globalism of Money and the Zionism of Israel have shed American blood to realize their grand schemes.
And what old entertainer was it who used to say: "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Is killing people just because they don't want you in THEIR country really a war?
This isn't even a war, It's killing anyone who won't go along with the global dictators. They do it in the U.S.A. too!
Anyone who thinks it's O.K. to keep killing anybody the U.S.A. wants to has the devil inside them and should all be eliminated.
ALL OF YOU!
What's the reason The Killing Machine is still in Iraq?
WMD's?
Saddam?
Selling Oil illegally?
Every reason the U.S. gave for invading Iraq has been taken care of and they are still there. Why are they still there?
This is proof that the U.S. didn't invade Iraq for WMD's or to oust Saddam. That's done and finished.
What was the real reason the U.S. invaded Iraq?
This isn't even a war, It's killing anyone who won't go along with the global dictators. They do it in the U.S.A. too!
Anyone who thinks it's O.K. to keep killing anybody the U.S.A. wants to has the devil inside them and should all be eliminated.
ALL OF YOU!
What's the reason The Killing Machine is still in Iraq?
WMD's?
Saddam?
Selling Oil illegally?
Every reason the U.S. gave for invading Iraq has been taken care of and they are still there. Why are they still there?
This is proof that the U.S. didn't invade Iraq for WMD's or to oust Saddam. That's done and finished.
What was the real reason the U.S. invaded Iraq?
Bush is a puppet.
That would mean the U.S.A. is guilty of harboring terrorists and should also be invaded. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
There are Cuban in this Country who are considered terrorists by the Cuban Goverment and the U.S. harbors them? The U.S. also harbors many other terrorists from the Countrys the U.S. doesn't like, but that's O.K. because the U.S. is God and what ever they say is FACT!
Nice attitude and 1 that will end this great Country because nobody can act like that. Not even the U.S.!
That would mean the U.S.A. is guilty of harboring terrorists and should also be invaded. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
There are Cuban in this Country who are considered terrorists by the Cuban Goverment and the U.S. harbors them? The U.S. also harbors many other terrorists from the Countrys the U.S. doesn't like, but that's O.K. because the U.S. is God and what ever they say is FACT!
Nice attitude and 1 that will end this great Country because nobody can act like that. Not even the U.S.!
I could study 300 assholes and conclude that all of them are absolutely full of schit.
So what?
I could blow up the next door neighbors house because I hate his ass and then say I did it because he was a terrorist. Who's to say I'm a liar.
Robert Pape is obviously an academic moonbat - one of the beautiful people - who set out with a predetermined goal to prove that terrorists are really victims.
And there are always a few moveon moonbat morons around that will read his study and reach the realization that the terrorists are good and the United States is evil.
First they come up with a light bird who syas the war is evil and then we get a moonbat who says that the terrorists are reacting to threats from evil infidels.
What's next, some congressman says "Bush lied and soldiers died"?
Actually, Pape is anything but a moonbat. He wrote a book in 2005 called "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." The purpose of this book was not to paint terrorists as victims, but to study their motivations and modus operandi from the ground up. The premise, of course, is that without understanding the enemy, we cannot hope to deal with them effectively.
The book also corrects many misconceptions regarding suicide terrorists, pointing out that the majority of them consists not of poor, uneducated religious zealots on the fringe of their societies, but rather of average-to-above-average social and educational background who actually thrive upon moral support from their own local communities.
Religion, while often an important part of many terrorists' sound-bites and propaganda, actually is always secondary to their primary objective of driving away foreign military occupation (indeed, many suicide terrorists have been atheists as well). Occupation is always the key; without it, there is no longer the sense of urgency and moral self-justification that fuels the growth and support of terrorist organizations.
It is important to remember that suicide terrorism operates under certain strategic, social, and individual logic and when certain conditions are met, and it is essential that we understand said logic and conditions if we hope to win the "war on terrorism."
"Occupying powers..."
:lol:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2002/bali/default.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/09/jordan.blasts/index.html
Please don't make me go through the entire history of Islamic terror to prove the idiocy of these claims or 'studies' which cite "occupying powers" as the root cause of this bloodshed.
"Occupying powers?" More like blood thirsty radicals who will stop at NOTHING to acquire power -- including the slaughter of their own people in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other areas across the middle east and around the world.
:lol:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2002/bali/default.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/09/jordan.blasts/index.html
Please don't make me go through the entire history of Islamic terror to prove the idiocy of these claims or 'studies' which cite "occupying powers" as the root cause of this bloodshed.
"Occupying powers?" More like blood thirsty radicals who will stop at NOTHING to acquire power -- including the slaughter of their own people in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other areas across the middle east and around the world.
You're misunderstanding the point. The ultimate aim of some of these Islamic terrorists may indeed be the destruction of Western societies/values/world domination/whatever (and fat chance of that happening in the foreseeable future), but what I have said is that foreign, military occupation is precisely what provides these otherwise ridiculous ideals with a sense of urgency, combined with moral justification and even support from their own communities, all of which results in the rise of suicide terrorism. Hezbollah and Hamas are good recent examples of this.
This is what many people fail to get: while the U.S. must defeat the current pool of suicide terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans, it must at the same time seek to prevent and hinder a new pool of terrorists from rising up to take their place. There is a dilemma here, as heavy military force not only does not root out current, existing suicide terrorists, but it engenders the growth of more. The current administration (and I am most certainly not singling out Bush here) has failed to consider this inherent dilemma, and is thus fighting a losing battle.
Al Jolson, born Asa Yoelson in Lithuania to Jewish parents, in "The Jazz Singer" in 1927. But then you knew that. Also particularly well known for his role in black face, but let's not go into a meta-thread.
Why is it whenever you post along these lines my train of thought goes to "Wag the Dog" where the tail is wagging the dog?
nepenthe,
Unfortunately, ‘moonbat’ is pretty close to the mark for this Chomsky lightweight. I’m sorry, but any person that speaks of “American policy to conquer Muslim countries” cannot be considered remotely objective or intellectually honest on this defining issue of our time.
No doubt, Pape’s book is well researched but his conclusions badly miss the mark.
First, from the beginning Pape assumes because the behavior of suicide bombing is ‘human’ that it's necessarily rational in the classic sense of weighing purely economic preferences. In many ways, his study of martyrdom is just as misguided as the Sigmund Freuds who spend their lives psychoanalyzing serial killers putting forward a rational hypothesis to explain irrational behavior. So it is not surprising that his ‘theory’ is already largely overtaking by events in Bali, Argentina, Jordan and so on.
Second, the strain of Islam we are just beginning to confront (for years, the West was largely complacent and ignored this growing radicalism), view the material world as an evil impurity – a primitive Taliban-like philosophy -- hence their hostility toward anything resembling the free society: intellectual enquiry, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free markets, a free press, the rule of law etc – in a nutshell, anything seen as a distraction from the will of Allah. Most of us in the West, including Pape, don’t realize the behavior of suicide bombers and the increasing number of women wearing the hijab, are recent phenomena. This radical militant, intolerant and suicidal strain of Islam most Americans were introduced to on 9/11, began in the 50s with the writings of Muslims such as Sayyid Qutb, who experienced their own crises of faith: Islamic beliefs clashing with the many sinful temptations of the West. Their teachings have since been institutionalized in the Muslim world, which is why this brainwashed radical strain of martyrdom has become so threatening to moderate Muslims and is seeping into our modern Western world.
This brings me to my final point. In recent years, a new, even more disturbing globalized pattern of suicide attacks has emerged that now coexists with the traditional localized pattern of suicide attacks Pape discusses in his book. How do these fit into Pape’s theory? Answer: they don’t. They break away from Pape’s rigid, nationally focused set of arguments that ignores the three key features of the globalization of martyrdom: its transnational character, the visceral nature of grievances of the globalized suicide attacker, and the important role played by the Internet in indoctrinating, training, and recruiting this new and very dangerous globalized martyr. The genesis of this hate is well documented for anyone remotely intellectually curious and willing to do the research. Without spoiling the plot, it has very little to do with Pape’s familiar and worn left wing “Blame America” hypothesis – it was happening long before American And British war planes, ships and armies decided to “conquer Muslim countries.”
Unfortunately, ‘moonbat’ is pretty close to the mark for this Chomsky lightweight. I’m sorry, but any person that speaks of “American policy to conquer Muslim countries” cannot be considered remotely objective or intellectually honest on this defining issue of our time.
No doubt, Pape’s book is well researched but his conclusions badly miss the mark.
First, from the beginning Pape assumes because the behavior of suicide bombing is ‘human’ that it's necessarily rational in the classic sense of weighing purely economic preferences. In many ways, his study of martyrdom is just as misguided as the Sigmund Freuds who spend their lives psychoanalyzing serial killers putting forward a rational hypothesis to explain irrational behavior. So it is not surprising that his ‘theory’ is already largely overtaking by events in Bali, Argentina, Jordan and so on.
Second, the strain of Islam we are just beginning to confront (for years, the West was largely complacent and ignored this growing radicalism), view the material world as an evil impurity – a primitive Taliban-like philosophy -- hence their hostility toward anything resembling the free society: intellectual enquiry, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free markets, a free press, the rule of law etc – in a nutshell, anything seen as a distraction from the will of Allah. Most of us in the West, including Pape, don’t realize the behavior of suicide bombers and the increasing number of women wearing the hijab, are recent phenomena. This radical militant, intolerant and suicidal strain of Islam most Americans were introduced to on 9/11, began in the 50s with the writings of Muslims such as Sayyid Qutb, who experienced their own crises of faith: Islamic beliefs clashing with the many sinful temptations of the West. Their teachings have since been institutionalized in the Muslim world, which is why this brainwashed radical strain of martyrdom has become so threatening to moderate Muslims and is seeping into our modern Western world.
This brings me to my final point. In recent years, a new, even more disturbing globalized pattern of suicide attacks has emerged that now coexists with the traditional localized pattern of suicide attacks Pape discusses in his book. How do these fit into Pape’s theory? Answer: they don’t. They break away from Pape’s rigid, nationally focused set of arguments that ignores the three key features of the globalization of martyrdom: its transnational character, the visceral nature of grievances of the globalized suicide attacker, and the important role played by the Internet in indoctrinating, training, and recruiting this new and very dangerous globalized martyr. The genesis of this hate is well documented for anyone remotely intellectually curious and willing to do the research. Without spoiling the plot, it has very little to do with Pape’s familiar and worn left wing “Blame America” hypothesis – it was happening long before American And British war planes, ships and armies decided to “conquer Muslim countries.”
Ok, let's see here. As far as psychology goes, I don't think anything was assumed, certainly not in terms remotely analogous to Freud's psychoanalysis (have no idea where you draw that parallel). In fact, what is often assumed is precisely that these suicide bombers are all crazy psychos acting out their pent-up, emotions in an irrational manner. The only thing Pape does in this respect is draw a distinction between the motivations of "ordinary" suicides (caused primarily by psychological trauma, social isolation, seeking to escape pain, etc.) and those of suicide terrorism (which by contrast often arise out of high levels of integration with their own communities). The examples you cite regarding the bombings in Bali, Jordan etc. neither support nor detract from this specific point.
Irrelevant. Many of these extremists may indeed have no affection whatsoever for Western religion or culture, but that is not the point against which I intend to argue. As mentioned previously, I'm sure at least some of them would be thrilled to impose Islamic rule upon the West and that may be their ultimate, long-term aim, but that's ridiculous and is just not going to happen. America for one is a largely Christian country and will remain so for a long time, they cannot take upon the U.S. head-on no matter which way you slice it, and there is no "radical strain" of Muslim values "seeping into" the West that I can see. But what does provide many suicide terrorists with a sense of legitimacy, community integration, and moral conviction is the nationalism factor - when there is a foreign military force occupying what they consider as their rightful land, that's what provides their resistance with a sense of urgency and momentum.
Consider for instance that most of al-Qaeda suicide terrorists do not come from the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world (such as Pakistan, Bangladesh), but are 20-or-so-times more likely to come from countries where there is American military presence as well as a primarily Islamic fundamentalist population (Saudi Arabia, Persian Gulf countries, which are much smaller). The facts suggest that one of the major causes of 9/11 was the stationing of tens of thousands of American troops on the Arabian peninsula from 1990 onwards.
What you don't recognize here is that although terrorist campaigns have been ongoing in many parts of the globe, it does not follow that they are transnational or monolithic. All Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are not the same, nor do they all coordinate with each other or act on behalf of each other. Hezbollah and Hamas, for example, have both waged numerous suicide terrorist campaigns, but (unlike al-Qaeda) against Israel and not America, and never on behalf of each other and never at the same time. They are rather pursuing their own nationalistic goals within their particular region. Jemaah Islamiyah, to mention another example, operates almost exclusively in Southeast Asia with the aims of "liberation" / creation of an Islamic state in that specific region.
What's more, different Islamic fundamentalist groups differ in their interpretations of their religion and are ideologically distinguishable from each other (Sunni, Shitte, Salafism, Wahhabism to name a few).
These regional conflicts have been going on for decades and are not a recent phenomenon at all as you suggest, they have much less to do with globalism than they do with nationalism, and they don't refute Pape's basic point which, by the way, has nothing to do with "blam[ing] America."
The parallel is: using civilized rational thought to explain barbaric irrational behavior. It's a common trait among the rehabilitative justice crowd as well. I happen to think Pape has taken this familiar exercise in futility to another level.
No, I don't think anyone assumes that. My personal diagnosis would be they are simply brainwashed. Jihadist recruiters conjure up any 'grievance' (occupied lands, the West oppressing Muslims, Israel etc.) in order to turn impressionable and disheartened Muslims into lethal instruments of hate: the modern suicide bomber. It's no different than your local KKK office during the 60s. Have you watched any video footage of these radical mosques and maddrasses or listened closely to a bin Laden infomercial? These are sermons straight out of Hitler-Jugend: they feed off man's dark side, his ancient hatreds, miseries and prejudices. I think we've seen this type of irrational indoctrination many times throughout history and it has little to do with Pape's hypothesis, other than the fact this new breed of global jihadists casually mention "occupied lands" just before they rant about Britney's miniskirt and homosexuality -- 'nationalism' one of many 'sticks' that are used to rile up the faithful.
Oddly enough, the ones who do complain quite loudly about a specific country being "occupied" (al-Sadr comes to mind), do fit the Pape profile. -- which of course has nothing to do with global jihadism.
(In a way, I can understand why al-Sadr is upset and feels 'occupied' -- millions of ordinary Iraqis didn't want a thug like him or his militia running their country. As soon as the US military packs up and leaves, the "freedom fighters" will turn on their own people and slaughter thousands, sacrificing anything and anyone for their will to power. This is what happened in Afghanistan. After the Soviets withdrew, the Taliban turned on their own and slaughtered more Afghanis than did the Soviets.)
Why then so many of our elite give these thugs the benefit of the doubt ("nationalists"; "freedom fighters" etc.), I have no idea. What they end up doing (and I consider Pape to fall into this category) is using the dynamics of modern western democracies in trying to rationalize ME violence, when in reality the dynamics in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be more different.
The question I would like to ask the Robert Papes is this: how many market bombs and IEDs and police station assaults on the Iraqis themselves would he consider to be the work of "freedom fighters" and "nationalists" fighting an "occupying power"?
Is al-Sadr a "freedom fighter"? I'd say he's a fraud.
Interesting hypothesis.
I think if you live in the one of the most economically depressed areas in the world (the GDP of the entire ME is less than Sweden) with the worst literacy rate, a ton of oil and corruption, and an overall socially medieval philosophy, radicalism will be a natural development.
A good read: "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty First Century" by Thomas P.M. Barnett -- a Democrat, no less.
And Tunisia. Of course they do. These are terrorist acts carried out by extremists against non-"occupying powers": pure Jihadism and intolerance for anything but Islam. These attacks do not fit Mr. Pape's theory. There's some other factor at play.
Moreover, what of the tube bombings in London? Or 9/11? What "nationalistic" cause were those attacks for? The 9/11 hijackers were a mixed bag of Egyptians and Saudis, the tube bombings were "homegrown."
If you could sit down and negotiate with bin Laden or Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, what do you suppose their demands would be? If they were candid, they'd tell you their vision of toppling moderate governments in the ME from N. Africa to Indonesia to Spain, Israel to be wiped off the map, America to convert to Islam etc. etc., and you'd get up and leave.
The question is, do you sit back and laugh at their intentions believing it could never happen, or do you take their words (and deeds) seriously and go after them?
I think 9/11 made us all realize we have to change the dynamics of the ME.
Again, I would ask you to carefully listen to their own words and draw your own conclusions, as opposed to Pape, who seems to think he knows what's going on inside a terrorist's mind better than they do. If this isn't the epitone of arrogance I don't know what is.
Start small. A nuclear 9/11 would definitely shake up modern civilization.
As for imposing their values and culture on us, it's already happening and it's coming through the back door of political correctness and multiculturalism....
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55417
The Danish cartoon fiasco, the flying Imams, the cab drivers in MN, Muslim cashiers at Wal-mart who refused to scan pork...the list goes on and on...
It's happening. In Europe, they're simply doing it with demographics. Ever heard of those French "Sensitive Urban Zones"?
There was a recent court ruling in Germany where a judge usurped German law in favor of Sharia Law -- giving the male (in this case) a license to beat his wife...and have multiple wives.
What about Theo van Gogh in Holland brutally murdered for making play on Islam? His crime was artistic expression.
Brilliant authors like Salmond Rushdie have been warning us for decades and we're finally waking up and realizing this is a problem -- a big problem.
Give me some examples.
All the more reason to dispose Saddam, giving us a permanent exit strategy from that region. As long as Saddam remained in power, there was always a danger he could march his Republican Guard across the Kuwaiti (or Saudi) border again.
I do recall this was one of many of bin Laden's 'grievances' in his open Fatwa against the United States back in 1998. But then he also blasted our 'sinful' permissive culture and demanded we repent and convert to Islam.
Hang on.
Prior to 9/11, no terrorist organization had killed more Americans than Hezbollah. Back the 80s, they killed hundreds of Americans in strikes on a Marine barracks and the US embassy in Beirut. They haven't attacked us since, but Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy so this could change overnight.
Prior to al-Qaida, this was true, but bin Laden's vision changed the dynamics unleashing global jihad. al-Qaida was to be "the base" -- the umbrella under which all these Islamic splinter terror cells would unite and train for one common purpose: Jihad against Israel and the West. And so all through the 90s, thousands of terrorists from all over the region poured into Afghanistan preparing themselves for the coming war we're now engaged in across the ME -- mainly (but not exclusively) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Here's a sample of what's in the Al-Qaida Operation manual
It says:
Goals and Objectives of Jihad:
- Establishing the rule of God on earth
- Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
- Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity
al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.
And there you have it -- in black and white.
I never said these regional conflicts were a recent phenomenon, what i said was the culture of suicide bombers (Pape's entire study and hypothesis) is a very new phenomenon, and one that appears to be expanding daily. It is also anything but 'nationalistic' -- indeed it is one of the ME's biggest international exports right now.
Interesting discussion.
